Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Alabama

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 9, 1940

21 N.L.R.B. 306 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA and
UNITED RUBBER WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-311.-Decided March, 9, 1940
Rubber Tire Manafactaring Industry-Interference , Restv'a'int , and Coercion-
Discrimination : union president assaulted during speech at open meeting
and forced to leave city ; three employees at work assaulted , and together
with four other employees , forced to leave plant , and together with nine other
employees discharged or laid off by company at request of employees' com-
mittee ; employees compelled to appear before employees' committee in plant
and answer questions concerning union activities , company, when asked by
city officials to furnish employees to act as special deputies to protect partici-
pants in union meeting , selects for such service leaders and participants in
previous anti-union activities , despite its knowledge of their previous conduct;
company indicates approval of anti-union declaration circulated in plant,
and disapproval of employees refusing to sign declaration , discharging one
employee for such a refusal ; mass exodus from plant during working hours
of employees , who thereupon assault union organizers and force them to leave
city ; payment of assaulters for time lost from work ; labor espionage ; ratifica-
tion by company of attempts to obtain retraction from minister who criticized
its labor policies ; lack of protection afforded union members and organizers
in city ; hostility of sheriff, police , and city officials toward union organizers
and members ; denunciation by company of employees ' right to organize ; such
denunciation held not substantial cause of lack of protection of union organ-
izers by local authorities ; company not responsible for rumors its production
would be expanded if there were no labor troubles ; company responsible for
anti-union activities of employees , such as assaults on union organizers and
members ; ratification of anti-union acts of employees ; failure of company to
punish participants despite know l edge of their identity ; promotion of partici-
pants and selection of them for deputy service ; fear of strike no justification
for failure to punish ; company ordered to furnish employees reasonable pro-
tection in plant against threats or assaults directed at union membership or
activities , and to forbid such threats and assaults ; responsibility of company
for acts of supervisory employees and flying squadron members who participated
in anti -union activities , or showed approval of them ; company ordered to pro-
hibit interference by squadron members with exercise by production employees
of rights guaranteed in Act ; failure to reinstate assaulted , evicted , and laid off
employees until Act held constitutional , unjustified ; charges of discrimination
against 15 laid off employees sustained-Reinstatement Ordered: for one
employee , other 14 having been reinstated prior to hearing-Back Pay : awarded
15 employees-Company-Dominated Union: domination and support of, and
interference with, formation and administration ; disestablished as agency for
collective bargaining-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion : charges that com-
pany since April 1, 1937 , sponsored and encouraged series of acts of terrorism
directed against union , dismissed ; contention that union and members guilty
21 N. L R B, No. 33.
306
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 307
of acts of terrorism irrelevant and not established by evidence-Discrimination:
charges of , sustained as to 12 persons , dismissed as to 11-Reinstatement
Ordered: preferential list. names of 3 employees temporarily laid off non-
discriminatorily to be placed upon-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Mortimer Kollender, for the Board.
Hood, Inter, Martin cfi Suttle, by Mr. 0. R. Hood, Mr. Roger C.
Suttle, Mr. J. C. Inter, and Mr. David C. Byrd, of Gadsden, Ala., and
Mr. Forney Johnston, of Birmingham, Ala., for the respondent.
Mr. Yelverton Cowherd and Mr. D. H. Markstein, of Birmingham,
Ala., and Mr. Stanley Denlinger, of Akron, Ohio, for the United.
Mr. W. M. Rayburn, Mr. James B. Allen, and Mr. W. B. Dortch,
of Gadsden, Ala., for the Etowah.
Mr. Abraham L. Kaminstein and Mr. Robert Kramer, of counsel
to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMEIT Or THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by United Rubber
Workers of America, herein called the United, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) issued its complaint, dated
August 3, 1937, against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company of Ala-
bama, Gadsden, Alabama, herein called the respondent, alleging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint,
accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served, upon the respond-
ent, the United, and Etowah Rubber Workers Organization, Inc.,
herein called the Etowah, a labor organization alleged in the complaint
to have been dominated by the respondent.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance (1) that the respondent, by its officers and agents, and by
its conduct and representations, denounced the right of employees
at its Gadsden plant to organize, and created the impression upon the
law-enforcement officers of Gadsden, Alabama, that the respondent's
operations at the Gadsden plant would be increased if organization
activity of employees was prevented, and that consequently the United's
officers, agents, and organizers were not afforded appropriate protec-
tion in Gadsden from violence and assault; (2) that on or about June
8, 1936, the respondent discharged at the suggestion and upon the
request of representatives of the Goodyear "Industrial Assembly,"
308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and thereafter refused to employ until May 1937, 12 employees, and
on or about June 23, 1936, discharged at the request and upon the sug-
gestion of representatives of the Goodyear "Industrial Assembly,"
and thereafter refused to employ until May 1937, an employee, Ruth
Christopher, and at various times during 1937 discharged and there-
after refused to employ 16 employees, because of the affiliation with
and activity in the United of all the foregoing employees, and because
,of their engaging in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, and that by such dis-
charges and refusals to employ the respondent discouraged member-
ship in the United; (3) that since April 1, 1937, the respondent
sponsored, encouraged, and acquiesced in, a, series of acts of terrorism
directed against the United and the members of various other labor
unions in order to coerce and intimidate the respondent's employees
who desired to join a labor organization not dominated by the re-
spondent; (4) that at various times during 1937, as part of a campaign
of systematic terrorism against the United, by its agents the respond-
ent administered or caused to be administered severe beatings to
H. C. Adams, J. O. Glenn, B. E. Cleveland, and one Miller, all members
of the United, attempted to assault B. T. Garner, the special repre-
sentative of the United in Gadsden, held a meeting to plan violence to
outside organizers of the United, assaulted E. F. White, a representa-
tive of the International Molders Union, wrecked an automobile occu-
pied by 3 members of the United and threatened them with a shotgun,
caused a United member to be assaulted by other employees because of
a speech by him in furtherance of the United, and in several instances
with full knowledge of the facts rewarded its agents for the above
activities by promoting them to supervision or to the Goodyear Flying
Squadron at the Gadsden plant; (5) that since April 1937 the respond-
-ent dominated, interfered with, and contributed financial and other
support to the formation and administration of the Etowah, a labor
organization of its employees, in certain ways, such as: suggesting the
formation of the Etowah, permitting Etowah representatives and the
-respondent's supervisors to collect Etowah dues. during. working hours,
permitting, condoning, and sanctioning assaults on United members
by Etowah members, exerting influence by agents, foremen, and super-
visors to cause employees to resign from the United and join the
Etowah, posting a notice recognizing the Etowah and refusing to post
a similar notice for the United, and selecting, and dominating the
selection of, Etowah officers; and (6) that by the above acts the
respondent interfered With, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On August 14, 1937, the respondent filed an answer contesting the
Board's jurisdiction of the subject matter, denying that it had en-
gaged in the alleged unfair labor practices, and alleging affirmatively
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 309
that the United and not the respondent was guilty of such acts of
terrorism as occurred in Gadsden and frightened the respondent's
employees and their families. The answer also set forth certain ob-
jections to the proceedings based on the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution. These objections, relating to the procedure provided
for in the Act and followed by the Board, have been considered and
found without merit by the Supreme Court of the United ,States in
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corpora-
iion,l and need no further consideration.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Gadsden, Alabama, from
August 19 to December 1, 1937, before Walter Wilbur, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. During the first day of
the hearing the Trial Examiner granted the Etowah's motion that it
be allowed to intervene. The ruling is hereby affirmed. Thereupon
the Etowah filed an answer denying the allegations of the complaint
which charged the respondent with interference with, and domina-
tion and support of, the formation and administration of the Etowah.
The Board, the respondent, the United, and the Etowah were repre-
sented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all the parties.
During the hearing on several occasions the respondent's counsel
objected to the paiticipation of the United's counsel in the presenta-
tion of evidence concerning the respondent's alleged unfair labor
practices. The Trial Examiner overruled these objections. Having
filed the charges upon which the complaint was based, the United
was a party to the proceeding, and its counsel did not exceed his
rights under Article II, Section 25, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended. The Trial
Examiner's ruling is hereby affirmed.
At the opening of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a motion
by counsel for the Board, to which the respondent did not object, to
amend the complaint by adding the name of Zella Morgan to the
list of those employees allegedly discriminatorily discharged on or
about June 8, 1936, and reemployed in May 1937. On August 31,
1937, the Trial Examiner granted a motion of counsel for the Board,
to which the respondent objected, to amend the complaint by adding
the names of six employees to the list of those allegedly discrimina-
torily discharged by the respondent in 1937 and not thereafter rein-
stated, and by adding an allegation that the respondent, because
Woodrow Kilpatrick, an employee, belonged to and was active in the
United, permitted and condoned acts and threats of violence by its
employees against Kilpatrick which forced the latter on July 13,
1301 U. S 1 (1937)
283032-41-vol 21-21
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1937, to leave its employ. On September 29, 1937, the Trial Ex-
aminer granted a motion of counsel for, the Board, to which the
respondent objected, to amend the complaint by adding the names of
two employees to the list of those allegedly discriminatorily dis-
charged in 1937 by the respondent and not thereafter reinstated,
and by adding an allegation that on June 24, 1936, the respondent
discouraged membership in the United by discharging and thereafter
refusing to reinstate E. D. Taylor, an employee, because he twice
refused to sign certain petitions circulated. in the respondent's plant
and manifested a friendly attitude toward the United. During the
hearing the Trial Examiner also granted a motion of the Board's
attorney, to which the respondent did not object, to strike the testi-
mony of Jim Lynn, a witness for the Board, from the record and to
,amend ,the complaint by striking therefrom without prejudice the
allegations concerning the assault on one Miller and the discharge
in 1937 of two employees, Lynn and Troy Higdon. All the fore-
going rulings are hereby affirmed. During the hearing the Trial
Examiner permitted the respondent to file amendments to its answer,
denying that it had committed the unfair labor practices alleged
in the foregoing amendments to the complaint, and alleging affirma-
tively certain reasons why the respondent should not be compelled to
employ Kilpatrick, Christopher, and Ted Morton, an employee al-
legedly discriminatorily discharged in 1937. These rulings are
hereby affirmed.
On September 10, 1937, pursuant to an order of the Trial Examiner,
the hearing was held at Birmingham, Alabama, to permit the taking
of the testimony of Lucius Cleere, a witness for the United, who
because of a belief that his life was in danger in Gadsden, was
reluctant to testify there. On October 18, 1937, the Trial Examiner
denied a motion by counsel for the United for a change of venue.
On November 5, 1937, the hearing, pursuant to an order of the Trial
Examiner, was held at Atlanta, Georgia, for the purpose of taking
the testimony of F. C. Sheehan, a witness for the respondent, then
an inmate of the Federal penitentiary. These orders of the Trial
Examiner are hereby affirmed.
During the hearing all or part of the testimony of Cleere and of
nine witnesses 2 for the respondent or the Etowah was, pursuant to
the order of the Trial Examiner, taken in closed session, during
which the public was excluded from the hearing. In a brief filed
subsequent to the close of the hearing the respondent asserts that
the action of the Trial Examiner constituted prejudicial error in the
case of these nine witnesses. The record discloses that the respondent
2 These witnesses are* Irving Dutton , William Smith , Milton McDuff, H. D Self, F. C.
Sheehan, H C. Adams, Aubrey Rutledge , J. W Harwell , and Tom Hinson
GOODYEAR TIRE'& RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 311
raised no, objection to this procedure at the hearing except in the
case of one witness, H. D. Self, who testified after three witnesses
for-the respondent-Dutton, Smith, and McDuff-had testified in
closed session. In the 'case of Dutton, Smith, and McDuff, counsel
for the respondent expressly stated at the hearing that he had no
objection to the closed session. We will not consider these objections
to the conduct of the hearing in the case of the eight witnesses where
such objections were not presented to the Trial Examiner for a ruling.
In the case of Self, we are of the opinion that the Trial Examiner's
order was not prejudicial, error. ' The Trial Examiner ruled this
testimony of Self inadmissible, but, instead of limiting the respond-
ent to an offer of proof, permitted the respondent to take this testi-
mony of Self in order fully to protect the respondent's rights upon
a review of the case by the Board. Self's testimony was offered
solely to impeach the credibility of Cleere. The Trial Examiner
ordered the closed session because of the nature of Self's testimony,
which mainly concerned criminal acts allegedly committed by Cleere,
but for which Cleere had never been tried or convicted.3
The Trial Examiner excluded evidence offered by the respondent
to impeach the credibility of B. T. Garner, a witness for the Board,
by showing that Garner had committed certain acts in violation of
the laws of Alabama. The respondent did not offer to prove that
Garner had been, convicted for this alleged misconduct. The Trial
Examiner also excluded evidence offered by the respondent to impeach
the credibility of Cleere by" showing that Cleere had committed certain
criminal acts, for which he had never been tried or convicted. We
have previously pointed out reasons why, even where such evidence
is more germane to the issues before us for decision than in the
present case, we will not undertake to determine the guilt or inno-
cence of persons accused of crimes.4 The rulings are hereby affirmed.5
However, we are of the opinion that the testimony of J. W. Harwell
that he and Cleere engaged in illegal transportation of beer, which
contradicts 'the testimony of Cleere that Exhibit Number 10 of the
United was prepared by Harwell to reveal the respondent's unfair
labor practices, and not in connection with illegal transportation of
beer, should be admitted. To clarify the record, the following por-
tions only of the testimony of Harwell are hereby excluded : page
8 The foregoing comments are equally applicable to most of the testimony of Dutton,
Smith, Sheehan , Hinson, and Harwell, taken in closed session , without objection by the
respondent.
4 Hatter of Republic Steel Corporation and Steel Woi leers Organizing Committee, _ 9
N. L R. B 219, 387-88, enf'd, as modified as to other issues , Republic Steel Corp. v.
National Labor Relations Board, 107 F (2d) 472 (C C. A 3).
5 For the reasons hereinafter set forth, none of our findings of fact relating to the re-
spondent 's unfair labor practices are based in whole or in part on any testimony given
either by Cleere or Garner.
312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7242, line 1 to page 7248, line 21; page 7249, line 6 to page 7252,
line 6; page 7253, line 12 to page 7254, line 4; page 7254, line 20 to
page 7255, line 1; and page 7260, line 15 to page 7261, line 2; all
inclusive; and the following portions only of the testimony of Tom
Hinson are hereby excluded: page 7312, line 1 to page 7325, line 6;
page 7336, line 25 to page 7341, line 8; page 7343, line 16 to page
7345, line 11; and page 7347, lines 6 to 14; all inclusive.
The Trial Examiner also excluded exhibits offered by the respond-
ent and part of the testimony of Self relating to convictions of
Cleere and Garner for certain crimes. We are of the opinion that
Respondent Exhibit No. 44, relating to a conviction of Garner for
assault and battery, Respondent Exhibit No. 23, relating to a con-
viction of Cleere for driving an automobile while intoxicated, and
the testimony of Self relating to Cleere's arrest and conviction for
"fighting," we're correctly excluded by the Trial Examiner because
such evidence had no relevancy on the veracity of Garner or Cleere e
Respondent Exhibit No. 22, relating to 'a conviction of Cleere for
petit larceny, reflects on Cleere's veracity and is hereby ordered
admitted. We are also of the opinion that the Trial Examiner erred
in admitting certain exhibits offered by the Board and the United.
All exhibits of the Board except numbers 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 26, 35, and
37, all exhibits of the respondent except,numbers 2, 6, 19, 20, 21, 23,
24, and 44, all of the Etowah's exhibits, and all exhibits of the United
except numbers 6, 7, 8, and 9,7 are hereby ordered admitted and made
a part of the record. Any inconsistent rulings by the Trial Examiner
are hereby reversed.
During the cross-examination of the witness, J. J. Tucker, the
Trial Examiner 'sustained objections to certain questions asked or
sought to be asked by the respondent's counsel in order to impeach
Tucker's testimony concerning Garner's reputation and character
in the community by showing Tucker's lack of knowledge of certain
alleged acts of misconduct of Garner. These rulings are hereby
reversed. Since Tucker's answers and an offer of proof, which we
shall accord the same weight as testimony, appear in the record,
there is no need to reopen the hearing s
The Trial Examiner excluded testimony of H. C. Adams and
Aubrey Rutledge, witnesses for the Etowah, concerning activities,
threats, and violence of the United or its members. These rulings are
hereby reversed. All this testimony is in the record between pages
7117 and 7219, inclusive, and is hereby ordered admitted. The Trial
6 See footnote 5, supra.
7 United Exhibits 13, 13A, and 14 , affidavits made by witnesses prior to their testifying,
are admitted solely for the purpose of impeachment and not as probative of the facts
recited therein Matter of Lindeman Power and Equipment Company and International
Association of Machdniste. 11 N L R B 868
8 See footnote 5, supra
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, OF ALABAMA 313
Examiner 'also sustained objections to questions asked the witnesses,
B. R. McGraw and A. J. Jordan, by the respondent's counsel relating
to activities and violence or threats of violence of the United and its
members. These rulings are hereby reversed. In each case the re-
spondent's counsel made offers of'proof, which we shall accord the
same weight as testimony given by these witnesses.
During the hearing, ' at the motion of the respondent's counsel
without objection by other counsel, all the testimony of H. C. Griffin,
a witness for the Etowah, was ordered stricken from the record by
the Trial Examiner. The ruling is hereby affirmed.
At the conclusion of the hearing the Trial Examiner reserved de-
cision upon the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the Board had no jurisdiction over the subject matter for
the reason that interstate commerce had not been interfered with
or affected, upon the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint
because the allegations of unfair labor practices were not proven by
the evidence adduced at the hearing, and upon a motion by the
Etowah to strike those portions of the complaint which alleged the
commission of unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (2) of the Act, on the ground that no substantial evidence 'had
been produced to prove these allegations of the complaint. These
motions are hereby denied. Upon motion by counsel for the, Board
and for the respondent, the Trial Examiner ruled that the complaint
and the several amendments thereto with the, respective answers of
the respondent "be deemed amended to conform to the proof, as to
variations in names, dates and other insubstantial matters." The
ruling is hereby affirmed.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made a
number of rulings on other motions and on other objections to the
admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all these rulings of
the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On December 8, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II,
Section 37 (a), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 1, as amended, ordered the proceeding to be trans-
ferred to, and continued before, it. Thereafter the United and the
respondent submitted briefs to the Board. On December 30, 1937,
the Board ordered the Trial Examiner to file with the Board an
order ruling upon the admission of certain evidence upon which he
had reserved ruling during the hearing, and the Trial Examiner
did so. This order of the Trial Examiner is hereby affirmed, in so far
as it is not inconsistent with any rulings of the Board hereinbefore
set forth.
On January 11, 1938, the United moved to reopen the case in order
to submit evidence of alleged beatings of witnesses who had testified
314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the hearing, occurring after the close of the hearing. On January
18, 1938, the Board denied this request of the United to adduce fur-
ther evidence.
On February 1,- 1938, pursuant to notice duly served upon all
parties, oral argument was held before the Board in Washington,
D. C., by the respondent and the Etowah.
On September 6, 1938, pursuant to Article II, Section 38 (d), of
said Rules and Regulations, the Board ordered that Proposed Find-
ings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order
should be issued; that no Intermediate Report- was to be issued by the
Trial Examiner; and that the parties were to have the right to file
exceptions to these Proposed Findings, Proposed Conclusions of Law,
and Proposed Order within 10 days from their receipt, and within the
same time to request oral argument before the Board and permission
to file a brief.
On July 14, 1939, this order was amended by Article II, Section 37,
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
granting the parties the right to file their exceptions and to request
oral argument and permission to file a brief within 20 days from the
receipt of the aforesaid Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Con-
clusions of Law, and Proposed Order.
Subsequently, the Board issued and duly served on all parties Pro-
posed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed
Order, dated October 25, 1939. Thereafter, the respondent, the
United and the Etowah filed exceptions to the Proposed Findings of
Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order. The re-
spondent and the Etowah filed briefs in support of their exceptions.
In its exceptions, the respondent petitioned the Board for leave to
present evidence to show that witnesses who testified at the hearing
for the respondent had no financial interest in the outcome of the
proceeding, were not induced, threatened, or coerced by the respond-
ent, and had no offer from the respondent of advantage or detriment
in connection with their testimony. This petition is hereby denied.
On January 4, 1940, pursuant to notice duly served on all parties,
oral argument, in which counsel for the respondent, the Etowah, and
the United participated, was had before the Board in Washington,
D. C. During oral argument and in a written motion filed there-
after, the respondent asked the Board for permission to present evi-
dence concerning labor disputes involving the United at the plant
of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company of Ohio, in Akron, Ohio. ThF
respondent introduced evidence relating to these matters at the hear
ing, and there is no indication that the evidence now sought to be
introduced was unavailable at, or has been discovered since, the hear-
ing. This petition is hereby denied. During oral argument and in
a written motion filed thereafter the respondent also requested per-
GOODYEAR TIRE '& RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 315
mission to place in the record evidence relating to, and certified
copies of, certain proceedings in the courts of Alabama and of the
United States concerning suits for damages brought against the re-
spondent by certain individuals, including employees allegedly dis-
criminatorily discharged by the respondent in 1936. This motion
is hereby denied 8a In its exceptions, and in a written motion filed
after oral argument, the respondent petitioned the Board for leave
to examine the members and staff of the Board in order to show that
the Board had violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution
by abdicating its function of deciding the case and turning such
function over to subordinates. This petition is hereby denied Sb
After oral argument the respondent, pursuant to permission given
by the Board, filed a brief.
In its brief the respondent asked the Board to set aside and give
no further consideration to the Proposed Findings of Fact, Pro-
posed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order; to set aside the
Order transferring the proceedings to the Board; and to transfer
the, proceedings to a Trial Examiner for the taking of further evi-
dence and the issuance of a preliminary report. This motion is hereby
denied.
The Board has considered all the briefs of the respondent, the
Etowah, and the United, and has reviewed the exceptions of all the
parties and finds the exceptions to be without merit, except as they
are consistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order
set forth below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company of Alabama,
is an Alabama corporation with its principal office and place of busi-
Sa The respondent 's contention that such suits, to which the Board was not a party, are
res judicata on the issues of this case and binding on the Board is without merit Matter
of Hill Bus Co., Inc. and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen , Rockland Lodge No. 329,
2 N. L R B. 781 ; Matter of National Electric Products Corp . and United Electrical and
Radio Workers of America, Local No. 609, 3 N. L R. B . 475; Matter of United States
Stamping Co . and Enamel Workers Union, No 18630, 5 N. L. R B 172 ; Matter of Fansteel
Metallurgical Corp. and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North
America, Local 66, 5 N. L. R. B. 930; Matter of Williams Manufacturing Co. and United
Shoe Workers of America, 6 N L R. B. 135 ; Matter of Mason Manufacturing Co. and
United Furniture Workers of America, Local No 576, 15 N L. R. B 295
Sb National Labor Relations Board v. Bales -Coleman Lumber Co , 98 F. ( 2d) 16 (C. C. A.
9, 1938 ) ; Cupples Company Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board, 103 F. (2d)
953 (C. C A. 8, 1939) ; Inland Steel Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 105 F.
(2d) 246 (C. C. A. 7, 1939) ; National Labor Relations Board v. Botany Worsted Mills,
Inc, 106 F. ( 2d) 263 ( C. C. A. 3, 1939 ) ; National Labor Relations Board v. Lane Cotton
Mills Co ., Inc. 311 U. S. 723.
316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ness in Gadsden, Alabama. The respondent is engaged at a factory
in Gadsden in the manufacture of inner tubes and rubber-tire casings.
During the period from June 1, 1936, to May 31, 1937, the respondent
in its manufacturing operations at Gadsden used 35,847,504 pounds
of rubber, worth $5,793,486.99; 8,007,920 pounds of carbon black,
worth $385,676.74; 4,515,350 pounds of zinc oxide, worth $227,382.80;
2,385,211 pounds of bead wire, worth $262,703.65; 1,175,950 pounds
of sulphur, worth $23,109.55; 794,400 pounds of clay, worth $4,410.40;
27,734 tons of coal, worth $86,375.18; and 10,607,334 pounds of fabric,
worth $2,842,123.52. Eighty per cent of the fabric, 25 per cent of
the coal, and all of the other above-listed materials were shipped to the
Gadsden plant from points outside the State of Alabama. The total
value of the 77,513,908 pounds of finished goods produced by the
Gadsden plant during the same period was $12,520,540.72. During
the months of August and September 1937, which are representative
of the normal operations of the Gadsden plant, at least 90 per cent
of the approximately 400,000 tires manufactured at the plant were
shipped to points outside the State of Alabama, 40 per cent being
sent directly to automobile factories in Michigan and Indiana. At
the time of the hearing there were 1650 employees at the Gadsden
plant.
The respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goodyear Tire
and Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation, herein referred to as
the Ohio Corporation. The respondent has no income of its own,
and all of its expenses such as the pay roll of the Gadsden plant, are
paid by the Ohio Corporation, except for certain sums paid by the
respondent itself for freight charges. The respondent sends all re-
quests for raw materials to the office of the Ohio Corporation at
Akron, Ohio, and the Ohio Corporation either purchases these, ma-
terials or obtains them from its other subsidiary corporations and
arranges for their delivery to the respondent at the Gadsden plant.
The volume and type of the respondent's products is determined by
instructions given it by the Ohio Corporation. The respondent's
products are sold and distributed by the Ohio Corporation or the
wholly or partially owned subsidiary corporations of the Ohio Cor-
poration, which take delivery of these products at the Gadsden plant.
The respondent neither pays the Ohio Corporation for materials
furnished by the latter, nor receives payment for the tires and casings
delivered by it to the latter or the latter's agents. The executive
officers of the respondent are identical with the ' executive officers of
the Ohio Corporation.
The above facts show that, as A. C. Michaels; general superin-
tendent in complete charge of the Gadsden plant, testified, the
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 317
respondent is operated virtually as a department of the Ohio
Corporation.
None of the respondent's executive officers or directors are sta-
tioned at Gadsden. Michaels is responsible to C. Slusser, vice presi-
dent and factory manager of the respondent in charge of production,
who is stationed at Akron, Ohio. Michaels testified that he had sole
control of the hiring and discharge of employees and the general
labor policies and problems of the Gadsden plant. Bartlett Morgan
is the night superintendent at the plant.
The operations at the Gadsden plant are divided into several
divisions : (1) The engineering division, headed by N. A. Nigosian,
under whom is the master mechanic, E. G. Mallory; (2) the develop-
ment division, headed by J. M. Frye, under whom is J. C. Mangels,
the chief chemist; under Mangels are L. E. Edwards, head of the
testing laboratories, and W. H. Rudder in the chemical compound
service; (3) the personnel division, headed by H. S. Craigmile,
under whom are L. E. Miller, head of the labor department and the
"squadron," and J. Work, head of the plant police; (4) division C,
purchasing, headed by Superintendent G. G. Bloom, under whom
are B. H. Simmons, head of production control, and C. E. Jellicourse,
the chief dispatcher; (5) division B, headed by Superintendent N. A.
Neiger, under whom are various shift and department foremen; in
the departments in this division tires are built, cured, and inspected;
and (6) division A, headed by Superintendent V. L. Folio, under
whom are various shift and department foremen; in the departments
in this division the materials used in tire building, such as crude
rubber, are processed. The heads of these six divisions, together
with Michaels, Morgan, and Basseler, the chief accountant, comprise
the factory council, an informal organization meeting weekly in the
plant to discuss all important plant problems.
The "squadron" is a group of about 25 men, usually chosen from
among the outstanding employees of the plant, or from among recent
college graduates.' The purpose of the squadron is to aid in balanc-
ing production and to enable the members to be trained for super-
visory positions. Over a 3-year period, members are taught every
operation in the plant, filling in the positions of absentees and em-
ployees on vacation. They thus become available for use throughout
the plant. They are paid on a graduated hourly rate. In addition
to the actual training in each position, members are given special
class instruction. Members of the squadron are closely supervised
by Miller, the employment manager, who is the squadron foreman.
Each member reports daily to Miller, and his work for the day is
The present squadron, according to the testimony of Miller , the squadron foreman, has
a large percentage of college men.
318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assigned at that time. The squadron is regarded by the respondent
as a reservoir of supervisory material. Michaels testified that the
respondent usually selected its supervisors from squadron graduates.
Miller referred to the squadron as a "wholesome source for potential
supervisional material." In fact, squadron members are only tempo-
rarily part of the non-supervisory staff, for after completing the
3-year course and graduating from the squadron, they are termed
"tentative supervisors" 10 and are usually given supervisory positions
as soon as possible 11
The relation of squadron men to supervisory officials has been dis-
cussed by the Board in a previous case.12 There the Board found
that the squadron men were a select group with an intimate rela-
tionship to the management, and that they must be considered as a
group distinct from ordinary employees. The purpose of the squad-
ron and the special training and prospects of its members set them
apart. Because of the opportunities open to squadron men, they are
prone to regard themselves as a group supplementary to the super-
visory staff, and undoubtedly their interests are much more likely to
be those of foremen than those of the rank and file of the employees 13
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Rubber Workers of America is a labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the respondent. The United was
first organized at the respondent's plant in Gadsden in June 1933 as
Federal Local No. 18372, directly affiliated with the American Feder-
ation of Labor. In September 1935. United Rubber Workers of
America was constituted a separate International, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, and Federal Local No. 18372 became
Local No. 12 of the International. In October 1936 the International
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.14
to Thus Miller testified that T. L Bottoms, after graduation from the squadron, "was a
tentative supervisor and when the opening came to work in a supervisory capacity where
he had the most experience he was transferred "
n Examples of squadron graduates transferred to supervisory positions are : T. L Bot-
toms, who, after his graduation from the squadron at Gadsden, became a working super-
visor and later a shift foreman ; Joe Tucker, Louie Jones, M. G. Dunn, B L. Crow, and
P. G. McDaniel, upon graduation from the squadron, all became supervisors or labor
trainers. Tucker testified that a labor trainer was "practically the same" as a supervisor.
