Goodall Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 26, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 814 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of GOODALL COMPANY and UNITED GARMENT WORKERS
OF AMERICA, AFL
Case No. 10-CA-597.-Decided October 26, 194.9
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On July 27, 1949, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had
not violated the Act by granting a wage increase to its employees, and
recommended the dismissal of such allegation of the complaint.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port, with a supporting brief No exceptions were filed by the
General Counsel.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and the brief, and the entire record in the case. The Board hereby
adopts the findings,3 conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
I The Respondent 's request for oral argument is denied , because, in our opinion , the rec-
ord, the Intermediate Report, the exceptions , and the brief adequately present the issues
and the position of the parties.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , as amended , the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman
Herzog and Members Houston and Gray.]
3 There are several passages in the Intermediate Report in which the Trial Examiner
explores the motivation and intent behind certain of the Respondent 's acts and state-
ments , some of which he found to be violative, and others to be nonviolative , of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act. We agree with the Trial Examiner 's ultimate finding with respect
to these acts and statements . We note in passing, however, that the test for interference,
restraint , and coercion under the Act involves a determination as to whether an employer's
conduct and statements may reasonably be held to have tended to interfere with the free
exercise of employee rights under the Act; and that the inquiry does not turn upon tie
Employer 's motive or intent . See Matter of Louisville Title Agency, 85 N. L . R. B. 1344,
and cases cited therein.
86 N. L . R. B., No. 127.
814
GOODALL COMPANY 815
Examiner. In so doing, the Board does not rely upon any unfair
labor practice occurring prior to July 24, 1949, a date 6 months before
a copy of the charge was served upon the Respondent.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 etc)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Goodall Com-
pany, Talladega, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Engaging in surveillance of the self-organizational activities
of its employees on behalf of United Garment Workers of America,
AFL, or any other labor organization;
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their membership in,
and activities on behalf of, United Garment Workers of America,
AFL, or any other labor organization;
(c) Threatening its employees with wage reductions and loss of
insurance benefits because of their support of United Garment Workers
of America, AFL, or any other labor organization; and
(d) 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 join or assist United Garment Workers
of America, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
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 organization as a condition of em-
ployment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant in Talladega, Alabama, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall 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.
In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted in the notice before the words : "A DECISION AND ORDER," the
words : "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; and
(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 the complaint , insofar as it alleges that
the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by granting a
wage increase to its employees, and that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (5) of the. Act by refusing to bargain With the Union,
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX "A"
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the self-organizational
activities of our employees on behalf of UNITED GARMENT WORK-
ERS or AMERICA, AFL, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their mem-
bership in, and activities on behalf of UNITED GARMENT WORKERS
OF AMERICA, AFL, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with wage reductions and
loss of insurance benefits because of their support of UNITED GAR-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-orga.niza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist UNITED GAR-
MENT WORKERS OF Al ERICA1 AFL, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or 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.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization.
GOODALL COMPANY,
Emaployer.
Dated--------------------- By--------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
GOODALL COMPANY 817
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Morgan V. Martin, Esq., and Charles M. Paschal, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Thomas G. McConnell, Esq., of Knoxville, Tenn., and Brewer Dixon, Esq., of
'Talladega, Ala., for the Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE I
On January 19, 1949, United Garment Workers of America, A. F. L.,' filed a
charge' with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region of the National Labor
Relations Board.' On March 28, 1949, the General Counsel' of the Board issued
a complaint, alleging that the Respondent, Goodall Company, had engaged, and
was engaging, in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning
of Sections 8 (a) (1), 8 (a) (5), 2 (6) and 2 (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act (49 Stat. 449-457, as amended by 61 Stat. 136-163), herein referred to as
the Act. Copies of the charge and complaint were duly served upon the
Respondent.
With respect to the alleged unlawful conduct, the complaint alleges that on
or about July 8, 1948, a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit at
the Respondent's plant in Talladega, Alabama, designated the Union as their
collective bargaining representative; that on or about that date, "and at all
times thereafter," although previously requested to do so, the Respondent re-
fused, and still refuses, to bargain collectively with the Union, as the repre-
sentative of the employees, in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) ; and that "from
on or about July 21, 1948, and at all times thereafter," engaged in conduct con-
stituting interference with, and restraint and coercion of, its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7, thus contravening Section 8
(a) (1)•
The Respondent filed an answer in which it denies, in substance, the commission
of any unfair labor practices'
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the Respondent and the Union, a hearing
was held at Talladega, Alabama, on May 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, and 35,
1949, before the undersigned, Herman Marx, duly designated as Trial Examiner
by the Chief Trial Examiner.'
' United Garment `Yorkers, A. F. L., will be referred to herein as the Union.
S Amended charges were filed on January 24 and March 16 , 1949. Among other aver-
ments , the original charge contained an allegation that the Respondent had discriminatorily
discharged certain employees . The amendments related to that allegation which was
deleted from the amended charge filed on March 16 . As this proceeding does not involve
any discriminatory discharges , the original and the amended charges are in all material
respects substantially the same.
The National Labor Relations Board will be referred to herein as the Board.
References herein to the General Counsel includes the attorneys who appeared on his
behalf at the hearing.
6 As will hereafter appear, the allegations of the complaint dealing with the alleged
refusal to bargain were dismissed at the hearing upon motion of the General Counsel.
Aside from the several denials that the Respondent committed any unfair labor practices,
its answer deals primarily in voluminous terms with the alleged refusal to bargain. As
that phase of the complaint has been dismissed , no useful purpose would be served here
in summarizing the applicable averments of the answer.
0In connection with the issue of representation , Messrs. Algie M. Moseley , Jr., and
Byron D . Boyett, members of the Talladega , Alabama, Bar, asserting that they represented
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the hearing, the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that it was not signed and issued by the General Counsel, but that its issuance
was "the action of the Union and the Board acting independently of the General
Counsel." The motion was denied. Before any testimony was taken, the
Respondent moved orally and in writing to dismiss the complaint and to strike
its several allegations of unfair labor practices on the ground that the charge
and the complaint show "affirmatively" that the alleged unlawful conduct oc-
•curred more than 6 months prior to the filing and service of the charge. The
motion was denied.' The Respondent then moved for leave to file an amendment
'to its answer to the effect that the claimed unfair labor practices had occurred
more than 6 months prior to the filing and service of the charge. The motion
was granted and the amendment was filed.
At the close of his evidence, the General Counsel moved, without objection from
the Respondent, to dismiss the portions of the complaint pertaining to the Re-
spondent's alleged refusal to bargain with the Union. The General Counsel's
motion was grounded on the fact that he had failed to establish that the Union
represented a majority of the employees in the unit.' The motion was granted.
The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented at the hearing by
counsel and participated therein. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, adduce evidence bearing on the
issues, submit oral argument, and file briefs. The parties waived oral argument at
163 of the Respondent's employees filed with the Examiner a petition for intervention,
and moved on behalf of the persons named therein for leave to intervene in the proceed-
ing. The General Counsel objected to the application for intervention. The Respondent's
counsel asserted that it had no objection to the granting of the motion. In response
to an inquiry from the Examiner, Respondent's counsel informed him that its position
would be that the Union did not represent a majority of employees in the unit. The
attorneys who presented the petition, in response to an inquiry from the Examiner, stated
to him that they did not contend that the Respondent would not "adequately or effectively"
present its position on the issue of representation. After hearing argument on the
petition, the motion for leave to intervene was denied.
7 The complaint alleges that the claimed violations of Section 8 (a) (5) occurred on or
about July 8 and 21, 1948, "and at all times thereafter." Similarly, the violations of
Section 8 (a) (1) are alleged to have occurred, "from on or about July 21, 1948, and at
all times thereafter." The phrase "and at all times thereafter" negates the Respondent's
contention that the affirmative allegations of the complaint require its dismissal because
of the statutory bar contained in Section 10 (b).
8 On the first day of the hearing, the General Counsel served a subpena duces tecunm
on the Respondent requiring it to produce pay-roll data bearing on the issue of representa-
tion. The Respondent filed a petition to revoke. After hearing argument thereon, the
Examiner denied the petition on the ground that the documentary data described in the
subpena were relevant to issues raised by the pleadings and were described with sufficient
particularity. Upon the Respondent's application and in accordance with Section
203.31 (b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Examiner directed that the petition
and his ruling thereon be made part of the record. After the Examiner ruled on the
petition, the Respondent declined to produce the indicated records. To establish the
Union's agency to represent the employees, the General Counsel introduced membership
cards signed by employees and designating the Union as the signatories' representative.
After the General Counsel had completed that phase of its proof (shortly before the close
of the hearing), the Respondent announced that it would produce its pay-roll records in
accordance with the terms of the subpena. The General Counsel and the Respondent's
attorneys thereupon made a joint inspection of the records. The examination resulted in
a stipulation establishing the number of employees in the unit on the date the Union
requested the Respondent to bargain and the number (including signatories of cards)
who had terminated their employment before that date. The stipulated facts established
that those who had signed cards did not constitute a majority of the persons employed in
the appropriate unit on the date the Union requested the Respondent to bargain.
GOODALL COMPANY 819
the close of the hearing . The General Counsel has not filed a brief. The Respond-
ent has filed a brief which has been read and considered.
Upon the entire record and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial
Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS -OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Goodall Company is a Maine corporation and is authorized to transact business
in Alabama. Its principal office is located in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Company is
engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of men's and boys' wash and
tropical suits. It operates plants in Talladega, Alabama ; Danville, Kentucky ;
Somerset, Kentucky ; Knoxville, Tennessee ; Cincinnati, Ohio ; and Blackville,
South Carolina.
During the year ending December 31, 1948, the Respondent purchased for use
at its plant in Talladega, Alabama, raw material valued in excess of $5,000, ap-
proximately 90 percent of which was purchased outside of the State of Alabama
and shipped in interstate commerce to the Talladega establishment. During the
same period, the Respondent manufactured men's summer work pants and boys'
cotton wash suits at its Talladega plant at a value in excess of $5,000 approxi-
mately 90 percent of which was shipped in interstate commerce to points outside
the State of Alabama. The Examiner finds that at all times material in this
proceeding the Respondent was engaged in interstate commerce and that its
operations affected interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act s
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Garment Workers, A. F. L., is a labor organization affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor and admits to membership persons employed by
the Respondent at its plant in Talladega, Alabama.
9 The jurisdictional finding made above is based on a synthesis of averments contained'
in the Respondent's answer ; stipulated admissions by the Respondent appearing in the
record of a representation hearing held on September 2, 1948 (see Case No. 10-RC-303;
the record in that case was introduced in evidence in the instant proceeding at the
Respondent 's request) ; and testimony by Samuel Shuchter, the Respondent's vice president
in charge of production. While the evidence unquestionably sustains the finding of
jurisdiction, the record itself is somewhat confused on the matter. The complaint alleges
that during 1948, the Respondent received raw materials at its Talladega plant in excess
of $1,000,000 and shipped finished products from the plant at a valuation in excess of
that sum; and that approximately 90 percent of the materials received came from without
the State. The applicable averment in the answer is not wholly responsive to the complaint.
It admits receipts and shipments, respectively valued in excess of $5,000 (without
mentioning any period ) and that approximately 90 percent of both receipts and shipments
were made in interstate commerce. Actually, within the context of the record as a whole,
it is manifest that both the receipts and shipments were greatly in excess of $5,000. The
Respondent admitted at the representation hearing on September 2, 1948, that the
Respondent's principal office is located in Cincinnati and that during the "past fiscal
year" the Respondent received raw materials in excess of $100,000 at its Talladega,
plant and shipped therefrom finished products valued in excess of that sum. It was-.
further admitted by the Respondent at that hearing that approximately 90 percent of the.
raw materials were received from points in other states and approximately 95 percent of
the finished products were shipped out of the State. It may also be noted that the
Talladega plant receives goods manufactured in some of the other plants, including-
Knoxville, Tennessee, and is used as a shipping point for such goods (see Shuchter's..
testimony).