Claude Dorough, a squadron graduate, became a production inspector in the tire room, and
then was transferred to supervision.
' Matter of Goodyear Tare and Rubber Company of California and United Rubber Work-
ers of America, Local No. 131, 3 N L R. B. 431, where the Board excluded squadron men
from an appropriate bargaining unit consisting of production and maintenance employees.
13 Thus M. G. (Pete) Dunn testified :
Q. At that time were you a supervisor or just a member of the squadron?
A. I was a member of the squadron learning supervision.
Q. And you were not acting as a supervisor at that time?
A. Well, not in full capacity, no, sir
14 Hereinafter, both Local No. 12 and its predecessor, Federal Local No. 18372, are
referred to as the United.
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 319.
The Joint Conference Plan was an unaffiliated labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the respondent .114a During
April and May 1937, as hereinafter explained, this organization was
dissolved by the respondent.
Etowah Rubber Workers Organization, Inc., is an unaffiliated labor
organization incorporated under the laws of the State of Alabama.
It admits to membership all employees of any corporation engaged
in the manufacture of automobile and truck tires or any other articles
of rubber within the boundary of Etowah County, Alabama, except
executives and those authorized to hire and discharge. So far as
the record shows, the Etowah has organized only the employees of
the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The occurrences described in this subsection either occurred before
July 5, 1935, the effective date of the Act, or are not the subject of
allegations in the amended complaint, and subsequently we make no
findings of unfair labor practices by the respondent in connection
with these events. However, because later practices of the respond-
ent have their origin in these occurrences, a knowledge of this back-
ground of events is vital to a proper evaluation of these subsequent
practices 15
The United began to organize the employees of the respondent at
the Gadsden plant in June 1933. That same month the respondent's
officials put into operation at the Gadsden plant the Joint Conference
Plan, hereinafter called the Plan. The Plan was modeled after an
organization started at the Akron plant of the Ohio Corporation
about 15 years previously. Under the Plan the employees at the
Gadsen plant were divided into eight precincts, each of which elected
by secret ballot an employee representative. The first elections were
held in June 1933. During this and the subsequent elections held
during the existence of the Plan, the respondent's foremen, such as
Robert Goodall, foreman of the tire room, made a practice of checking
up on the employees in their departments to discover those who had
14a The respondent excepted to the Board ' s proposed finding of fact that the Joint Con-
ference Plan was a labor organization . The testimony of Michaels and of Burna Beck,- an
employee representative of the Plan , establishes , and we find , that-the Plan existed for the
purpose , in whole or in part , of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances , wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, and conditions of work of employees The Plan,'
therefore , was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act. '
15 See Pennsylvania Greyhound Ltines, Inc ., Greyhound Management Company , Corpora-'
tions and Local Division No. 1003 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Rail-
way and Motor Coach Employees of America, 1 N. L R B. 1, order enforced , National
Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc . and Greyhound Management
Company, 303 U. S. 261 ( 1938 ). 1 ^ - - '
320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not voted and of asking the non-voting employees why they refused
to vote and if there was any reason why they disliked the Plan.
According to the testimony of Michaels, in 1936 in the last election
held for the Plan, 1200 of the 1600 employees at the Gadsden plant
voted. Craigmile, head of the personnel department, at various times
suggested to employees that they should run for Plan offices. The
respondent paid all expenses of the Plan, furnishing the ballots and
holding the elections on its property. The respondent also paid all
employees for the time they spent in voting. The eight employee
representatives elected under the Plan met with the members of the
factory council, except Bassler, to present and discuss employee
grievances and problems. Michaels presided over these meetings.
The employee representatives were paid by the respondent for the
time they spent at these meetings, which were held in the plant.
Slusser had final supervision over all the awards and decisions of the
Plan council.
L. D. Hayes, an employee, testified that the company officials, dur-
ing one of the elections when he did not vote, "had me up and begged
me to vote"; that his foreman, Goodall, suggested that he should vote;
that he told Goodall that he could not belong to two organizations,
referring to his membership in the United; and that when he
asked Goodall if voting was compulsory. Goodall replied that it was
not. Joseph Doyal, an employee, testified that early in 1935 when
Goodall asked him why he had not voted, he replied that he belonged
to the other organization, referring to the United, and did not believe
in the Plan ; that Goodall told him that the Plan had obtained a raise
for him and that the Plan was "better than nothing" ; and that when
he persisted in his refusal to vote, Goodall remarked that if anything
happened to him, he should remember that Goodall had talked to him
about this. Goodall testified that he had asked Doyal and other
employees why they had not voted, but denied that Doyal and Hayes
had given their membership in the United as a reason for not voting
or that he had made the other remarks to Doyal which the latter tes-
tified to. In view of these admissions of Goodall, we find that his
partial denials of the testimony of Doyal and Hayes are not to be
credited. We find the facts to be as set forth above in the testimony
of Doyal and Hayes."'
"'In its Exceptions to the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law,
and Proposed Order of the Board , the respondent asserts that the proposed findings are
erroneous because they resolve numerous conflicts in testimony in favor of the credibility
of witnesses for the Board and the United The Board has carefully examined and con-
sidered all the evidence , including the conflicting testimony of the witnesses . In making
its findings relating to the credibility of these witnesses and their testimony , the Board
has taken into account. in addition to the factors set forth above in its Decision, the
plausibility of the testimony in view of the virtually undisputed and uncontradicted evi-
deuce, including the admissions of the respondent witnesses , relating to the attitude and
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA .321
Further light on the operation of the Plan is given by the testimony
of Louis Jones.l" Emmett Taylor, an employee in the tire room, had
been rehired in the spring of 1936 by the respondent. Jones testified,
and we find, that Charles Dooley, shift foreman in the tire room,
"carried" him around and "introduced" him to Taylor a day or two
after Taylor had begun work there. Jones then told Taylor that he,
Jones, was the tire-room representative of the Plan, explained the
Plan to Taylor, and expressed a willingness to handle any complaints
Taylor had. Taylor had not asked to see Jones nor did Taylor have
any grievances.
In 1936 T. L. Bottoms was chairman of the Plan employee repre-
sentatives. Bottoms, who had also served two previous terms as an
employee representative, was at this time a member of the squadron
working in the employment office of Miller.
It is plain from the previous description of the formation and
administration of the Plan that it was completely dominated and
supported by the respondent. The respondent suggested the Plan to
its employees as soon as an outside union, the United, began to
organize its employees. The method of operation of the Plan was
formulated by the respondent. The respondent paid all expenses of
The Plan and also paid all Plan members for all time they spent on
Plan business, such as voting. The respondent's supervisory em-
ployees not only made clear to the employees the interest taken by the
respondent as to whether or not the employees voted in the Plan, but
also by their suggestions dominated the selection of officers for the
Plan. New employees, such as Taylor, Were introduced to Plan
representatives by the respondent's officials. So far as the record
shows, the employee Plan officers held no meetings except those at
which the factory council was present. Thus the respondent, itself,
through the factory council, directly participated in the activities
of the Plan and the formation of its policies and decisions. And the
respondent, by its officer, Slusser, had final decision on all Plan mat-
ters and awards made by the Plan council.
As subsequently described, the respondent dissolved the Plan dur-
ing April and May 1937, but it must be remembered that for almost
^2 years after the effective date of the Act, the respondent dominated,
conduct of the respondent, its superNisory employees, and members of its flying squadron,
toward the United, the Plan, the Etowah, the various assaults and other incidents, de-
scribed above, and the leaders and participants therein The Board has given weight to
the financial or other interests of the witnesses in the outcome of this proceeding , and also
to the fact that in several cases, as for example those of Neiger, Goodall, and Linn, numer-
ous witnesses testified to substantially similar conduct on the part of an individual who
denied such activity.
19 Jones was a member of the squadron from 1941 to 1935. He then served as a super-
visor in the tire room for 4 or 5 months, but from March until August 1936, while be was
a Plan representative, be was a truck-tire builder. In August 1916 he again became a
supervisor.
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interfered with, and contributed support to the Plan, and that dur-
ing all this time the United was attempting to organize the respond-
ent's employees.
At the same time that it fostered the Plan, the respondent kept
close watch on the activities of the United and on several occasions
indicated to interested employees the hostility of the respondent
toward the United.
Craigmile testified that he first heard of the United's activities at
the Gadsden plant in July 1933; that he was "pretty well" informed
of the United's activities during the subsequent months through
statements voluntarily made to him by various employees who had
joined that organization and subsequently become dissatisfied with
it; and that an officer of the United, at this time, one Hirst, in partic-
ular gave him information about the United, apparently hoping for
a promotion from the respondent as a reward for this information,
but that the respondent did not, in fact, give Hirst this promotion.
The record shows that the respondent did not hesitate to make use
of this data it received concerning the United. Thus, C. S. Holmes,
an employee, joined the United in July 1933 and was elected vice
president. The day after his election he was summoned to the
office of Frank Steele, then superintendent of the plant, and asked
if he was an officer of the United. Holmes admitted that he was.
One Horton, a plant policeman, complained to Bottoms, a Plan
representative in 1933, that Craigmile had rebuked him because he
had joined the United. Bottoms spoke to Craigmile concerning this
incident and Craigmile informed him that the plant policeman could
not join any union but must remain neutral in order "to protect
both sides and the property." C. H. Glover, an employee and a
witness for the respondent, who joined the United in 1933, had
attended several United meetings, during which, he testified, there
was much discussion concerning a proposal to call a. strike at the
Gadsden plant. Glover did not attend the meeting at which the
strike proposal was voted upon, but he learned later that the strike
had been voted down. The evening of the day that the strike vote
had been taken, Charles Eckles, Glover's foreman, came to Glover's
house and told Glover, "We heard they voted on a strike." Glover
replied, "There is nothing to it."
When F. H. DeBerry, a tire builder and a member of the United,
in 1936 asked Neiger, division superintendent, for time off in order
to go to Montgomery, Alabama, as a United representative for a
conference relating to certain poll-tax legislation, Neiger replied
that such a request showed that DeBerry was not "loyal" to the
respondent. T. E. Bazemore, an employee, testified that in 1936 he
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 323
asked Miller to give his brother a job in the plant ; and that, when
Miller refused , he made a similar request of Superintendent Neiger,
who replied that the respondent could not use Bazemore 's brother
because the brother might "turn out like" Bazemore concerning the
"union," and that the respondent could not depend on Bazemore
because of his union activities . Neiger testified that Bazemore asked'
for a job for his brother but denied that he told Bazemore anything
except that Bazemore should see Miller . Miller testified that at
Bazemore 's request he interviewed his brother but was unable to
employ him because no jobs were then available for a man of his
small physique . We find that Miller interviewed Bazemore's brother
and that Neiger made the remarks to Bazemore contained in the
testimony of-the latter , set forth above.
Thomas Cartee , an employee , joined the United soon after it was
organized and became a member of the United grievance committee.
Cartee testified that he had been a supervisor but that after joining
the United he was taken off of supervision and given a job with less
pay; that after his demotion , because of the illness of an employee
regularly on his former supervisory job, he performed supervisory
work for 1 day; that when he asked his foreman, A. F. Linn, why
he was permitted to work on supervision for a day only instead of
permanently as previously , Linn told him to see Division Superin-
tendent Neiger ; and that Neiger told him that he had "got" all that
he would ever get as long as he was working at the respondent's
plant, that he would never advance beyond his , present non-
supervisory job as long as he worked for the respondent , and that
he, Neiger, did not know "how long that will be." According to
Cartee's testimony , Neiger later approached him after he had tem'
porarily dropped his United membership , and said that he, Neiger,
had heard that Cartee had. "dropped out" of the United, that Car-
tee's standing had once been "pretty high" at the plant but that
Cartee had let his union membership "drag" him down, and that
if Cartee would " forget" the union he, Neiger , would see that Cartee
was rewarded . Neiger denied the above testimony of Cartee,
stating that Cartee had been a supervisor only in 1929, and
that he knew. Cartee belonged to the United , but that the only
occasion on which he had discussed the United with Cartee was
when he had rebuked Cartee for soliciting members for the United
during working hours in the plant in 1936. S. W. Caudle, an
employee belonging to the United, testified that Neiger told him
that Cartee had once been a supervisor but now was rolling molds
and "he will continue , he will never get any better as long as he
is here . . . you union men will never go no higher." Neiger denied
making such remarks to Caudle. We are of the opinion that the
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testimony of Cartee and Caudle is to be credited, and we find the
facts to be as set forth above in their testimony.
Lucius Grady Cleere testified that after working for almost 2
years at a steel plant in Gadsden as a labor spy, in April 1936 he
was employed by the respondent for similar activity. Cleere tes-
tified that Mike Self, head watchman in the steel plant, recommended
him to the respondent as a labor spy; that he first spoke to Bottoms,
who told him to report either to Miller or to Bottoms which em-
ployees belonged to the United; that later Miller gave him a list of
United members, told him to watch them, and to report to Miller
or Bottoms to which employees these United members spoke; and
that on one occasion in April or May 1936, he and Bottoms, at
Bottoms' suggestion, had followed two union organizers for a day
around Gadsden. Cleere testified that although Bottoms and Miller
expected reports from him, he never gave them any but instead told
them that he was unable to obtain the information they wanted; and
that in May 1936 Miller and Bottoms finally told him that if he
could not obtain the necessary data in any other way he should join
the United. Cleere also testified that he recommended that the
respondent hire his brother as a labor spy and that the respondent
subsequently hired his brother. According to Cleere, his foreman,
Charles Dooley, informed him shortly before June 1936 that "he
knew I was all right . . . and wanted me to be ready to do my
part . . . at the breaking of the organization up."
Bottoms and Dooley denied the above testimony of Cleere. Miller
testified that he remembered hiring Cleere as an ordinary employee;
that Cleere's testimony concerning labor espionage was false; that
Cleere on several occasions had asked him for a list of employees
who "belonged to the union"; and, that he had told Cleere that the
respondent did not have such a list. Cleere's testimony is un-
corroborated. He has a criminal record and a bad reputation for
veracity. But we have previously pointed out that labor spies often
have records and characters similar to Cleere's.17 Moreover, his
testimony is not improbable in view of the evidence previously set
forth concerning the respondent's observance and knowledge of the
United's activities. And the denials of Miller and Bottoms are of
doubtful credibility in view of our disbelief, as hereinafter pointed
out, of much of their testimony relating to other incidents. How-
ever, we are of the opinion that Cleere's testimony concerning labor
espionage should not be used as the basis of any findings of fact in
this proceeding.
17 Matter of Panther-Panto Rubber Cc, Inc. and United Rubber Woikern of America,
Local #156, 11 N. L. R. B. 1261.
GOODYEAR T1RE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 325
B. Interference , coercion , and restraint ; and the 1936 discharges
and lay-offs
As we have previously stated, the complaint , as amended , alleges
that the respondent , by denouncing the -right of its employees to
organize , and creating the impression upon the law-enforcement of-
ficers of Gadsden that the operations at the respondent 's plant would
be increased if the organizing activity of the employees was pre-
vented, caused the United officers and organizers to be given insuffi-
cient protection from violence and assault in Gadsden ; that on or
about June 8, 1936, the respondent discharged , at the request of
representatives of the Plan, 12 employees because of their United
membership and activity ; and that during June and July 1936
the respondent discharged 3 other employees because of their United
membership and activity . These allegations necessitate a detailed
analysis of events occurring in Gadsden during June 1936.
1. Narrative of events
a. The June 6 meeting
Soon after the United was organized in 1933, a committee rep-
resenting its members conferred with the respondent on several
occasions in order to adjust grievances. During the year 1935, the
respondent at the request of a United representative posted a list
of the officers and committees of the United on each of the eight
bulletin boards in the plant.
Late in May 1936 the respondent discharged two employees, E. L.
Gray and one Apperson. Both were prominent members of the
United, Gray being president. Early in June, Sherman Dalrymple,
International president of the United, came to Gadsden in order to
discuss these discharges with the respondent and also to aid the
United in its organizing campaign among the respondent's em-
ployees. On the morning of June 4 at the plant, Joseph D. Doyal,
an employee belonging to the United asked Michaels to meet with
Dalrymple to discuss the discharges. Michaels agreed to do so that
afternoon. Doyal testified that Michaels then told him that the
meeting would not do "any damn good." Michaels denied making
this remark and testified that he merely told Doyal that the re-
spondent considered "the case closed" so far as the discharges were
concerned. We believe that Doyal's testimony is to be credited.
That afternoon the two discharged employees, together with Doyal
and Dalrymple, met with Michaels and Craigmile at the plant.
Neiger was also present during the latter part of the conference.
283032-41-vol 21-22
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The discharges were discussed. The respondent's officials asserted
that Gray had been discharged because attachments had repeatedly
been levied against his wages and that Apperson had been dis-
charged because of dishonesty in attempting to conceal a mistake in
his work. Dalrymple stated that he was dissatisfied with this expla-
nation of the discharges. After pointing out the uniform success
that he had had in adjusting grievances at the Akron plant of the
Ohio Corporation, Dalrymple stated that on one occasion he had
succeeded in adjusting a grievance by threatening to "let the hammer
drop" and bringing "the pressure of his organization to bear." The
respondent's officials, however, remained adamant concerning
the discharges. Doyal testified that both Michaels and Craigmile
contended during the conference that the Plan should have been
used in order to settle the grievances; and that Michaels stated that
it had "always" been the respondent's policy to deal with the em-
ployees through the Plan and that the respondent had no use for the
United, which was a "bunch of radicals" and "communists."
Michaels testified that he told Doyal that the respondent felt that it
had a "very good relationship" with the employees through the
Plan. Michaels denied making the other remarks attributed to him
by Doyal, and Neiger, who was in the conference only part of the
time, and Craigmile both corroborated Michaels' testimony. How-
ever, in view of Michaels' admission of his reference to the Plan,
we are of the opinion that Doyal's testimony is to be credited. At
the end of the conference Dalrymple invited the three officials to
attend a mass meeting to be held by the United on the evening of
June 6 at the courthouse in Gadsden. Michaels refused the invi-
tation, and Dalrymple left, saying that it was apparent that Michaels
liked him but not what he belonged to.
On June 5 and 6, 1936, handbills were distributed in Gadsden
announcing that an open meeting would be held on the evening of
Saturday, June 6, at the courthouse in Gadsden, at which Dalrymple
would speak about the United and its organizing campaign. J. H.
Chapman, an employee, testified that when he was working at the
plant on June 6, M. G. (Pete) Dunn, a member of the squadron,
told' him and other employees that Dalrymple was coming to organ-
ize the employees and "now is the time we are going to have to
stop this . . . we are going over there tonight at 7 o'clock and we
want you to go with us . . . you don't have to carry anything, just
go along, if you want to, and be along with us . . . of course, if
you want to, you can bring a rotten egg or a brickbat or anything
ydu can find ... we are going to drive him out of there." Accord-
ing to Chapman, when an employee objected that the men might be
arrested, Dunn replied, "We done called up over there, Mr. Miller
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 327
has, and made arrangements that nobody won't get arrested over
there; the whole town is for us; we are going over there and put
him out, we are going to put a stop to this." Another employee,
L. C. Brown, testified that that same day while he was working
in the plant Pete Dunn asked him to come down to the courthouse
that evening, saying that a "God damn Communist" was coming
there "to try and tear up the plant here . . . we want to go over
there and beat hell out of him and run him out." Dunn testified
that he asked several people if they were going to the courthouse
meeting, but could not recall speaking to Brown or Chapman. We
believe that the testimony of Chapman and Brown is to be credited,
and find the facts to be as set forth above in their testimony.
B. E. Cleveland, an employee, testified that while he was working
on June 6, his shift foreman, Ralph Chalfant, told him that "a
damned Union agitator from Akron was coming down there to
instigate a strike or to agitate a strike and . . . they were going to
beat him up, send him back to Akron on stretchers." Cleveland
testified that Chalfant asked him to come down and help and that
when he asked about the police or the sheriff, Chalfant said, "Hell
... you haven't got a damn thing to worry about . . . We've done
got that fixed with Bob Leath [the sheriff] and the city commission."
Chalfant denied making these remarks, but we find that he did so.
D. W. Barnett, an employee, testified that as he was leaving his
work on June 6 he heard Louie Jones, a squadron graduate and a
representative of the Plan, tell another tire builder, "We'll get to
throw our eggs tonight." J. H. Benefield, a tire builder, testified
that on June 8, Jack Hall, an employee, told him that Jones had
told him, Hall, on June 5 to be at the courthouse and that there
would be "plenty of rotten eggs to throw." Jones did not deny
making the above remarks but merely testified that he knew of no
plan to break up the United meeting. We find that Jones made
these remarks.
The meeting on the evening of June 6 began with a short speech
by Dave Green, president of the Gadsden Central Labor Union.
During Green's speech the only disturbance came when C. L. Mc-
Gath y, a working supervisor in the engineering department, inter-
rupted Green and asked why Green believed that the employees at
the Gadsden plant were not satisfied with the present working con-
ditions. Green told McGathey to ask questions at the end of the
speech, but McGathey did not avail himself of this privilege. The
next speaker at the meeting was Dalrymple. Although McGathey
termed Dalrymple's speech "a normal one," Dalrymple, according to
the respondent's witnesses, all of whom were employees present at
this meeting, aroused their anger by stating that he was going to
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organize the employees at the Gadsden plant ; that if he was not big
enough for this job, no one was; that. if anyone in Gadsden stated
that he was satisfied with the working conditions at the Gadsden
plant he either "didn't know what he was talking about" or "was
lying"; that he could close the Gadsden plant with the help of 30
men; and that if necessary he would bring some "loyal Alabamians"
from the Akron plant to help him organize the Gadsden plant. Pete
Dunn, McGathey, and Bill McCay, an employee in the engineering
department, interrupted Dalrymple's speech by attempts to question
him. Pete Dunn testified that when he left the meeting temporarily
during Green's speech, he found several sacks of vegetables on-the
stairway, from which he secured some tomatoes. Walter Rudder, a
chemist at the plant, testified that early in Dalrymple's speech he
left the courthouse, bought a dozen and a half eggs at a nearby store,
and returned to the courthouse and distributed them to various mem-
bers of the audience. T. L. Bottoms testified that he, like Rudder,
left the courthouse during Dalrymple's speech, bought 2 dozen eggs,
returned and distributed them among the audience. Although Rud-
der and Bottoms both testified that they had no idea of breaking
up the meeting until Dalrymple's speech had provoked them, Burna
Beck, an employee and witness for the respondent, testified that he
obtained eggs from Rudder before he entered the courtroom and
that he heard all the remarks in Dalrymple's speech which Rudder
and Bottoms testified so annoyed them that they decided to obtain
the eggs and break up the meeting. We do not believe, therefore,
that Rudder and Bottoms obtained their eggs because of Dalrymple's
remarks. Moreover, Beck obtained his ammunition before hearing
a single word uttered by any speaker, and Pete Dunn got his to-
matoes before Dalrymple spoke. Horace Lowry, an employee in the
engineering department who, as later set forth, led an assault on
Dalrymple, also had heard none of the speeches in the courtroom.
We find, therefore, that, as is indicated by the evidence previously
set forth concerning remarks made by Pete Dunn, Jones, and Chal-
fant at the plant before the meeting, Pete Dunn, Rudder, Beck,
Jones, and Bottoms went to the Dalrymple meeting with a definite
plan of breaking it up and that the speech of Dalrymple merely
served them as a pretext for carrying out this plan. In fact, the
respondent's witnesses, McGathey, Beck, and McCay, each gave a.
different remark of Dalrymple as the one which finally provoked
the riot.
As the evidence shows, the ensuing riot began when McGathey,
who had been constantly interrupting Dalrymple's speech, rose from
his seat in the courtroom and, followed by a large group, began to
rush toward the speaker's platform. In the words of McGathey,
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 329
"We surged through there." As McGathey attacked, R. Clyde Tur-
ner, an employee in the engineering department, followed by Rudder,
Beck, Bottoms, Jones, Pete Dunn, Carl Dunn, an employee, Jim
Hudson, an employee in the engineering department, and Roy A.
Girard, an employee, threw various missiles, such as eggs and vege-
tables, at Dalrymple. Several fights then broke out in the court-
room between Dalrymple's assailants and his protectors.
Pursuant to Dalrymple's request, Doyal left the courthouse and
went to the nearby police station, where he informed the desk
sergeant that Dalrymple was "getting mobbed" at the courthouse.
The sergeant made no reply and did nothing. Doyal then asked him
"what he was going to do about it." The sergeant finally sent out a
radio call for two police cars. Doyal returned to the courtroom;
where he found two city policemen, G. H. Diggs and W. T. Abrams;
near Dalrymple. Doyal testified that he heard Dalrymple tell Diggs,
"Why don't you keep this down, I am trying to have a peaceful meet-
ing here"; that Dalrymple then pointed to Turner and said to Diggs,
"here is a man just started cursing ... this man just called me'a
God damned son of a bitch" ; that Diggs asked Turner if he had
made this remark; that Turner replied, "damned right I did"; and
that Diggs, when asked by another man to arrest Turner, remarked,
"You shut your mouth or I'll put you in jail." Horace Lowry in large
part corroborated Doyal's testimony, which Diggs and Abrams denied.
We believe Doyal's testimony. Lowry also testified that Turner; im.
mediately after cursing Dalrymple before the policemen, struck
Dalrymple in the face. Turner and McGathey corroborated this
testimony of Lowry, which we find is to be credited. We find the facts
to be as set forth above in the testimony of Doyal and Lowry. Turner
was never arrested or punished for his actions on June 6.
Shortly after Turner had hit Dalrymple, R. A. Leath, the sheriff,
arrived and suggested to Dalrymple that the latter leave the court-
house. Dalrymple and his wife, together with Leath, went out the
back door. As they were walking down the street to the nearby
hotel at which Dalrymple was staying, a crowd ran up and Horace
Lowry made a "leap" at Dalrymple and, together with other members
of the mob, succeeded in pulling Dalrymple away from the sheriff.
Rudder, Lowry, Bill Norris, an employee, B. L. Crow, a squadron
member, McGathey and Bottoms, together with other members of the
mob, then' proceeded to give Dalrymple a' beating. In fact; Bottoms
testified, "I hit him [Dalrymple] every chance I got." The members
of the mob finally escorted Dalrymple inside his hotel, ordered his
baggage to be brought down, and told him to leave town. Dalrymple
and his wife, escorted by the police, then did so.
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Miller did not attend the meeting ; however, he testified and we
find that during the meeting he was sitting in a drug store directly
opposite the courthouse where he hoped to hear the speeches, which
he understood were to be broadcast by a loud speaker. During and
after the meeting Miller conversed with several employees, including
Bill Norris, McGathey, Carl Dunn, and Carl Hudson.
Immediately after the meeting had been broken up and Dalrymple
had been forced to leave Gadsden, several of the respondent's em-
ployees proceeded to the Gadsden plant and for the remainder of the
night patrolled the grounds near the pump house in order to prevent
anyone blowing up the pump house, as rumors in Gadsden predicted
would happen. Pete Dunn and McGathey drove several employees
out to the plant after the riot but did not join the pump-house guard.
Jones, Beck, Girard, Turner, John McCulloch, a production inspector
of tires who had been in a fight at the courthouse meeting, and A. J.
Jordan and M. L. Chaffin, employees, were among those who spent
the night on guard at or near the pump house. Miller and Craigmile,
who had been informed around midnight by a plant watchman of the
presence of unknown men near the pump house, went there, found the
employees on guard, and conversed with them.
b. The events of June 8
On Monday, June 8, 1936, three employees, members of the United,
received severe beatings while at work, and together with four other
employees, also United members, were forced to leave their work at
the plant. Shortly thereafter, these seven employees, together with
five other employees, members of the United, were laid off or
discharged by the respondent.
These events started with a quarrel between Turner and Edward
Ledlow, an employee and a member of the United grievance com-
mittee. According to Turner's testimony, Ledlow, who had been
doorkeeper at the June 6 meeting, shortly after the riot had begun
during the meeting had cursed and threatened Turner, who was
throwing eggs, and had pressed something into Turner's back.