.820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory statenment10
Samuel Shuchter is a vice president of Goodall Company and in that capacity
directs "all of the operations" of the concern and is "in full charge of (its) labor
policies." His office is located at the Respondent's principal office in Cincinnati,
Ohio. He usually visits the plant every 2 weeks, "sometimes once in a month,
and only occasionally once a week."
The two main production units of the Talladega plant are the Coat and Pants
Departments . For some unspecified period prior to July 14 , 1948, there does not
.appear to have been a resident manager of the plant . During that period, the
several departments were in charge of superintendents ( sometimes referred to as
foremen in the record) who apparently were directly responsible to Shuchter.
Joseph De Stefano was in charge of the Pants Department, and Joseph Paluzi
of the Coat Department. These two departments are divided into sections which
-operate under the direction of female supervisors (sometimes referred to in the
record as foreladies). The supervisors are responsible to their respective super-
intendents. The plant also employs a personnel manager, referred to in the rec-
ord as Brother or Preacher Chappell.
On July 14, 1948, Carl Steffensen who had, prior to that date , been superin-
tendent of the Coat Department at the Respondent's Knoxville plant, was assigned
by the Company to the duties of general manager of the Talladega establishment
.and as superintendent of its Coat Department." Steffensen remained at the
plant in his dual capacity until April or May of 1949 and then returned to Knox-
ville to resume his former duties. During his tenure, Steffensen was assisted
by John Sullivan who apparently had supervisory duties of an undefined nature.
Sullivan succeded Steffensen as general manager and was engaged in that
capacity at the time of the hearing.
Organizational activity was begun by the Union among the Talladego employees
in March 1948 when Mary L. Johnson, a representative of the Union met with a
group of employees. She distributed membership cards among them and in-
formed them of the procedure to be followed in soliciting and witnessing signa-
tures. During the next few months, a number of the Respondent's employees
were active in securing the signatures of others on the cards. By July 8, 1948,
over 230 employees had become members of the Union.
On July 8, 1948, the Union wrote to the Respondent, informing it that a majority
of the employees at the Talladega plant "desire to be represented" by the Union,
and requesting "a conference for the purpose of bargaining on a contract." The
letter, which was registered, was received by the Respondent on July 13, 1948.
On July 12, 1948, the Union filed with the Board a petition for certification.
Upon due notice to the Respondent and the Union, a representation hearing was
held on September 2, 1948, before a hearing officer of the Board. In November 22,
1948, the Board entered an order, prescribing the appropriate unit and directing
an election to determine the question of representation.12 The election was at
first set for December 15, 1948, but was postponed by the Regional Director to
io The prefatory statement is based on uncontradieted evidence adduced at the hearing.
However , it is not designed to set forth all the undisputed facts in the case, but is primarily
intended as a preliminary basis for the discussion of the evidence . Reference will be made
at other appropriate points to undisputed facts not set forth in this section.
11 The record does not disclose what disposition was made of Paluzi , the superintendent
of the Coat Department, after Steffensen arrived at the plant.
12 See Case No. 10-RC-303.
GOODALL COMPANY 821
January 19, 1949. Some few days before January 19, representatives of the
Respondent and the Union agreed to meet on the evening of January 18 for the
purpose of making arrangements (such as the designation of observers) for the
holding of the election. The meeting date was confirmed by the Union in a wire
sent to the Respondent by Mrs. Johnson on the morning of January 18.
On the morning of January 18, Shuchter assembled all of the employees of the
Talladega plant in a cafeteria or canteen located on the premises and made a
speech to them. Late that afternoon, Mrs. Johnson, who was then in Talladega
sent a wire addressed to the Respondent at its local plant informing it that the
Union's representatives would not appear at the meeting scheduled for that eve-
ning. Also on the afternoon of January 18, the Regional Director wired the
Respondent that the Union "alleges interference with election by Company" and
that the "election scheduled for tomorrow, January 18, will not be held 'Until
investigation can be made of Union's allegations." Thereafter, the Union filed
with the Board a "Withdrawal Request," dated January 19, 1949, requesting the
withdrawal of its petition for certification. On January 27, 1949, the Board
entered an order granting the Union's request for the withdrawal of its petition.
B. The issue
The question presented is whether between the time organization of the plant
began and Shnchter's preelection speech (and culminating in that speech) the
Respondent engaged in various acts of misconduct in order to interfere with,
restrain, and coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to
them by Section 7.
C. The allegations of interference, restraint, and coercion
In the main, the General Counsel rests his claim of violations of Section 8
(a) (1) upon evidence designed to establish that the Respondent (1) spied upon
and kept its employees under surveillance; (2) initialed, assisted, and partici-
pated in the circulation among its employees for their signatures of documents
setting forth that the signatories were withdrawing from the Union ; (3) inter-
rogated employees concerning their membership in the Union and their activities
therein; (4) made coercive statements to employees; (5) discriminatorily
granted working conditions or privileges to employees who were not members of
the Union, while withholding them from union members; and (6) granted a wage
increase to its employees for the purpose of discouraging membership and
activity in the Union.
(1) The alleged surveillance of employees
The General Counsel produced the testimony of Pauline Borden who was em-
ployed as supervisor of a section in the Pants Department until November 22, 1948,
when she was discharged because of a reduction in personnel. Approximately
25 persons were employed in the section under her supervision. De Stefano was
her immediate superior.
According to Mrs. Borden, from time to time Shuchter held meetings of the
supervisors. She testified that union activity was discussed for the first time at
such a supervisors' meeting after "the Union was well on its way." The witness
"suppose (d)" that the meeting was held "as early as May 1948." Without speci-
fying who issued the instructions at this meeting, Mrs. Borden asserted that
"mostly we (supervisors) were instructed to try to talk down the Union as much
as possible." Supervisors, according to the witness, were also instructed "not to
867351-50-vol. 80-53
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
make any promises to the girls for better jobs or for worse" and "to break up any
groups of girls that were talking" in order "to stop them from talking."
Thereafter, according to Airs. Borden, she and other supervisors, including
Bernice Slagle, Leila Pollard, and Pearl Bozeman, engaged in finding "out who
was passing cards and who belonged to the Union." In order to carry out her
instructions, Airs. Borden testified, whenever she "saw any girls talking, I would
go stop them, if possible" and that during the noon hour, "I watched them go. to
the rest room, tried to stop any crowds that were standing around from talking
about Union. If they were talking about Union, I just walked among them and,
of course, they stopped. And I was around in the rest room to see that no one
gave out cards." The witness asserted that she and other supervisors would
report to De Stefano such information as they could acquire concerning the
employees' union activities. The substance of her reports, Mrs. Borden stated,
was to tell De Stefano "about the girls that I found belonged to the Union, and
what they did, who they talked to, and about how many times they went to the
rest rooms." The witness asserted that De Stefano, on such occasions, would tell
her "to keep my eyes open and see what was going oil." "All supervisors were
supposed to do that," she testified, and when supervisors made reports to De
Stefano, he would instruct them to "keep checking" and "keep after them."
Mrs. Borden affirmed that she "kept pretty close check" on "particular em-
ployees,".naming Mazie Payne, Elsie Whitley, and Mary Stringfellow, and that
De Stefano gave her "special instructions" concerning Mary Stringfellow. Ac-
cording to the witness, De Stefano instructed her "at all tines . . . to keep my
eye on her and not let her talk to anyone, and if she went to the rest room, if I
couldn't go, to send someone to see that she didn't talk to anybody, or who she
talked to." Mrs. Borden stated that she carried out De Stefano's instructions.
She also testified that "after awhile" she became familiar with the identity of
all of the union members employed in her section. Her first information on that
score came about the beginning of May 1948 when De Stefano told her "there were
certain girls in my section that was egging this union on" and named Elsie Whit-
ley, Mary Stringfellow, and Mary Bates as members of the Union. "After that,"
Mrs. Borden asserted, "I began trying to find out myself who belonged and who
didn't," and she asked every girl in her section whether she belonged to the Union.
"They wouldn't tell me that they themselves were members," the witness testi-
fied, "Then I would go ask someone else about it and they would turn around and
say that the other girls had signed." According to Mrs. Borden, whenever she
ascertained the names of union members in her section, she would report that
fact to De Stefano, and "he would tell (her) he already knew that."
Mrs. Borden's evidence received partial corroboration from the testimony
of Virginia Bone who is still employed by the Respondent and, during Mrs.
Borden's tenure, was employed in the latter's section. According to Miss Bone,
Mrs. Borden instructed her to follow other employees into the rest room in an
effort to find out who was "passing" and "signing" cards. Miss Bone stated
that during a period of two or 3 months "when those cards were passed
around," it was her practice to follow Elsie Whitley and Mary Stringfellow to
the rest room, both during working hours and the lunch periods, in order to find
out whether they were securing signatures of other girls to union membership
cards. Miss Bone also testified that she saw the two employees securing signa-
tures and that she reported the result of her observations to Mrs. Borden.
Beginning some time in May and extending into September 1948, the local
membership of. the Union met weekly (on Friday evenings) in space over a
drug store located in the business district of Talladega. Several doors from the
GOODALL COMPANY 823
Union's meeting place is a grocery store operated by the husband of Imogene Y.
Grogan who had been employed in De Stefano's department for some months
in 1947.
According to Mrs. Grogan, she was friendly with individuals who were em-
ployed in the office at the plant, and it was her custom to visit them there from
time to time. She testified that on one such occasion in August 1948 she was
chatting with De Stefano in the sewing room when he asked her to "come down
to hip, office" because "he wanted to talk to me." According to the witness, she
went with De Stefano to his office. Her version of the ensuing conversation
follows : _
... "I (De Stefano) am going to ask you to do something. You don't
have to, if you don't want to. That's left up to you."
He said, "Do you -," said, "Do you know where the Union hall where
they meet at is?"
And I said, "Yes, I think it's about several doors down from the store."
And he said, "Well, do you ever see people going in and out, there?"
And I said, "Well, I have never paid much attention to it," and of course
I wasn't interested.
And he said, "Well," said, "how late do you stay in the store on Friday
nights?"
And I said, "We usually close about 6: 00 or 6: 30."
And he said, "Well, don't you see people going up in the Union hall?"
And I said, "Well, I never specially noticed and, anyway, we are usually
away before that time."
And he said, "Well," well, he wondered if it would be possible for him
to get the key some Friday night and I asked why and he said that he would
like to get a check on some information that was given him that every
Friday night at 9: 00 o'clock (sic) called him and gave him an estimation
of how many people were at this meeting, and that the last meeting the
report came to him that there were 80 something there and he wanted
to know if be was getting a correct report. That he didn't know who it
was called him but they called him every Friday night at 9: 00 o'clock and so
I told him I didn't know whether he could get the key, or not, because my
husband and his brother owned the store and he would have to see them
about it.
Mrs. Grogan also testified that she did not give De Stefano the key.13 She
was not cross-examinated by Respondent's counsel.
13 Mary L. Johnson, the Union's international representative testified that on two
occasions, once in May and another time in July 1948, she saw De Stefano in the
vicinity of the Union's meeting hall. She stated that on the first occasion, she left the
meeting to observe him (apparently she had been informed of his presence in the area) and
that she saw him crossing the street "within a fourth of a block" of the meeting hall.