Turner testified that he was informed by Girard and Rudder late
Sunday afternoon that Ledlow had pressed a gun into his back Sat-
urday evening. According to Turner, he decided to obtain revenge
upon Ledlow, Saturday evening, but informed no one of his intention
to do so until after his arrival at the plant Monday morning, when,
about 7 o'clock, 5 minutes before he assaulted Ledlow, he told two em-
ployees, Jim Hudson and Horace Lowry, of his plan. Lowry testified
that Turner at this time told him, Lowry, about his plan to assault
Ledlow because Ledlow had drawn a gun on him; and that he agreed
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 331
to help Turner by watching 0. G. Lake, an employee and Ledlow's
brother-in-law. Turner testified that he walked up to Ledlow in the
plant about 7 o'clock at the latter's bench; that when Ledlow denied
having any gun or drawing one at the Dalrymple meeting, he hit Led-
low, who hit back; that the two men then clinched and fell on the floor,
fighting; and that eventually 25 or 30 men surrounded the two,
fighters, whom Beck and Lowry separated. Lowry testified that
Turner hit Ledlow, who fell, then arose and knocked over Turner;
and that he then pulled Ledlow off Turner, grabbing Ledlow around
the neck, and turned Ledlow over to the other employees, who were
rushing over and who gave Ledlow a further beating, until Beck
finally took Ledlow away. Lowry testified that there was a crowd
of only six or eight about the fight, most of whom were on Turner's
side. Ledlow testified, and we find, that Turner came up to him
while at work, asked him a question about a gun, and then hit
and knocked him down; and that subsequently about 15 men beat
and kicked him until Beck came up and led him away. Among his
other assailants, Ledlow identified McCay, Carl and Pete Dunn,
Beck, McGathey, and Crow. Crow admitted hitting Ledlow several
times. Carl and Pete Dunn did not deny participating in this assault,.
and we find that they did so. McGathey and McCay testified that
they were present merely as bystanders, and Beck testified that he
attempted only to break up the fight.
Turner, Lowry, and several other witnesses for the respondent all
testified that there had been no previous plan to assault or evict any
employees belonging to the United from the plant, but that spon-
taneously, after the Turner-Ledlow fight, groups of employees decided
to carry out such a scheme. However, the testimony of John Mc-
Culloch, a squadron graduate and production inspector of tires who.
testified for the respondent, clearly shows this testimony of Turner
and these witnesses of the respondent to be false. McCulloch testi-
fied that immediately after the Dalrymple meeting he, Turner, Mc-
Gathey, Carl and Pete Dunn, and Carl Hudson met on the street
and decided to run out several employees from the plant on Monday.
We find, therefore, in accordance with the testimony of McCulloch,
that the above-mentioned employees of the respondent had plotted
the evictions on the night of June 6 and that Turner used the "gun"
matter merely as a pretext for beginning the evictions.
Turner testified that after Ledlow had been taken away he walked
over to S. W. Caudle, an employee, who belonged to the United, and
hit Caudle, who started to run and was seized by Carl Dunn, who
carried him out of the plant. Turner testified that he attacked
Caudle because the latter "was with Dalrymple down here the night,
Saturday night before, and he was one of the undesirables, and I
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wanted to run him out . . . he hadn't done anything." Caudle
testified, and we find, that Turner hit him on the jaw, saying he did
not like "the looks" of Candle's face, and ordered him to run; and
that Carl Dunn kicked him out of the plant. Girard, Crow, and
Pete Dunn were also among the group which forced Caudle to leave.
DeBerry was the last employee to be beaten and evicted. His chief
assailant was James H. McGinty, then a tire builder. According
to the testimony of McGinty, which was in a large part corroborated
by that of Crow, he was a mere bystander when a crowd, of 10
or 12 employees surrounded DeBerry at the latter's machine, and he
entered into the assault only when DeBerry cursed and made an insult-
ing remark which he believed was meant for him. This testimony of
McGinty and Crow, however, concerning the reasons for McGinty's
participation in this eviction is contradicted not only by the testimony
of DeBerry and other witnesses for the Board, but also by that of
Girard and McCulloch, witnesses for the respondent. We are of the
opinion, therefore, that the testimony of McGinty and Crow in regard'
to this incident is unworthy of belief. DeBerry testified, and we find,
that McGinty, together with about a dozen men, including Crow,
Girard, and Joe Tucker, then a labor trainer, surrounded him, and
that McGinty stated, "We want you," and then hit him, knocking him
I o the floor, where the others kicked him.
After McGinty had hit and knocked out DeBerry, Paul Dooley, an'
employee not a member of the United, remonstrated with McGinty
for this assault on DeBerry, and McGinty thereupon knocked out
Dooley. One Lorren, or Laurin, another employee not a member of
i he United, also attempted to remonstrate with McGinty, and simi-
larly was hit by McGinty. Having thus disposed of three employees
single-handed, McGinty requested the other members of his group to
take the lead in evicting the next employee, F. D. Love, a member of
the United. A crowd of 12 or 15, including Crow, Carl and Pete
Dunn, and McGinty, surrounded Love, who at their request left his
work. Love was not beaten.
Ledlow testified without contradiction and we find that during the
entire assault on him, T. P. Smith, shift foreman, was present only
15 to 30 feet away and did and said nothing.'
Cartee, a member of the United then at work in the plant, testified
that when he saw Beck and Jim Hudson leading Ledlow out of the
plant he met Foreman Goodall; that he asked Goodall what was
happening; and that Goodall replied, "You will know in a few min-
utes." Goodall denied making this remark to Cartee. While Carl
Dunn was kicking•Caudle out of the plant, he also passed by Goodall,
who'remarked, "that is enough." Dunn ignored this remark. W. T.
White, a tire builder, testified that shortly before DeBerry was beaten
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 333''
tip, he asked Goodall what the trouble in the plant was, and that
Goodall replied, "the non-union is throwing out the union" and "they
are going to throw some out in the tire room." White testified that
during the beating of DeBerry, Dooley, and Lorren, Goodall delib-
erately stood at the back of the tool house about 20 feet away, and
did nothing to stop the fighting. White testified that after Lorren
had been beaten up, the group of evicting employees , apparently for-
getting whom they next were to assail ; sent Crow and Tucker over to
Goodall ; that Crow and Tucker asked Goodall who was the next man
to go; and that Goodall replied it was Doyal, whom they would
find on the other side of the tool house. Goodall and Tucker denied
The above testimony of White. Crow did not deny White's testimony.
Doyal testified that, having seen the other evictions , he spoke to
Goodall and asked , "Are you throwing us all out?"; that Goodall
replied that he did not know ; that he said, "I suppose you are sending
them after me . . . Why don't you fire me like a man? "; and that
Goodall made no reply . Doyal also testified that he asked Superin-
tendent Neiger, "Are you having us all throwed out?"; and that
Neiger said he did not know. Neiger denied having any such con-
versation with Doyal . We find that his denial is not to be credited,
and that the facts are as set forth above in Doyal's testimony.
Shortly thereafter a group of employees led by Bottoms,-Carl
Dunn, and, according to the testimony of Doyal , Tucker, ordered
Doyal to "get the Hell out." Doyal went to the locker room. He
was not beaten. Doyal testified that the following day he saw
Goodall , who told him that neither Doyal nor Love had been beaten
because Goodall had told the employees merely to tell Doyal and
Love "to get out," that if Dalrymple had not come to Gadsden these
incidents would not have happened , that the United was "a bunch
of radicals trying to live off the working man," and that the "bunch
of radicals has got in" the Akron plant and "stirred up a ljunch of
trouble."
Goodall denied all of the above testimony of Doyal, except that
he stated that, before being evicted, Doyal asked him for permission
to go home , saying that he was afraid of being evicted , and that he,
Goodall, merely ordered Doyal to return to work. Goodall and John
Cunningham , shift foreman , testified that they first learned of the
evictions when Lorren, after McGinty had hit him, told them about
this incident ; that when Goodall questioned McGinty about it, Mc-
Ginty replied that it was "none of his damned business" ; and that
Goodall then ordered McGinty to report to the labor department.
McGinty never reported. Cunningham and Goodall testified that
then they tried to get the employees in their department back to
work and to get the employees who did not belong in that depart-
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment out of it. We find the facts to be as set forth above in the testi-
mony of Cartee, White, and Doyal, which we credit.
Labor Trainer Tucker denied that he aided in the eviction of
DeBerry or anyone else. Tucker testified that after McGinty had
knocked DeBerry down, he asked McGinty what the latter was doing
and also tried to get the ei'iployees back to their machines, but was
told by the employees that it was none of his "damned business what
they were doing." Tucker claimed that not only McGinty but also
Lorren made this remark to him. However, since Lorren was sub-
sequently attacked by McGinty for interfering with him, it is ex-
tremely improbable that Lorren made such a remark to Tucker.
We find, therefore, that Tucker did not attempt to stop the evictions
but rather actively participated in them, as shown by the testimony
of White, DeBerry, Doyal, and Barnett.
Supervisor Joe Clayton also watched the beating of DeBerry, and
during it told some of the employees who were watching it to, "get
back to your machine and keep your mouth shut and tend to your
business." Clayton made no effort to check the beating of DeBerry.
S. R. Hershiser, Caudle's foreman, • testified that he learned of
Caudle's eviction only after it was all over; and that he heard that
Pete Floyd, an employee in his department, had taken an active part
in this and other evictions.
K. F. Keefner, an employee belonging to the United, asked his
supervisor, Ross Giblen, what was happening. Giblen made no reply.
A few minutes later Keefner was asked to leave the plant by Girard
and Pete Dunn. Keefner left the plant.
The last employee to be evicted was 0. G. Lake, a member of the
United and the brother-in-law of Ledlow. Shortly after the Led-
low-Turner episode, Beck warned Lake to leave the plant. Lake
asked his supervisor, Ted Smith, what to do, and Smith replied that
he was not "having anything to do with it." Lake then started to
leave the plant, but as he was departing, a group of 10 men chased
him. Lake took refuge in a small gatehouse outside the main build-
ing of the plant. The employees following him stood around the
gatehouse for a while and then proceeded back toward the plant.
Among those who chased Lake out of the plant were Jim Hudson,
Carl and Pete Dunn, Crow, McCulloch, M. L. Chaffin, and Pete
Floyd. Several other employees, including Bottoms, Beck, and Carl
Hudson, now also came out into the yard outside the plant and
joined Lake's evictors. Cartee testified that at this time Michaels
drove into the yard and asked Jim Hudson 18 what was going on;
that Hudson replied, "you know what is going on"; and that Mi-
18 Hudson testified that he was a gang pusher or working supervisor in charge of three
men in the engineering department.
GOODYEAR TIRE'& RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 335
chaels then "grinned" and drove off. Michaels did not deny this inci-
dent, but testified that when he drove up to the plant that morning
he saw a large crowd of employees in the yard, spoke to several of
them, and received no reply. Hudson testified that he told Michaels
that it was "none of his damned business, we was tending to it."
Chaffin, another one of the evietees; corroborated Hudson's, testimony
and stated that Cartee, was not outside the plant at this time because
Horace Lowry had been selected by the, evictors to watch Cartee
and keep Cartee in the plant. Lowry did not testify that' he had
been assigned to watch Cartee but stated that he had agreed to watch
Lake, the brother-in-law of Ledlow. We find the facts to be as set
forth above in Cartee's testimony, which we credit.
Shortly after various employees had gathered in the yard outside
the plant, Craigmile approached them. When Craigmile asked what
was happening, McGathey told Craigmile, "We are running these
agitators out of the plant, that's what we are doing." McCay told
Craigmile that it was "not any of his damned business." Craigmile
ordered these employees to go back to work and to stop fighting.
As the group were entering the plant, Jim Hudson suggested that a
committee should be formed to see Craigmile and Miller about dis-
charging the employees that had been run out and other United mem-
bers who worked on the afternoon shift at the plant. Beck, Turner,
Bottoms, Jim Hudson, Supervisor McGathey, and other employees
discussed Hudson's suggestion and agreed to it. Turner prepared a
list of 20 employees, including the 7 who had already been run out,
and he, Beck, Bottoms, McGathey, and Jim Hudson presented the
list to Miller and demanded that the employees named in it be dis-
charged. Miller replied that he would see Craigmile, and he did so.
Craigmile, after consulting Michaels, told Miller that he would 'meet
with the employees' committee and asked Miller to tell the employees
to increase the size of their committee in order to represent more
fully the employees in the plant. Various other employees were then
added to the committee. Rudder was asked to serve by McGathey,
who was "active" in forming the committee and getting employees
to serve on it. Jones, a worker in the tire room who that day was
working on the afternoon shift at the plant, nevertheless came to the
plant early that morning. Jones testified that at the request of
several employees in his department he, too, agreed to serve on the
committee. Pete and Carl Dunn, R. A. Culberson, a working su-
pervisor in the engineering department, Carl Hudson, Pete Floyd,
and Girard were other committee members. Craigmile testified that
he met with the committee, who refused his request to allow all 20
men on their list to remain at work. He testified, however, that
after considerable argument, the committee agreed to consider fur-
336' DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS- BOARD
ther 8 of the employees on the list, when, after conferring with
Michaels, he agreed that the other 12 employees would be laid off
by the respondent. Seven of the 12 had been evicted; the other 5,
Hayes; Holmes, F. B. Adams, Hugh _ Milam, and L. R. Stewart, all
members of the United, worked on the afternoon shift. Craigmile
did not threaten to discharge or otherwise discipline the committee
members. In fact, Girard testified, and we find, that Craigmile told
the committee, "whatever you fellows think is right, why, we want
to do it." -
Subsequently, during this day the eight employees were summoned
before this committee, which met in a private dining room in the
plant. In the presence of Craigmile they were questioned by the
committee concerning their union activities and membership, their
belief in "radicalism," and their attitude toward the union. activities
which had occurred at the Akron plant, of the Ohio corporation.
The employees summoned before the committee were Cartee, R. F.-
Lambert, Dooley, R. H. Scott, A. H. Benefield, J. L. Hudson, Dis-
muke, and Zella Morgan. All eight were permitted to return to work,
but, in the words of Rudder and McGathey, only after they had con-
vinced the committee that they were, or would be, "through with"
their union activities. -
. Craigmile testified that he was present merely as a referee in order
to protect the rights of the employees called before this committee.
Scott testified that when he appeared before the committee, Craigmile
asked if he belonged "to the union"; that when he replied that he
did not, Craigmile told the committee to let him go back to work since
he did not belong; and that thereupon the committee let him return
to, work. Cartee testified that Craigmile told him that he, Craigmile,
was chairman of the committee, and that he had heard that Cartee
no longer belonged to the United; and that when he replied that he
did not belong, he was allowed to return to work. Benefield testified
that Craigmile questioned him about how he stood "on this Union
business"; that Craigmile told him.that "a group of men in here that
we have got that we think a lots of . . . say that they are going
to quit if we don't get rid of a bunch of the other men . . . that is
our business,'what we have got you up here for." Morgan testified
that Craigmile informed her that he was there to see that she "got
a square deal," but that he "would have to do what the committee told
him to." Morgan testified that she was warned by Craigmile and
members of the committee, after being informed that she could return
to work, that if she was seen too much with union organizers, the
committee would have to reconsider her case.
On the basis of the above testimony of Scott, Morgan, Cartee, and
Benefield, which we believe, we are of the opinion that the testimony
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 337
of Craigmile and other employee members of the committee that
Craigmile merely acted as referee and did not question the employees
concerning their union membership is not to be credited. However,
even if we were to accept Craigmile's version of this incident, we
would conclude that he adopted the action of the committee as his
own by participating in this lawless proceeding and not using his
authority to put an end to it.
T. E. Bazemore, an employee who belonged to the United, testified
that shortly after the evictions had ceased on June 8, he asked Super-
intendent Neiger what was happening and whether he would "get
the works too" ; and that Neiger replied that he did not know, that
he thought Bazemore "was on the list," and that the respondent had
"got tired of those fellows and run them out." Bazemore testified
that the next day Neiger informed him that the committee would see
him that day. Bazemore testified that on the following day, June
10, Neiger told him to forget the committee, stated that lie would
have his job as long as he wished but would have to "lay off the union
activities," said that if the union organizers came, to tell them "to go
to hell," and remarked that "John L. Lewis and all of them was
interested in nothing but stirring up trouble." Neiger denied all the
testimony of Bazemore. Neiger testified that on June 8, Bazemore
did ask what had happened and if he would be "run out"; and that
he, Neiger, replied' -that, he knew nothing about" this. Scott testified
that on June 8, shortly after the evictions, Neiger asked him what he
"thought about the damn Union now" and stated that the union men
had been "kicked and cursed out" of the plant and would never have
another job with the respondent "as long as they live." Neiger de-
nied this testimony of Scott. We are of the opinion that Neiger's
denials of this testimony of Scott and Bazemore are not to be cred-
ited. We find the facts to be as set forth above in the testimony of
Scott and Bazemore.
By the end of the afternoon of June 8, the respondent at the re-
quest of the employees' committee had laid off or discharged 12 em-
ployees, all members of the United,-and had permitted the committee
to interrogate 8 other - employees concerning their union activities
and membership. Not a single employee was in any way punished
or disciplined by the respondent for participating in any, of the
events of June 8 previously described. ,
A few days thereafter, on June 13, Craigmile prepared a written
statement concerning his participation in the employees' committee's
interviews of the eight employees. He thereupon summoned each
of the eight employees, except Benefield, one by one to his office and
requested them, in the presence of Rudder and Crow, to sign this
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
statement.l" In view, of the conditions under which the statement
was signed by the employees, we are of the opinion that any state-
ments in it not in accord with the findings made in this decision are
not to be credited.
c. The Riverside meeting
About a week after June 8 the United sent George Roberts and
several other organizers to Gadsden to aid in organizing the respond-
ent's 'employees. Roberts testified that shortly after his arrival he
spoke to Adolph Reich, part owner and manager of two local hotels,
who informed him that "organizations were not very well taken"
in Gadsden, and that he would not have much success in organizing
the workers there because he and other Gadsden citizens believed
that if there was no labor trouble at the respondent's plant the pro-
duction and pay roll would be doubled. Reich testified that he
merely told Roberts that he did not believe that the citizens of Gads-
den would stand for such disturbances as had occurred during the
United organizing campaign in Akron. At the hearing, Reich de-
nied that there was any agreement with the respondent that pro-
duction would be doubled if there was no labor trouble at its plant.
For reasons subsequently set forth, we find it unnecessary to resolve
this conflict in the testimony of Roberts and Reich.
On June 16 or 17, Roberts and Yelverton Cowherd, the United's at-
torney, saw J. H. Meighan, one of the three members of the City Com-
mission of Gadsden, to obtain permits in connection with an open
meeting to be held in Gadsden on June 20. Meighan informed them
19 This statement , signed by the seven employees and witnessed by Rudder and Clow, is
set forth below
Know All Men By These Presents,
That we, the undersigned , make the following statement of our own free will and
accord and without coercion or intimidation and describe said statement as a true and
faithful recitation of the facts about our examination before a committee of the
employees of the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company of'Alabama on June 8 and 9.
Each of us upon entering the private dining room where the meeting was held saw
H S Craigmile seated at a table with a number of Goodyear employees.
Each of us after sitting down ii as told by Mr. Craigmile that our names were on a
list given him by this Committee and that the management had been requested by this
Committee to remove our names from the payroll of the Company
Each of us was told by Mr. Craigmile that by reason of his position as Personnel
Manager of the Company it was part of his job to see that every employee got a square
deal from everyone while he was on Company property. And because of this, that he,
Mr. Craigmile, was sitting in this meeting not as ' a member of the Committee, but as
a referee to see that our rights were protected and we were treated fairly.
Each of us was then given a chance to talk about our union affiliations and we
were closely questioned as to our opinion on radicalism
After each of us had been asked a number of questions by members of the Commit-
tee we were voted on by the Committee. In each case the vote was favorable and we
were told that we might go back to work and carry with us the best wishes of each
member of the Committee
In each case this announcement was made to us by Mr. Craigmile not as a pro-
nouncement of his but as a simple statement of the result of the vote of the Committee.
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 339
that the Gadsden officials would not tolerate any intimidation or
coercion . Roberts assured him that there would be none. Roberts tes-
tified that Meighan also stated that the respondent had assured him
that the production and pay roll of its Gadsden plant would be doubled
if labor troubles were kept down . Meighan denied making this last
remark to Roberts . The following day Roberts and Cowherd met all
three members of the Commission , J. H. Meighan , Dr. R. A . Burns,
and Dr. George S. Vann , chairman . When the Commissioners stated
that they did not want labor troubles , such as had occurred in Akron,
to take place in Gadsden , Roberts assured them such troubles would
not occur in Gadsden . Roberts testified , and Meighan and Vann 2°
denied, that the three members of the Commission referred to assur-
ances given them by the respondent that the pay roll and production
of the Gadsden plant would be doubled if there were no labor troubles
there. For reasons subsequently set forth, we find it unnecessary
to resolve these conflicts in the testimony of Roberts , Vann, and
Meighan.
On June 18 and 19, the City Commission enacted several ordinances.
One gave the police authority to enter homes and make arrests without
a warrant ; one regulated the use of loud speakers, microphones, and
other amplifying devices; 21 one was entitled "an ordinance to prohibit
boycotting , unfair lists, picketing , of (sic ) other interference with the
lawful business or occupation of others , printing , or circulating notice
or (sic ) boycott, using force or threats against persons engaging in
lawful occupations, attempting or threatening to injure or destroy
property of another, unlawfully taking possession of property of an-
other, teaching, printing books or papers , or organizing porsons (sic)
to violate the provisions of this ordinance "; and the last was entitled
"an ordinance prohibiting anyone from preventing or attempting to
prevent any person from engaging in peaceful work or lawful in-
dustry" 22 Although Vann, chairman of the Commission , testified that
the ordinances were passed , not because of the United meeting but
"due to a general state of unrest everywhere ," Commissioner Meighan
admitted that the United meeting probably "prompted" the passage
of these ordinances.
During their meeting with the Commission , Roberts and Cowherd
asked that police be present at the June 20 meeting to preserve order
and to protect the speakers and others present. Roberts and Cowherd
informed the Commission that they were particularly afraid that
employees of the respondent ,'and of the Gulf States Steel Company,
20 Burns did not testify at the bearing.
21 The Commission had denied Roberts ' request for permission to announce the June 20
meeting in Gadsden by the use of amplifying devices.
22 The last two ordinances were substantially the same as two ordinances enacted in
1926 by the Gadsden city officials.
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and of the Dwight Textile Mills, other large manufacturing corpora-
tions in Gadsden, intended to break up the meeting or cause distur-
bances at it. The Commission, as a result of the request of Roberts
and Cowherd for police protection, authorized Sam L. O'Bannon, the
Chief of Police, to obtain the services of as many special deputies
for June 20 as he deemed necessary. O'Bannon testified that despite
the fact that Roberts and Cowherd had told him and the Commission
that they feared disturbances at the June 20 meeting by the employees
of the respondent and of the Steel Company and the Textile Mills
he decided to select his special deputies from the employees of these
three plants, because "it occurred to me that they seemed to be afraid
of those places; they said there was going to be some trouble coming,
from those different plants . . . I said, `Let's see if we can't get some
good men out of those plants that is for law and order' . . . there cer-
tainly could be some law-abiding people in each plant." O'Bannon then
interviewed Miller and asked Miller to send him whatever employees
Miller believed "we could depend on . . . that would enforce the law
and was for law and order." O'Bannon let Miller have free rein in
picking out the employees to serve as deputies. O'Bannon testified
that he did not ask Roberts or Cowherd for any aid in selecting the
men to be chosen as deputies nor did he consult the Commission.
Miller obtained Craigmile's consent to furnish the deputies. Miller
testified that he, himself, selected most of the men, including eight
members of the squadron, who were to serve as deputies, consulting
Bottoms about the selection of some. Miller testified that he selected
men for deputy duty who, he thought, were "dependable, reliable boys
who were broad minded and could take care of themselves and do a
good job for Chief O'Bannon." The list of those chosen includes
many who had taken an active and leading anti-United part in the
incidents of June 6 and June 8; such men as Crow, Pete Floyd, Joe
Tucker, Chaffin, Jim and Carl Hudson, Jones, McGinty, Beck, Horace
Lowry, Culberson, McGathey, Turner, Norris, McCulloch, Bottoms,
Rudder, and Pete Dunn all were asked to serve as deputies. Miller
admitted at the hearing that at the time he chose them for deputy
duty he knew that Carl Hudson and McGathey had participated in
the riots and evictions of June 6 and 8, and had heard that Rudder
had also done so.' Miller also admitted that at this time he knew that
Bottoms belonged to the employee group which was hostile to the
United. In fact, the presence of Turner, Jim Hudson, Beck, Bot-
toms, and McGathey on the employees' committee of June 8 which
first saw Miller must have revealed to Miller the hostility of these
men toward the United. Moreover, the anti-United feeling and activ-
ity of McGinty was known to Goodall and Cunningham, and that
of Pete Floyd was known to Hershiser. Finally, Craigmile knew of
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 341
the' hostility of all the members of the June 8 committee, such as
Pete and Carl Dunn, Pete Floyd, Jones, Rudder, and Bottoms, toward
the United. Yet Miller, acting pursuant to the authority given him
by.Craigmile, selected these men to preserve order and protect the
speakers and audience at a United meeting. Even at the hearing,
Miller testified that he still considered that all these men had been
well chosen for deputy duty. It is apparent that Miller in choosing
"reliable boys who were broad minded" and "for law and order"
could not have considered that participation in the rioting and evic-
tions of June 6 and 8 or intense hostility toward the United dis-
qualified an employee from serving as a deputy. In fact Miller
testified :
Q. How did you happen to select these 2 men [Rudder and
Bottoms] and send them to the City Hall as special deputies?
A. Those 2 we asked for in particular, we figure are 2 of our
highest type personnel, they are dependable and good workmen.
Yet Miller also testified :
Q. You don't think it is characteristic of high type personnel
for a man to have the reputation of beating up people and
throwing eggs at speakers, do you?
A. No, sir.
Miller did not explain why, if the above testimony in regard to the
characteristics of high-type personnel represented his opinion, he still
chose such men as Rudder, McGathey, and Carl Hudson, for deputy
service. We are of the opinion and we find that Miller, by selecting
these employees for deputy service, when he or other supervisory
employees of the respondent knew of the anti-United feeling of these
employees and of their participation in and leadership of the events
of June 6 and 8, showed the respondent's approval and ratification
of this conduct and feeling of these employees. Moreover, Miller
turned over complete control of the group of deputies to Bottoms.
Miller gave the list of chosen men to Bottoms and not only let Bot-
toms contact all the men on the list and ask them if they were willing
to serve, but also allowed Bottoms to summon all the men to a
meeting held on June 18 in the plant cafeteria during working hours
and to address this meeting, and to explain the nature of their pro-
posed duties to the men. In accordance with the testimony of
McCulloch, a witness for the respondent, we find that Bottoms also
mentioned at the cafeteria meeting the rumor that union miners were
coming to "take" the,-town of Gadsden. McGathey also addressed
this meeting in the cafeteria and warned the men "to go down there
and hold -our. heads."
283032-41-vol. 21-23
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the morning of June 20 all the special deputies, including those
from the Goodyear plant, assembled at the City Hall. Commissioner
Burns made a short speech in which he told the men "don't go down
shooting off your heads, don't be talking, just do your work .. .
Remember , you are now working for Gadsden , and are its representa-
tives . We are all in the same boat; we are going to rise or fall with
Gadsden. It is a fight for Gadsden and Gadsden's people ... against
radicals and outsiders coming in." Miller also was present and at the
request of Commissioner Vann made a short speech to the assembled
deputies.
That afternoon the meeting was held and except for one or two
minor events, such as the firing of a shot accidentally by one of the
special deputies, no disturbances occurred. Most of the special depu-
ties were stationed at points away from the meeting while it was
held, but some of them, including Rudder, Crow, and Bottoms, never-
theless managed to attend part of the meeting.
All employees of the respondent who served as deputies were paid
by the respondent for the time they thus lost from their work at
the plant, the piece workers receiving their average hourly earnings.
Craigmile testified that this, payment was made in accordance with the
policy of the respondent to aid city or State authorities by furnishing
employees for special duty and paying them their regular wages while
on such assignments.
d. The declarations
B. E. Cleveland, an employee, was twice asked, while working in
the plant shortly after June 8, by Earl Stein, an employee, to sign
the declaration set forth below :
We, the undersigned, hereby declare that our relations with
the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company of Alabama are now
and have always been most satisfactory and pleasant.
There is absolutely no difference between the management
and ourselves at the present time, and should any differences
arise in the future we feel certain that proper adjustments will
be made by the management.
It is our purpose to peacefully pursue our employment in
the future, as in the past, and do not wish anyone to meddle in
our affairs.
We have made the above declaration voluntarily and without
solicitation upon the part of our employer.
Cleveland refused to sign, although Stein told him that he ought
to do so if he "thought anything" of his job . Later another
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 343
employee, one Lacey, asked Cleveland in the plant to sign this
declaration.
Emmett D. Taylor, an employee, when he returned to work shortly
after June 8 after several days' absence due to illness, saw Miller,
who asked him if he "was satisfied with conditions in the plant"
and if he was willing "to go back and go to work and be satisfied
and make no complaint." Taylor testified that later, on June 23,
while at work he was asked by Jones to sign a paper stating that
he "was satisfied with conditions in the plant" and that the em-
ployees "could get along all right without any outside interference"
and settle their "own troubles through the local company representa-
tion" plan; that he refused to sign; that a short time later Jones
again asked him while he was working in the plant to sign; and
that he again refused. Jones testified that he, himself, signed such
a declaration in front of the plant but denied that he ever circulated
it or asked Taylor to sign it. In view of Jones' numerous activities
showing hostility toward the United at this time, we find the facts
to be as set forth above in Taylor's testimony, which we credit. As
hereinafter set forth, Taylor, a short time later, was discharged
by the respondent because of his refusal to sign this declaration.