Mrs. Johnson testified that the second time she saw him in the vicinity, shortly before the
meeting began, he was standing on a corner close to the place where she had previously
observed him. Standing alone, the evidence of De Stefano's presence in the vicinity of
the meetings is not significant, particularly as the area involved is in Talladega' s business
district. However, De Stefano was not produced as a witness, although still employed
by the Respondent, nor was his absence explained, and Mrs. Johnson's uncontradicted
testimony assumes point and significance in the light of Mrs. Grogan's undisputed evidence
that De Stefano told her that "every Friday night" he received a report by telephone from
a person whom "he didn't know" and who told him "how many people were at" the
meetings. Mrs. Grogan's testimony suggests the possibility that De Stefano's mysterious
informant "every Friday night" was none other than himself, and that possibility is
underscored by the uncontradicted testimony of Mrs. Borden and Miss Bone. However,
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
De Stefano , who is still employed by the Respondent and who is heavily
involved in the General Counsel's evidence of unlawful surveillance of employees,
was not produced as a witness , nor did the Respondent explain his absence.
Appropriate weight has been given to his failure to testify ." Needless to say,
the conclusions reached herein do not rest alone on the fact that the testimony
of Mrs. Borden , Miss Bone , and Mrs. Grogan stands uncontradicted in the record.
Based on the demeanor of the witnesses , the content of their testimony , and the
fact that the evidence of all three contains mutually corroborative elements, the
Examiner credits the testimony , as outlined above, of Mrs. Borden," Miss Bone,
and Mrs. Grogan.
It may be noted that the Examiner does not regard De Stefano 's suggestion
to Mrs . Grogan as an unfair labor practice ; rather, it was an effort to commit one.
The significance and relevance of his conversation with Mrs . Grogan reside in
the fact that it lends corroborative support to proof that he did, in fact, on the
Respondent 's behalf, direct supervisors to engage in surveillance of employees
in order to hamper union activities of employees and to ascertain the number
and identity of those who joined the Union , information which was not legiti-
mately the concern of the Respondent.
Additional evidence of the Respondent 's policy of keeping employees unlawfully
under surveillance is found in testimony given by William Hindman. Hindman
testified that Steffensen gave him an increase shortly after the manager assumed
his post, and that the latter told him at that time that he (Hindman ) had been
"knocked." According to the witness , he "kept wondering about it," and when
he quit in February 1949 ( Steffensen offered him an increase to remain), he
asked Steffensen whether the latter 's statement that the employee had been
"knocked" was "involved in the Union in any way ." The manager , Hindman
testified , responded that "before he ( Steffensen ) came down here to the Talledega
plant," he "had heard it from the high officials"" and had "watched me around
all over the plant and checked on me, and found out I wasn 't involved in the
Union in no way." Steffensen , who was present at the hearing , entered no denial
of Hindman 's testimony . The Examiner credits Hindman and finds that Steffen-
sen made the remarks attributed to him.
The Examiner finds that the Respondent spied upon its employees and kept
them under surveillance in order to ascertain the number and identity of members
in view of the findings made herein concerning the Respondent's surveillance of its
employees, it is unnecessary to resolve the question whether De Stefano's presence in the
vicinity of the meeting place stemmed from an unlawful purpose.
"The well known rule is applicable . . . that when a party produces such evidence
as it is in his power to produce, its probative effect is enhanced by the silence of his
opponent and also where the party on whom rests the burden of evidence as to a particular
fact has the evidence within his control and withholds it, the presumption is that such
evidence is against his interest and insistence" (N. L. R. B. v. Ohio Calcium Co., 1.33 F.
(2d) 721 (C. A. 6)).
15 In appraising the credibility of Mrs. Borden, the Examiner has taken into consideration
the fact that she was discharged and the possibility that her testimony was motivated by
personal resentment. In that connection, it may he noted that she is now employed in a
similar supervisory capacity in another garment plant in Tennessee and that her discharge
was not prompted by allegations of inefficiency or misconduct (the Respondent gave her
four weeks' pay when she was terminated), but stemmed from a reduction in Supervisory
personnel attributable to economic conditions. Upon observation of the witness and a
consideration of her testimony, particularly in the light of the evidence as a whole, the
Examiner concluded that the witness testified honestly and according to her best
recollection.
16 From the context of the testimony, it seems-clear that what Steffensen had heard "from
the high officials" was that Hindman was affiliated with union activity.
GOODALL COMPANY 825
of the Union and to interfere with and discourage their union activities, thus
violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(2) The circulation of documents whereby employees purported to withdraw
from the .Union."
According to Steffensen's testimony, on some unspecified occasion after his
arrival at the plant, but prior to August 23, 1948, he asked De Stefano and
Chiarantano (another supervisory employee) "if there were any employees who
.had expressed the fact that they did not care to have the Union, and they said
there was." Steffensen testified that he asked De Stefano and Chiarantano
for the names of such employees and was given the names of Frances Butter-
worth, Shelley Blackburn, Sarah Hannah, Kathleen Adair, Isabelle Williams,
Mary Tant, and Mary Bynum. According to Steffensen, he talked to these
employees "individually" and "they told me that they didn't see any use of having
a union come into the plant, they thought things were going all right, and they
still felt that way." Then, Steffensen testified, he assembled these seven em-
ployees in his office and "suggested to them that the procedure,-told them they
had just as much right to campaign against the Union as the Union had to
campaign ; if that was the way they felt, that was a perfect right. I suggested
that they form a committee, that they hold meetings and elect officers." A week
or so later, Steffensen called the seven employees into his office again and inquired
whether they had formed a committee and the girls replied that they had done so.
Steffensen testified that during the second meeting he reiterated to the "com-
mittee" their right to campaign against the Union and "emphasized to them.
very definitely that they were given no promises, they were doing it voluntarily"
and "that they were absolutely on their own."
On or about August 23, 1948, the Respondent prepared at its Cincinnati office
some 25 mimeographed forms, with spaces for signatures, and Shuchter sent
them to Steffensen at the Talledega plant. Steffensen admitted that he gave the
forms to Chiarantano with directions to distribute them to the seven members
of the "committee." The forms contained the following mimeographed recital:
We, the employees of the Talledega plant of Goodall Company, having
previously signed membership application cards in the United Garment
Workers Union (A. F. of L.) hereby voluntarily of our own choice and free
will withdraw our signatures and hereby declare such union membership
application cards null and void ; and we request the Labor Relations Board
not to consider our names in connection with any union application.
Soon after the arrival of the forms, members of the committee circulated them
among the employees at their work benches, requesting them to sign the docu-
ments . In some cases , the request was accompanied 'by an inquiry whether the
given employee was a member of the Union." Circulation of the petitions oc-
curred during working hours , and the individuals circulating them and soliciting
17 The findings bearing on the origin and distribution among the employees for their
signature of forms purporting to state the signatories ' withdrawal from the Union are
based on evidence given by Carl Steffensen, plant manager, during the period in question,
and on the uncontradicted testimony of employees (see testimony of Hurst, Whitley,
Blankenship , Borden , Ford , Moore, Parker , Bone, and Stone ). Steffensen was called as a
witness by the General Counsel under Rule 43 ( b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
governing the calling and examination of adverse parties and their agents.
18 See testimony of Maye Bell Hurst and Easter W. Moore. In connection with the
request that she sign , Mrs. Moore was asked about her membership by a supervisor , Gladys
Yarnell , and not by one of the seven employees circulating the forms.
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signatures left their work to do so. During the solicitation of the signatures,
supervisors were present in their respective sections and interposed no objec-
tion. Solicited employees testified that when they were approached for their
signatures, they were asked if they "wished" or "wanted" to sign, and one
employee (Hurst) stated that when she was asked to sign, Chiarantano told her
she "didn't have to sign it" and if she did not, she "could still work."
Solicitation of signatures was not confined to the seven girls who formed the
committee at Steffensen's suggestion. The uncontradicted and credited evidence
shows, and the Examiner so finds, that supervisors of sections and members of
the righer echelons of the local management (Sullivan, De Stefano, and Chia-
rantano) solicited the signatures of employees. Sullivan, who succeeded Stef-
fensen as manager, on one occasion summoned a group to his office (Elsie Whitley,
who had been the object of surveillance and was active in securing signatures
to union membership cards was in the group) a and told them that "he didn't
know who had signed cards and who hadn't, but . . . that was our (the em-
ployees') business" and that "there was a petition in there, if we wanted to
sign it, or there was one in the plant if we wanted to sign it."
In some cases, after employees had declined to sign the forms at the request
or instance of the committee, supervisory personnel followed the rejected request
with personal solicitation of employees who had declined, in some instances sug-
gesting that the documents be signed under covert circumstances. Thus, Chiar-
antano told Maye Bell Hurst "if I wanted to sign one of them, I didn't have to
be put on the spot to sign it; that Mr. Shuchter would mail me one and I would
mail it back to him." Similarly, Gladys Yarnell, a supervisor, asked Easter W.
.Moore, after the latter had refused to sign at a committee member's request, if
she bad joined the Union and told her that if she wished to withdraw "you may
go down to the office around 5: 00 and there will never be no criticism made-no
compliments, no criticism, no way if you want to take your name off."
The evidence reflects a conscious, although unevenly applied," effort by the
Respondent to make it appear that the circulation of the forms was a project
originated and executed by the committee. That is made manifest not merely by
the fact that employees were used as the primary instrument for the solicitation
of signatures, although the forms originated with the Respondent and were
distributed to the committee by the management, but by Steffensen's demeanor
as a witness and the nature of his testimony.
The documents were initially mentioned in the evidence when Steffensen was
asked by the General Counsel whether he was "aware that the employees were
circulating a petition asking the employees if they desired to withdraw from
the Union." He responded in the affirmative and then testified as follows :
By Mr. MARTIN :
Q. When did you first become aware of that?
A. I don't remember the date, sir.
a Mary Bates who was named by De Stefano in a conversation with Mrs. Borden as one
of those (including Elsie Whitley) who were "egging the Union on" was also among the
group summoned to Sullivan's office.
20 Mrs. Borden testified, without contradiction, that "at first we supervisors were sup-
posed to have nothing to do with them (the forms), but I passed mine around part of the
way." Her version of supervisors' instructions is supported not only by the manner in
which she executed them, but by the evident fact that the primary burden of circulating
the forms was placed upon the seven employees, with supervisors playing it secondary or
supporting role in suggesting to employees, at least some of whom had previously declined
to sign, that they affix their signatures ; in making the forms available for signature in the
office; and in colleting and assembling the executed forms after they had been circulated.
GOODALL COMPANY 827
Q. Who told you about it?
A. I believe Mr. Chiarantano told me about it.
* * * * * * *
Q. What did Mr. Chiarantano tell you about it?
A. He told me there was a petition being circulated in the shop that
the - certain people were taking it around.
Q. Could you tell us who those people were and what those positions were?
A. No, I didn't know who they were.
Q. Did you know what their positions were?
A. They were workers in the plant.
Q. What did you do about it?
A. Nothing.
By Mr. MARTIN :
Q. Mr. Steffensen, exactly what did Joe Chiarantano tell you about these
petitions? -
A. I cannot tell you exactly. He notified me that there was a petition
going around.
Q. And what was the contents of the petition? Did he tell you that?
A. I believe he did.
Q. What-
A. I believe that it was a petition where certain - to withdraw union
certain employees who had expressed a desire they wanted to withdraw
the - their signature from a union card which they had previously signed.
Q. And you did nothing about it?
A. I did nothing about it.
Q. Were the petitions here brought into your office?
A. There were a few copies I found on my desk with about six or seven
names on it, I think.
By Mr . MARTIN :
Q. After you found those petitions on your desk, what did you do
with them?
A. I gave them to Joe Chiarantano.
Q. With what instructions?
A. I told him, give them to the girls that were circulating the petitions,
if he knew who they were?
Q. Any further instruction?
A. No, sir.
Both the text and tenor of the quoted testimony manifest an effort by Stef-
fensen to convey the impression that lie had only a casual knowledge of the
forms and that his policy was one of the disinterest in their existence and non-
participation in their origin and circulation. However, at later points in his
testimony at least some part of his real connection with the forms was revealed,
and he gave evidence which markedly conflicts with the quoted testimony in
several significant particulars.
It was after he gave the foregoing testimony that the examination of Stef-
fensen disclosed his conversations with the members of the committee which
was formed at his suggestion, and it was at that point that he testified to their
names, stating that De Stefano and Chiarantano had furnished them at his
request.
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The origin of the forms and the committee's connection with them were
revealed at a subsequent point in Steffensen's testimony after Respondent's
counsel offered to introduce "substantially an exact copy of what was on the
petition" (the withdrawal forms). The General Counsel then sought leave
and was granted permission to examine Steffensen on voir dire as to the authen-
ticity of the proffered document. The ensuing examination of Steffensen then
disclosed that he had in his possession 25 mimeographed forms (the contents of
which ha ire been set out above) with appended signatures of employees ; that
the form, were prepared and mimeographed by the Respondent in its Cincinnati
office and sent to Steffensen by the Company ; and that about August 24, 1948, he
turned them over to Chiarantano with directions to give them to the 7
employees who had formed a committee at his suggestion. Significantly, at
another point in his testimony, Steffensen agreed that the committee was formed
about August 24, the approximate . date when the forms were received from
Cincinnati and circulated in the plant for signatures.
Steffensen's testimony given under the voir dire examination and at other
points conflicts significantly with his initial description of his connection with
the wthdrawal forms. First, his earlier statement that he did not know who
circulated the forms appears to be untrue, for he admittedly secured the names
of the girls from De Stefano and Chiarantano and directed the latter to give
the forms to those employees. Second, it also appears to be untrue, as stated in
his earlier testimony, that he first became aware of the documents' circulation
when "Chiarantano told me about it." According to his later testimony it was
he who told Chiarantano about the circulation of the forms, for it is evident
that he gave them to the foreman to give to the seven employees for that
purpose. That Steffensen did "nothing about it" is also contrary to the facts,
because the plain import of his later testimony is that it was lie who started
the circulation of the forms by giving them to Chiarantano with instructions
for their disposition.
Moreover, the availability of the forms for signature in the office and the so-
licitation of signatures by supervisory personnel directly responsible to him
makes it incredible that Steffensen was merely passive in the affair. Third,
the clear intendment of his initial references to the forms was that the sum of
his connection with them was his discovery of a "few copies" on his desk which
he gave to Chiarantano to "give to the girls that were circulating the petition,
if he knew who they were." Chiarantano "knew who they were" because
Steffensen told him when the forms first arrived to give them to the 7 mem-
bers of the committee. Furthermore, the forms came to Steffensen not as a
"few copies" which he "found" on his desk, but as a group of at least 25 prepared
by the Respondent in Cincinnati and obviously sent to the Talledega plant for
circulation .'
Steffensen denied that the committee was formed for the purpose of circulating
the documents, stating somewhat equivocally that it was formed "for the pur-
pose of using their efforts to keep the Union from getting the majority in the
plant." His denial and his claim that he "emphasized" to the committee "that
they were absolutely on their own ," as well as his professions of propriety, must
be tested both in the light of the objective facts and the evasions and conflicts
n According to the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Pauline Borden, the ea-
supervisor, a week before the arrival of the forms , Shuchter held a meeting of the super-
visors and told them "there would be some papers " to "be passed to the girls and (to)
tell the girls they could sign these and it would withdraw their names from the cards.
They were under no obligations if they hadn't paid any dues to the Union."
GOODALL COMPANY 829
appearing at significant points in his testimony. That the committee was not
"absolutely on their own" is made manifest by the fact that Steffensen suggested
its formation at about the time the forms were circulated ; that the Respondent
prepared the forms ; that the Company gave supervisory support to, and afforded
facilities for, the solicitation of signatories ; and that supervisors solicited sig-
natures for the documents.
To the Examiner, it appears that Steffensen's initial effort to convey an im-
pression of unconcern and nonparticipation by him in the circulation of the
forms was no more than a projection of the devious nature of the project, for it
is evident that the Respondent sponsored, supported, and assisted the circulation
of the forms, while endeavoring, by using employees as the primary instrument
for the solicitation of signatures, to create a facade of dissociation from the
undertaking. The record is barren of any evidence that any employees, whether
members of the committee or not, suggested the circulation of the forms, and all
of the credible evidence points to the conclusion that the project was initiated
and executed by the Respondent.
The Examiner finds that the Respondent initiated, supported, assisted, and
participated in, the circulation of the forms and the solicitation of signatories
for them and that it thereby violated Section S (a) (1) of the Act22
(3) The alleged interrogation of employees
According to Mrs. Borden's testimony, she interrogated every employee in her
section in an effort to find out whether they were members of the Union.
The sense of her testimony is that she undertook the interrogation as part of
the fulfillment of her instructions to keep the employees under surveillance and
to report her findings to De Stefano. She made such reports to him and included
the names of individuals she had ascertained, as a result of her interrogation of
employees, to be members of the Union. De Stefano did not testify and her
testimony as to the reports stands uncontradicted. As set forth in another part
of this report, the Examiner credits Mrs. Borden's testimony outlined above.
Easter W. Moore testified that when Frances Butterworth (a member of the.
committee formed at Steffensen's suggestion) asked her to sign one of the with-
drawal forms, she declined to do so; that thereupon Miss Butterworth said, "You
have signed a Union card," to which Mrs. Moore made no response ; 23 that on a
later occasion Gladys Yarnell, the section supervisor, asked her (Mrs. Moore)
whether she had "signed a Union card" ; that she replied in the affirmative ; and
2a The signed withdrawal forms, although purporting to make a "request" of the Board,
were never turned over to it. They remained in the Respondent's possession. The fact
that they were circulated only a few days before the representation hearing suggests the
possibility that it was contemplated that they be used in some fashion in connection with
that hearing, although they were not produced there. In fact, Steffensen claims that the
25 executed forms. produced at the hearing before the Examiner were turned over to him on
September 1, the day before the representation hearing. "The girls didn't quite know
what to do with them. I said I will take care of them," Steffensen testified. In view
of the finding made above, it is not important to determine whether the 25 forms were in
fact returned to him under the claimed circumstances, but it is noteworthy that there is
uncontradicted evidence that forms were made available and maintained in the Respond-
ent's office for employees who did not wish to sign in the workrooms where other employees
could see them sign.
am The statement, "You have signed a Union Card," by Miss Butterworth does not appear
in the record as a question. There is doubt in the Examiner's mind whether Miss Butter-
worth intended it as an interrogation or whether she was merely stating it argumentatively.
Accordingly, the Examiner makes no finding whether it was an inquiry as to Mrs. Moore's
membership.
830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Miss Darnell then suggested that if Mrs. Moore wished to do so, she could
sign a form in the office. Mrs. Moore's testimony was not contradicted, and the
Examiner credits it. Another employee, Maye Bell Hurst, also testified without
contradiction that Sarah Hannah (a member of the committee formed at Steffen-
sen's suggestion), in asking her to sign a withdrawal form, inquired whether she
had signed "a Union card." Standing alone, the inquiries by Miss Darnell and
Miss Hannah would probably have limited significance, but they were made as
part, of a program sponsored and fostered by the Respondent to interfere with
the employees' right of self-organization.24
Within the framework of the evidence as to the function Mrs. Borden, Miss
Darnell, and Miss Hannah were performing when they interrogated employees
concerning their membership in the Union, the Respondent must bear the re-
sponsibility for the interrogations. The inquiries as to union membership were
unlawful, and, as a result, the Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Maye Bell Hurst testified that in May or June 1948. about a month after
she joined the Union, Joseph Paluzi, superintendent of the Coat Department,
came over to her machine and criticized her work as "trashy" and that he then
summoned her to his office where he criticized the quantity and quality of her
work and told her "you have got your mind on something besides this work,"
and (it) "seems like you lose in awful lot of time." The witness stated that she
denied that her work was poor and that she returned to her machine. Accord-
ing to Mrs. Hurst, later that day, while she was talking to two other employees
during working hours, Paluzi came over and spoke to her again. -Mrs. Hurst's
version of the conversation follows :
Well, he came over there and asked nie what I was talking to the girls about,
and I said, "What do you mean, Mr. Paluzi." He said, "You know what I
mean." I said "Union'?" He said, "yes, and we are not going to have it."
According to Mrs. Hurst, she commenced to cry and Paluzi left. She testified
that he returned later that afternoon and spoke to her about the Union, stating
"they can't offer you nothing that we can't offer you." 1'aluzi, Mrs. Hurst testi-
fied, brought up the employees' insurance benefits and "asked me what they had
offered me," asserting that "they (the Union) couldn't offer me anything as good
as they were giving me." Under cross-examination, the witness enlarged some-
what on the afternoon conversations with Paluzi. She asserted that Paluzi came
to her and asked if she had asked "anybody that morning to sign a card," but that
she denied it; that he said he would "take your word for it"; and that he then
looked at her work and told her it looks "better now." It is not clear whether
this colloquy was part of the conversation about what the Union "had to offer."
The witness did not mention the conversation concerning a card signature under
direct examination.
In any event, the Examiner does not regard any part of the conversation as an
unfair labor practice. Paluzi's comparison of "what the union had to offer" with
the Respondent's insurance benefits is an expression of opinion protected by Sec-
tion 8 (c) of the Act. The inquiry attributed to Paluzi as to "what they (the
union) had offered me" must be regarded within the context of his statement as
the expression of an argumentative viewpoint and not as a probe for information
2' The text of the forms and the fact of their circulation suggest , at least, an implied
inquiry as to the union membership of all the employees who were asked to sign them.
By subjoining a signature to the text an employee expressly admits that she is a member
of the Union . The presentation of such a form for signature is in effect an implied inquiry
or a solicitation of information whether employees had "previously signed membership
application cards in the United Garment Workers Union."
GOODALL COMPANY 831
concerning Mrs. Hurst's union activities. Mrs. Hurst was talking to other employ-
ees (luring working hours after Paluzi had criticized her work. While there is
evidence that employees were not forbidden to talk while at work, and the circu-
lation, during working hours, of the withdrawal forms several months later pre-
sents the question whether the Respondent discriminatorily permitted antiunion
activities, while it forbade prounion conduct, it is not clear that Paluzi's inquiry
was anything more than the exercise by him of his managerial responsibility to
expedite production. There is no evidence that he found fault with Mrs. Hurst's
work in order to harass or discriminate against her. The evidence does not afford
a basis for a conclusion that that was his intent. All the testimony establishes
is that there was a difference of opinion between them concerning the subject.
Either could have been honestly wrong about the quality of the work. The Exam-
iner finds that Paluzi did not unlawfully interrogate Mrs. Hurst concerning her
union activities.
Mary Stringfellow testified that in May or June 1948, De Stefano summoned her
to his office and told her, "Every time I turn my back, you are knifing me in the
back" ; that she asked him what he meant ; and that he criticized her production,
telling her that if she got her mind on her business, her production would improve.