Ruth Christopher, an employee, while working in the plant about
a week before June 25 was asked to sign this declaration by Jordan,
an employee, and refused. Later that day one Phillips, a supervisor
in the tire room, when told by Christopher that she had not signed
the declaration, informed her that she would "get in trouble" for
not doing so. Christopher testified that that same day Superin-
tendent Neiger summoned her to his office and said that he had been
informed that she was not satisfied with her work in the plant and
never had been and never expected to be; that she then told Neiger
about being asked to sign the declaration; and that Neiger stated
that he knew nothing about it. Neiger testified that he merely called
in Christopher to rebuke her for other matters, and that, upon
learning from her that the declaration was being circulated in her
department, he told her that she need not sign it and ordered her
foreman, Hershiser, to obtain the paper. Hershiser and Neiger both
testified that they were unable to find it. We believe Christopher's
testimony concerning this incident., and find the facts to be as set
forth above in it.
Bottoms testified that the declaration was circulated by Turner,
Beck, and Jim and Carl Hudson between June 20 and 25; and that
he had not circulated it but had signed it. Bottoms testified that
the declaration was not circulated under the auspices of the Plan,
of which he was then employee chairman. However, the evidence
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
showed, and Bottoms did not deny, that on June 17 the following
statement had been published in the Gadsden newspapers :
We, representing substantially all the workers in the Gadsden
district, heartily endorse the editorial appearing in the Gadsden
Times, issue of June 12, entitled, "Peace, Don't Disturb It."
From our close and friendly contact with the people of this dis-
trict we are satisfied that this editorial expressed the almost
unanimous view of all classes of citizens.
We take this method and occasion to assert that reasonable
wages are being paid, satisfactory conditions and peaceful rela-
tions exist between the workers and employers in this district.
We are determined to maintain such conditions at all cost and
will resist to the utmost any interference by outsiders or other
persons with such relations, thereby endangering our jobs and
inflicting injury on the community and the business interests
thereof.
We appreciate the fact that the business and professional peo-
ple of the city and the community, as a whole, have assured us
of their intention to stand by and support us in the stand we are
taking for the support and happiness of our families, industrial
peace, continuous work, and the consequent prosperity for the
district.
Gulf States Steel Company employees, by Charles M.
Williams, Chairman, Gulf States Steel Protective
Association; by C. A. Eaves, Chairman, Gulf
States Advisory Committee. Dwight Manufac-
turing Company employees, by J. Fred Wilson,
Chairman. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
employees, by T. L. Bottoms.
On June 25, Bottoms, as chairman of the Plan, issued a statement,
published in the Gadsden newspapers, that substantially every em-
ployee had signed the declaration previously set forth.
Miller testified that he had never given permission to Bottoms or
anyone to circulate the declaration through the plant but that he was
aware that employees were being asked to sign it.
The facts set forth above show, and we find, that the respondent's
supervisory employees, such as Miller, Neiger, and Phillips, indicated
to employees the respondent's approval of the ideas expressed in the
declaration and its hostility toward employees unreceptive to these
ideas.
e. The events of June 25
After the June 20 meeting there was considerable discussion among
groups of the respondent's employees concerning a plan to drive the
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 345
United organizers once again out of Gadsden. Thus, McGathey tes-
tified that he discussed such plans 2 or 3 days before June 25 with
Norris, Culberson, Bottoms, and McCulloch. Norris corroborated
this testimony of McGathey. We are of the opinion that the denials
of this testimony of McGathey by Culberson, Bottoms, and McCul-
loch are not to be credited. Rudder and Henry Lowry, an employee,
had heard rumors of such a plan 2 or 3 days before June 25, and
Craigmile and Miller both testified, and we find, that 2 or 3 days be-
fore June 25 they overheard conversations of employees, including
Rudder, Girard, Beck, Jordan, and Jim Hudson, concerning such
plans.
On June 25 these plans were carried out. About noon, 200 to 300
of the 400 employees then at work left the plant and proceeded to the
downtown section of Gadsden to the Tolson Building where the
United had its local organizing office.
W. T. White, an employee, testified that shortly after lunch
Clarence Lumpkin, an employee, came through the tire room and
asked everyone there to go "to town" to protect their jobs; that
some of the employees were reluctant to depart, expressing a fear
of the police and machine guns; and that another employee, Pat-
terson, stated that they should all go and not worry because "that
has been taken care of . . . I have been scouting around for the
past 2 or 3 weeks ... everything's all right . . . so far as the ma-
chine guns is concerned if we need them we know where we can
get our hands on them." White testified that he then asked Fore-
man Goodall about leaving the plant; that Goodall told him to use
his own judgment; that he asked Bottoms, whom he met as he was
leaving the plant, what the trouble was; and that Bottoms replied,
"If you have got the guts go on over town and help protect your
job." Goodall and Bottoms denied the above testimony of White
in so far as it related to conversations with them. We find the facts
to be as set forth above in White's testimony, which we credit.
O. O. Blackwood, an employee, testified that Patterson also asked
him to go and help run out the organizers; that when he refused
to do so, his supervisor, Clayton, ordered him to go out in front of
the plant; and that when he did so, he met Bottoms, who said that
he, Bottoms, wanted Blackwood to go to town with them, and put
Blackwood in a car with several other employees, saying that he,
Bottoms, "would be right over," that "the law ain't going to bother
you ... that has been taken care of," that the organizers; no doubt,
would come down for dinner at 12: 30, and that there will be
"enough of you there to take their damn guns off of them and to
run them out of town." Patterson and Clayton did not testify at
the hearing; Bottoms denied this testimony of Blackwood. We find
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the facts to be as set forth above in the testimony of Blackwood,
which we credit.
Cartee, an employee, testified that he told his supervisor, Ed
Browning, "They say they are fighting like hell over town, how
about going over there"; that Browning replied that he would have
to ask permission from Foreman Linn; that Browning left to see
Linn; and that later Browning told him to go ahead and that he
would not have to punch out. Browning testified that he did not
recall whether Cartee had asked permission to go down town, and
denied that he had ever given Cartee permission to do so or had
seen Foreman Linn about such a matter. Ples Freeman, an em-
ployee, testified that he was working with Cartee on June 25; that
he refused to go down town with Cartee when the latter asked him
to; and that he did not know whether Cartee had asked permission
from Browning to do so. We find the facts to be as set forth above
in Cartee's testimony, which we credit.
W. E. Robertson, an employee, testified that about 1 o'clock that
afternoon, after most of the employees had left, his foreman, L. E.
Edwards, told him and three other employees, including Sam Mc-
Coy, that they could go to town if they wished. Edwards testified
that he told Robertson and the other employees that they could
leave the plant, but denied that he said that they could go to town.
Sam McCoy testified that he was working with Robertson that day
and corroborated Edwards' testimony. We find the facts to be as
set forth above in Robertson's testimony, which we credit.
L. C. Brown, an employee, testified that after most of the em-
ployees had left, his foreman, Charlie Eckles, told him and W P.
Rooks, an employee, about 12 o'clock, to go "to town" since every-
one else had gone. Rooks testified that Eckles merely told them
that they might as well leave their work, too, since everyone had
left and there would be no more work until the next shift. Eckles
testified that he merely told Brown and Rooks that they could go
home because there were no men there and there would be no work
until the next shift. Glover, an employee, testified that as he was
leaving the plant, Eckles sent him back to work to "take care of
the stock," which might "burn." We find the facts to be as set forth
above in Brown's testimony, which we credit.
Not only did the respondent's supervisory employees expressly
grant permission for, and often encourage, this exodus of employees
from the plant, but many of them actually joined in the exodus it-
self, and encouraged and aided the subsequent rioting. Supervisor
McGathey took an active part in the planning of the exodus, left the
plant with other employees, but because of an error in his plans took
no active part in the actual riot itself. Supervisor Culberson ad-
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 347
mitted that he left the plant with the employees, but testified that he
merely watched the rioting and never intended to participate in it.
Cunningham, a shift foreman in the tire room, testified that upon his
return from lunch he found only two or three tire builders at work;
that he learned from them that the other men had gone to town;
and that after informing Foreman Goodall of this fact, he, himself,
went to town to see if his employees were there. Although Cun-
ningham testified that he saw some of his employees there, he spoke
to none of them and made no attempt to,induce them to return to
the plant.
R. B. Hundley, a department foreman, testified that he was sum-
moned to the plant during his lunch hour by Eckles, then acting
as his division superintendent; that he found most of his employees
had gone; that he went to town to see "what had happened" to his
men and to look for them; and that although he saw one of his men
there he did not speak to him and made no effort to induce him to
return to the plant. White testified that during the rioting he
heard Hundley say to the rioters, "get them boys." Hundley denied
making this remark, but we are of the opinion that his denial is not
to be credited. We find the facts to be as set forth above in White's
testimony.
Carl Dillard, a shift foreman, testified that he went to town with
Hundley in order to find out what the men were doing; and that
he was merely a spectator during the rioting. White testified that
he heard Dillard tell the rioters, "come on boys . . . there is
five of them down at the Hotel Reich." D. W. Barnett, an employee,
testified that Dillard encouraged the rioting by clapping his hands
and telling the rioters, including Patterson, Crow, Jake Shew, an
employee, and Tucker, to "beat the hell out of them and kill the
sons of bitches, . . . [we] didn't ask them here"; and that later,
in front of the Reich Hotel, Dillard told the rioters, "I heard that
the miners are coming in here and you know what that means
... If we are going to get them, let's get them and give them the
works." Blackwood testified that he saw Dillard in front of the
Tolson Building and heard Dillard tell the rioters, referring to Mrs.
Holmes, the wife of one of the organizers, "We ought to beat hell
out of her too." We find the facts to be as set forth in the above
testimony of Barnett, White, and Blackwood.
The 200 or 300 employees who left the plant, together with other
employees not then at work and other Gadsden citizens, assembled
on the street in front of the offices of the United organizers in the
Tolson Building in Gadsden. Members of the crowd shouted at
the organizers, asking them to leave Gadsden. The organizers
spoke briefly to the crowd, refusing to leave Gadsden and attempt-
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing to quiet and disperse the mob, pleading with the crowd to leave
them alone. The mob took an informal vote to see if anyone had
invited the organizers to come to Gadsden. Members of the mob
began to demand action. Bricks were thrown through the door
of the organizers' office, which was located on the second floor. The
mob then rushed into the building and, breaking down the door as
well as the barricade of furniture which the organizers had erected,
administered severe beatings to Roberts and five of his fellow organ-
izers, and destroyed all the furniture, equipment, and records in the
office. Among the members of the mob were Bottoms, who partici-
pated in talking to and beating the organizers; Henry Lowry, an
employee who was an active assailant, armed with brass knuckles,
and who saw blackjacks carried by members of the crowd; P. G.
McDaniel, an employee, who broke into the office and "slugged,"
and saw one or two guns in the mob ; McCulloch, an employee, who
was an active assailant and who saw a few blackjacks in the mob;
Crow, who was active in the assaults ; Girard, Rudder, Pete Floyd,
Horace Lowry, Pete Dunn, Carl Dunn, and Jim Hudson. Several
of the respondent's employees, including McGathey, Turner, and Bill
Norris, all of whom had guns, who intended to take an active part
in the riot, had gone to the Reich Hotel, where the organizers were
staying in Gadsden, in the hope of finding them there, and conse-
quently did not take an active part in the riot at the Tolson Building.
Warning of such a mob attack had reached the organizers on June
24. On that day, Organizer Roberts, after a short absence, had re-
turned to Gadsden at noon. On his arrival the other organizers who
had remained in Gadsden informed him that they had heard rumors
that all the organizers were to be run out of Gadsden that afternoon.
Roberts ordered the offices at the Tolson Building to be closed for
the day and he, together with all his organizers, went to the Reich
Hotel where they were staying. As he entered the lobby, Roberts no-
ticed McGinty and another man sitting and watching him and the
other organizers very closely. Roberts testified that he made no at-
tempt to contact the police on June 24 since he had closed his office.
On June 25, Roberts decided to, open his offices at the Tolson Build-
ing, despite the fact that his organizers again warned him that there
were reports that the organizers would be run out of Gadsden that
day. On his way to the offices at the Tolson Building, Roberts
stopped at the police station, which was a little over one block from
the Tolson Building, and spoke to O'Bannon, the Chief of Police.
Roberts testified that this was about 11:30 in the morning; that he
informed O'Bannon that he had received rumors that the organizers
were to have been run out the day before at 3 o'clock and rumors
that they might be run out on June 25 at any time; that he asked
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 349
O'Bannon to send police at once to the Tolson Building; and that
O'Bannon promised him to "take care of it." O'Bannon testified
that Roberts mentioned rumors relating to the previous day and
stated that the organizers were to be run out on June 25 at 3:30 in
the afternoon; and that he promised to have police at the Tolson
Building at that time. H. A. Wise, a policeman, testified that he
overheard Roberts tell O'Bannon that he expected trouble about 3
o'clock. O'Bannon also testified that at about 8 o'clock that morn-
ing, Commissioner Vann had warned him that there might be trouble
at the Tolson Building about 3 o'clock that afternoon. Vann testi-
fied that at 8 o'clock on the morning of June 24 or 25 he received a
report at the police station, possibly from O'Bannon, that Roberts
had said "that there was something brewing . . . and he wanted
us to be vigilant"; that later that morning, at 9 o'clock, he sum-
moned O'Bannon to his office; that O'Bannon stated that Roberts
had asked for protection, saying he expected trouble about 3:30 that
afternoon; and that he ordered O'Bannon to give protection. We
find the facts to, be as set forth above in Roberts' testimony, which
we credit.
O'Bannon testified that when his police force reported for duty
at around noon on June 25 he warned them to look out for trouble
at the Tolson Building at about 3 o'clock that afternoon and in-
structed those in squad cars and "them all" to be at the Tolson
Building at that time. H. A. Wise and J. H. Robbins, members of
the Gadsden police force who were on duty nearby the Tolson Build-
ing, and Officer W. W. Thornton, denied that they ever received any
instructions from O'Bannon concerning special precautions at any
time that day for the Tolson Building or the organizers. Officer
W. T. Abrams, who was assigned to a squad car, also denied re-
ceiving such instructions. Officer James R. Lister testified that a
day or so before June 25 he and O'Bannon had received a report
that the organizers were to be run out at 3: 30 o'clock in the after-
noon; that on June 25 they had received a similar report; and that
O'Bannon then mentioned something to some of the police force
about being "on the lookout" for trouble about this time on June
25. The only member of the police force who, testified that he had
received any definite instructions from O'Bannon was Diggs, on duty
in a squad car, who testified that he and six or eight other police-
men were warned by O'Bannon on June 25 of trouble about 3:30
and told to be close to the Tolson Building then.
In view of the above evidence, it is extremely doubtful, to say the
least, whether O'Bannon ever gave the instructions he testified that
he did, and, in any event, it is clear, and we find, that many of the
police force then on duty did not receive such instructions. - Despite
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the warnings he had received both from Vann and Roberts, O'Ban-
non took no other precautions on June 25 and made no attempt to
investigate these reports of plans for assaulting the organizers.
The action of the police force during the ensuing riots confirms
the previous evidence concerning the inadequacy of Chief O'Bannon's
precautions on June 25. Organizers Holmes and Roberts both
testified that from the office of the United in the Tolson Building
they and the other organizers there noticed a large crowd forming
and blocking the street outside that building, between 12:30 and 1
o'clock. The organizers testified that after 12:30 they made re-
peated calls to the office of Sheriff Leath, but always found the line
busy; that during the same period they made several calls to the
police station, and each time were told that help was on the way; and
that no police arrived until after the mob had broken into their
office, well after 1 o'clock.
As the official police record introduced in evidence shows, and
Lister, the desk sergeant, testified, at 1:05, in response to a telephone
call from the organizers at the Tolson Building telling of their
peril, Lister sent out a radio call for one squad car to come to the
station. As a matter of fact, that squad car was already at the
station, and the two occupants of it, Diggs and Abrams, were at the
jail in back of the station questioning a suspect. Lister testified that
he knew the squad car occupants had been questioning a suspect at
the jail, but that he believed that the car had left prior to his send-
ing out a radio call for it. The keys to the jail were in the custody
of Lister, as desk sergeant. Diggs and Abrams had secured the keys
from Lister and, when he sent out the radio call for them, had not
yet returned them to him as they normally would have before leaving
the station. Consequently, Lister's testimony that he believed that
the two officers had left the jail and the station seems improbable,
in view of the fact that they had not yet returned the jail keys to
him. This radio call was never received by Diggs and Abrams and
their first knowledge that they were wanted at the station came
when they voluntarily entered the station after concluding their
questioning of the suspect. The police blotter shows an entry of
1:08 p. in. as the time at which Diggs and Abrams supposedly
answered the call by voluntarily entering the station. Lister testi-
fied, however, that this time was not entered on the blotter until
the next day, when the Commissioners, investigating the riot, ques-
tioned him and decided that 1:08 represented the approximate
time when the two officers reported at the station. As the police
blotter for this day and Lister's testimony show, between 1:05 and
1: 15, two more telephone calls were received from the organizers,
and Lister twice sent out radio calls summoning all squad cars to
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 351
the station. Lister testified that the last telephone call from the
organizers informed him that the mob then was breaking into their
office.
Diggs and Abrams reported at the station at 1:08, according to
the entry on the blotter. The station is less than 2 blocks away from
the Tolson Building. Just before 1:15 a call was received from the
Tolson Building, when the mob was first breaking into it. Yet, the
evidence shows that when Diggs and Abrams arrived at the Tolson
Building the organizers had already been beaten by the crowd. It
is thus apparent that either the two policemen took well over 7
minutes to cover the distance between the police station and the
Tolson Building, or that the time of 1:08 is an erroneous figure.
We need not decide which conclusion is correct. However, Diggs
and Abrams both testified that when they entered the station, sup-
posedly at 1:08, several organizers, who had been beaten, were in
the station. Such testimony indicates that the two officers first
reached the station well after 1: 15.
Four policemen, three of whom were on duty nearby the Tolson
Building, were present during or at the end of the riot. The evidence
is clear that for some time before the mob actually broke into the
office, conversations were held by members of the crowd with the
organizers in attempts to persuade the organizers to leave Gadsden
of their own accord. During and before this period of negotiation,
the mob blocked the entire street-one of the main business thorough-
fares of the city-in front of the Tolson Building. Despite this fact,
policemen on traffic duty within 2 or 3 blocks of the Tolson Building
and in sight of it apparently knew nothing of the riot and did noth-
ing to prevent it until after the organizers had been assaulted and
beaten. Thus, Officer Gus Handy, apparently the first policeman
to reach the scene of the riot, arrived when the mob was taking the
organizers from their office to the street. Officer Thornton, hearing
about the riot while at the station, went to the Tolson Building and
escorted one of the organizers, who was being beaten, to safety.
Officers J. H. Robbins and H. A. Wise, on traffic duty a few blocks
from the Tolson Building, arrived after Handy and Thornton and
escorted two organizers, who had received beatings, to safety. An
explanation for the tardy interference of Handy, Wise, and Thornton
is found in the testimony of James H. Owens, a bystander during
the riots, never employed at the respondent's plant. Owens testified
that as a matter of fact these three officers were present and watched
the mob assemble at the Tolson Building and begin its assault, but
did not attempt to interfere until after the organizers had been
beaten.
The investigation of the riot by Chief O'Bannon and the City
Commission is conclusive evidence of the perfunctory protection
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
given the United organizers. Commissioners Vann and Meighan
both testified that the Commission had ordered O'Bannon on June
26 to investigate the riot and that O'Bannon subsequently reported
that he had interviewed "200 or 300" people, had been unable "to
gather anything of importance," and had made no arrests.
O'Bannon's description of his "investigation" is more revealing. He
testified :
I just walked up to a man and asked him if he knew who it
was that beat up them men, and he told me no .. .
Q. About how many did you ask questions like that?
A. Three or four.
O'Bannon made no attempt to interview any of the beaten organizers
or any of the United members in Gadsden. He testified that he
discovered the identity of none of the rioters. Commissioners Vann
and Meighan both testified that the Commission had been fully satis-
fied with O'Bannon's conduct during the riot and his subsequent
investigation of it.
The explanation of O'Bannon's failure to protect the United organ-
izers and properly to investigate the riot is revealed by the remarks
which he made to Dalrymple when the latter first came to Gadsden
early in June. O'Bannon testified that lie told Dalrymple that the
organization of the Gadsden plant was "a pretty good job" and that
"I got knocked out of my vacation last year on account of a strike
and I don't want that to happen again-you just as well go on back,
I don't believe these people can be organized." The latent hostility
implicit in these remarks of O'Bannon to Dalrymple clearly comes
to light in O'Bannon's part in the June 25 episodes.
Moreover, after the June 6 beating of Dalrymple, O'Bannon and
the Commission made no investigation of this incident. Commis-
sioners Vann and Meighan explained this fact by stating that they
considered the courthouse under the jurisdiction of the county and
Sheriff Leath. However, Vann admitted that the courthouse was
within the city's police jurisdiction, which is "responsible for the
protection of individuals and property" in the courthouse. Two
city policemen, Diggs and Abrams, as previously set forth, were
present during part of the courthouse riot. And, finally, the actual
beating of Dalrymple occurred on the streets of Gadsden. Commis-
sioner Vann never even conferred with Leath to discover whether
the latter was investigating this incident.
The actions of Sheriff R. A. Leath during this period bear remark-
able similarity to those of the city authorities. Leath's investiga-
tion of the Dalrymple beating, which occurred in his presence when
he allegedly was attempting to protect the assaulted man, was as
perfunctory and inadequate as that made of the June 25 riot by
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 353
O'Bannon. Icath testified that his investigation consisted of asking
people on the street corners, on the night of June 6 and the follow-
ing day, questions concerning the identity of the participants in the
beating; that he obtained no information by his interrogatories; that
he made no attempt to question any United members or sympa-
thizers; and that, as he himself had recognized none of the assailants,
his investigation, such as it was, had no results. Moreover, E. H.
-Harrell, a railroad worker never employed by the respondent, testi-
fied that about a week after June 6, Leath told him that on June 6
he, Leath, and the City Commission had let their "men get out of the
way . . . turned their men loose" and "let this other bunch
run" Dalrymple "out of town."' Leath denied this testimony, but
for reasons hereinafter set forth we find that his denial is not to
be credited and that he made the remarks testified to by Harrell.
Leath's remarks to Harrell may explain the difficulty Doyal had in
obtaining the aid of the police on June 6, and the conduct of Officers
Diggs and Abrams on June 6, previously described.
The explanation for Leath's conduct is revealed by testimony
showing Leath's deep-seated hostility toward the United and its
organizers. Milan and Hayes, two employees of the respondent,
who had been discharged on June 8 pursuant to the demand of the
employees' committee, were driving on the streets in Gadsden on
June 25, a short time after the rioting at the Tolson Building had
ended, when a car containing three Goodyear employees, Foreman
Fred Bell, Horace Lowry, and Claude Dorough, a squadron mem-
ber, drove up beside them, and Dorough ordered them both to leave
Gadsden at once. After reporting this threat to Officer Stewart,
the two employees met Sheriff Leath and informed him of the threat
they had received and asked him to protect them. According to the
testimony of Leath, he replied : "You don't need protection, you are
just running around with this crowd showing yourself, you go on
home with your wife and work in your garden and you won't need
any protection . . . If you will just get out of this racket and
go on home, you will be all right . . . You are running around with
that organizing crowd . . . let things alone and go home." Milam
and Hayes testified that Leath also told them that they needed no
protection, that they were on the "wrong side," that, if they were
on the "right side," they could get protection, and that they had lost
the best job they had ever had by "fooling around running around
here with these damn Yankees." Leath denied this testimony of
Milam and Hayes, but in view of what he admittedly told these
two employees, we find that his denial is not to be credited.
The record contains other evidences of Leath's hostility toward the
United. Mrs. Vicie Holmes, the wife of one of the organizers
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assaulted on June 25, testified that in the summer of 1937, Leath
told her, "I am not for the C. 1. 0. and I will tell the world when
it sits down in Gadsden, it will sit down on hot lead." Leath ad-
mitted speaking to Mrs. Holmes at this time but denied the remainder
of her testimony. E. H. Harrell testified that in 1937, Leath told
him that he, Leath, "hoped to run . every one of them out of town
that belonged to the C. 1. 0." Leath denied this testimony of Har-
rell . We give no credence to Leath's denials of this testimony of
Mrs. Holmes and Harrell . Finally, Leath admitted that he stated
at a banquet given in Gadsden in the winter of 1936-1937 that he,
Leath, was not in favor of the "red radicals" and "Communists"
that "we had in the town . . . we gave them bitter weed when they
were here before, and let us give them a hell of a sight more of it
when they come back."
According to the testimony of Leath, on June 25 he was at or near
the Tolson Building for about 20 minutes around noon and saw no
unusual crowds there then. Leath testified that after leaving the
Tolson Building he went to his office in the nearby courthouse and
first heard of the riot when he received a telephone call about 1:30,
20 minutes after he had left the Tolson Building, reporting it;
whereupon he and a deputy, J. H. Carroll, went toward the Tolson
Building but, finding the riot finished there, proceeded to the police
station. Numerous witnesses contradicted this testimony of Leath.
White, an employee of the' respondent, testified that immediately
before the mob assaulted the organizers he saw Sheriff Leath on the
street, coining from the Tolson Building, heard someone ask Leath
what the trouble was, and heard Leath reply : "just a couple of
fellows arguing . . . it doesn't amount to anything" ; and that Leath
thereupon deliberately walked away from the rioting. James H.
Owens, a painter never in the respondent's employ, testified that
about 1 o'clock he met Leath on the street in front of the Tolson
Building, just as a mob of 50 to 100 men was throwing bricks
through the organizers ' office; that he pointed out to Leath that it
was the latter's duty to stop this rioting; and that Leath deliberately
walked away from the crowd, laughing and saying, "I was up there
about five minutes ago and there was just 2 or 3 men up there
arguing." Holmes testified that he saw Leath on the street in front
of the Tolson Building immediately prior to the beginning of the
riot when the crowd was beginning to assemble. R. W. Gable, never
employed by the respondent, testified that sometime between 1 and
1:30 that afternoon he saw Leath walk into the courthouse, and that
Leath, in reply to a question as to what was happening at the Tolson
Building where the mob was forming, answered, "I think they are
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 355
fixing to auction off some Yankees." Gable testified that, following
Leath into the latter's office, he heard Leath answer a telephone call;
that Leath then told him, "They are breaking in on those fellows up
there and want me to come there, damned big fat Jew with 400
men"; and that Leath then sat in his office and talked for 15 minutes
before leaving, saying as he left that he was going to see "if they
had done a good job" and that he hoped that "they killed every
damn one of them Yankees, why didn't they stay where they be-
longed and let us run our own business here." Carroll, a deputy,
testified that for 5 minutes he stood and watched the mob threat-
ening the organizers and fighting at the Tolson Building; that finally,
not seeing Leath anywhere, he went to the courthouse to notify Leath
of what was happening; that as he arrived at the courthouse he
heard Leath answer the phone ; and that immediately after receiving
the phone call, Leath and he left for the scene of the riot, but that
all the rioting was over when they arrived there. Barney McClen-
don, another deputy, corroborated Carroll's testimony that Leath,
immediately after receiving a telephone call concerning the assault
on the organizers, left for the riot. However, McClendon -testified
that, although he did not go to the Tolson Building until 5 minutes
after Carroll and Leath had left for there, when he, McClendon,
arrived the rioting was still going on, and that he saw Officer Thorn-
ton carry off one beaten organizer. It is apparent from McClendon's
testimony that Carroll and Leath, leaving 5 minutes before Mc-
Clendon did, must, contrary to their testimony, have arrived before
the riot was over, and yet, according to their testimony, they took
no steps whatsoever to stop the assault. Moreover, if Leath, as he
testified, left the Tolson Building but 20 minjutes before receiving
the telephone call informing him of the rioting, and then after re-
ceiving this telephone call proceeded at once to the scene of the
assault and found all the rioting finished, it seems very unlikely
that he did not see the mob assembling at the Tolson Building when
he first was there, unless he delayed going to the riot after receiving
the telephone call about it, or unless he arrived before the beating
of the organizers was finished.
Despite Leath's denials, we find the facts to be as set forth above
in the testimony of White, Gable, Holmes, and Owens regarding
Leath's activities on June 25. Our finding is supported by the fact
that Leath on the witness stand was a most evasive witness. When
first called as a witness, Leath, on cross-examination by counsel for
the Board, testified that although he signed recommendations for
people desiring employment by the respondent he never mentioned
"any union" in these recommendations, only stating that the appli-
cants "will work satisfactorily" and give the respondent "no trouble."
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When recalled to the witness stand later by the Board's counsel,
Leath, confronted with a recommendation which he admitted had
been signed with his name by one of his deputies to whom he had
delegated such authority, testified that, as stated in this recommenda-
tion, he often put in employment recommendations for the respondent
the sentence that the applicants "won't give any labor trouble," mean-
ing thereby that the applicants would not "go through a sit down
and refuse to work, and just mouth about ... they will make them
good reliable men." 23
Leath testified that he made no attempt to investigate the Tolson
Building riot, because he considered that this incident fell within
the jurisdiction of the city authorities : "The policemen had it in
charge, and fighting is only an assault. There was nobody murdered
and nobody cut, just fighting."
The beaten organizers were taken by policemen to the police sta-
tion, where their wounds were dressed. Roberts testified that then
he spoke to O'Bannon, who stated that he, O'Bannon, had believed
that the riot was to occur at 3 o'clock; and that when he said that
3 o'clock had been the time set for yesterday, O'Bannon replied that
he had misunderstood. O'Bannon testified that when Roberts spoke
to him at the police station, Roberts accused him of not protecting
the organizers; that he told Roberts that Roberts had informed him
the attack was to occur at 3:30 o'clock that day; and that Roberts
admitted this fact. We have reviewed the evidence and find that
Roberts' testimony is to be believed and that he informed O'Bannon
both before and after the riot that the riot would occur at any time
on June 25.
After their wounds had been treated at the police station, the
organizers were taken by the police to the Reich Hotel, but, finding
a large crowd there, the police escorted them out of Gadsden.
The activity of James H. McGinty at this time, whose leadership
in the beatings and evictions at the plant on June 8 has previously
been set forth, merits special discussion. We have already set forth
how Roberts, upon his arrival in Gadsden on June 24, noticed
McGinty sitting in the lobby of the Reich Hotel, closely watching
Roberts and the other organizers. McGinty admitted his presence
at this time in the Hotel, but claimed that it had no connection with
the arrival of the organizers, and testified that the organizers, upon
discovering his presence in the Hotel, surrounded him and threatened
to assault and kill him, but that he escaped when one of the organ-
izers was summoned to the telephone. McGinty testified that on
23 The testimony of Leath as to whether or not James Karam was a deputy on May 31,
1937, is another illustration of Leath's reluctance to tell the truth on the witness stand.
See Section III-D, infra.
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 357
June 25 he spent the entire morning preceding the riot down town in
Gadsden, and that part of this time lie watched the office of the or-
ganizers in the Tolson Building. McGinty claimed that his reason
for this espionage was a desire to obtain revenge upon the organizers,
who had threatened his life the day previously. McGinty further
testified that during the actual riot, despite his desire for revenge, he
took no active part, but merely stood by and "watched it well done,"
although he admitted entering the office of the United in the Tolson
Building at this time. Roberts, however, identified McGinty as one
of his assailants on June 25, and we credit Roberts' testimony.
Toward the end of the rioting, at the request of an officer, McGinty
escorted to the police station a beaten organizer who, he stated, had
been his assailant the day before. Frank McGinty, James' brother,
testified that on the evening of June 25 his brother James came to his
house and obtained a shotgun; that he and James went to James'
home; that there both of them joined a group of men in a car, includ-
ing Carl Dunn and one Lumpkin, both employees of the respondent;
that this group drove out to the Gadsden plant and to the home of
Miller; and that James had a shotgun and Dunn a pistol. Frank
testified that Miller came out to their car and told Carl Dunn to
"cruise around" the Reich Hotel and if he saw Bill Mitch, president
of a local of the United Mine Workers Union; to "get" Mitch "out
of town"; and that then the group rode around Gadsden and looked
into the Reich Hotel, but was unable to find Mitch. Frank testified
that, after working at the respondent's plant from April 1934 until
April 1936, he quit his job there because of ill health, and did not
return to work until July 1, 1936; and that he did not join the United
until April 28, 1937. James McGinty testified that shortly before
June 25, 1936, his brother Frank was a member of the United ; that
Frank, shortly before June 25, 1936, informed him that the United
members intended to assault him, Miller, and Goodall that evening;
that, due to the illness of his wife, he wished to avoid any trouble at
his home; that after arming himself with a pistol, he and Frank,
together with Carl Dunn and Lumpkin, "away after midnight" went
to see Miller, in order to warn Miller, to obtain protection for
McGinty himself, and to "get" the men after him and Miller; that
Miller reassured him; and that he warned Miller that Bill Mitch was
"a dangerous man." James McGinty testified that he made no effort
to obtain protection from either the police or the sheriff; and that
Carl Dunn was present because he, too, had come about midnight
and warned him, James, of the proposed beating. Miller corrobo-
rated James McGinty's account of this incident. Holmes, an officer
of the United in 1936, testified that Frank was not a member of it at
that time.
283032-41-vol. 21-24
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We have already pointed out in connection with the June 8 inci-
dents the falsity of much of McGinty's testimony, as shown by wit-
nesses for the respondent and for the Board. We are of the opinion
that his testimony concerning his presence in the hotel lobby on June
24 and his actions on the evening of June 25 is equally false and
entitled to no credence. We find the facts to be as set forth above
in the testimony of Frank McGinty. In fact, James McGinty's ac-
count of his actions on June 25 is most improbable. Although,
according to his own testimony, he especially desired to guard his
sick wife, he made no effort to obtain police protection. Further-
more, it seems very unlikely that he would have gone to see Miller,
according to his own testimony, at an hour "away after midnight,"
without having a previous understanding with Miller. We find that
James McGinty at this time was acting as a spy for the respondent
on the activities of union organizers in Gadsden. This finding is
fortified by the respondent's subsequent treatment of James McGinty.
James McGinty had been hired by the respondent in February 1936,
and shortly before June 25 but subsequent to June 8 he had asked
Miller and Goodall for a transfer from his position as a tire builder
to the police force at the respondent's plant, alleging as a reason there-
for his inability to build tires because of a "sprained wrist." On
July 6 or 8, 1936, McGinty's request was granted by the respondent
and he became a member of the respondent's police force, a position
he held at the time of the hearing in the instant case. Although
Miller and McGinty both testified that this transfer was not a pro-
motion, the evidence shows that the work as a police officer is much
steadier than that of a tire builder, and that the respondent itself
considered the duties of a police officer of an unusual nature. As
indicated by testimony of Bottoms concerning Horton, previously
set forth, and as Miller himself testified, the respondent considered it
highly improper for any member of its police force to join a union,
because it desired its police to be neutral in the case of any conflicts
among its employees. Despite this attitude of the respondent, it
promoted McGinty to the police force, although its supervisory em-
ployees, such as Goodall, were fully aware of McGinty's intense
hostility toward the United, as revealed by his participation in the
June 8 occurrences. Furthermore, McGinty's participation in the
June 8 occurrences, in which he assaulted three employees of the re-
spondent and, according to their testimony, deliberately defied super-
visory employees of the respondent who attempted to discipline him,
would hardly seem to reveal those qualities which the respondent
ordinarily would desire of the members of its police force. We find
that McGinty was deliberately promoted by the respondent to its
police force, despite its knowledge of his activities in the June 8
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 359
occurrences, as a reward for his participation therein and for his
espionage work for the respondent on June 25.
The respondent administered no punishment to the several hundred
employees who without permission left their work at the plant for
several hours on June 25. The respondent's officials testified that most
of the employees guilty of this conduct were piece workers and con-
sequently received no payment for the time they were gone from the
plant, and that Michaels issued an order that none of the salaried or
hourly paid employees were to receive any pay for the time they spent
out of the plant on June 25. Irrespective of whether or not Michaels
ever issued such an order, the evidence is clear that the enforcement
of Michaels' order by officials of the respondent was desultory and
perfunctory. Since very few of the employees punched their clock
cards when they left the plant at noon on June 25, these cards reveal
no irregularities. The pay rolls are based also on time sheets pre-
pared for the employees by their foremen or supervisors. These
officials made little effort to enforce Michaels' orders. Rudder, who
was absent at least an hour and a half, and Crow and Horace Lowry,
both of whom left their work to go to the rioting, all received their
regular hourly pay in full on June 25. Culberson, who left his work
to go to the rioting, was paid in full for this time. Craigmile testified
that Culberson informed him that he had obtained permission from
his foreman, Mallory, to absent himself at noon that day to see a
minister, and that he did see the minister. Culberson, when ques-
tioned at the hearing concerning his pay on June 25, made no mention
of obtaining such permission or seeing a minister. We give little
credence to this testimony concerning the minister. Moreover, in view
of the mass exodus of the employees that day, the suspicious nature
of Culberson's excuse must have been readily apparent to Mallory, but
there is no indication that either Mallory or any other official of the
respondent attempted to investigate it. Craigmile testified that, dur-
ing the hearing on November 22, 1937, in response to his questions,
Bottoms, Pete Dunn, and Turner informed him that, although their
time cards showed that they had punched out at the usual hour on
June 25, they actually remained in the plant for several hours there-
after in order to make up the time they had lost from their work
during the rioting. The respondent offered no records whatsoever to
prove that these employees actually did work overtime, contrary to
the evidence of their time cards. There is no evidence that on June
25 or shortly thereafter any foreman or supervisor checked up on
Dunn, Turner, and Bottoms in order to ascertain whether they should
be paid in full or not. Yet both Miller and Michaels on June 25 or
shortly thereafter knew that Bottoms had been at the rioting. In
view of these facts we believe that no credence can be given to the
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
statements of the above employees, made long after June 25, that they
actually worked overtime on that day. Jim Hudson, who testified
that he was a working supervisor in charge of a crew of three men,
could not recall if he was paid in full on June 25, but testified that he
received no orders forbidding such payment and that he recalled that
employees in his department, the engineering, had considerable debate
whether or not to deduct on their time cards for June 25 the 2 hours
they had spent at the Tolson Building. Finally, Cartee, a piece
worker, testified that, after returning from the Tolson Building riot,
he asked his supervisor, Browning, how to make out his time card,
and was told by Browning to "add enough pieces to make out your
rate"; and that he did so, and was paid in full. Browning denied
making such a remark to Cartee, but we find that he did so. This
remark to Cartee casts serious doubt on whether or not many of the
respondent's other piece workers who participated in the riot were
not paid therefor by the respondent.
f. The sermon of the Reverend W. S. Hullett
On June 28, 1936, the Sunday following the Tolson Building riot,
the Reverend W. S. Hullett, minister of the East Gadsden Methodist
Church, in accordance with an announcement previously made in the
Gadsden newspapers, preached a sermon entitled "The Black Shadow
of Terrorism, or Gadsden (sic) Sorrow." In this sermon Hullett said
that the announcement in the newspapers that the employees of "one
of our great industries" had signed a statement that they were satis-
fied with wages, hours, and working conditions, and that the employees
"were unanimous" in so stating, was "a lie," because it was "too unani-
mous"; that if some of the employees had refused to sign this state-
ment, they would have lost their jobs; and that some employees signed
because "they were afraid not to sign it." Hullett's remarks clearly
referred to the declarations circulated in the plant and the newspaper
statements issued by Bottoms and the Plan on June 17 and June 25,
as previously set forth. On Tuesday, June 30, Hullett was warned by
Dr. J. D. Hunter, presiding elder of his church, that the sermon had
caused much comment in Gadsden and was "going to get" Hullett
in trouble; and that he, Hunter, had learned on good authority that
Hullett was "going to be mobbed." That very evening, Harry Trussell,
a member of the squadron at the Gadsden plant and also a member of
Hullett's congregation, came to see Hullett. Trussell testified that
the various members of the squadron on Monday, June 29, at the plant,
had complained to him about the statements above mentioned, con-
tained in Hullett's sermon; and that later that day, Bottoms, a rather
inactive member of Hullett's congregation, had also told him about
receiving similar complaints from various tire builders in the plant.
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 361
Bottoms was then employee chairman of the Plan. Trussell testified
that Bottoms stated that he wished to see Hullett concerning the
sermon and desired Trussell to arrange for the interview. According
to Trussell, since he was unable to find Hullett that afternoon, he and
Bottoms saw Hunter, who agreed to talk to Hullett about this sermon.
Trussell testified that a short time later Hunter informed him that
Hullett was very much excited because of rumors that he, Hullett, was
going to be mobbed; and that Hunter asked him to see Hullett and con-
vince the latter that there was no such danger.
Hullett testified that Trussell informed him that a mob was form-
ing, but that if he, Hullett, would apologize for the statements in his
sermon, Trussell believed that "they" would be able to stop the mob ;
that he offered to apologize for using the word "lie" in his sermon; and
that Trussell then stated that he "would get in touch with the right
parties," and attempted, unsuccessfully, to telephone Bottoms and
Miller. Trussell denied telling Hullett that a mob was forming, and
testified that he merely advised Hullett to clear up the matter by
apologizing for the statements in his sermon. We credit Hullett's
testimony and find the facts to be as set forth above in it.
Hullett was extremely alarmed for the safety of himself and his
family and left Gadsden that evening. The following morning he
returned alone to his home and telephoned the Governor of Alabama
and arranged for State police to be sent to Gadsden to protect him
at his home. The police arrived that day. That same morning,
Bottoms and Trussell saw Hullett at the latter's home. Hullett
informed them of the request he had made to the Governor for pro-
tection. Hullett testified and we find that he accused them of trying
to run him out of town; that he told them that he would not go;
that he offered to apologize for using the word "lie"; and that they
informed him that if he apologized they "could get the matter
stopped." Trussell denied telling Hullett that he "could get the
matter stopped," but we find that his denial is not to be credited.
Trussell testified that after this interview with Hullett, he and Bot-
toms saw Miller at the plant and told him what had happened; and
that Miller stated that it "looks to me like I am going to have to
get you out of another hot spot" ; and that thereupon Miller and
Bottoms went to see Hullett. Hullett testified that Bottoms and
Miller in their interview with him offered him protection against
"their men" if he would cancel his request to the Governor for pro-
tection ; and that he agreed to do so and later telephoned the Gov-
ernor, who warned him not to look to the respondent for protection
and insisted upon the State police remaining with him that night.
Bottoms testified that he and Miller merely offered Hullett protec-
tion as far as they were concerned. We believe Hullett's testimony.
362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hullett also agreed to issue a public apology for the above-men-
tioned statements in his sermon, and shortly thereafter he did so.
Bottoms testified that he insisted that Hullett apologize for the
above-mentioned statements in his sermon. Miller testified and we
find that in the interview with Hullett he informed Hullett that
he, Hullett, had erred in preaching the sermon and had thereby lost
the confidence of the respondent's employees.
In view of the manner in which the declarations were circulated
in the respondent's plant and the statement concerning them issued
to the press by Bottoms as chairman of the company-dominated
Plan, it is clear that the statements to which the respondent objected
in Hullett's sermon were true. It is also clear that the respondent,
through Miller, ratified the attempts of Bottoms and Trussell to
utilize the fears of Hullett to obtain an apology from the latter for
the statements in his sermon which reflected on the respondent's
labor policies.
2. Conclusions
The complaint alleges that the respondent, by denouncing the rights
of its employees to organize, and by creating the impression on the
law-enforcement officers of Gadsden that the respondent's operations
at its plant would be increased if the organizing activity of its em-
ployees was prevented, caused the officers and organizers of the United
to be afforded insufficient protection from violence and assault in
Gadsden. The evidence and facts set forth previously establish that,
as the complaint alleges, the officers and organizers of the United were
not afforded appropriate protection from violence and assault in
Gadsden. The City Commissioners openly showed their hostility
toward the United and their failure to safeguard its adherents by
their failure to investigate the Dalrymple beating, their passage of
the previously described ordinances on June 18 and 19, their ratifica-
tion of the selection of deputies for the June 20 meeting by their agent,
Chief O'Bannon, their statements to these deputies revealing their
antipathy toward the United, their failure adequately to investigate
the June 25 riot, and their ratification of the acts of their agent,
Chief O'Bannon, in connection with the prevention and investigation
of that riot. The hostility of Chief O'Bannon toward the United, and
his failure to afford United agents appropriate protection in Gadsden,
are shown by his remarks to Dalrymple when the latter first arrived
in Gadsden, his failure to investigate the Dalrymple beating, his selec-
tion of deputies for June 20 from sources he knew were hostile to the
United, his inadequate preparations, despite the warnings he had
received, to protect the organizers from the rioters on June 25, and his
desultory investigation of the June 25 riot itself. Dalrymple's diffi-
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 363
culty in obtaining the aid of the police on June 6 and the peculiar
conduct of Officers Diggs and Abrams during the Dalrymple beating
are further evidence of the insufficient protection given the United
organizers. Finally, Sheriff Leath failed to afford United organizers
protection in Gadsden, revealed his hostility toward them, and de-
liberately encouraged attacks on them, by his failure adequately to
investigate the Dalrymple beating, his remarks to Harrell indicating
that he fully approved of that beating, his remarks to Harrell and
Mrs. Holmes in 1937, his deliberate refusal to interfere with the June
25 riot despite his presence during it, his failure to investigate this
riot, and his refusal of protection to Hayes and Milam on June 25.
The Reverend Mr. Hullett, when threatened with danger because he
had uttered statements reflecting adversely on the respondent's labor
policies, appealed for protection to the Governor of the State. In
fact, the evidence introduced at the hearing shows that when the
United organizers in 1937 once again ventured into Gadsden to or-
ganize the respondent's employees, they followed the example of
Hullett and obtained the protection of the State police for United
meetings.
There is also evidence, such as the testimony of Roberts previously
set forth concerning remarks made to him by Reich and members
of the City Commission, that many citizens of Gadsden believed that
the respondent's operations at the Gadsden plant would be increased
if the United's organizing activities were prevented. However, even
accepting Roberts' testimony as true, there is no credible evidence in
the record that the respondent prior to 1937 was responsible for the
existence or growth of this belief in the community of Gadsden.
There is no evidence that prior to 1937 the respondent's officials ever
made, approved, or authorized statements to such effect.
We find that as the complaint alleges, the respondent denounced
the right of its employees at the Gadsden plant to organize. As
previously set forth, from the very beginning of the United's exist-
ence in Gadsden, the respondent not only closely followed the
United's activities but also lost no opportunity to show its employees
clearly its dislike for that organization. Coincident with the be-
ginning of the United, the respondent put into effect at the Gadsden
plant a company-dominated union, the Plan. Thereafter the re-
spondent's supervisory employees made clear to all employees that
the respondent desired them to participate in the Plan by voting
and by running for office. When Dalrymple interviewed Michaels
and Craigmile at the plant on June 4 in regard to the discharges of
Gray and Apperson, both Michaels and Craigmile stated that the
respondent considered that the Plan and not the United was the
proper medium for the discussion of these discharges. The remarks,
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
previously set forth, made by Superintendent Neiger to DeBerry,
Bazemore, Caudle, and Cartee, all of which occurred before the
Dalrymple beating, as well as Michaels' statements before and during
the June 4 conference with Dalrymple, are additional examples of
the respondent's denunciation of the right of the employees to organ-
ize. Furthermore, the events occurring in Gadsden, as previously
set forth, between June 6 and June 30, were expressions of the re-
spondent's opposition to the employees' right to organize, and the
respondent must bear responsibility for the occurrence of these events.
Pete Dunn, Ralph Chalfant, and Jones urged employees at the plant
to participate in the Dalrymple beating. McGathey was the leader
in breaking up this meeting, assisted by Pete Dunn, Jones, and Bot-
toms. Bottoms and Crow were active participants in the beating of
Dalrymple. During the June 8 evictions the respondent allowed its
employees to dictate to it an anti-United employment policy, pun-
ished none of the participants in these occurrences, through the
actions of its supervisory officials, Goodall and Tucker, actively
participated in these beating and evictions, and through the state-
ments and the conduct of Neiger and Michaels expressed approval
of them. The activity of Craigmile, Culberson, and McGathey
on behalf of the employees' committee revealed the respondent's hos-
tility toward the employees' right to organize. The circumstances
surrounding the circulation of the declarations in the plant as shown
by the previously set forth testimony of Taylor and Cristopher, and
the statements of Miller and Bottoms to Hullett, are facts in sup-
port of this allegation of the complaint. The events of June 25,
during which Browning, Goodall, Bottoms, Clayton, Edwards, and
Eckles urged or permitted employees to leave the plant, Hundley,
Dillard, McGathey, and Culberson participated in or encouraged the
very riot itself, and after which the respondent's officials not only
imposed no penalties but even in many instances paid the employees
for the time spent at the riot, are further facts supporting this allega-
tion of the complaint. In fact, shortly after June 25, Nigosian, head
of the engineering department, told Troy Higdon, an employee, "we
are not fighting organization on craft lines but we are fighting this
industrial organization."
Two points in relation to the occurrences referred to in the preced-
ing paragraph must be considered. First, counsel for the respondent
during the hearing stated that it should not be held responsible for
events occurring outside its plant. Many of the events previously
described, however, such as the June 8 incidents and the circulation of
the declarations, occurred entirely within the plant itself. Other
events, such as the selection of the deputies for June 20, and the
events of June 25, although occurring in part outside the plant, were
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 365
clearly connected, as the respondent itself recognized at the time,
with the operation of the plant. Moreover, the respondent itself did
not hesitate on occasion to participate in events outside its plant
when it considered itself involved. Thus, although the respondent
contends that the Dalrymple beating was none of its concern, Miller
admitted that he interfered in the events connected with Hullett's
sermon, although the latter incident also occurred entirely outside the
plant. Moreover, it should be noted that in many of these events
which occurred in whole or in part outside the respondent's plant,
supervisory employees of the respondent, for whose conduct the re-
spondent must be held responsible, participated, and in other cases
the respondent must be held responsible because by later acts it rati-
fied and showed its approval of acts committed by its employees out-
side its plant. The discussion of this argument can be better devel-
oped in connection with the respondent's second point, which is that
the respondent is not responsible for most of the foregoing events
because they were committed by employees who cannot be held to
have acted therein as agents of the respondent. We are of the opinion
that certain of these employees had sufficient supervisory powers and
duties to make them agents of the respondent. Thus Michaels,
Neiger, Miller, Craigmile, Nigosian, and shift and department fore-
men, such as Chalfant, Goodall, T. P. Smith, Hundley, Eckles, Ed-
wards, and Dillard, are employees who must be considered as acting
as agents for the respondent. Moreover, working supervisors, such
as McGathey and Culberson'24 who, although they spend part of their
time in ordinary production and maintenance work, spend at least 50
per cent of their working hours directing the work of the 20 or 30
men under them, assigning these employees to jobs, getting materials
for them, inspecting and reporting on their work, and instructing
them, are employees for whose conduct the respondent must be held
responsible.25 Obviously the same principle is true of non-working
supervisors, such as Phillips, Clayton, and Browning, and of labor
trainers, such as Tucker, whose functions Tucker testified were "prac-
tically the same" as supervisors.
We have already adverted to the peculiar position of squadron
members. The fact that they are a select group in an intimate rela-
tionship with the management; the fact that they are given special
training and have special prospects; the fact that they are prone to
regard themselves as part of the supervisory staff; the fact that their
'+ Jim Hudson testified that he was a working supervisor or gang pusher. However,
there are only three employees working under Hudson, and in view of the lack of other
evidence concerning Hudson's position , we do not find his work sufficiently supervisory to
make the respondent responsible for his actions
25 Cf. Matter of Borden Mills, Inc. and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 13 N. L.
R. B 459, and cases therein cited.
366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interests are those of foremen rather than those of the rank and file
of employees; the fact that all during the period under discussion the
only members of the squadron concerning whose activities there is
any substantial evidence in the record allied themselves with the
supervisory employees in carrying out the respondent's anti-United
policies, all lead us to find that the respondent must be held re-
sponsible for the acts and statements of the members of the squad-
ron.25a Moreover, in the case of certain members of the squadron,
as well as in the case of certain employees, whether or not their acts
when committed were the acts of the respondent, the evidence is plain
that the respondent by its subsequent conduct fully ratified these acts
and made them its own. Thus, on June 8 the respondent, by laying
off or discharging 12 employees and summoning 8 others before the
employees' committee in Craigmile's presence, as hereinafter set forth,
ratified the acts of that committee and the evictions which had pre-
viously occurred in its plant. On June 20 the respondent's officials,
as Miller himself testified, chose for special deputy service employees
whom they considered reliable and dependable. The activity of
many of them in the previous anti-United events, such as Jones,
McGinty, Carl Hudson, Bottoms, Pete Floyd, Pete and Carl Dunn,
Beck, Turner, Jim Hudson, and Rudder, was known to Miller or
other officials of the respondent, such as Craigmile, when they were
selected. The respondent's officials by selecting such individuals with
knowledge of their previous participation in the anti-United events
openly ratified their participation in such events. Moreover, the
respondent's failure to punish any employees for the June 25 exodus
from the plant coupled with its payment of many of them for the
time spent away from the plant, constituted ratification of the anti-
United activities of these employees. Finally, the respondent, in
many instances within a short time after June 25, showed full ap-
proval of the activities of these employees by giving them supervisory
or trustworthy positions in the plant. In some cases, such as those
of Bottoms 26 and McGinty, the respondent's officials were actually
aware of the previously described activities of these employees when
it promoted or transferred them. Moreover, the respondent made
not the slightest effort to investigate either the June 8 or June 25
events to discover the identity of the leaders and participants therein,
and the evidence is clear that an adequate investigation, including
the questioning of the employees attacked and evicted on June 8,
would have revealed to the respondent the identity of most of those
20n Int. Ass 'n.. of Machinists, Tool and Die Makers , Lodge No. 35 v. National Labor Rela-
tions Board, 311 U. S 72.
20 As previously stated, Michaels and Miller knew on June 25 or shortly thereafter that
Bottoms had attended the Tolson Building riot.
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 367
involved in these events. The respondent, by deliberately refusing
to learn of the activities of these employees, cannot assert that their
subsequent promotion or transfer did not constitute ratification of
their prior activities because of the respondent's lack of knowledge
of such activity by them. The transfer of McGinty has already been
discussed. Tucker, a short time after June 25, became a supervisor.
Bottoms and Crow, not only continued in their favored positions
as squadron members, but in September 1936, were promoted to
supervisory positions. Louis Jones in August 1936 was given a super-
visory position .17 Two months after June 25 McDaniel became a
member of the squadron, and in February 1937 he became a labor
trainer. In September 1936, Henry Lowry became a member of the
squadron. Yet the conduct of these employees, as previously de-
scribed, would not ordinarily be deemed by an employer to reveal
fitting qualifications for supervisory duties.
The complaint alleges that the insufficient protection afforded the
United organizers in Gadsden resulted, first, from the belief created
among the law-enforcement officers of Gadsden by the respondent
that the respondent would increase its operations at its plant if em-
ployees there were kept unorganized, and second, from the denuncia-
tion by the respondent of the right of its employees to organize.
As pointed out above, although it is very probable from Roberts'
testimony that the belief did exist in Gadsden that the operations of
the respondent's plant would be increased if the employees there
were not organized, nevertheless the respondent was not responsible
at this time for the existence of this belief. Therefore, although we
are of the opinion that this belief may have had much to do with the
lack of protection afforded the United organizers in Gadsden, the re-
spondent cannot on this ground be held responsible for this lack of
protection. The respondent at the hearing introduced evidence in an
attempt to show that the United itself, through acts of violence and
threats thereof by its members and organizers in Gadsden, was re-
sponsible for much of the hostility against it and inadequate pro-
tection afforded its members in Gadsden. The evidence does not
show either that the United members were guilty of such conduct in
Gadsden or that a belief that the United members were guilty of
such conduct in Gadsden was responsible for the previously described
occurrences in Gadsden.
C. H. Glover, an employee who joined the United for a few months
in 1933, testified that one Finch, a United organizer, during a United
meeting, in the presence of other members, including Holmes, Beck,
and Horace Lowry, told employees that the respondent's plant if
11 Jones was a member of the June 8 employees' committee which met with Craigmile.
368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
necessary could be closed by dynamiting it.. Lowry and Beck, both-
testified at the hearing as witnesses for the respondent , and neither-
referred to such dynamite statements by Finch. Holmes denied that
Finch at any time had made such statements . We are of the opinion,
and we find , that Finch did not advocate the use of dynamite.
The only other indication of violence in Gadsden by the United
prior to 1936 was a rumor of a threatened strike in either 1933 or 1934.
No strike was ever called , however.
There is no indication that any of the above events, occurring long
before 1936 , was the cause of the 1936 occurrences . The evidence con-
cerning the United threats or violence in 1936 is extremely meager.
A. J. Jordan , an employee , testified that approximately 2 months be-
fore June 8 Jack Owens, an employee not a United member, twice
told him that two employees , Boldin and Moody, belonging to the
United , had told Owens to tell Jordan that if Jordan did not join the
United they would "take him for a ride." Owens did not testify at
the hearing . In view of the nature of this evidence, we find that such
threats cannot be attributed to the United or its members . Nor does
the evidence establish that Jordan participated in any of the sub-
sequent 1936 rioting because of these threats.
Crow testified that about 2 weeks after June 8, at about 9: 30 at
night, a rock was thrown at the door of his house . Crow apparently
never reported the incident to the police and did not discover the
identity of those involved nor the reason for this incident . Turner
testified that at about the same time his car was forced to the sidewalk
in Gadsden by another car, out of which came five men, who walked
toward him ; and that, drawing a gun, he succeeded in dispersing the
men. He never identified the men or discovered the reason for their
conduct. Bottoms testified that about the same time three United
organizers , Love, Leslly, and Thomas, gathered about his car on a
street in Gadsden when he was in it and took down his license number.
None of the men threatened him. Finally , McGathey testified that
about the same time a stink-bomb was thrown under the window of
his home early one morning . McGathey never discovered the identity
of the thrower or the reason for this incident . It is apparent that,
except in the case of Bottoms , there is no evidence that any of the
above incidents were either committed by United members or occurred
because of union disputes . Moreover , all of them occurred after the
events of June 6 and June 8.
Evidence introduced at the hearing does establish , however, that
during May and June 1936 the citizens and authorities of Gadsden
were considerably alarmed by reports concerning the United 's activi-
ties and violence elsewhere than in Gadsden. In particular , during
this time the United and the Ohio Corporation were engaged in labor
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 369
disputes at a plant in Akron, Ohio. The Gadsden papers were carry-
ing complete accounts relating to various acts of violence supposedly
committed by the United at the Akron plant. Moreover, many of the
respondent's employees had originally come from Akron and were in-
formed of the events which were happening in Akron either through
Akron newspapers or through citizens of that community. The truth
or falsity of these reports concerning violent acts by the United mem-
bers in Akron does not concern us here. Even if false, it is clear that
these rumors had greatly alarmed the entire community of Gadsden.