According to Mrs. Stringfellow, De Stefano then told her that he had been in-
formed that she "was a Union organizer" and asked her if she was one, and she
denied it. He also told her, she testified, that she "was jeopardizing the plant" by
"getting Union cards signed and messing with the Union," and asked her if that
was true, to which she responded that that was "none of his business" and that
her union activity was her privilege. She asserted that De Stefano also told her
"that if she had as little friends as (she) did in that plant, that he would quit
and leave town." The conversation, she testified, terminated with his telling her
"to get my mind off of the Union" and to "go on back there at the machine and
set down and get my mind on my business and I would do better."
The witness stated that she was thereafter summoned to De Stefano's office
several times and that on such occasions "it always started out something about
my production," and he would tell her that if she "didn't do better he would
have to terminate" her. Such conversations, Mrs. Stringfellow asserted, "wound
up, then, about the Union," and in his references to the Union, "he would ask
me if I got the cards signed and jack me up about not having my mind on the
business and having it on the Union ; not doing it better, or production, and . . .
what was the cause of it." Mrs. Stringfellow asserted that on one of the occa-
sions, he asked her if she would quit her job if he were able to prove that
another operator "could sew a thousand a day" ; that she refused to "give up
my job . . . until you terminate me" ; and that he responded that "he didn't
want to," but "just wanted her" to do her work.
Mrs. Stringfellow also testified that she had a conversation with De Stefano
about a month before the date scheduled for the election:' As related by the
witness, De Stefano spoke to her cordially. De Stefano, she said, opened the
conversation by informing her that he had "something to tell" her and that this
"this is more than an apology. It's a confession." Then, according to the wit-
ness, he said, among other things, that he had "mistreated" her and caused her
supervisor, Mrs. Borden, to so do, but that both had acted in accordance with
The witness "wouldn't say definitely" when it was that she had her last conversation
(set out above) with De Stefano. She estimated that it occurred about a month before
the election. Her estimate is partially corroborated by the fact that Bernice Slagle was
then her supervisor. Mrs. Slagle took over Mrs. Borden's section when the latter left
on November 22, 1948, about 2 months before the date set for the election.
832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
instructions, and that "he was sorry" for the mistreatment. Mrs. Stringfellow
testified that De Stefano, prefacing his remarks with the statement, "now that
we are friends again," then asked her "to forget about the Union and take sides
with the Goodall Company, and informed her that, if she would do so, she "could
have a job with the Goodall Company as long as there was a Goodall Company."
According to her testimony, she responded that she "wouldn't say" she "would
forget" the Union, and that "just to show him I had a heart and that I was willing
to cooperate With him, . . . if he would stop the supervisors and the company
employees from trailing me back and forth from the rest room and places, . . . I
would go back and get on my job and do the best I could and try to cooperate
with him and the company ..."
De Stefano did not testify and Mts. Stringfellow's version of her several con-
versations with him is uncontradicted. In appraising her credibility, it may be
borne in mind that she was one of those most active in the Union and that there
is undisputed and credited evidence establishing her activity was a matter of
special concern to the Respondent and that she was placed under close surveil-
lance pursuant to De Stefano's instructions. These factors afford corroboration
for substantial portions of her testimony. Based on his observation of the
witness and the record as a whole, including the absence of any contradiction
of her testimony, the Examiner credits Mrs. Stringfellow's account of her con-
versations with De Stefano. His last talk with her provides evidence of a
design to harass her because of her union activity and shows that he was moti-
vated more by a desire to criticize her for that and to pry into her affiliation
with, and sympathy for, the Union than by any genuine concern about her produc-
tion. Significantly, the last conversation occurred only a month before the
date on which the election was scheduled to be held and was devoted to an
effort to convert an active member of the Union into one of its opponents, with
an offer of a reward if she would comply.
The Examiner finds that De Stefano's interrogation of Airs. Stringfellow con-
cerning her union activities and his offer of an inducement if she would "forget
it (the Union) and take sides with the Company" violated Section 8 (a) (1).
(4) Alleged statements interfering with or restraining or coercing employees
Shuchter made a number of speeches to the employees dealing with the Union
and related matters. Some were made to sectional groups, usually in one of
the offices, while others were delivered to assemblages of all the employees in
the plant's cafeteria. There is evidence that lie began to deliver such talks
concerning the Union about May 1948, 2 or 3 months after organizational
activity began. He spoke to assembled employees about the Union during the
summer months of 1948 (either in July or August). It is undisputed that he
delivered a speech on January 18, 1949 (the day before the election was scheduled
to be held) to all of the employees who were assembled for that purpose in the
cafeteria.
The General Counsel's evidence of the substance of Shuchter's speech on
January 18 was adduced through the testimony of Elsie Whitley, Virginia Bone,
Mary Stringfellow, William Hindman, and Maye Bell Hurst, all employed by
the Respondent on the date in question.
Mrs. Hurst, who is no longer employed by the Company, gave the following
account of Shuchter's remarks :
Q. And will you tell us, the best you can, just what Air. Shuchter had to
say on that occasion?
GOODALL COMPANY 833
A. Yes, sir. Well, he said he was going to speak to us on two issues,
wages-concerning wages and Union, and so he went ahead and he stated
to us about the wages, and about, you know, about the contract-what they
was paying in other states. How much, and the hours was higher, and all.
He went on and stated all that to us, and then he told us, he said, this
mill down here didn't want the Union. He said Newberry Foundry doesn't
want the Union, and he says, "We don't want the Union," and he says, "Do
you know-" They had a blackboard and the ballot drawn up on it, and he
showed us that and he said, "Here is how you will vote tomorrow," and he
pointed out on the ballot and he said, "There is the Yes sign and there is
the No sign," and he says, "on tomorrow I can't be out here, but," he. says,
"I will be up in town and," lie says, "I am going to be praying God will guide
your hand to vote No when you vote tomorrow and," he said, "I have got
572 people in here and I want 572 No votes and," he says, "another thing,
if you vote Union here," he says, "Brother Chappell won't have a job up
there in that office." He says, "It will be some outsider from maybe way
off somewhere here."
He says, "Tomorrow is going to prove whether you like me or not. Tomor-
row is going to prove whether you like Goodall or not. And," he says,
"tomorrow is going to prove whether you like Brother Chappell or not."
Q. Do you remember any mention of the-Do you recall anything else
that he said on that occasion?
A. He did say that if we got the Union, we wouldn't have the insurance
that we had. If we got the Union, they couldn't give us what we was
getting. We wouldn't have any insurance if we got the Union.
Q. Do you recall whether he said anything about wages?
A. Yes. He said, "Now, listen" he says, "if you-all get a union," he says,
"remember I am the one going to bargain and," he said, "I am going to tell
you, I am going to give you the lowest contract that can be got and I am
going to tell you that will be a deduction in your wages from what you
are getting now."
Elsie Whitley's version does not differ in significant substance from that given
by Mrs. Hurst. Mrs. Whitley, who is still employed by the Respondent, asserted
that Shuchter made a comparison between wage scales and insurance benefits in
effect at the plant and working conditions secured by the Union elsewhere ; that
he stated that "he wanted us all to. vote the next day" ; that he wanted as "many
no votes" as there were "eligible voters," which he approximated at "between five
and six hundred employees" ; that he told employees that "if we voted the Union
in, he would give us the lowest contract the Union provided for" and "we would
not have" the insurance benefits "that we had already out there" which "they (the
Union) didn't provide" ; and that he informed them "that if we voted the Union
in, that would mean Brother Chappell's job." 26
26 Shuchter delivered another talk to the employees (in groups) earlier in January,
fixed by some witnesses at about January 14. In asking Mrs. Whitley about Shuchter's
reference to Chappell, the General Counsel inquired, "Was anything said in that January
14 speech or January 18 speech about Brother Chappell?" The witness then gave the
testimony about Chappell outlined above. From the context of her testimony as a whole,
it appears that she intended to place the reference to Chappell on January 18 and not
earlier, particularly as at another point, in describing the January 14 talk, she testified
that all she could remember definitely was that "he (just) let us know that he didn't
want the Union in there."
834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Miss Bone, who is still an employee and was one of those who solicited signa-
tures (at the request of a member of the committee) for the withdrawal forms
prepared by the Respondent, testified that Shuchter "said that if the Union came
in, we would be paid according to the Union regulations, which would be lower
wages" ; that he told them that "the Union didn't furnish * * the insurance
like we had out there" and that the employees "wouldn't have" the insurance "if it
(the Union) came in" ; and that he stated that "if the Union came in, we would
have somebody else to represent us with the Company other than Brother Chap-
pell."
William Hindman was formerly employed by the Respondent as a mechanic
and quit his employment voluntarily. He was not a member of the Union.
Hindman initially testified that Shuchter told the assembled employees that he
had "checked" wages paid in both union and nonunion phmts ; that the Respondent
paid "as much as 30 to 40 cents per hour more than where there was a union
plant" ; that the Respondent paid for six holidays a Year; and that in the election
"you could vote as you wished to." and "let your conscious [sic] be your guide.
You could vote Yes or No." The witness also stated that Shucliter said that there
were "around five hundred or something" eligible voters (under further question-
ing Hindman approximated the figure mentioned by Shuchter as about 570) ; and
that Shuchter pointed to a sample ballot drawn on a blackboard, showing the
employees the respective places for "Yes" and "No" votes and told them to vote
"any way they wanted to."
In his initial testimony concerning the speech, Hindman was asked by the
General Counsel whether Shuchter had said anything about insurance benefits
and the fact "that if the Union would come in, that you might make less money."
The witness responded that he did not remember. Then, after refreshing his
recollection,' he testified that Shuchter "said he would rather have everyone to
vote No," that as well as I (Hindman) remember, I believe lie (Shuchter) said if
if it did go Union he would cooperate under the lowest contract the A. F. of L.,
United Garment Workers, had, would ask for that" ; that Shuchter stated that
"union (United Garment Workers) plants up North paid wages as low as 521/2
cents an hour," and "if the Union came in," the wages of some employees would
be increased and of others decreased, because some employees were " making
production," thus earning more than others, and "it" (unionization) would cut
some of them and raise some of them because it (earnings) wasn't balanced."
Mary Stringfellow testified that in the January 182'speech, Shuchter compared
wage rates and insurance benefits prevailing at the plant with those in effect at
2111indman had been interviewed on January 23, 1949, a few days after Shuchter's
speech by a field examiner employed by the Board. Hindman gave the investigator a signed
statement in which the former recounted Shucliter's speech. The witness' memory con-
cerning the speech was faulty. Upon his testimony that the statement made only a few
days after the speech contained substantially what he had told the field examiner on the
subject of Shuchter's statement concerning wages, the undersigned permitted the witness
to read the statement to refresh his recollection.
28 Mrs. Stringfellow gave the testimony set out above in response to the General Counsel's
Question as to "What was said in Mr. Shuchter's speech of January 17, 1949." She indi-
cated at a later point that the statements attributed to her by Shuchter were made by
him in his January 18 speech. Her testimony with respect to that speech is intermingled
with references to a talk she asserts Shuchter made to sectional groups of employees in
the pay-roll office on January 17 (apparently the one fixed by other witnesses, including
Shuchter, as occurring earlier in January). From the context of Mrs. Stringfellow'
testimony as a whole, it appears to the Examiner that it was the intendment of her testi-
mony that Shuchter made the remarks, set forth above in the body of this report, in his
January 18 speech.
GOODALL COMPANY 835
union plants ; that he said that "the Goodall Company didn't want the Union, and
if we voted the Union in, that they would take our 10 percent away; that they
would take our insurance, hospital, and doctor bills away" ; and that he stated
"we were to vote tomorrow how we liked him as a Vice President, how'we liked
Mr. Chappell as a personnel manager, and what we thought of the Goodall Com-
pany." The witness also testified, in substance, that Shuchter pointed to a sam-
ple ballot on the blackboard, stating that "we had somewhere around 575 em-
ployees, and he wanted them all No votes," and that "he couldn't be with us when
we voted, but lie would be down in town praying that God would guide us right,
and that when we went into the booth to vote, that we would mark an 'X' in the
No square." Mrs. Stringfellow concluded her account of the speech by asserting
that Shuchter "said that if we didn't want to find the doors of Goodall closed on
Thursday morning, that we had better vote No."