The evidence does not prove that the respondent at this time originated
these rumors or assisted the spread of them in Gadsden. We are of
the opinion that such rumors, as well as the above-mentioned belief
that the respondent's production activities at the Gadsden plant would
be increased if labor troubles there were kept down, were the substan-
tial reasons for the insufficient protection given the United organ-
izers and members in Gadsden. On the evidence introduced at the
hearing we cannot find that the respondent's denunciation of the right
of its employees to organize at the Gadsden plant, as previously de-
scribed, was a substantial cause for the lack of the protection given
United adherents in Gadsden. We shall, therefore, dismiss this
allegation of the complaint.
On the basis of the evidence introduced at the hearing, we are con-
vinced that the respondent deliberately chose anti-United employees
to serve as special deputies on June 20. Moreover, as hereinbefore
pointed out, on the basis of the evidence introduced at the hearing,
the respondent must also bear responsibility for such events as those
of June 6 and June 25. Ordinarily we would find that by such con-
duct the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. However, in view of the scope
of the pleadings, set forth above, relating to these incidents, we do
not make such findings in the present proceeding.
The complaint also alleges that the respondent, on or about June 8,
1936, discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate until May 1937,
12 employees because of their membership and activity in the United.
The 12 discharges referred to in the complaint are the 12 members
of the United, 3 of whom were beaten in the plant by other employees,
7 of whom were forced to leave the plant by other employees, and
all of whom were discharged or laid off by the respondent on June 8
at the request of the employees' committee. We hold the respondent
responsible for the beatings, evictions, and discharges or lay-offs of
these employees, for the following reasons. In the first place, as
previously described, the respondent's supervisory employees took an
active part in many of the evictions. Labor trainer Tucker and Fore-
man Goodall in particular actively assisted the employee groups in
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evicting United members. Moreover, members of the squadron, in-
cluding Crow, Pete Dunn, and Bottoms, for whose actions we hold
the respondent responsible, also participated in the evictions. In the
second place, even where the respondent's supervisory employees did
not actively participate in the evictions, they often openly mani-
fested their approval of this conduct. The remarks previously quoted
of Foreman Goodall and Division Superintendent Neiger to several
of the evicted employees and other members of the United are proof
of this statement. Indeed, Michaels himself openly showed his
approval of the evictions in his conversation with Jim Hudson on
June 8, previously set forth. In the third place, we are of the
opinion that the respondent's officials could have stopped the evictions
and the beatings if they had so desired. Supervisors Clayton and
McGathey, and Foremen Goodall and T. P. Smith, were present dur-
ing many of the evictions and made only feeble, if any, attempts to
stop them. Only after the evictions had largely ceased did Craig-
mile, Goodall, Cunningham, and Foreman Charles Dooley at last
attempt to disperse the evictors.
Finally, the respondent by its conduct clearly ratified and showed
its approval of the evictions and beatings. McGinty, one of the
foremost of the evictors, whose activity was known to Goodall and
Cunningham, as previously described, was later used as a labor spy
by the respondent and transferred to its police force. The mem-
bers of the squadron, such as Bottoms and Crow, who participated
in the evictions, were later promoted to supervisory positions. Nor
was a single one of the evictors punished, although the respondent,
as Michaels testified and as the evidence proves, knew the identity
of "a lot of them," such as McGinty, and could have ascertained the
identity of others by an adequate investigation, including the ques-
tioning of the evicted and assaulted employees, which the respondent
did not attempt to do. The respondent attempts to justify its failure
to punish the evictors by its assertion that there were too many of
them to do so, and that any attempt to punish all of them would
have caused a strike at the plant. The respondent's assertion that
there were a large number of evictors is questionable, and in view
of its failure thoroughly to investigate these incidents in order to
decide if few or many employees were involved, we are unimpressed
by it. Indeed, the evidence previously set forth indicates that but
a small number of the 1600 employees planned, led, and carried out
the evictions. Turner was the leader in the eviction of Ledlow and
Caudle, assisted by about 10 or 12 other employees, including Girard,
Crow, Pete and Carl Dunn, and Horace Lowry. McGinty was the
leader in the eviction of DeBerry, aided by about 10 or 12 other em-
ployees including Girard, Tucker, and Crow. Carl and Pete Dunn,
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 371
McGinty, and Crow, aided by about 12 other employees, evicted Love.
Crow, Bottoms, Tucker, and Carl Dunn, aided by about 10 other em-
ployees, evicted Doyal. Girard and Pete Dunn evicted Keener, and
Crow, Carl Dunn, Pete Dunn, Jim Hudson, Chaffin, and Pete Floyd
evicted Lake. In several instances large groups of other employees
gathered about the scene of the evictions when they were going on,
but there is no evidence that the members of such groups actively
participated in the evictions or approved of them. Indeed, some of
the respondent's officials or employees, such as McGathey, testified
that they were in these groups but merely as spectators. We are of
the opinion that the respondent, if it had wished, could have ad-
ministered severe punishment to the small group responsible for the
evictions, the identity of most of whom was known to it or could
have been ascertained by it if it had made an adequate investigation.
We do not believe that such action would have resulted in a strike.
Even if it would have, the respondent cannot plead its own economic
detriment as a reason for permitting discrimination against those
members of the United in its employ.28
The respondent's treatment of the employees' committee is further
evidence of its ratification of the evictions. The respondent per-
mitted the committee to dictate to it the discharge or lay-off of 12
employees because of their United membership. The respondent
asserts that these employees were distasteful to committee members
not because of their union activities but because of "their radical
activities." However, the testimony of the respondent's witnesses
who served on the committee indicates clearly that to most of them
radicalism was the equivalent of membership in, or of activity on
behalf of, the United in the plant .2' The respondent contends that
it acceded to the wishes of the committee and discharged or laid off
the 12 employees because it feared a strike if it) did not do so. We
have already pointed out that such a reason provides no justification
for the discharge or lay-off of these employees.30 The respondent also
states that to have permitted these 12 employees to continue to work
in the plant contrary to the committee's wishes would have resulted
in further violence to them from other employees. However, the
respondent made absolutely no effort, through a comprehensive inves-
tigation of the evictions, and punishment of the leaders and partici-
pants therein, to prevent the recurrence of the evictions in its plant.
Instead, the respondent abdicated the control of its plant to the
members of this committee. Moreover, as previously set forth,
28 Matter of Star Publishing Company and Seattle Newspaper Guild, Local No. 82, 4
N. L. R B . 498, order enforced , Natwnal Labor Relations Board v. Star Publishing Com-
pany, 97 F . ( 2d) 465 (C C. A 9th, 1938).
29 See the testimony of Rudder , McGathey, Turner, Bottoms, and Carl Hudson.
80 See footnote 28, supra.
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Craigmile not only was present during all sessions of the committee,
but actively participated in its questioning of the members of the
United called to appear before it and showed the respondent's
approval and ratification of the committee's purposes and acts, by the
statements he then made. In addition, as we have discussed above,
the selection of many of the evictors by the respondent for special
deputy duty constituted further ratification of their conduct on
June 8 by the respondent. The previously described circumstances
surrounding the circulation of the declarations in the plant and the
issuance by Bottoms of statements to the press, as well as the respond-
ent's actions on June 25 and the statements of Miller and Bottoms
to Hullett, are other instances showing ratification and approval by
the respondent of the June 8 incidents.
Any doubt that may exist as to the respondent's approval and
ratification of the events of June 8 is completely removed by the
evidence relating to the attempts of the United to secure reinstate-
ment of the 12 employees. The respondent asserted that the 12
employees were merely laid off, not discharged, and that it always
intended to recall them as soon as it felt that they could safely work
in the plant. No later than 2 months after June 8, the United
grievance committee presented a request for the reinstatement of
these 12 employees to the respondent, and thereafter on three other
occasions before April or May 1937 the United committee presented
similar requests. The respondent's officials remained adamant, how-
ever, always informing the United committee that it was not safe to
reinstate these employees in the plant. Not until May 11, 1937, did
the respondent consent to reinstate these employees, all of whom,
except Doyal, who did not desire reinstatement, returned to their
former positions in the employ of the respondent on or about May 20,
1937.
The respondent contends that until May 11, 1937, the 12 employees
could not have been safely reinstated in the plant. As the basis
for this contention, the respondent's officials, such as Craigmile and
Miller, testified that they and foremen from time to time questioned
various employees, including some of those who had been members
of the committee of June 8, as to whether or not their feeling toward
the evicted employees had changed, and whether or not it would be
safe to reinstate them, and each time received negative answers.
The respondent's officials at no time either disciplined or threatened
with discharge or other disciplinary action any employees, or other-
wise attempted to make it safe for the 12 employees to be reinstated.
The respondent's officials assert that when they reinstated the
employees in May 1937, it was safe to do so because the feeling
against them had died down. The evidence shows this reason is
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 373
specious: In the first place, Michaels himself testified that he
believed that from January 1937 until March or April of that year
"the feeling in the plant was the best anybody could imagine," but
that in April and May 1937, due to the formation and rapid growth
of the Etowah, as hereinafter described, and the resulting rivalry
between Etowah and the United, the feeling was "tense." More-
over, several of .the respondent's officials, including Miller, Neiger,
and Craigmile, testified that they believed the feeling against the
discharged employees had not died down when they were reinstated.
Miller testified that the great respect that the employees had for
the respondent's officials, such as Michaels, had insured the safety
of the reinstated employees. There is no evidence that this respect
increased between June 1936 and May 1937. Craigmile testified
that he believed that the employees were safely reinstated for three
reasons. First, in May 1937 he himself had personally told many
of the employees who had taken a leading part in the events of June
8 that if any of them or anyone else threatened or harmed the re-
instated employees upon their return to the plant, the respondent
would instantly discharge them. When asked at the hearing why
he had not taken such action prior to May 1937, Craigmile testified
merely that he felt that it would have been useless. Second, Craig-
mile and Michaels testified that the upholding of the consti-
tutionality of the Act by the Supreme Court of the United States 31
had had a "sobering effect" on the employees. Finally, Craigmile
and Michaels testified that on May 13, 1937, as hereinafter set forth,
the respondent posted certain notices at the suggestion of the Board,
agreeing not to interfere with the rights of its employees guaranteed
in the Act, and to disestablish the Plan ; and that they believed that
these notices had also sobered the employees.
We are of the opinion, and we find, that the reason for the re-
instatement of these 12 employees was the effect upon the respondent
of the decision of the Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality
of the Act. As Craigmile testified, the respondent had been advised
by counsel that the Act was unconstitutional. Secure in this belief,
prior to the Supreme Court's decision the respondent's officials made
no serious attempt to reinstate the discharged employees but con-
tented themselves with telling the United grievance committee that
it was not safe for these employees to return to the plant. Im-
mediately after the Supreme Court had upheld the Act, the respond-
ent suddenly reversed its policy and, for the first time taking active
steps to insure the safety of the 12 employees upon their return to
ffi National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Oorp , 301 U. S. 1 (April 12,
1937).
283032-41-vol 21-25
374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work in the plant, reinstated them. No harm had occurred to the
reinstated employees up to the time of the hearing.
In view of the complete lack of effort by the respondent prior to
May 1937 to take any precautions to insure the safety of the 12
employees upon their reinstatement, it does not lie in the mouth of
the respondent to say that it could not have safely reinstated them.
The respondent's other contention that their reinstatement would have
caused a strike at its plant is, as we have previously pointed out, no
defense for its conduct.32 Moreover, the respondent by its failure
to punish any of the participants in the June 8 occurrences, by its
subsequent ratification of their acts, by the promotion of many of
the leading evictors, and by its condonation of the further anti-
United conduct in the exodus from the plant and the riot on June
25, as well as in the events relating to Hullett's sermon, clearly con-
tributed much to the preservation and growth of the anti-United
feeling in the plant which it asserts was the reason why it was unable
safely to reinstate the 12 employees.
We find that the respondent on June 8, 1936, laid off or discharged
and thereafter refused until May 1937 to reinstate the following em-
ployees because of their union membership and activity : Edward'
Ledlow, C. S. Holmes, F. D. Love, F. H. DeBerry, J. D. Doyal, S. W.
Caudle, O.• G. Lake, K. F. Keener, Hugh Milam, L. R. Steward,.
L. D. Hayes, and F. B. Adams. The respondent, by laying off or
discharging these 12 employees, discriminated in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in
a labor organization and interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section IT
of the Act.
3. The other 1936 lay-offs and discharges
During the latter part of June and the early part of July 1936,
three employees , two of them members or former members of the
United, were laid off or discharged. All three discharges or lay-offs
arose out of the activities previously described.
Zella Morgan. Morgan, the recording secretary of the United, as,
previously set forth , had been summoned before the employees' com-
mittee on June 8, and had been allowed to return to work on that
day after Craigmile and members of the committee had warned her
that if she did not cease associating with the United organizers, she
would be summoned again before the committee . On June 13 Morgan
was summoned to Craigmile 's office. Craigmile asked her to sign
the statement , previously referred to, concerning his participation in
12 See footnote 28, supra
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 375
the activities of the June 8 committee. Morgan testified that at this
time Craigmile informed her that he had heard from the respond-
ent's officials at Akron that she had been making false statements
concerning his participation in the committee's activities. Craigmile
did not deny making this remark, and we find that he did so. On
Monday, June 29, four girls employed in the plant, Clarice Prater,
Cathryn Davis, Daisy Warren, and Mrs. Lula Moore, approached
Morgan while she was working, told her that she would have to
leave the plant, and asked her to accompany them to the respondent's
offices and obtain her pay. Morgan replied that she would go pro-
vided that the girls would not accompany her. Morgan went to her
foreman, O. C. Pack. Morgan testified that she told him what had
occurred, asked him what she should do, and was told by him to
see Craigmile. Pack testified that Morgan merely informed him thi, t
because the girls would not work with her, she was quitting. We
credit Morgan's testimony. Shortly after Morgan's arrival in Craig-
mile's office, the four girls entered. Morgan testified that she in-
formed Craigmile that she had been ordered by the four girls to
leave the plant and told him that she "supposed" she should ask for
her "time in full"; that one of the girls stated that they had nothing
against her except her continual association with the "Union people";
that Craigmile reminded her that the committee had previously
warned her against associating with union members; that Craigmile
promised to protect her in the plant, but stated that "those girls
have made up their minds and it won't do any good for you to go
back down there, when the committee calls you before them again";
that Craigmile informed her that although he could call the com-
mittee together again to hear her case, he believed that such action
would be useless, since the girls had already decided they would not
work with her ; that Craigmile told her that "the best thing" for
-her to do was to accept from him an honorable discharge 33 and her
vacation money, which he would give her if she would leave the plant
at once, and then doubtless she would be able to return to work "a
little bit later"; and that Craigmile stated that if she did not leave
now of her own accord and "we have to call this committee back
you will have to abide by what they say." According to the testi-
mony of Mrs. Moore, Davis, and Prater, as well as Craigmile, the
four girls told Craigmile that they wished to evict Morgan because,
"their men folks had taken a hand in running some of the radicals
out of the plant and it was their opinion they had not done a.
thorough job, they should have chased Zella out too;" Craigmile
s3 An honorably discharged employee , if ever reemployed by the respondent , had rights,
and,privileges, such as vacations and seniority , based on his total period of employment by-
the respondent , and was not treated as a new employee
376 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereupon stated that they could not "dictate" to him, for he was
still "running" the plant and had charge of "all the hiring and
firing"; Morgan then said that because the girls did not want to
work with her, she wished to quit; the girls stated that Morgan
had been seen associating with the organizers and their wives since
June 8, and that they felt that Morgan had broken the promise she
had made to the committee on June 8, not to be guilty of such con-
duct; Craigmile stated that he was "very proud" to have Morgan
working for him, promised her full protection in the plant, and
requested her to remain at work, but she refused ; Craigmile then
asked Morgan to work for 3 more days,34 but she refused; and finally,
Craigmile gave Morgan an honorable discharge with vacation pay.
In view of the respondent's general labor policies at this time, as
described in the previous section, and in particular in view of Craig-
mile's treatment of the committee and the employees summoned be-
fore the committee on June 8, we are of the opinion that Morgan's
testimony concerning her interview with Craigmile is to be credited,
and we find the facts to be as set forth above in it.
Morgan had never had any previous difficulty with any of the four
employees who requested her departure. According to the testimony
of Davis, Mrs. Moore, who is the wife of a supervisor in the respond-
ent's plant and did not work in Morgan's department, was the leader
of this eviction group and the first one to suggest taking such action.
Craigmile, although he testified that he rebuked the evictors, neither
threatened them with discharge nor at any time actually discharged
or otherwise disciplined them for their conduct. Craigmile must have
realized that Morgan was willing to quit her job only because she
feared suffering a fate similar to that of the seven employees evicted
on June 8. Craigmile offered Morgan the alternative either of yield-
ing to the request of the evictors and voluntarily leaving her job
at once with vacation pay and the possibility of reinstatement without
loss of her seniority rights, or of remaining at work in the plant
until recalled before the committee and then probably being dis-
charged without vacation pay. In view of the events, described in
the previous sections, which had occurred in the plant and in Gadsden
in June 1936, Craigmile's advice to Morgan, in the presence of the
four evictors, to accept the first alternative, practically compelled
her to take such action and so was, a discharge or lay-off. In any
event, for the respondent to require that Morgan, as a condition
of further employment, appear before the employees' committee,
answer its questions about her United activities, and abide by its
decision as to whether she could continue to work in the plant, was
34 Usually employees obtained an honorable discharge only if they gave the respondent
3 days' notice before leaving its employ.
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 377
a violation of the Act,35 discriminating in regard to her hire and
tenure of employment, and Morgan lost none of her rights guaran-
teed by the Act by refusing employment under such circumstances.38
- We find that the respondent's conduct toward Morgan, set forth
above, was caused by her union membership and activity. The re-
spondent, by such conduct, discriminated in regard to her hire and
tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
The United grievance committee asked the respondent to reinstate
Morgan at the same time that it asked for the reinstatement of the
12 employees laid off or discharged on June 8. Craigmile admitted
at the hearing that he believed that Morgan could have been rein-
stated safely in the plant some time before she actually was rein-
stated on May 20, 1937, but stated that he did not think it proper to
reinstate her unless the other 12 employees were reinstated at the
same time. The respondent's failure to reinstate Morgan until May
20, 1937, confirms our opinion that the respondent either laid off
or discharged her, or forced her to quit its employment, in June 1936,
because of her union membership and activity.
Ruth Christopher. Christopher entered the respondent's employ
on October 4, 1929. In August 1934, she joined the United: Prior
to June 1936, she had lost her membership through failure to pay
dues. As previously set forth, Christopher, despite a warning from
Supervisor Phillips, had refused to sign the declaration circulated
in the respondent's plant shortly before June 25, and had subse-
quently been interviewed by Superintendent Neiger as to whether or
not she was satisfied with working conditions in the plant. On
June 25, 1936, after the employees returned to the plant following the
Tolson Building riot, several of the women working near Christopher
discussed the riot. Christopher's brother was one of the organizers
who had been assaulted at the Tolson Building. Christopher testi-
fied that one of the girls cursed the union organizers, and that she
then stated that she believed that it was not right for "a mob of men"
to go and assault "a few men like that,"' and that she thought that the
35 See section III, B , 2, supra
8° Cf. Matter of Clover Fork Coal Company and District 19, United Mine Workers of
America, 4 N. L. It. B. 202, order enforced , Clover Fork Coal Company v. National Labor
Relations Board, 97 F. (2d) 331 (C. C. A. 6th, 1938) ; Matter of Waggoner Refining Com-
pany, Inc. and W. T. Waggoner Estate and International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well
and Refinery Workers of America, , 6 N. L. It. B. 731 ; Matter of Sterling Corset Co., Inc.
and Universal Brassiere & Justrite Corset Co . and International Ladies' Garment Workers
Union, Local 85, 9 N. L. R B. 858; Matter of Chicago Apparatus Company and Federation
of Architects , Engineers, Chemists and Technicians , Local 107, 12 N. L. It. B. 1002;
Matter of The Press Co., Inc and The Gannett Company and Tri-City Newspaper Guild of
Albany, Troy , and Schenectady, New York, 13 N. L. It. B. 630.
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rioters ought to be cursed as well as the organizers. Christopher
denied cursing the organizers. Mrs. Emmett Carnes and Leona
Woods, two women in the group addressed by Christopher, testified
that Christopher cursed the organizers. We credit Christopher's
testimony. Several of the girls in the group around Christopher,
including Mrs. Carnes, Leona Woods, and Eva Woods, showed great
resentment over Christopher's remarks. Mrs. Carnes, together with
Eva and Leona Woods, then approached C. E. Jellicourse, the chief
dispatcher, and asked him to take Christopher to see Miller. Jelli-
course agreed to do so, in order, he testified to protect Christopher.
Jellicourse and the women, together with Christopher, saw Miller.
The women told Miller that they considered Christopher an "unde-
sirable," that the "boys" had "rid" themselves of the "undesirables,"
and that they would not work any longer with Christopher. Chris-
topher testified that she was extremely nervous and frightened at
this time. At Miller's suggestion, Christopher agreed to go home
until the following Monday. When she reported for work on Mon-
'day, June 29, she saw Craigmile, Miller, and Neiger. Christopher
testified that Neiger informed her that she could no longer work in his
department because two-thirds of the girls there would not work with
her; that he told her that she would have to take a job as a new em-
ployee in another department, which would pay her considerably less
money; and that Neiger and Craigmile both said that they were not
even certain if they would let her continue to work in the plant.
Christopher protested this transfer. Finally it was agreed that Chris-
topher should take a vacation for a week. Christopher did so. At
the end of the week, when Christopher reported for work, she saw
Craigmile. Christopher testified that at this time Craigmile informed
her that he had no job at all for her and that she was discharged.
Craigmile and Neiger both testified that they suggested Christopher's
transfer because she was unpopular in her department and had had
difficulty in getting along with her fellow employees, and Craigmile
testified that when Christopher returned from her week's vacation,
he had not discharged her but again offered her the transfer, which
she again refused. We credit Christopher's testimony and find the
facts to be as set forth above in it.
The respondent introduced considerable evidence to prove that
Christopher was in the habit of cursing her fellow employees and
also various officials of the respondent. We are of the opinion that
Christopher's cursing was not the reason for the respondent's dis-
charging her. The evidence indicates that Christopher's cursing
was not at all unusual among employees in the respondent's plant.
Thus Clarice Prater, an employee, testified that Roy Girard, an
employee, whom Christopher often cursed, was also guilty of cursing
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 379
Christopher. Christopher's foreman, Hershiser, testified that he
had never heard Christopher use any profanity, but that he had
reprimanded her for so doing because of the complaints of other
employees. However, he admitted that other employees used the
same language as Christopher did, although stating, without any
,explanation, that Christopher's language was more abusive 37 Her-
shiser also admitted that he rebuked the entire crew of employees
with whom Christopher worked for profanity, and not Christopher
alone. Moreover, it is clear that on June 25 the trouble between
Christopher and her fellow employees arose not because of Christo-
pher's cursing but because of her adverse comments on the rioters
at the Tolson Building. Neiger testified that he suggested Chris-
topher's transfer from his department "in view of the fact that these
people did not want to work with her." But as the women employees
who took Christopher to Miller informed him, they allegedly were
.unwilling to work with Christopher, not because of any cursing by
her, but because of her sympathy with the United, which made her
an "undesirable." And, despite the fact that Mrs. Carnes and Leona
and Eva Woods, as well as the other employees who resented Chris-
topher's remarks, were fully as much to blame for the ensuing dis-
pute as Christopher, the respondent made no effort to punish or
• transfer any of them except Christopher. Instead, the respondent
carried out the wishes of the evictors and discharged Christopher.
We find that she, like the 12 employees laid off or discharged on
June 8, was discharged by the respondent in compliance with the
demands of the anti-United employees in the plant.
The respondent argues that by offering Christopher a transfer to
another department it was attempting to protect her in its plant.
However, the transfer, admittedly to a lower-paying job, was caused
by the same reasons as her discharge and therefore was discrimina-
tory, and we have held in previous decisions that an employee con-
fronted with a discriminatory transfer need not accept the transfer
but may leave his employment without sacrificing his rights under
'Section 8 (3) of the Act.38 Moreover, as previously stated, we are
of the opinion that Christopher's testimony that Craigmile in the
final interview discharged her and did not offer her a transfer is to
be credited.
sr Hershiser testified : "... other people used similar words. You can be abusive with
it and you cannot."
53 Matter of Waggoner Refining Company , Inc. and W. T . Waggoner Estate and Interna-
tional Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, 6 N. L. R. B.
731; Matter of The Press Co, Inc. and The Gannett Co. and Trs-City Newspaper Gua.ld of
Albany, Troy and Schenectady , New York, 13 N. L. R. B. 630; Matter of R. C. Hoiles,
C. H. Hoiles , Harry Moiles, and Mary Jane Hoiles, doing business under the trade name
and style of Clovis News -Journal ( formerly Evening News-Journal ) and Pryer U. Smith,
13 N. L. R.B 1122.
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the respondent discharged Ruth Christopher be-
cause of her union activity. The respondent, by discharging Chris-
topher, discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of employ-
ment, thereby discouraging' membership in a labor organization and
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent reinstated Christopher at the same time that it
reinstated the 12 employees laid off or discharged on June 8.
Emmett D. Taylor. Taylor was hired by the respondent as a band
builder in the tire room, in 1929. After 9 months, because of illness
in his family, he left the respondent's employ. Early in 1936, Taylor
returned to his former position in the respondent's employ. Before
he returned, Taylor had been asked by his former shift foreman,
Cunningham, and also by his former supervisor, Canup, to return
to work. Cunningham testified that he had sought Taylor's return
because he needed more band builders and wanted experienced men.
Cunningham also testified that Taylor was a "pretty fair worker."
In April 1936, Taylor applied for membership in the United, but
prior to his lay-off on June 24, 1936, due to financial difficulties, he
had never actually joined the United.
As previously set forth, Taylor shortly after June 8 was asked by
Miller if he "was satisfied with conditions in the plant," and later
twice refused Jones' request to sign a declaration that he was satis-
fied with the working conditions in the respondent's plant. Taylor
told Miller that he "was making no complaint at the present time
at conditions in the plant." Taylor told Jones that he would not
sign the declaration because "I resented the treatment that union
employees were receiving by the company, and . . . I believed in
organized labor." The following night, June 24, Shift Foreman
Rollins sent Taylor to see Goodall, who informed Taylor that he was
-being laid off because he was "a junior man" and the respondent
"had hired in too many band builders," and "had a surplus of labor."
The respondent has advanced numerous reasons for Taylor's dis-
charge or lay-off. The answer of the respondent alleges that Taylor
was laid off because of defective work and incompetence. John
Cunningham, shift foreman, the only official of the respondent who
testified concerning Taylor's work, stated that Taylor's work was all
right in quality but was deficient in quantity. Cunningham could not
recall, however, ever having complained about Taylor's work, and
there is no evidence to contradict Taylor's testimony that he had never
been reprimanded for any deficiency in production. Moreover, the
fact that Cunningham and Canup both sought to have Taylor return
to his job with the respondent indicates that Taylor's work was satis-
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 381
factory. Cunningham testified also that Taylor was laid off because
he was one of the youngest men on that job. Taylor, however, testi-
fied that there were four or five band builders not then laid off who
were junior to him, and the respondent offered no evidence, such as
employment records, which it must have had in its possession, to
contradict this testimony of Taylor. Cunningham also testified that
the respondent's production had declined because of a decrease in
business. The respondent offered no other testimony whatsoever to
prove such a decrease in business. On the contrary, Michaels testi-
fied that on June 8 he was so busy with the problem of expanding
production at the 'respondent's plant that he was unable to meet with
the employees' committee. Finally, Cunningham testified that
Taylor was often absent from work. Taylor testified, however, that
his absences were due to illness. The respondent's medical records
indicate that Taylor had been ill for a week in March, 2 days in
April, and 4 days in June. On every occasion Taylor was absent,
so far as the record shows, he either obtained a medical excuse from
the respondent's own doctor or presented a satisfactory medical
excuse to the respondent's doctor from his own physician. Cunning-
ham testified that he was unaware that Taylor's absences were due to
illness, but admitted that Taylor might have presented the excuses
for his absences to Shift Foreman Rollins.
We are impressed by the fact that the only witness of the respond-
ent to testify concerning Taylor's discharge was Cunningham, a shift
foreman, who admitted that Taylor was under his supervision only
part of the time. Department Foreman Goodall, who ordered
Taylor's discharge, did not testify concerning this event at the hear-
ing. Under these circumstances, we find that Taylor was not dis-
charged for any of the reasons advanced by the respondent, but
because of his refusals to sign the declaration and his remarks to
Jones showing his sympathy for the United.
As alleged in the amended complaint, we find that the respondent
on June 24, 1936, discouraged membership in the United by laying
off or discharging and thereafter refusing to reinstate Taylor because
he had twice refused to sign the previously described declaration
circulated in the plant and had manifested a friendly attitude toward
the United. The respondent, by laying off or discharging Taylor,
discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of his employment,
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization and inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Taylor desires to return to his former position in the employ of
the respondent.
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The formation and admvnistration of the Etowah
1. The history of the Etowah
As previously set forth, the respondent had been advised by its
counsel that the Act was unconstitutional. Despite the passage of
the Act, therefore, the respondent made no attempt to dissolve the
company-dominated Plan previously described, prior to the decision
of the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitu-
tionality of the Act.39 On April 19, 1937, however, within a week
after this decision, the eight employee representatives of the Plan
were summoned to a meeting of the factory council in the plant
early in the morning. Michaels informed the employee representa-
tives that the respondent had decided to dissolve the Plan. Michaels
stated that he "was sorry" to see the Plan dissolved, and that he felt
that it had accomplished a lot in the plant and hoped that "the same
amicable relations" between the respondent and the employees could
be continued in the future. Hoyt Yarbrough, one of the employee
representatives, asked whether the employees could "organize a union
of their own." Craigmile replied that the employees could join
anything they wished.
No further announcement of the dissolution of the Plan was made
until May 3, 1937, when the respondent posted a notice, signed by
Michaels, informing all employees in the plant of the dissolution of
the Plan.
Immediately after the conclusion of the meeting on April 19, sev-
eral of the employee representatives, including Carl Hudson and
Beck, began to discuss the formation of a new labor organization for
the employees at the respondent's plant. Carl Hudson testified that
the employees were in a hurry to get this organization started be-
cause "we wanted to have something to take place of the Joint
Conference," and that during that day while at work at the plant
he spoke to various employees, including Jim Hudson and McCay,
concerning the formation of a new union. Dwight L. Teague, an
electrician in the respondent's employ, reminded Jim Hudson, when
the latter spoke to him about organizing a union, of what had hap-
pened previously to employees who joined unions. Hudson replied
that this union he was organizing "was different" and that he had
spoken to several officials, including the master mechanic, Mallory,
and had been informed by Mallory that this union "would be all
right." When Teague still expressed doubt, Hudson informed him
that he would again speak to Mallory. Later that day Hudson told
Teague that he had spoken to Mallory again and that the latter had
89 See footnote 31, supra.
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 383
informed him that it was "all right" to proceed with the organiza-
tion of his union. Hudson also told Teague that the original or-
ganization meeting was to have been held at the ball park but that
Mallory had objected that to hold the meeting there would not "look
so good" and had suggested that instead it should be held on the
employees' golf course.
That afternoon shortly after the first shift of the plant ended at 3
o'clock, about 150 employees met on the golf course. Among those
present were Beck, Carl Hudson, and Rex Norton, all employee repre-
sentatives of the Plan. Beck told the group that under the Act it
would be illegal for them to begin their organization on the golf
course, which was the respondent's property. Accordingly, the group
decided to appoint a committee consisting of Rudder, Jim and Carl
Hudson, Beck, McCay, Jud Dailey, J. P. Tollison, H. 0. Carpenter,
E. L. Riley, and J. H. Johnson, all employees, to meet that night at
the home of Rudder and perfect plans for the organization of a union.
The group also authorized the committee to employ an attorney to
assist them. Immediately after the meeting on the golf course ended,
Rudder, who had not attended this meeting, was informed by Beck
and Jim Hudson of what had occurred at the meeting. Rudder
arranged for W. M. Rayburn, an attorney, to advise the group. Rud-
der also saw a printer and asked him to be ready to print membership
cards late that evening.
At the meeting held that evening at Rudder's home, Carl Hudson
was elected temporary president and other temporary officers were
chosen. A membership committee consisting of Jim Hudson, Beck,
Carpenter, and Tollison was chosen. Membership cards were drawn
up, monthly dues of 25 cents were established, and the organization
was named the Etowah. About 1 o'clock that morning the meeting
broke up. Rudder at once had membership cards printed. About 3
o'clock that morning Beck, McCay, Jim Hudson, Tollison, Carpenter,
and Riley went to the plant and began to solicit members. None of
these employees soliciting members then were supposed to be in the
plant at work at this time. Despite the fact that they made no at-
tempt to conceal their presence in the plant or what they were doing,
no official of the respondent interfered with their activity for several
hours. As a result they succeeded in signing up almost all the em-
ployees at work on that shift. Thus, B. H. Vickery, an employee in
the mill room, saw Tollison go through his department with member-
ship cards in his hand, speak to every employee there, and sign up
many of them, including Vickery. McCay testified that he alone
signed up 100 employees before the shift ended at 7 a. m.
Finally at about 7:30 that morning Michaels informed Rudder and
Jim Hudson that the soliciting in the plant must cease. The evidence
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
indicates, however, that but little heed was given to Michael's order
that morning and that the respondent's officials made little attempt
to enforce it. Thus Rex Norton while he was working in the plant
during the morning saw Beck, Carpenter, and McCay go through the
tire-building department from machine to machine with membership
cards and pencils in their hands and openly solicit members without
being stopped by any official of the respondent.
That same day Rudder arranged for a meeting between Michaels
and Craigmile, and Jim and Carl Hudson, Riley, and Tollison. Carl
Hudson testified that the purpose of this meeting was to find out
whether these officials of the respondent "approved" of the Etowah,
but that the two officials refused to commit themselves. The em-
ployees informed Michaels and Craigmile of the organization of the
Etowah and read the minutes of the previous meeting to them. Mi-
chaels and Craigmile informed them that there was to be no soliciting
Iof members- in the plant. -
c Several more meetings were held by the committee at Rudder's
home. On April 24 a mass meeting was held at the municipal audi-
torium at which a constitution and bylaws were adopted, and on May
'1, at another mass meeting, permanent officers were elected. On May
4 Rayburn, U. M. Gilbert, president of the Etowah,. Yarbrough, vice
president, and C. B. Johnson, secretary-treasurer, conferred with
Michaels and obtained oral recognition from him of the Etowah as a
labor organization. Michaels refused to recognize the Etowah as sole
bargaining agent for all employees, despite the claims of its officers
that 1200 of the 1500 eligible employees in the plant belonged to it.
Pursuant to the request made by the Etowah representatives during
this conference on May 5, 1937, the respondent posted the following
notice on all the bulletin boards in its plant:
General Notice
All employees of the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company of
Alabama are hereby notified that recognition has been given
by said Company to the Etowah Rubber Workers Organization
and to the following named men as officers of the Organization
U. M. GILBERT, President,
H. W. YARBROUGH, Vice President,
C. B . JOHNSON, Secretary-Treasurer,
Goodyear Tire et Rubber Company of Alabama.
(Sgn) A. C. MICHAELS,
General Superintendent.
On May 13 the United representatives requested that the respond-
ent post a similar notice for the United. The respondent's officials
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 385
denied this request, stating that they had done so in September 1935,
and that further recognition of the United was unnecessary and
would be unfair to the Etowah. On May 25, 1937, however, the
respondent, pursuant to the requests of the United and the Etowah,
posted notices giving the names of employees on United and Etowah
committees.
On May 14, 1937, pursuant to a petition filed on April 24, the
Etowah obtained a corporate charter from the State of Alabama:
2. The relationship between the Etowah and the respondent
We are of the opinion and we find that the respondent dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of the Etowah
and contributed support to it in the following ways :
First, as previously described, during June 1936, less than a year
before the formation of the Etowah,.the respondent had engaged in
various unfair labor practices at its plant and clearly revealed to
its employees its inveterate hostility toward the United or any other
"outside" labor organization. That such events as the June 8 beat-
ings and ejections and their significance had not been forgotten in
May 1937 by the employees who had witnessed or participated in
them is shown by 'the conversation, previously set forth, between
Teague and Jim Hudson at this time, and the fact that the organizers
of the Etowah immediately sought to obtain the approval of the
respondent's officials, Michaels and Craigmile, for their organization.
Consequently, the formation and rapid growth of an inside labor
organization, the Etowah, to take the place of the company-domi-
nated Plan, immediately after that organization had been dissolved,
was but a logical development and consequence of the previous unfair
labor practices of the respondent, which showed the employees not
only the respondent's hostility toward the United and its prefer-
ence for an inside labor organization, but also the risks incurred in
joining the United. By inevitably making the intimidated employees
very reluctant to join, or remain members of, the United, the re-
spondent's previous unfair labor practices seriously crippled the
United's activity at the Gadsden plant. Moreover, the employees
who had been laid off or discharged in June 1936, were, in the main,
the most prominent and active members of the United. Since they
were not reinstated until May 20, 1937, or thereafter, they were,
unable before then to carry on the United's activities as vigorously
as if they had been working in the respondent's plant.
On May 13, 1937, the respondent posted a notice on its bulletin-
board stating that, in accordance with suggestions made to it by-
the Board, it would disestablish the Plan, not interfere with, restrain,.
386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or coerce its employees in their rights to self-organization , not domi-
nate, support , or interfere with the formation or administration of
any labor organization of its employees , nor discourage membership
in any such labor organization by discrimination in regard to hire
and tenure of employment . However, this notice was not posted
until after the Etowah had been fully organized and recognized by
the respondent and, according to the Etowah's claims , after it had
obtained 1200 members at the respondent 's plant . Similarly, the
respondent , apart from the April 19 announcement , did not post
notices officially dissolving the Plan until 2 weeks after the Etowah
had been organized . Therefore, these steps taken by the respond-
ent to eradicate the effect of its 1936 unfair labor practices, since
they were not taken until after the Etowah had been formed and,
in the case of the May 13 notice , recognized , were ineffective to
diminish the effect of these unfair labor practices upon the forma-
tion and growth of the Etowah.
In the second place, the evidence is clear that the respondent's
officials permitted widespread solicitation for Etowah members, col-
lection of Etowah dues , and distribution of Etowah ribbons, by em-
ployees in the plant during working hours. The respondent points
out that employees also solicited members for the United in the
plant during working hours . However, there is no evidence that
United representatives were collecting dues or distributing United
buttons in the plant during working hours. Nor did United mem-
bers solicit members in the plant as openly and on as large a scale
as the Etowah representatives did. In fact , in many instances, the
respondent's supervisory officials either tolerated or directly aided
such activities of the Etowah in the plant . Thus, as previously
described , on the morning of April 20 representatives of the Etowah
who were not then supposed to be in the plant, solicited members
for 3 or 4 hours openly before they were finally warned by the re-
spondent 's officials . No reason was given by the respondent's of-
ficials why such solicitation was permitted. We are convinced by
the evidence that the respondent 's officials must have known of the
solicitation and deliberately tolerated it. Michaels finally issued an
order to stop this activity , but as previously pointed out , his order,
as shown by what Norton observed that morning , had little
immediate effect.
Rosebud Howard, an employee, when asked to join the Etowah
while working in the plant by Girard, questioned her supervisor,
Yancey, as to whether it was all right to join. Yancey replied,
"Can't that man make you see anything . . ." A. J. Forman, an
employee, while at work was asked to join the Etowah by McDaniel,
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 387
who, as previously set forth , was then a labor trainer , a supervisory
position . In fact, McDaniel admitted that he solicited for the
Etowah for 2 or 3 days in the plant . R. H. Scott, an employee,
testified that his foreman , F. S. Bell , told him that only by joining
the Etowah could the employees prevent part of the production of
the Gadsden plant being transferred to a plant at Akron, Ohio.
According to Scott, in May 1937, when Bell noticed that he was
wearing a United button , Bell remarked that he, Bell , was surprised
that Scott had joined the United because it did not have a charter
as the Etowah did, that "if we go ahead in this country organizing
under this C. I. O.. . . we will be working just like in China or
Japan for whatever they give us," and that he, Bell, personally
preferred that Scott join the Etowah and "be steady here" and
prevent production leaving the Gadsden plant and going to Akron.
Scott also testified that when he left the plant to appear at the
hearing, Bell remarked to him, "don't forget what you said about the
C. I. 0." Scott testified that Bell referred to the fact that he had
once told Bell that if the Etowah was a union, he did not want any
union, even the United. Bell denied most of the above testimony of
Scott. Bell testified that because Scott had cursed the United a few
weeks previously, he had remarked, upon seeing Scott wearing the
United button, that he was surprised. According to Bell, he told
Scott the latter "could join anything he wanted to." Bell also testi-
fied that he had made the remark above referred to when Scott had
left the plant to appear at the hearing in order to remind Scott of
the latter 's statements to him in April cursing the United. We find
the facts to be as set forth above in Scott's testimony concerning the
above incidents.
Millard Edgeworth , an employee , testified that Supervisor Louis
Jones asked him where his Etowah ribbon was; that he replied that
he belonged to the United ; and that Jones later told him that the
United was a "damn bunch of Bolsheviks " and that he had thought
Edgeworth "a good boy" until the latter had "the crust to join" the
United. Jones denied the above testimony of Edgeworth , but we find
that his denial is not to be credited . Joe S. Hyde, an employee,
asked his foreman, Linn, about the Etowah . Linn replied that he
"thought it would be all right to get in it."
Flavel Roberts , a tire builder , several times asked A. L. Country-
man, Jr., an employee , while he was working to join the Etowah.
When Countryman complained about this activity of Roberts to his
supervisor , Frank Lister, Lister merely laughed. Johnson, the Secre-
tary-treasurer of the Etowah, was a clerk in the office of Mallory, the
master mechanic . Johnson testified , and we find , that during the first
2 weeks of the organizing campaign of the Etowah , Mallory was away
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the plant; that during that time the mechanics came constantly
to his, Johnson's desk at the plant; and that he then signed them up
for the Etowah, if they requested him to do so. Jordan, an Etowah
member, solicited members in the plant for about 4 hours, obtained
30 to 40 of them, and collected dues for an hour. He was rebuked by
Foreman Goodall, but still continued his soliciting. Harris Hurst, a
squadron member, at the request of James Karam, another squadron
member, for 45 minutes distributed 200 Etowah ribbons in the plant
during working hours until he was finally sent back to work without
any rebuke or punishment by Foreman A. E. Rearick. Henry Lowry,
a squadron member, belonging to the Etowah, testified that he had
collected and still did collect dues during working hours in the plant
from Etowah members. One Hallmark, an employee, usually collected
Etowah dues in the plant. One day when Hallmark was absent, Gerald
Crowder, an employee, collected dues in the plant and continued to
do so even after Supervisor Moore had warned him to stop. Crowder
testified that he was unaware that the respondent had any rule for-
bidding such activity in the plant. Mrs. Carnes also solicited mem-
bers and collected the dues of 20 employees in the plant and was
unaware that this activity was against the respondent's rules until
finally stopped by her foreman, Hershiser.
At the same time, the respondent's supervisors were revealing to
employees that their hostility toward the United had not abated. In
view of the intense rivalry between the Etowah and the United such
action by the respondent's supervisory employees not only constituted
interference with the rights of the employees to self-organization, but
also gave support to the Etowah.' Thus, when Theo. Henslee and
another employee first wore their United buttons in the plant in May
1937, their foreman, Bell, told them that he, Bell, was "very badly dis-
appointed" that they had joined the United and wanted to try to
change their minds. L. T. Brooks, an employee, about the same time
was told by his supervisor, Terrill Jackson, that he, Jackson, was
surprised that Brooks had joined the United which was like "the
Ku Klux Klan," and that Jackson "would bet . . . $5.00 there would
be nothing to it in 2 years." Cartee testified that in May 1937, when
he was wearing a United button in the plant, N. A. Nigosian, head
of the engineering department, told him that he, Nigosian, could not
talk about "the union" in the plant but that if Cartee would come out
to his home, he would explain "a lot of things" to him and "open" his
eyes and "show" him something, and that due to the "union" he
did not know whether the respondent would ever get its new machines
in operation. According to Cartee, Nigosian told him that he, Ni-
gosian, did not see why all the employees could not be "one big happy
family" and get into "this little union"; and when he asked if Nigosian
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 389
meant the Etowah, Nigosian said, "you know what I mean .. . this
thing doesn't cost you anything . . . you get just as much by belonging
to it as you will by belonging to the one you belong to." Nigosian
denied most of Cartee's testimony. Nigosian testified that he could
not recall whether he had ever invited Cartee to his home and that,
concerning the new machines, he told Cartee that if the respondent
got the parts for them in time, they would be installed, but that there
was so much agitation in Akron that the respondent could not depend
on getting anything from there. We find the facts to be as set forth
above in Cartee's testimony, which we credit.
Arthur Crider, a tire builder on the United shop committee, testi-
fied that in April 1937 he informed his foreman, Charles Dooley,
that he had been elected a member of the United shop committee and
suggested that he and Dooley "cooperate"; that Dooley replied,
"Any time you need anything you see your supervisor" ; and that
Dooley also said that "we was not running this place, but he was
the foreman," and that Crider should go back to his machine and
go to work. According to Crider, 15 minutes later Dooley came to
him with Superintendent B. L. Morgan, and after he had told Morgan
whom he represented, Morgan told him that the respondent had
"done away with all representation and did not have it now nor wculd
ever have it." Morgan. did not deny the above testimony. Dooley
testified that he knew that Crider belonged to the United; that Crider
informed him that he, Crider, represented the men on that shift; and
that he then informed Crider that the respondent did not have "the
representative plan any more," that Crider did not represent anyone
so far as he, Dooley, was concerned, and that if any individual em-
ployee had a complaint, that employee should see him, Dooley.
Dooley, however, denied knowing at the time he made these remarks
that Crider was a United committeeman. We find that Crider's
testimony is to be credited and that Dooley knew at this time that
Crider was a United representative.
Woodrow Kilpatrick, an employee belonging to the United, testi-
fied that on June 20, 1937, he was rebuked by Superintendent Neiger
for allegedly soliciting in the plant; and that Neiger stated that
unless the employees left the "damn C. I. 0. alone Akron was going
to take all of our production, that they were going to close down the
plant and the bats would be in, the plant in less than a month .. .
that the C. I. 0. was based on red Russia and that kind of Com-
munism," and that if Kilpatrick "did not cooperate with the Com-
pany" he "would not have a job long." Louie Allen, an employee
on the United shop committee, testified that he was present during,
this interview between Kilpatrick and Neiger; that Neiger asked
him, Allen, why he had joined "this radical group"; that Neiger
283032-41-vol 21-26
390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stated that he, Neiger, "believed in organization . . . but not that
kind," that "John L. Lewis was going to be a dictator," that the
Akron local of the United was demanding that production at the
Gadsden plant be cut down 50 per cent, and that the "attitude" of the
employees at Gadsden would decide whether or not Gadsden would
have capacity production. Neiger denied the testimony of Allen and
Kilpatrick. Neiger testified that he told Allen and Kilpatrick that
the "boys in Akron were not interested in their welfare" and only
desired to get back the production the Akron plant had lost to Gads-
den. Foreman Pack, who also was present during this interview,
did not testify concerning it at the hearing. We find the facts to
be as set forth above in the testimony of Allen and Kilpatrick, which
we credit.
Louis E. Shew, an employee belonging the the United, testified that
his foreman, Linn, told him in the plant one morning, that he, Shew,
was not being "fair" to the respondent; that he asked Linn what the
latter meant; that Linn replied, "You know what you are in," and
stated that Shew had been neglecting his work since he had "got
into it," and was "not doing the job like" he was "supposed to."
According to Shew, he told Linn that his production was good and
that he could do as he pleased outside the plant; and Linn answered:
"You are, badly fooled; you cannot do that . . . It is the same thing
about married life; you don't divorce your wife every morning wheii
you leave the house do you ... that is where you are not being loyal
to the company . . . you are obligated to the company 24 hours a day
and you can't get out of here and do what you want to." Shew testi-
fied that later on three occasions Linn warned him that he would
"get into serious trouble" ; and that when he asked what the latter
meant, Linn replied, "You know what I mean." Linn denied Shew's
testimony. Linn testified that on one occasion when he rebuked Shew
for poor work, Shew had accused him, Linn, of abusing the latter
because of his United membership; and that he had replied; "You
are too good a man to be mixed up in this other stuff and neglecting
your job . . . I don't care about your union membership." On July 6,
1937, Hyde, a United member, was rebuked by Foreman Linn for
defective work. Hyde testified that Linn then told him : "'You have
been out with the wrong bunch of folks' and it was going to get my
job . . . a few men in the plant . . . think they could run the plant
.. . as long as you and those men work for me you will have to do
what I tell you to do." According to Hyde, when lie told Linn that
"someone" had been trying to make it "hard" for him ever since he had
joined the United, Linn replied that "they" had the right to do so,
because "if there were a bunch of men • coming into my home, trying
to destroy my property . . . wouldn't you try to protect it"; and
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 391
when he asked Linn if the latter thought any less of him for joining
the United , Linn answered , "Hell yes, I do." Linn denied Hyde's
testimony , stating that Hyde had accused him of rebuking him, Hyde,
because of his United membership , and that he had refused to discuss
the union with Hyde. George Burns, an employee belonging to the
United, in May 1937 was rebuked by Foreman Linn for allegedly leav-
ing his work early. Burns testified that Linn told him that he was
young, was "on the wrong side of the fence," and had no future-"I
ought to be on the right side, , and maybe I would get more favors";
and that Linn stated that because Burns belonged to the United and
wore a button Burns thought that he could not be "fired," but that
he, Linn, "would show" him, for if he did not "keep" his job "up,"
he would be "fired." According to Burns , Linn also said that he,
Linn, had men at the "Union hall that come back and told him every-
'thing." Linn denied Burns' testimony and testified that Burns had
accused him of rebuking him, Burns, because of his United member-
ship and that he had denied this accusation. We find the facts to be
as set forth above in the testimony of Shew, Hyde, and Burns.
W. E. Robertson , an employee who joined the United on April 27,
1937, on April 26, 1937, became senior tester on. the first shift. There
are three of these testers , one for each shift, and they change shifts
each month . On May 21 , 1937, Robertson was transferred from the
job of senior testing to that of a "crude rubber man ," a job which he
'testified was harder than senior testing. Robertson testified that at
the time of his transfer , Foreman Edwards told him that he had
Edwards "on the spot ," that he, Edwards , had to take Robertson off
the job of senior testing because Robertson was "on the wrong side,"
and that when Robertson got "to the other side ," Robertson would be
restored to the position of senior tester. Edwards denied the above
testimony of Robertson and testified that, although Robertson had
been a senior tester, at his own request Robertson had been taken off
this work in order to avoid working on other shifts than the first.
Edwards admitted that he knew that Robertson belonged to the United
at the time of Robertson 's transfer and that a senior tester received
higher pay than a "crude rubber man." Harris Hurst, a member of
the squadron, testified that shortly after Robertson 's transfer , Robert-
son told him that either Edwards or Mangels, the chief chemist, had
said that Robertson "had him on the spot" because no supervisor could
take "sides" and join a union , and that consequently Robertson had to
be taken off supervision . We are of the opinion that Robertson's
testimony concerning this incident is to be credited. We find that
Robertson was transferred by the respondent because of his United
membership and activity , and that he was informed by his foreman
that by joining the Etowah he could regain his former position.
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Finally, the numerous discharges and lay-offs of employees during
this -period because of their United membership and activity, as
hereinafter set forth, constituted further support of the Etowah
by the respondent and further indication of the respondent's hostility
toward the United.
We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Etowah and contributed sup-
port to it, and thereby interfered with, coerced, and restrained its
employees in their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. Interference, coercion, and restraint
The complaint, as amended, alleges that on or about May 19, 1937,
the respondent by its agents, Pete Floyd, Buster Rainey, J. P. Tolli-
son, and one Templeton, caused a severe beating to be administered
to J. 0. Glenn, a member of the United. The evidence introduced
at the hearing established that on May 19, 1937, Glenn, a member of
the United, wore, while at work in the plant, a small rag on which he
had written in red lipstick the initials of the United, in imitation of
the ribbons worn by Etowah members for the first time that day to
indicate their membership in that organization ; that several of the
respondent's employees, and in particular, Floyd, considered Glenn's
action an insult to the Etowah; that Floyd attempted to attack Glenn
in the plant but was prevented from doing so by the prompt interfer-
ence of Foreman Goodall and Foreman Hershiser; that subsequently,
at the request of Goodall, Glenn removed the offending rag; that
Floyd, together with Rainey, Tollison, and Templeton, all employees
of the respondent, followed Glenn after work from the plant to his
home that day; and that Floyd, and perhaps Rainey, assaulted Glenn
in front of the latter's home and gave him a severe beating.
The evidence shows that the beating of Glenn was caused by his
wearing the "mock ribbon" and also by some profanity interchanged
between him and Floyd in the plant and at Glenn's home. The re-
spondent had protected Glenn while the latter had been at work in
its plant, and the beating of Glenn occurred outside the respondent's
plant. Floyd and the employees who accompanied him to Glenn's
home had no supervisory duties at the respondent's plant, and there
is no evidence that in assaulting Glenn they were the respondent's
agents or that the respondent afterwards in any way ratified their
actions. We shall dismiss the allegations of the complaint, relating
to the assault upon Glenn.
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 393
The complaint alleges that on June 26, 1937, the respondent by
its agents, Floyd, James Karam, and Jerome Shaw, assaulted E. F.
White. White was not employed by the respondent. He was the
financial secretary of Local No. 47 of the International Molders
Union in Gadsden. The evidence established that as White on June
26, at the conclusion of a hearing in a trial, was coming down the
steps of the Gadsden City Hall, a quarrel, partly caused by differences
in their opinions concerning the United and the Etowah, broke out
between two sisters-in-law, Mrs. Carnes, an employee of the respond-
ent, and Mrs. Kilpatrick, whose husband was then in the respond-
ent's employ; and that White became involved in the quarrel going
on between the two women, apparently having been pushed into the
fray by the crowd behind him, and was struck by Mrs. Carnes' hus-
band, an employee of the respondent, by J. W. Harwell, not employed
by the respondent, and by Jake Shaw, brother of Jerome Shaw, both
employees of the respondent. There is no evidence that Floyd or
Karam, a squadron member, both of whom were present during this
fight, in any way participated in it. The evidence is conflicting as
to whether or not White was assaulted because he struck Mrs. Carnes
in the face. We find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in the
evidence.
The above incident occurred outside the respondent's plant. White
was never employed by the respondent. There is no indication that
White was attacked because of his union membership and activity,
nor is there any evidence that his assailants, one of whom was not
even an employee of the respondent, were agents of the respondent.
We shall dismiss the allegations of the complaint in regard to the
assault upon White.
The complaint alleges that the respondent held a meeting to plan
violence to outside organizers of the United. Substantially all the
evidence relating to this allegation of the complaint is contained in
the testimony of Woodrow Kilpatrick, then an employee of the re-
spondent belonging to the United. Kilpatrick testified that one eve-
ning late in May 1937, Harry Trussell, a squadron member, arranged
to meet him secretly outside Gadsden and there informed him thathe,
Trussell, had just left an Etowah meeting on the golf course where
plans had been made by Karam, McCulloch, and one Hallmark, em-
ployees of the respondent, to run a United organizer out of town; that
after receiving this warning he at once warned B. T. Garner, the
United organizer in Gadsden, to leave the city that evening; and that
Garner did so. Garner corroborated Kilpatrick's testimony. Trus-
sell admitted that at this time and place he warned Kilpatrick that
the United organizer in Gadsden was in danger. However, Trussell
denied either that he had told Kilpatrick about any meeting of the
394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Etowah on the golf course or that any meeting to his knowledge had
ever been held there to plan violence to a United organizer. Mc-
Culloch corroborated Trussell's denial concerning the golf course
meeting. Karam and Hallmark did not testify at the hearing. We-
need not resolve the conflict in the testimony of Kilpatrick and Trus-
sell. Even accepting Kilpatrick's testimony as true, we do not believe
that such evidence alone, in view of the fact that it is hearsay, proves.
that a meeting was in fact held on the golf course to plan violence to
Garner. We shall therefore dismiss this allegation of the complaint.
The complaint alleges that on June 9, 1937, James Karam, an agent
of the respondent, unsuccessfully attempted to assault Garner, a
United organizer. Garner testified that on June 9 as he and Troy
Higdon, a member of the United formerly employed by the respond-
ent, were lunching at a small restaurant in Gadsden, James Karam,
a member of the squadron, entered the restaurant with Mike Self,
head watchman of the Gulf States Steel Company plant, together
with two men wearing Etowah ribbons; that neither Karam or Self
addressed any remarks directly to him but that Self several times
urged Karam, who had his hands in his pockets, to "go ahead," saying,
"I have got you backed up"; that finally Self, in a disgusted tone,
said, "let's get the hell out of here"; and that thereupon the group,
left. Higdon testified that Karam and Self said nothing to, and
did not threaten, Garner.
We do not believe that the above evidence establishes that Karam
and Self intended to assault Garner. We shall therefore dismiss this
allegation of the complaint.
The complaint alleges that on May 19, 1937, the respondent by its
agent, Claude Dorough, administered a severe beating to H. C. Adams,
a member of the United, and on June 14, 1937, promoted Dorough
to supervision as a reward for this action.
Adams, then an employee of the respondent, in May 1937 filled
out an application for United membership. Adams was a tire
builder and late in April 1937 his supervisor, one Bice, had sug-
gested to him that he attempt to break the tire-building record,
which was then held by Crider, ' a member of the United. A few
days later Adams told Bice that he wished to attempt to break the
record that evening at the plant. Bice agreed to help Adams by
bringing any defective tires that Adams had built back to Adams'
machine for the latter to repair, instead of letting Adams himself
obtain the tires at the inspector's desk. Adams succeeded in break-
ing the tire-building record, although of the 101 tires he supposedly
built that evening in order to break Crider's record of 95, Adams
actually built only 93, borrowing the others from another employee.