Shuchter, under examination of the General Counsel, gave the following version
of his January 18 speech: z9
I called the people together to bring the issue before them as to what this
election will represent, what they might gain by it and what they might lose
by it. The issue, I told them, wasn't a question of working conditions, of over-
time provisions, of vacation with pay, of paid holidays, of life insurance, of
accident and health insurance, that the Union promised to give these people.
I told them that they have already in very, very large measure and above
what the United Garment Workers offers to its constituents. I told them
that the issue really is whether these people at Talladega like and approve
the labor policy and the management of Goodall Company, and not an issue
of social benefits or other things.
I did treat at great length the question of wages at that meeting, because
the Union has made them promises in their pamphlets of increased wages. I
cited to them that our basic wage is so much higher, between $2 and $8 a
week, than some of the contracts that I have consulted that the United
Garment Workers has with the needle trade.
I then told them that I can't see any benefit why any worker will pay
$1.50 a week for the privilege that I negotiate with Miss Johnson, or any
other representative of the United Garment Workers, and bring down their
basic wages to the level of the contracts that Miss Johnson or the United
Garment Workers had. This is just a summary.
* * * * * *
I wound up in telling them that they have a right to vote any way they
want ; that only their conscience should be their guide. They have a right
to vote for the Union, and they have a perfect right to vote against the Union.
That the only interest I had was that they shall vote whichever way they
want to vote, and I expressed the hope that they will vote unanimously
against the Union and for the Goodall Company. That, in very brief, was
the content of my speech.
At other points in his testimony Shuchter denied asserting "that if the Union
came in" and the Respondent "was compelled to bargain," he "would give them
the lowest possible rate under the contract." He also denied making "a state-
ment that if the Union was voted in * * * that the Goodall plant would close
its doors ," asserting that he had "publicly denied" to the employees that he had
Shuchter was called as an officer of an adversary party under rule 43 (b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
made such a statement . Asked whether he had, in any of his speeches, "either
inferentially or directly" made a statement that if the employees "voted the
Union in," their insurance benefits "would be taken away from them," Shuchter
replied , "I would have to be a dope, Mr. Martin, to make such a statement. I
know too much about the labor law on our statute books not to make such a
statement nor was the intention of Goodall company to ever do what you are
suggesting here." Shuchter also denied stating "that in the event the Union
came in, Preacher Chappell would lose his job, or even mentioning him by name
in any of his speeches ( including that on January 18), although the witness,
without specifying the speech , stated that he had "made a statement about his
(Chappell 's) department." Shuchter did not elaborate on his statement about
Chappell's department.
The versions given by the General Counsel's witnesses differ in some details,
both significant and insubstantial, but the Examiner does not regard the variances
as controlling on the issue of the credibility of the witnesses. It is neither sur-
prising nor unusual to find differences among witnesses in paraphrasing or
repeating another's remarks, particularly after the passage of a substantial
period of time, and such variances may be expected to increase with the number
of persons called to testify concerning the subject in question.
Although differing in varying degree concerning some phases of the speech,30
essential agreement exists among all five employees that Shuchter said in funda-
mental substance that if the Union were selected as the bargaining agent, the
Respondent would reduce wages and withdraw prevailing insurance benefits.
The version offered by Shuchter himself contains more than a subtle intimation
that selection of the Union would result in reduced wages.
Based upon his appraisal of the powers of recollection and reliability 31 of all
the witnesses, including Shuchter,' against the background of all the evidence, the
Examiner finds, crediting the testimony to that effect, that Shuchter, in effect and
substance, told the employees that if they selected the Union as their bargaining
30 In essence, all the General Counsel's witnesses attribute to Shuchter language, varying
in the different versions, to the essential effect that selection of the Union by the employees
as their bargaining representative would result in lower wages and the elimination of their
insurance benefits ; all of the witnesses, except 'Miss Bone, attribute to Shuchter a demon-
strative exhibition as to his own preference with respect to the election ; Mrs. Hurst and
Mrs. Whitley impute to him statements which expressly or by implication convey the mean-
ing that designation of the Union would mean the loss of Ch ippell's services to the em-
ployees;Mliss Bone asserts that Shuchter in effect said that selection of the Union would
mean that Chappell would no longer "represent" employees "with the Company" ; all of
the witnesses, except Hindman, state that Shuchter mentioned Chappell ; and Mrs. String-
fellow asserts in effect that Shuchter threatened to close the plant if the employees desig-
nated the Union.
31 In the judgment of the Examiner, and lie so finds, the five employees testified accord-
ing to their best and honest recollection, although lie also finds that the recollection of the
speech by Mrs. Stringfellow and Hindman is not as reliable as that of Mrs. Hurst, 'Mrs.
Whitley, and Miss Bone. However, the recollection of Mrs. Stringfellow and Hindman on
the subject of the wage reduction and insurance benefits finds substantial corroboration in
the testimony of the three other employees.
12 The examiner does not regard Shuchter as a reliable witness. In testimony favorable
to the Respondent, Shuchter's demeanor and his evidence manifested an aggressive and
emphatic certainty, but on occasions when it coincided with the Respondent's interest, lie
testified with what appeared to be calculated evasiveness. Both in the text of his testi-
mony and his demeanor, his propensity to evade became particularly manifest in his re-
sponses to questions bearing on the number of employees in the plant (vital on the issue
of representation) and on the period when lie became aware of organizational activity
in the plant. Moreover, his professions of lawful conduct should be considered against
the background of the unlawful labor practices previously described.
GOODALL COMPANY 837
agent, the Respondent would reduce wages of employees from higher scales paid
by the Company to the lower levels of contracts held by the Union," and that the
Company would withdraw prevailing insurance benefits. It is also found that
Shuchter's remarks with respect to the wage reduction and the insurance benefits
violated Section 8 (a) (1).
With respect to Chappell, Hindman does not mention him, and Mrs. String-
fellow quotes Shuchter as stating that employees were to vote "how we liked
Mr. Chappell." The question is presented whether the references by Shuchter
to Chappell as•variously reflected in the testimony of the other three witnesses
violated the statute. While Shuchter is quoted as saying, in effect, that desig-
nation of the Union would result in the elimination of Chappell's job (Hurst and
Whitley) or that he would no longer represent the employees (Bone), it is not
clear that language to either effect is violative of the statute. It is true that
Chappell was more to the employees than a personnel manager, organizing sports
and recreational activities for them and listening to their personal problems, and
that they esteemed him highly, but as reflected in any of the versions, it is not
clear that Shuchter intended to convey a threat of withdrawal of the benefits
extended by the Respondent through Chappell. The versions of Mrs. Hurst,
Mrs. Whitley, and Miss Bone (particularly hers) are susceptible to a construction
that Shuchter intended not a threat of withdrawal of privileges but to convey
the meaning that designation of the Union as the bargaining agent for the
employees would mean the elimination of Chappell's functions as a personnel
manager who represented the employees and the substitution of the Union as
their representative. The Examiner concludes that the alleged references to
Chappell in any of the versions did hot violate Section 8 (a)."
13 The Respondent's brief mistakenly quotes Shuchter as testifying that in his January
18 speech he told the employees that "if they joined the Union," he "would have to nego-
tiate . . . with Mary Johnson, or any other representative of the United Garment Workers,
and bring their working conditions and wages to the level of the contracts that she is
holding and to the level of the contracts of our competitors." Actually, Shuchter testified
that he made the foregoing statement "about two weeks before the 18th" (of January)
when he "spoke seven hours . . . to these people in groups of 100." ( Specifying
various dates earlier than January 18, Witnesses Hurst, Stringfellow, Hindman and
Whitley also testified to an occasion when Shuchter addressed employees in sectional groups,
but they did not quote him as stating on such an occasion as to bow he "would have to
negotiate.") In connection with the erroneous assumption that Shuchter made the
quoted statement on January 18, the Respondent's brief cites N. L. R. B. v. Enid Coopera-
tive Creamery Assn., 169 F. (2d) 986 (C. A. 10), as authority for the view that Shuchter's
statement as to how he "would have to negotiate" is a legitimate expression of opinion.
The Enid case was one in which supervisory employees, in arguing against unionization
stated "that if the employees were unionized they might have to take a reduction in
salary. " It may be noted that the statement Shuchter claims he made earlier in January
is dissimilar to the statements in the Enid case (his purported statement does not say he
"might" have to reduce wages but, in part at least, states he "would have to 'negoti-
ate . . . and bring their working conditions and wages" to a lower level). Be that
as it may, the fact is that the earlier January statement, whether made or not, is not
involved in the January 1.8 speech. Therefore, with every respect for the Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, it is unnecessary to speculate either as to the soundness or appli-
cability of the Enid case, for it is clear that, under long-established doctrine, Shuchter's
statement, in effect and substance, with respect to wages, as found above, violated Section
8 (a) (1). See, among others, N. L. R. B. v. Brezner Tanning Co., Inc., 141 F. (2d) 62
(C. A. 1.) ; N. L. R. B. v. Fairmont Creamery Co., 143 F. (2d) 668 (C. A. 10), cert. den.
323 U. S. 752 ; N. L. it. B. v. American Pearl Button Co., 149 F. (2d) 311. (C. A. 8) ; platter
of Air Associates, Inc., 20 N. L. R. B. 856; Matter of Merchants Freight, 57 N. L. R. B. 340.
1 In view of the conclusion reached with respect to any of the versions of Shuchter's
references to Chappell, a resolution of the question of what, if anything, Shuchter did say
on the subject is unnecessary.
867351-50-vol. 86-54
838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although the Examiner finds that Airs. Stringfellow testified to the best of her
recollection concerning the speech, he does not regard her recollection of some of
its significant phases as reliable.' The undersigned does not credit her testimony
that Shuchter said that if the employees voted for the Union, he would close the
plant. None of the other four witnesses quote Shuchter to that effect. In fact,
Mrs. Whitley whom the Examiner regards as a reliable witness, stated that
Shuchter did not mike a statement to that effect. The Examiner finds that
Shuchter did not, in words or substance, state in his January 18 speech that the
plant would be closed if the employees voted for the Union.
The General Counsel adduced evidence of allegedly coercive statements by
Shuchter during the course of other speeches by him to employees.
Easter W. Moore, an ex-employee who had belonged to the Union, testified that
some time in July 1948, in a speech to the. employees assembled in the plant
cafeteria, Shuchter stated that "they (the Company) didn't want the Union,"
and that "they would not run if they did get the Union, that they didn't have
to operate and they would not, if they (the Union) got in." According to Mrs.
Moore, Shuchter repeated substantially the same thing in other speeches in or
about September and October 1948. Some time in the fall of 1948, the witness
stated, Shuchter also said that, "if the Union came in," the employees' wages
would be cut. Under cross-examination, Airs. Moore testified that Shuchter
"usually got around to it" (the subject of closing the plant) "in each one of
those speeches" and she expressed a "guess" that he made the statement in
"three or four" of the speeches.