Bice further assisted Adams that evening by repairing two defective
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 395`
tires returned to Adams. Adams stated at the hearing that some of
the tires which he built that evening were defective and yet were
not returned to him by the inspector for repairs . Adams testified,
however, that some tolerance was allowed tire builders in their work,
and that it was a daily occurrence for tires with such defects as
his had, not to be caught by the inspector. About May 15, Adams_
made a speech at a United meeting in regard to his attempt to break
the tire-building record, saying that he had built tires that night
with defects in them which the tire inspector , Claude Dorough,,
should have caught and did not. Adams also stated in his speech
that Dorough was discriminating between United and Etowah tire
builders. The testimony of A. L. Countryman, Jr., who heard
Adams' speech , indicates that Adams made even stronger remarks
concerning Dorough's inspection . Countryman testified that Adams
stated that he had built tires that night "not fit for the public
market, to be on sale," which Inspector Dorough had passed. These
remarks in Adams' speech evidently came to Dorough's attention,
for on May 19, Dorough accosted Adams just outside the respond-
ent's plant and, after questioning Adams concerning this speech at
the United meeting, cursed and attacked him.
The evidence establishes that Dorough assaulted Adams not be-
cause of Adams ' United activity as such, but because Dorough felt
that Adams' United activity in the form of Adams' speech at the
United meeting reflected upon the quality of Dorough 's inspection
work in the plant. In fact, Adams admitted at the hearing that
the statements he made in his speech concerning Dorough's work were
probably not justified . The assault on Adams, although outside the
plant, apparently occurred on the respondent 's property . The re-
spondent punished neither Adams nor Dorough for this incident.
Michaels testified that after the respondent 's officials had investi-
gated the incident , Adams apologized to Dorough ; and that the
respondent , since the fight had occurred outside the plant, considered
the incident closed and inflicted no penalties on either of the par-
ticipants. Dorough was then a production inspector of tires. Al-
though Dorough's promotion to supervision was not publicly
announced until shortly after his attack on Adams, the respondent
had scheduled Dorough for this promotion some 6 months prior to
this incident . We shall dismiss the allegations of the complaint
concerning the assault upon Adams.
The complaint , as amended , alleges that on June 7, 1937, the re-
spondent by its agents , W. B. Loflin and Marvin ( Speedy ) Brock,
administered a severe beating to B. E . Cleveland , a member of the
United, and that thereafter the respondent made Loflin a member of
the squadron as a reward for beating Cleveland.
396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The evidence concerning this incident is sharply conflicting. Cleve-
land, an employee of the respondent who joined the United in 1933,
denied the testimony of the respondent's witnesses Anne Clark, Ruby
Vernon, Marjorie Smith, Bertha Smith, Dan Martin, A. N. Graves
and Gerald Crowder, all employees of the respondent, that on two
occasions he had referred to Clark, Vernon, and the two Smiths in
insulting language in the presence of some of the foregoing witnesses.
However, the evidence is undisputed that Division Superintendent
Follo on June 4, because of complaints he had received from the
allegedly insulted women, spoke to Cleveland in the plant concerning
these complaints; and that Cleveland promised Follo to see the women
about them but never did so. On June 7,1937, as Cleveland was enter-
ing the plant, Wesley Loflin questioned him concerning the alleged
insults to these women and gave him a severe beating. Brock, Hall-
mark, and Templeton, employees of the respondent, witnessed the
beating, although the evidence is conflicting as to whether or not
they participated in it. Loflin was not then in the respondent's
employ, although several weeks previous to his assault upon Cleveland
he had arranged to go to work at the respondent's plant. Loflin testi-
fied, and there is no substantial evidence to contradict his testimony,
that the sole reason for his assault upon Cleveland was his belief that
the latter had insulted the four women, with at least one of whom
Loftin was well acquainted. On June 11 or 12, in accordance with
the arrangements he had made previously with the respondent's
officials, Loflin entered the respondent's employ as a member of the
squadron.
We do not find it necessary to determine whether or not Cleveland
actually ever made any insulting remarks about the four women.
Whether or not Cleveland did make the remarks, we believe that
. Loflin was of the opinion that Cleveland had done so and therefore
assaulted him. There is no substantial evidence that the beating of
-Cleveland was caused by his United membership and activity. Loflin
or the employees allegedly involved in the assault did not act therein
as the respondent's agents, none of them having any supervisory
duties. Since the fact that Loftin was one of Cleveland's assailants
did not become known to the respondent's officials until 2 or 3 weeks
after Loflin had actually entered its employ, his employment by the
respondent cannot be said to have been a reward for his beating
of Cleveland. The assault occurred outside the plant, although ap-
parently on the respondent's property. In view of the fact that the
beating did not occur in the plant, that the beating concerned a per-
sonal matter, and that Loflin was not then in the respondent's employ,
we 'are of the opinion that the respondent's failure to punish Loflin
in any way upon subsequently learning of his participation in the
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 397
beating or its failure to punish any of the employees who possibly
may have taken a hand therein cannot be regarded as a ratification
of their part in the beating of Cleveland. We shall dismiss the
allegation of the complaint, as amended, concerning the assault upon
Cleveland.
The complaint alleges that on May 31, 1937, the respondent by its
agents, Karam and McCulloch, wrecked an automobile occupied by
three United members, one of whom was Kilpatrick, and that Karam
and McCulloch pointed a shotgun at the three United members, cursed
them, and asked the sheriff, Leath, to arrest them.
As more fully described hereinafter,, the United members on the
evening of May 31, 1937, held a parade in Gadsden during which they
-drove about the city in 40 or 45 cars, shouting and blowing horns.
After the parade had lasted for several hours, Sheriff Leath stopped
it and ordered the participants to return to their homes. The car in
which Kilpatrick and two other men were riding on their way home
collided with a car, which had not been in the parade, driven by
Karam, an Etowah member. The evidence is conflicting whether the
,collision was the fault of Kilpatrick or Karam, or whether the col-
lision, was deliberate or accidental. Kilpatrick testified that McCul-
loch was in the car with Karam and pointed a gun at him, while
Karam threatened him. McCulloch denied Kilpatrick's testimony
.in so far as it concerned his actions, and asserted that Hallmark, an
employee of the respondent, was in the car with Karam and that he,
McCulloch, was in another car behind Karam's. Karam did not tes-
tify at the hearing. When Sheriff Leath drove up after the collision,
Karam asked him "to arrest" Kilpatrick and the other occupants
of Kilpatrick's car. Leath refused to do so. However, Ben Stewart,
a policeman, took Karam to the police station because the latter had
a shotgun in his possession. Sheriff Leath then went to the police sta-
tion and obtained Karam's release. Leath first testified that Karam
was a special deputy and that he obtained Karam's release by inform-
ing the police of this fact. After much evasive testimony, Leath
finally admitted that Karam had never been deputized, but asserted
that Karam was doing some "private work" for him, and that the
police released Karam when informed by him'of this fact.
We do not believe that the record supports the allegation of the
complaint concerning this incident. We shall dismiss this allegation
of the complaint.
The complaint alleges that since April 1, 1937, the respondent spon-
sored and encouraged a series of acts of terrorism directed at the
officers and agents of various labor unions, including the United, with
the intention of coercing and intimidating those of its employees
who desired to join a labor organization not dominated by the re-
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent. Most of the evidence introduced at the hearing bearing
upon this allegation of the complaint has been discussed above in
connection with the more specific allegations of the complaint in re-
gard to acts of coercion and intimidation by the respondent.
Otis Adams, an employee of the respondent who was a member of
the separate negro division of the Etowah, during a meeting of his
division of that organization held one evening outside the plant, when
asked to serve on a membership committee, agreed to do so, but ex-
pressed disapproval of the suggestion of another member that a
committee be formed to administer beatings to members who refused
to attend meetings regularly. The following week, just after he had
-left the plant, Adams was assaulted by 8 or 10 white men and was
beaten so severely that he was not able to return to work for 5 weeks.
Adams was never able to identify any of his assailants. His only
knowledge of the cause, for this assault came, from remarks made to
him subsequently by an unknown negro and an unknown white man
who told him that his "slight remark" about the "beating conven-
tion" was responsible for the assault upon him. In view of the lack
of identification of Adams' assailants and of the vague evidence re-
lating to the cause of the assault upon him, the respondent cannot
be held responsible for the attack upon him.
James Karam was a member of the squadron from April 1937 until
he voluntarily left the respondent's employ late in August 1937.
Karam was a member of the Etowah and chairman of its bargaining
committee. He did not testify at the hearing. Such activities of
Karam as his part in the United parade on May 31 and his alleged
attempt to assault Garner in Gadsden have already been described.
On several evenings after the parade incident on May 31, Karam
drove an automobile around the house of Kilpatrick, cursing the lat-
ter, until finally stopped by the police. Kelly Morgan, a state police-
man, once or twice when he had been sent to protect the United
members while they were holding meetings in Gadsden, noticed
Karam standing near the United meeting hall. Louis Wadsworth,
an employee who worked near Karam in the plant, testified that in
June 1937 after he had joined the United and worn a United button
in the plant, Karam informed him that although they had been the
-best of friends, they no longer were so. Wadsworth testified that
Karam then told him that "he [Karam] had a hundred and eight
men that rode every night" and that if Wadsworth was jailed "John
-Lewis wouldn't come" to get him out but if he was an Etowah mem-
ber and was jailed, Division Superintendent Neiger would get him
out. Wadsworth testified that when he asked Karam if the latter's
work was dangerous, Karam stated that lie "had been in it a long
time," and that the 14 members of the United who had been dis-
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 399
charged or laid off in June 1936 and reinstated in May 1937 would be
discharged as soon as the respondent "could find anything on them."
We find that Karam made the above remarks to Wadsworth.
We are convinced by the evidence that Karam was one of the most
active members of the Etowah, and that he also engaged in much
.anti-United activity. However, we do not believe that the record
proves that Karam's statements and activity, set forth above, consti-
tuted a series of acts of terrorism, within the meaning of the allega-
tion in the complaint, previously set forth. Ordinarily we would
,find, on the basis of the evidence introduced at the hearing, that by
reason of Karam's anti-United statements and activity the respondent
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(1) of the Act. But in view of the scope of the pleadings, we do
,not make such findings in the present proceeding.
Ted Morton, an employee, was laid off or discharged, as herein-
after described, by the respondent on June 9, 1937. Subsequently,
Morton was arrested together with two other employees of the re-
spondent, H. C. Adams and Aubrey Rutledge, in connection with the
transportation of dynamite, allegedly to be used to injure the re-
spondent's property or some of the respondent's employees and their
property. Morton testified that on September 27, 1937, he met Adams
and Raymond Knight, an employee of the Gulf States Steel Com-
pany, on a country road near Gadsden, and that Adams attempted
to persuade him to give testimony before the grand jury which would
implicate Cowherd, the United's attorney, in the alleged dynamite
plot. According to Morton, Adams told him that he, Adams, was
going to give such testimony, and that if Morton would do likewise,
Morton would have his job back with the respondent 2 months after
the Board hearing had ended, and certain debts of Morton would be
paid. Morton testified that both Adams and Knight asked him to
join the Etowah; and that when he refused to do so, Knight, push-
ing back his coat, placed his hand on a gun and said that it would
be best for him "to stay out of town as much as possible." Adams
did not deny the foregoing testimony of Morton, and Knight did not
testify at the hearing. We credit Morton's testimony.
The above incident occurred outside the respondent's plant and
there is no indication that Adams and Knight were agents of the
respondent or that respondent ever ratified their actions.
We are of the opinion that the evidence fails to sustain the al-
legation of the complaint in question, and we find that the respond-
ent did not sponsor or encourage acts of terrorism after April 1,
1937, directed at members of various labor unions in Gadsden. We
shall dismiss this allegation of the complaint.
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In its answer to the allegations of the complaint previously dis-
cussed in this section the respondent asserts that the United mem-
bers, officers, and organizers, and not the respondent, were guilty
of acts in Gadsden which terrified the respondent's employees and
the inhabitants of the city. The respondent introduced much evi-
dence in support of this defense during the hearing. In view of
our dismissal of all these allegations of the complaint, such evi-
dence becomes irrelevant.4° However, we are of the opinion and
we find that such evidence in the majority of cases fails to establish
that the United or any of its members were guilty of the threats
or acts of violence proved.
Rudder testified that while the Etowah committees were meeting
at his home he received a mysterious phone call, stating that there
would be "uninvited guests" at the next meeting, and heard four
-shots fired one night in the vicinity of his home. Rudder did not
know whether the shots were intended for him and never ascer-
tained or attempted to ascertain who fired the shots or telephoned
him. Similarly, Rudder testified that early one morning he was
informed by Henry Moore that a car belonging to Jim Lynn, a
United member, was parked in front of his house. Rudder never
saw the car, and Moore did not testify at the hearing. There is no
evidence that the car was there for the purpose of watching or
threatening Rudder. McGathey testified that in June 1937 a group
of 18 men one night in Gadsden told him that they were going to
get "these guys at Goodyear" and that they were after him; that
about the same time he was, frequently followed by other automo-
biles while driving around Gadsden; and that one night while
driving about he heard a shot and saw four' men parked in a nearby
car. McGathey never ascertained the identity of any of these in-
dividuals nor the reasons for their conduct. Foreman Linn testi-
fied that three stink bombs had been thrown into the yard of his
home on May 29, 30, and 31, 1937. Linn had no idea who threw
the bombs or why the bombs were thrown. Virgil Howle testified
that late in May 1937, he received a severe beating at a restaurant
in Gadsden. Although Howle stated that he believed he was beaten
because he had not joined the United, he admitted that he had no
idea who beat him, and no reason for believing that he had been
beaten because of labor disputes. Mrs. Carnes testified that immedi-
40 National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand , Inc., 94 F. ( 2d) 862 ( C. C. A. 2d,
1938 ), cert. den. 304 U. S. 576 ( 1938 ) ; National Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber
Company, 94 F. (2d ) 138 (C. C. A 9th, 1937), cert. den 304 U S. 575 ( 1938 ) ; idem,
99 F. (2d ) 533 (C. C. A. 9th, 1938 ), cert. den. 306 U S 646 ( 1939 ) ; National Labor
Relations Board v. Hearst, 102 F. ( 2d) 658 (C. C. A. 9th, 1939 ) ; Republic Steel Corp. v.
National Labor Relations Board, 107 F. (2d) 472 (C. C. A 3).
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 401
ately after White, as previously described, had been beaten during
the fight between Mrs. Carnes and Mrs. Kilpatrick, the wife and
two daughters of White on a street in Gadsden threatened to kill
her. White's two daughters are employees of the respondent, but
there is no evidence that they are members of the United.
Goodall and Bell testified that early one morning in 1937 a rock
was thrown on Bell's porch, breaking a window; and that attached
to the rock was a threatening and insulting anonymous note ad-
dressed to Goodall, who lived next door to Bell. The respondent
introduced at the hearing the testimony of a handwriting expert
to the effect that this note, had been written by A. J. Parker, a
United member formerly employed by the respondent. Although
Parker twice testified at the hearing, he was not questioned by the
respondent's counsel concerning this incident. The evidence does
not establish that Parker threw the note, and there is no evidence
that the note was not written because of personal differences be-
tween Parker and his foreman, Goodall. The note contains no
reference to the United or any labor organization.
Adams testified that, while the hearing in the instant proceeding
was being held, Allen and Kilpatrick drove up to his residence in
Tennessee; that Kilpatrick asked him to sign a statement concerning
certain testimony he had given before the grand jury relating to
incidents involved in the present proceeding, saying that if he did
not sign Kilpatrick would beat him while Allen covered him with a
gun; that he did not discover if Allen had a gun; and that a few
days later Kilpatrick and Allen returned, stated that he had 'sworn
out a warrant against them, and asked several witnesses of their
previous encounter with him to sign affidavits concerning it. Kil-
patrick denied Adams' testimony. Kilpatrick testified that he and
Allen had gone to Tennessee to see Leroy Smith, a former employee
of the respondent who had testified during the hearing and who
lived with Adams; that neither he nor Allen were armed or threat-
ened Adams; that he later learned that Adams was asserting that
he and Allen had threatened Adams ; that consequently he and Allen
again went to Tennessee to obtain affidavits from witnesses of their
previous encounter there with Adams; that while there they ques-
tioned Adams; and that Adams admitted that his assertions con-
cerning their former encounter were untrue. Leroy Smith testified
that Allen and Kilpatrick came to see him on their first trip to Ten-
nessee, and did so ; and that on their second trip he had heard Adams
deny to Kilpatrick and Allen ever accusing them of threatening him.
For reasons hereafter set forth, we are of the opinion that Adams'
testimony is not to be credited.
J. B. Bynum, a member of the Etowah, testified that on June 5,
1937, on a street in Gadsden he met F. W. Rooks, Norton, and Shew,
402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all employees of the respondent; and that when he refused their
request to join the United, Shew pulled out a knife and threatened
to "take him for a ride." Bynum testified that he walked away from
the group unpursued. Shew denied the above incident. We find
that his denial is to be credited.
The evidence and facts we have set forth in the above paragraphs
do not establish that the United or any of its members were guilty of
any acts of violence or threats thereof in Gadsden in connection with
any activities of this labor organization.
We have already described the beatings given Glenn and Adams.
on May 19, 1937. So far as the evidence shows, these beatings were
the first acts of violence relating to labor organizations among the
respondent's employees committed in Gadsden in 1937. It is ap-
parent, therefore, that the United did not in 1937 initiate violence in
Gadsden. On the contrary, the opponents of the United, such as the
Etowah, in 1937, as in 1936, were the initiators of such conduct.
Moreover, despite the fact that the experiences previously described
of the United organizers and members in 1936 in Gadsden and at the
respondent's plant had clearly shown them they could not depend
upon the city or county authorities or the respondent for protection
in Gadsden, where they might well expect to be assaulted, the evi-
dence indicates that the United organizers made sincere efforts in
1937 to restrain the United members from committing acts of vio-
lence despite the assaults made upon United members in Gadsden in
1937. Thus, Troy Higdon, a witness for the Etowah, testified that
when Glenn came to a United meeting shortly after he had received
his beating, the United members were enraged by the sight of his,
wounds and by the presence of Karam near their meeting hall, and
tore up furniture at the meeting hall preparatory to seeking revenge
on Glenn's assailants. Higdon, who was then acting as Garner's
bodyguard in Gadsden, testified that at this time he, Cowherd, and
Garner pleaded with the members "to keep cool" and not "do any
fighting."
The evidence, however, indicates that although when the United
organizers came to Gadsden in 1937 they attempted to avoid all
acts of violence, they were finally forced by the violence committed
or threatened against the United in Gadsden to tell their members
to resist in self defense. Trussell testified that when, the United
renewed its activities in Gadsden early in May of 1937 Kilpatrick
informed him that United members were not allowed to carry guns-
Trussell testified that when late in May he asked Kilpatrick why
some United members were carrying such weapons, Kilpatrick re-
plied that the members were no longer forbidden to do so because
the opponents of the United, such as the Etowah, were carrying
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 403
guns. Howle testified that after Glenn , Adams, and Cleveland had
been assaulted , as previously described , Cowherd told the members
that since it did not appear that there was "any law" in Gadsden
the, men must look out for themselves , that he did not want to hear
of any more United members being beaten , and that he could not
tell them what to do but that they knew what to do. Adams tes-
tified that Garner told the men that "they are beating a lot of men
up you all haven't any backbone or you would do some beating your-
selves"; and that Garner impressed on the members that they should
attempt to take care of themselves and not allow their assailants
to "run over" them. B . R. McGraw , a member of the United at
this time, testified that Garner or Cowherd told the men that they
could not expect him "to tell them to go out and beat hell out of
that bunch . . . you fellows ought to have guts enough yourselves,
get out and clean up that Etowah bunch ," but that "he couldn't tell
us to go ahead and 'do nothing . .- . but fold up like a monkey and
take it. " Higdon gave testimony similar to McGraw's. Garner tes-
tified that while he was in Gadsden in June 1937 he was always
accompanied by four or six men. James Higdon testified that he
was a member of Garner 's bodyguard in Gadsden but • never was,
armed. Troy Higdon testified that he was also a member of Gar-
ner's bodyguard ; and that he carried a pistol . Adams . and Troy
Higdon testified that Garner carried no guns but carried a fountain
pen filled with tear gas. In view of the fact that Garner had once,
left Gadsden , as previously related, because of warnings received
from Kilpatrick , and in view of the 1936 experiences of the organ-
izers in Gadsden, it is hardly surprising that Garner deemed it wise
to furnish his own protection while in Gadsden. Moreover , although
Glenn , a United member , admittedly received a severe beating in
1937 at the hands of Etowah members, there is not a single instance
in the record of a member of the Etowah having been beaten by
United members or in any way harmed by them.
Finally, the evidence shows that threats of violence by members,
of the United resulted from immediately preceding violence com-
mitted by members of the Etowah . Floyd testified that immediately
after he had beaten Glenn, he was warned by Karam that Glenn with
a large group of men was going to attack him. Floyd, however, was.
never attacked . Clark, Vernon , Marjorie Smith , and Bertha Smith
all testified that on the afternoon of May 30, 1937 , on a street in.
Gadsden two members of the United, Jim Lynn and Gertrude Yai-
kow, pointed guns at them and threatened to kill them. However,,
the testimony of these witnesses reveals that that morning in Gads-
den two girls , Vera Taylor and Mabel Phillips, had been involved
in a fight with Yaikow; and that when Lynn and Yaikow pointed
404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guns and threatened the four women, Taylor and Phillips were with
the four women, and the threats were primarily directed against the
two girls. Crowder testified that in June 1937, about the time Cleve-
land had been beaten as previously described, Cleveland and two
unknown men warned Crowder one evening on a street in Gadsden
to stay at home that night, pointing out that many beatings had
recently occurred. Crowder testified that he did not, in fact, re-
main at home that evening, and that he was followed about by a
car in which there were two unknown men.
As previously set forth, on May 31, 1937, the United members
paraded in about 40 automobiles through the streets of Gadsden
from 9 o'clock until midnight. Troy Higdon testified that before the
parade began, the assembled United members sent out an automobile
two or three times in an effort to induce Karam to follow it to their
meeting place where they could seize Karam. Another employee
of the respondent and a member of the United, B. G. Bohanon,
testified that Karam had been continually following the automobile
of Jim Lynn, a United member, about Gadsden and that the United
members wished "to see what he [Karam] was following him.
[Lynn] for and put an end to it." 40a Karam, however, failed to
appear at this time. As previously described, later Karam did come
in contact with Kilpatrick and two other United members, and, far
from being threatened or molested by them, was taken into custody
by the police for having in his possession a shotgun with which he
had menaced the three United paraders.
All the respondent's witnesses who actually witnessed the parade
testified that they heard no shots fired and that the paraders merely
blew horns and shouted. Moreover, Kilpatrick testified that when
Sheriff Leath and the police stopped the parade, they searched
the leading car and the occupants of it and found no guns. Al-
though Sheriff Leath denied making such a search, we are of the
opinion that his denial is not to be credited in view of the fact that
he testified that he expressly halted the parade because of reports
he had received of shooting during it. Leath also admitted that
the police might have made such a search at this time. Mrs. Lucille
Harrell, owner of a hotel at which many of the respondent's em-
ployees lived, testified that she saw in cars in the parade several
guns pointed at her hotel. Other witnesses of the respondent, Gi-
rard, Bertha Smith, and Superintendent Morgan, all of whom lived
near Mrs. Harrell's hotel, testified that they saw no guns in the
4OaTroy Higdon also testified that the United members intended to "kill" Karam. In
view of the testimony set forth above of Bohanon, and of the evasive and unreliable char-
acter of much of Higdon 's testimony , as indicated by his testimony and affidavit concern-
ing remarks allegedly made by Turner or Culberson to him on June 25 at the plant, we do
not credit this testimony of Higdon.
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 405
parade. Jordan, who lived at the hotel, testified that he saw no
guns in the parade, although Mrs. Harrell told him that she had
seen a gun in it. Mrs. Harrell also testified that during the parade
she received it threatening telephone call, and that on two occasions
ilfter the parade she heard shots fired at night near her' hotel. Mrs.
Harrell did not know who fired the shots or made the telephone call.
C. C. Lumpkin, it participant in the parade, testified that he saw 4 or
5 blackjacks and 8 or 10 shotguns before the parade started, but only
1 gun in the parade. Troy Higdon, it participant in the parade,
testified that lie was armed during it. Bohanon testified that he
saw some guns before the parade started. In view of what had
happened previously to United members in Gadsden, it is not sur-
prising that a few of them had armed themselves for protection
during this parade. There is no evidence that any shots were fired
during the parade. We are of the opinion and we find that the
parade did not, as the respondent's answer alleges, terrorize the em-
ployees of the respondent, or the inhabitants of Gadsden, that it
was conducted in a peaceful manner, and that most of the partici-
pants in it were unarmed.
Adams, it witness for the Etowah and a member of the United
formerly employed by the respondent, testified that the use of
dynamite was discussed at several United meetings, particularly by
Garner; that lie, Garner, A. J. Parker, Troy Higdon, and Ted Mor-
ton, it former employee of the respondent belonging to the United,
had made plans to obtain dynamite; that although no plans had
been made as to how the dynamite would be used, there were rumors
that the car of Karam or it gate of the respondent's plant would be
blown up; that Garner informed them that Cowherd knew of their
plans and fully supported them, but could not state so openly ; that
on June 24, 1937, he persuaded Aubrey Rutledge, an employee of the
respondent and a-United member, to accompany him and Morton to
obtain the dynamite; and that he saw Cowherd that day and obtained
his approval of their mission. Rutledge, a witness for the Etowah,
testified that on the night of June 23 his automobile had been broken
into and a gun stolen from it; that the following morning Adams
suggested that they obtain some dynamite and blow up the car of
Karam to revenge the car breaking and theft of the gun ; that Morton
then said that he knew where they could obtain dynamite if they
wanted any ; that Cowherd had no knowledge of their plans; and
that the dynamite was to be used solely for the' purpose of revenge
upon Karam. Higdon testified that he did not know anything about
any "bombs" in connection with the United's activities. Morton, a
witness for the Board, testified that he and the two other men had
agreed to obtain the dynamite to use for fishing, and denied the
583032-41-vol. 21-27
406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testimony of Adams and Rutledge concerning the purposes for which
the dynamite was to be used.
The evidence showed that the three men drove to a town near
Gadsden and obtained several sticks of dynamite and fuses and caps;
that on their return their car collided with another on the highway ;
and that thereupon the State police, who had been summoned to the
scene because of the automobile accident, discovered the dynamite.
Morton told the _ police that the dynamite had, been obtained for
fishing.
Adams admitted on the witness stand that previous to the hearing
he had made a speech, and had signed sworn statements with full
knowledge of their contents, which contained falsehoods. Adams
testified that he had made and signed these falsehoods because lie then
wished to aid the cause of the United. We are of the opinion that
Adams' testimony at the hearing is no more trustworthy than his
admittedly false statements and affidavits made prior to the hearing.
In view of Adams' readiness to tell falsehoods, we feel that no reli-
ance can be placed upon his testimony, particularly where it is con,
tradicted not only by evidence given by a Board witness but, also by
the testimony of Higdon and Rutledge, two witnesses for the Etowah.
We find that Adams' testimony concerning the dynamite plot is not
to be credited.
We need not resolve the conflict between the testimony of Morton
and of Rutledge. For the purposes of the present discussion it is
inunaterial which man told the truth at the hearing. Rutledge's
testimony shows, that he was obtaining the dynamite, and was aided
in this deed by Adams and Morton, in order to obtain revenge against
Karam for his personal grievance, the breaking into his car and theft
of his gun; that the conduct of the three men was not connected with
any of their United activities; and that the United organizers and
officers had no knowledge of andnever approved or ratified this action.
Adams also testified that Robertson, after the discovery of the
dynamite, informed him that lie would be beaten unless he went to
see Cowherd concerning the dynamite incident. Adams testified that
although he did,not see Cowherd until 2 weeks after he received this
threat from Robertson, lie was not molested during this time. For,
reasons previously set forth,_we give no credence to Adams', testimony-
concerning the receipt of, such a threat.
Miller testified that in July Karam informed him that his,
Karam's, car had been shot into. Karam did not tell Miller who
had done the shooting. McGraw testified that Rutledge had in-,
formed him one evening that he, Rutledge, had shot into Karam's
car five times while the latter was not in it the night before in order
to, scare Karam. . Rutledge„ was not questioned concerning this in-,
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF ALABAMA 407
cident when he testified at the hearing: In view of Rutledge's
testimony concerning his desire for revenge against Karam for
personal reasons, his shooting into Karam's car , if he be guilty of
such conduct , is not attributable to the United.
We are of the opinion and we find the evidence does not estab-
lish, as asserted by the respondent , either that the attacks on the
United were provoked and ;instigated by threats of violence or
violence by the United adherents in Gadsden or that the United
was guilty of acts of terrorism in Gadsden.
E. The 1937 discharges, lay-offs, and discriminations in regard to
hire and tenure of employment
Troy and James Higdon, Howle, Lumpkin, McGraw, Bohanon,
and Adams, employees of the respondent and members of the United
at one time , who were witnesses for the Etowah or the respondent,
all testified that at United meetings Cowherd and Garner urged
United members to let the respondent discharge them so that charges
of unfair labor practices against the respondent could be filed with