The Examiner formed the impression that Airs. Moore testified according to
her best understanding and interpretation of Shucliter's statements, but the under-
signed entertains some doubt about the witness' power to paraphrase and repeat
with substantial accuracy months later the statements of others on such matters
as Shuchter made the subject of his speeches. It is apparent that he spoke ex-
tensively on the effects of unionization. It is not unlikely that Alrs. Moore read
into his statements the meaning that unionization would result in the closing of
the plant. In the light of his appraisal of Airs. Moore, the Examiner does not
regard Airs. Moore as a reliable witness on the subject of Shuchter's speeches, and
he does not credit the phase of her testimony in question, in the absence of cor-
roborating evidence of a credible nature.30 No other witness testified that
Shuchter in those periods made the statements concerning the closing of the plant,
imputed to him by Airs. Moore. The evidence does not preponderantly establish
that Shuchter made such statements in the speeches mentioned by Mrs. Moore.
Mrs. Borden, who left the Respondent's employ several months before the Janu-
ary 18 speech, testified that, in speeches Shuchter made to the employees before
her termination, he said that "if the Union came in," the Respondent "would
have to pay like other companies in .this area that had the Union," and "he ex-
plained" concerning the insurance benefits "that the Company was paying a part
of it, and that we might not have it if the Union came in." Mrs. Borden asserted
36 Mrs. Stringfellow's testimony, as outlined in other sections of this report, is either
uneon tradicted or corroborated by other evidence, or both.
36 Mrs. Moore's testimony that Shuchter made a statement that wages would be "cut"
is corroborated to some extent in substance, but not in terms, by Mrs. Borden whom the
Examiner regards as a reliable witness. As found at another place in this report, Mrs.
Borden imputed to Shuchter statements which, in the light of the evidence as a whole,
the Examiner regards as assertions, in effect, that the Respondent would reduce wages
in the event of unionization of the plant. The Examiner finds that Shuchter did not use
the term "cut" in referring to wages, as stated by Mrs. Moore, but that in his speeches
in 1948, Shuchter made the statements concerning wages imputed to him by Mrs. Borden.
GOODALL COMPANY 839
that the statements with respect to wages and insurance, were made "in all the
speeches" made by Shuchter between the time when organizational activity began
and the date of the representation hearing (September 2, 1948). The witness
was asked whether Shuchter mentioned "any figures" in connection with his
statements concerning wages, and she responded, "Not that I recall." Shuchter,
who testified during the General Counsel's case in chief, and before Mrs. Borden
gave her testimony, denied that he had ever made statements to the effect that
if the employees "voted the Union in," the Respondent would withdraw insurance
benefits and "would give them the lowest possible rate under the contract." He
did not testify in rebuttal, and there is no denial by him that, during the course
of speeches made during Mrs. Borden's tenure, he made statements that in the
event of unionization, the Respondent "would have to pay like other companies in
the area that had the Union." The Examiner regards Mrs. Borden as a reliable
witness and does not consider Shuchter to be such. The Examiner credits Mrs.
Borden's testimony., Shuchter's remarks must be considered against the back-
ground of the other evidence, including that relating to the unfair labor practices
in which the Respondent engaged during the period of the speeches in question.
Regarded in that light, his remarks concerning what the Respondent "might" do
with the insurance benefits must be considered as a coercive interference with
the employees' right to self-organization. While lie mentioned no figures in the
speeches described by Mrs. Borden, such talks have an ancestral connection with
his speech of January 18, 1949, in which he made it plain that wages paid under
the Union's contracts were lower than those paid by the Respondent. Moreover,
there is undisputed evidence that at a meeting of the supervisors held in July
1948, he gave them information to the effect that the Company was paying higher
wages than those provided by the Union's contracts, and authorized the super-
visors to tell employees what the comparative rates were.34 In the opinion of the
undersigned , the intendment of Shuchter's speeches, in the light of all the evi-
dence, was to tell the employees that in the event they designated the Union as
their bargaining agent, they would be paid on the basis of lower wage scales
reflected in contracts held by the Union in other plants. The undersigned con-
cludes that the statements concerning wages attributed by Mrs. Borden to
Shuchter violated Section 8 (a) (1).
According to the testimony' of Elsie Whitley, on the day before the election,
while she was at work, she heard Bernice Slagle, her supervisor, tell an employee,
Mildred Causey, that "if the Union was voted in the plant would be moved-
closed and moved away in three weeks." Apparently referring to the same oc-
casion, although she was not mentioned in Mrs. Whitley's testimony, Virginia
Bone testified that while she and Mildred Causey were talking, Bernice Slagle
87 That supervisors acted upon Shuchter's instructions "to talk the Union down" (Bor-
den) by discussing wages with employees is evidenced by the testimony of Katy Parker
who worked in the Pressing Section (part of the Coat Department) and was paid at the
rate of 65 cents an hour. According to her uncontradicted and credited testimony, Jake
Sutherland , her supervisor , spoke to her , while she was at work, about the Union , express-
ing an unfavorable opinion concerning it' and asserted, "if we got the Union, that they
(the Respondent) wouldn't pay us but 53 cents an hour." In the light of the evidence
as a whole, the Examiner finds that Sutherland's remarks concerning wages violated
Section S (a) (1).
Dirs. Parker also testified that Shuchter , in a speech about August 1, 1.948 , stated that
the Respondent "didn't want" the Union at the plant and that "nobody (could) snake
them pay more than 53 cents an hour, would be the top wages. " The Examiner regards
the remarks attributed by Dirs . Parker to Shuchter as too obscure to warrant a finding
whether they constituted a violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"came up and * * * said if the Union came in that the plant would be
closed down within two or three weeks." Bernice Slagle did not testify and Mrs.
Whitley's and Miss Bone's testimony was uncontradicted. The Examiner credits
their testimony. While there is no evidence that Miss Slagle had the right to hire
and fire or make any effective recommendations concerning the employees, there
is evidence that her predecessor, Mrs. Borden, did not have such functions. How-
ever, there were approximately 25 employees in Miss Slagle's section and the
evidence as a whole supports the conclusion that it was the function of super-
visors of sections to direct the work of the employees under their supervision.
Moreover, according to the credited evidence, Shuchter had instructed the super-
visors at a meeting "to try to talk down the Union as much as possible." 38 The
credited evidence shows that supervisors were closely associated with, and par-
ticipated in, unfair labor practices in which the Respondent engaged. Within
the framework of the evidence as a whole, the legal responsibility for Miss Slagle's
remarks is that of the Respondent. Her statement concerning the closing of the
plant violated Section 8 (a) (1).
Mrs. Borden testified that, during her tenure as a supervisor, "occasionally,
the girls would walk up and ask me if the plant would close clown, and I would
tell them that it might." Apparently, she would make such statements in casual
conversation when "no more than just one or two of them (employees) would
be talking." Under cross-examination, Mrs. Borden testified that none of her
supervisors ever instructed her to make such statements. Virginia Bone, who
worked in Mrs. Borden's section, testified that during the early stages of the
organizational activity, Mrs. Borden told her that the plant would move to
another location. As stated earlier in this report, the Examiner regards both
Mrs. Borden and Miss Bone as reliable witnesses. He credits their testimony.
The record does not indicate that she made the remarks in conjunction with any
conversation about the Union or that they were associated in her mind with any
union activity. The General Counsel has the burden of establishing that her
stlitements to employees violated the Act. The text of her examination and of
her testimony is too scant to permit a legitimate inference that she made the
statements in conjunction with union activity in the plant or that they were
directed at such activity. For all that appears she might have had some other
purpose in making them. The evidence does not preponderantly establish that
her assertions to employees that the plant "might" or "would" close violated
the statute.
Mrs. Whitley testified that it was her practice to sell candy at the plant to the
other employees before the commencement of the day's work. She stated that
her supervisor knew that she was doing it and that nothing was said by the local
management about it "for a long time." According to Mrs. Whitley, De Stefano
told her to discontinue her sale of candy. She testified that after the withdrawal
forms were circulated De Stefano asked her if she knew why he had "stopped
me from selling candy" ; that she responded she "bad no idea"; that he then
stated that it was because she had been getting union cards signed while she was
selling candy ; and that she told De Stefano that she had not done so.
De Stefano did not testify and Mrs. Whitney's testimony stands uncontra-
dicted. The Examiner credits her testimony. He finds that De Stefano's direc-
38 There is evidence that Miss Slagle worked at the plant as a supervisor during Miss
Borden's tenure and, like the latter, kept employees under surveillance, making reports
as to her findings to De Stefano. The record' is silent, however, as to whether she attended
the supervisors' meeting referred to by Mrs. Borden.
GOODALL COMPANY 841
tion that she discontinue the sale of candy, as well as the expression to her of
the reason for his action, was a coercive interference with the rights guaranteed
to her by Section 7, and the Respondent thus violated Section 8 (a) (1). Addi-
tional support for the conclusion reached may be found in the fact that the Re-
spondent-freely permitted employees to leave their work and solicit other em-
ployees, while the latter were at work, to sign the Respondent's mimeographed
forms purporting to effect the signatories' withdrawal from the Union.
According to Mrs, Whitley, on the day when she was asked to sign a form
purporting to effect her withdrawal from the Union, De Stefano spoke to her at
her machine, asked her opinion about the Company, and told her, "You think it
is a good company to work for, but yet and still not good enough for you to take
your name off of the Union card." Mrs. Whitley testified that she responded
that her membership "is my business" ; that De Stefano asked her to reconsider
her refusal to sign the withdrawal form and said, "Elsie, I can tell you one
thing. * * * You know what, if you hadn't been in this Union where would
you have been to-day? * * * You would have been in the coat shop right
now as supervisor." De Stefano did not testify, and Mrs. Whitley's testimony
was not contradicted. The Examiner credits her testimony and finds that as a
result of De Stefano's remarks the Respondent violated Section S (a) (1).
(5) Alleged discrimination in granting working conditions and privileges
As found above, employees were kept under surveillance and their conversations
were interfered with at the plant in order to prevent them from discussing the
Union or circulating cards for membership therein, and this policy was applied
by the Respondent even when the employees were not at work. Elsie Whitley
was forbidden to sell candy before working hours, and, according to her undis-
puted and credited evidence, De Stefano told her that the reason for the prohibi-
tion was the solicitation (as he claimed) by her of memberships in the Union
while selling the candy. There is uncontradicted evidence, which the Examiner
credits, that supervisory personnel forbade employees to circulate union member-
ship cards "during working hours on company time." ' On the other hand, the
Respondent distributed antiunion leaflets during working hours; Shuchter made
antiunion speeches during such periods (on one occasion, according to his testi-
mony, he consumed 7 hours in talking to groups of 100, which means that he
probably consumed an average of between 1 and 2 hours talking to each group) ;
and supervisors and employees solicited signatures for the withdrawal forms
during work periods.
The issue presented by the foregoing evidence is not whether an employer has
a right to prohibit union activity during working hours or to snake speeches to
employees during that time or to engage in antiunion propaganda. The ques-
tion is whether he may reserve such rights to himself, while at the same time
interfering with, or preventing, employees from talking about a union and solicit-
ing members for it. It is well established that discriminatory conduct of that
a' See testimony of Mary Stringfellow. She testified that employees were "all the time
reminded" by Paluzi not to solicit memberships during working hours, and that Shuchter
made a statement to that effect in a speech. Her testimony was not contradicted. It is
corroborated by the undisputed evidence of the Respondent 's policy of keeping employees
under surveillance and of Interference with their conversations in order to prevent them
from discussing the Union and soliciting memberships in the organization . See, also,
the uneontradicted evidence of Mrs. Whitley with respect to the "candy" incident and of
Mrs. Hurst concerning her conversation with Paluzi.
842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nature violates the statute.`° The Examiner finds that in engaging in antiunion
activity during working hours and in authorizing and permitting supervisors and
employees to do so, while prohibiting employees from soliciting memberships for
the Union and interfering with discussions concerning it, during working hours,
the Respondent discriminated against its employees and thus violated Section
8 (a) (1).91
The General Counsel adduced evidence designed to establish that the Respond-
ent discriminatorily refused to keep Dirs. Stringfellow's machine in a state of
repair and that the refusal was motivated by her union activity. The evidence
is undisputed that Mrs. Stringfellow was active in the Union. She attended all
but one of the meetings, solicited memberships in the Union, and secured the
signatures of 14 employees to membership cards. The evidence as a whole
establishes that she was one-of the more ardent advocates of the Union. As"
found elsewhere in this report, she was one of several referred to by De Stefano
as "egging this union on," and under his instructions, she was made the special
object of surveillance by her supervisor, Mrs. Borden, who would either follow
her or send someone else to the rest room when she went there.
Mrs. Stringfellw.v, as are other employees, is employed on a piece-work basis.
Her earnings depend on her production. If her machine is in such a state of
disrepair that it cannot be used, her production capacity is lowered and her
earnings reduced.
According to Mrs. Borden, "all during the -Union" (campaign), De Stefano told
her to treat them ("Union people") in a way that they would quit." She stated
that he (lid not tell her "exactly what to do in order to make them quit," but,
with respect to Mrs. Stringfellow; "he just told me to discourage Dirs. Stringfellow
as much as possible, not have anything clone to her machine, she was complaining
about her machine, don't have anything done there, keep on her tail, if she goes
to the rest room not let her talk to anyone. * * If she (sic) standing talking
to anyone, go up and tell her to get back to her machine."
Mrs. Borden testified that Mrs. Stringfellow had trouble with her machine,
but "not as much as she thought she did." "At times," she stated, "I went over and
looked at the machine and tried it out myself, and I have had the machinist come
and look at the machine, sometimes there would be something wrong with it and
sometimes there wouldn't be." Mrs. Borden agreed that the other girls in her
section could secure a plant machinist's services without her help when their
machines needed repair, and she stated that Dirs. Stringfellow was the only one
in her section who could not secure the assistance of a machinist unless the super-
visor requested it. The witness affirmed that "there were times" when the
machine needed repair and she diet not request a machinist's services, but she as-
serted that she did not do so because she was too busy.
William Hindman, formerly employed as a machinist at the plant, testified
that in May or June 1948, De Stefano told him and another mechanic not to re-
41 N. L. R. B . v. M. E. Blatt Co., 143 F. (2d) 268 ( C. A. 3), certiorari denied . 323 1'. 8.
774; N . L. R. B. v. Peyton Packing Co ., 142 P . ( 2d) 1009 ( C. A. 5), certiorari denied, 32:3
U. S. 730 ; N. L. R. B . v. Harbison -Walker Refractories Co., 135 F. (2d) 837 (C. A. 8) ;
N. L. R. B . V. Winona Knitting Mills, Ine., 163 F. (2d) 156 ( C. A. 8) ; N. L. R. B. v.
American Furnace Co., 158 F. (2d) 370 ( C. A. 7).
+1 It may be noted in passing that well over 230 union membership cards were intro-
duced in evidence . The voluminous evidence bearing on-the circumstances under which
they were signed establishes that all but a few were signed outside of working hours ('see
testimony of the witnesses to the cards ). Only two of the cards were specifically identi-
fied as having been signed during work periods ( see testimony of Pertie Bright).
G00DALL COMPANY 843
pair Mrs. Stringfellow's machine without his prior permission. Hindman as-
serted that he took "it on myself" on one or two occasions to make minor ad-
justments in her machine. Hindman also testified that machines of some other
employees broke clown as much or more frequently than Mrs. Stringfellow's;
that he had no instructions to secure prior authorization from De Stefano to fix
the machines of other employees ; aid that there were occasions when De Stefano
personally sent him to fix the machines of other employees, including Kathleen
Adair, a member of the committee formed at Steffensen's suggestion, who gave him
(Hindman) "quite a bit of trouble." The witness stated that, varying with the
nature of given work, sewing machines require adjustment; that "some (em-
ployees) can do it (make adjustments), and some can't"; and that Mrs. String-
fellow was one of those who could not.
Vernon H. Horn, another machinist, testified that it was the practice of opera-
tors to report difficulties with their machines directly to him and that lie would
then make any necessary repairs. He stated that he fixed Mrs. Stringfellow's
machine twice at her request. He denied that he had ever been given "any special
instructions" with respect to any employee's machine.
Mrs. Stringfellow testified to difficulties she had with her machine. Some of
the machinists, she asserted, would respond to her request for help, while others
would not do so. "Well, they would always have somewhere else to go," she
testified, "but never came around. Several of them wouldn't come around. Some
would." She stated that she "couldn't hardly ever get" Thatch (a supervisory
machinist) and "very seldom" Simpson (another machinist) ; that she "didn't
call on" Horn much "because he was one of their newer machinists" ; and that
Hindman would come oftener than the rest, but that he, too, would not come
"sometimes." According to the witness, Mrs. Borden would "occasionally" secure
a machinist for her, but that it was "mighty seldom." Mrs. Stringfellow, stating
that she was inexperienced "and didn't know how to regulate" the machine,
asserted that from time to time she would ask other employees to assist her with
the necessary adjustments. She also testified that when she "couldn't get the
supervisor" to provide her with mechanical assistance, she complained to
De Stefano, and "sometimes he would bawl me out about it, and say it was me,
it wasn't the machine. Sometimes he would go get the machinist and bring them
back there and make then fix it." Mrs. Stringfellow also testified that she spoke
to Steffensen, but it does not appear that she told him about her difficulties in
securing mechanical assistance. "I mentioned to hint about my breaking thread,"
she stated, "but mostly what I mentioned to Mr. Steffensen was about the way I
was treated when I was trying to make production and asked him to cooperate
with me and helping me so I could make production." She asserted that after
she spoke to Steffensen, "it seemed like I got a little better service."
The question involved is not whether Mrs. Stringfellow was overly anxious
about her machine or magnified12 its defects. The issue is whether De Stefano,
12 The only evidence that Mrs. Stringfellow magnified her machine difficulties consists
of Mrs. Borden's statement that the former (lid not have as much trouble "as she thought
she (lid." The Examiner credits Dirs. Borden, but from the context of the evidence as a
whole and his observation of Mrs. Stringfellow, he believes that she asserted her requests
for repairs in good faith. Moreover, she was inexperienced, understandably concerned
about her production , and it appears from Hindman 's testimony that it was not unusual
for employees like her , who lacked mechanical capacity to seek assistance in making minor
repairs or adjustments. The Respondent presented no evidence to show that Mrs. String-
fellow magnified her machine difficulties or that that was the reason why she did not
receive assistance under the same conditions as other employees.
S44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a responsible agent of the Respondent, embarked on a program to create difficult
working conditions for Mrs. Stringfellow because of her union affiliations and
activities. That he did- so appears in the uncontradicted testimony of Mrs. Borden
and Hindman, which the Examiner credits. The record as a whole reflects hos-
tility by De Stefano toward Mrs. Stringfellow because of her union activities.
He made her the special object of surveillance, even to the extent of having her
followed to the rest room over an extended period, interrogated her about her
union membership and sympathies, suggested that she quit, and finally, as the
date of the scheduled election grew near, admitted mistreating her, and solicited
'per assistance against the Union, promising her continued employment. It is
true that she (lid receive some service from machinists, but she was unable to get
it as freely as other employees. Her testimony suggests that conditions improved
for her after she complained to Steffensen, but that does not nullify the fact that
De Stefano, a responsible supervisory employee, had previously engaged in
coercive interference with her work. The evidence as a whole establishes, and
the Examiner so finds, that because of Mrs. Stringfellow's activities in the Union,
De Stefano discriminated in the mechanical facilities afforded to her and estab-
lished hampering conditions for the performance of her work, thereby violating
Section S (a) (1).
(6) The wage increase
On July 12, 1948, the Respondent granted a 10 percent wage increase to all of its
employees at the Talladega plant. . The General Counsel contends that it was
designed to discourage membership in the Union. For the reasons set out below,
a determination of that question is unnecessary.
The charge was filed on January 19, 1949, more than 6 months after the
increase became effective, and the question arises whether the statute of limita-
tions contained in Section 10 (b) bars the issuance of a complaint based on the
rise in wages. It may be asserted that where a wage increase violates Section
8 (a) (1), it constitutes a continuing violation because it is reflected in weekly
or other recurring salary payments, periodically reminding employees that they
do not need the assistance of a union or of collective bargaining, and thus consti-
tutes a continuing interference with the employees' right of self-organization.
The Examiner does not agree with that view. If tenable with respect to wage
increase, the theory should apply equally to a discriminatory discharge, for an
unlawful dismissal affects not only the employee involved, but is often a continu-
ing discouragement of union activities by other employees. Yet, there is no doubt
that the 6-month limitation for the filing and service of a charge based upon a
discriminatory discharge begins to run from the date of the discharge. In the
opinion of the Examiner, the averments of the complaint pertaining to the wage
increase are barred because the charge was filed more than six months after the
increase became effective. The Examiner will recommend that such allegations
be dismissed.
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
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
GOODALL COMPANY
V. THE REMEDY
845
In the opinion of the Examiner, the evidence reveals an underlying opposition
by the Respondent to the policies and objectives of the Act. The undersigned
finds that the unfair labor practices disclosed by the record were extensive and
prolonged and are closely related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by
the statute, and that a danger of their commission in the future is to be antici-
pated from the conduct of the Respondent in the past. In order to make effective
the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, it is necessary, therefore, that the
undersigned recommend to the Board that its order be made coextensive with the
threat of future disregard by the Respondent of its statutory obligations. Accord-
ingly, the Examiner will recommend that the Respondent be directed to cease
and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise by them of the rights guaranteed by Section 7.
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices viola-
tive of Sections S (a) (1) of the Act, the Examiner will recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Having found that the allegations of the complaint pertaining to the granting
of a wage increase to the employees at the Talladega plant are barred by the
6-month limitation prescribed by Section 10 (b) for the filing and service of
charges, the Examiner will recommend that such allegations be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and of the entire record in this
proceeding, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Garment Workers, A. F. L., is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its said 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).
3. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Sections 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The averments of the complaint pertaining to the granting of a wage increase
to the employees at the Talladega plant are barred because the charge in this
proceeding was filed and served more than 6 months after such wage increase
was granted.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the Examiner recommends that Goodall Company,
of Talladega , Alabama, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with , retraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right of self-organization , to form, join,
or assist labor organizations, to join or assist United Garment Workers , A. F. L.,
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 , and to refrain from any or all of such activities except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 thereof.
846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Examiner finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Talladega, Alabama, copies of the notice attached to
this Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being signed
by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent, 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;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within twenty
(20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
The Examiner recommends that so much of the complaint as alleges that the
Respondent committed an unfair labor practice by granting its employees a wage
increase be dismissed. .
It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from
the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may,
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file
with the Board, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement
in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report and Recom-
mended Order 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
six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same
period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate
Report and Recommended Order. Immediately upon the filing of such statement
of exceptions and/or briefs, the party' filing the same shall serve a copy thereof
upon each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall desig-
nate by precise citation the portions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly
printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall be double-spaced. Proof
of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly
made as required by Section 203.S5. As further provided in said Section 203.46,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the
date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 27th day of July 1949.
HERMAN MARX,
Trial Examiner.
GOODALL COMPANY
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
847
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 WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to join, or assist
UNITED GARMENT WORKERS, A . F. L., to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , and.to refrain
from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right mar be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as
guaranteed in Section 7 thereof.
GOODALL COMPANY,
-----------------------------
Employer.
Dated------------------------ By----------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.