Hickory Chair Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1942

41 N.L.R.B. 288 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of HICKORY CHAIR MANUFACTURING COMPANY and
A. F. OF L. FURNITURE WORKERS LOCAL 2869 U.B.C. & J. OF A.
Case No. C-2135.-Decided May 2'6, 19.1
Jurisdiction : furniture manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference , Restraint, and Coercion : anti -union statement
Discrimination: discharges for union activities.
Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded.
Mr. Herbert 0. Eby, for the Board. i
Messrs. Louis A. Whitener, T. Manly Whitener, and A. A. White-
ner, of Hickory, N. C., for the respondent.
Mr. Joseph 0. Carson, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the Union.
Mr. Reynolds C. Seitz, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge 1 duly filed by A. F. of L. Furni-
ture Workers Local 2869, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
herein called the Union ,2 the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, 'by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region
(Baltimore, Maryland), issued its complaint, dated January 30, 1942,
against Hickory Chair Manufacturing Company, Hickory, 'North
Carolina, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) 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 and of notice of
hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
I The original charge was filed on November 14, 1941 Amended charges were there-
after filed on December 27, 1941, and January 17, 1942
2 The Union was described in the complaint as "A. F of L. Furniture Workers Local
2968" During the hearing the complaint was amended, without objection , to give the
Union the designation given it in the caption
41 N. L. R. B , No. 62.
288
HICKORY CHAIR, MANUFACTURING COMPANY 289
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance: (1) that, the respondent referred disparagingly to the.
Union, criticized employees because of their activity in its behalf,
inquired as to its progress, threatened employees with discharge and,
with bodily harm if they joined the Union, urged them to denounce
the Union, and promised them wage increases if they worked against
it; (2) that the respondent on or about November 11, 1941, dis-
charged E. C. Bolich,3 A. Y. Cline, and G. M. Rudisill,4 and there-
after refused to reinstate them, because they formed and assisted,
the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees
for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and
protection; and (3) that by reason of the foregoing acts the respond-
ent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On February 6, 1942, the respondent filed its answer to the cola-
plaint, admitting that it was engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act, but denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair
labor practices. The answer further alleged, by way of affirmative
defense, that the respondent had discharged Bolich, Cline, and Rudi-
sill for good and lawful reasons. -
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on February 26, 27, and
28, 1942, at Newton, North Citrolina, before Horace A. Ruckel, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The
Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and partici-
pated in the hearing; no appearance was entered for the Union. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all par-
ties. At the conclusion of the Board's case, counsel for the respondent
moved to dismiss the complaint. The Trial Examiner denied the
motion, except as to the allegations in the complaint that the respond-
ent threatened employees with bodily harm because of their activi'-
ties on behalf of the Union, inquired as to the progress of union
organization, and threatened to discharge employees because of their
union activity. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board
moved to conform the complaint to the proof. The Trial Examiner
granted the motion without objection. At the same time, counsel
for the respondent moved to dismiss those portions of the complaint
not previously dismissed. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on
this motion and subsequently denied it in his Intermediate Report,
except as to the allegations that the respondent urged its employees
to denounce the Union and promised increases in pay to employees if
they worked against the Union. During the hearing the Trial Ex-
3 Erroneously spelled "Bolick " in the complaint.
Erroneously spelled "Rudisell " in the complaint.'
463892-42-vol 41-19
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
aminen made various rulings on other motions and on the admissi-
bility of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On March 9, 1942, the respondent filed a brief with the Trial
Examiner. On March 11, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Inter-
mediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties,
in which he found, that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from
such unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action in
order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Thereafter, on March 27,
1942, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and.
on April 6, 1942, submitted a brief in support of the exceptions.
Pursuant to notice duly served on the parties, a hearing for the
purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington,
D. C., on April 21. 1942. The respondent and the Union were repre-
sented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
The Board has considered the respondent's exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and its brief, and, insofar as the exceptions are
inconsistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order
set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Hickory Chair Manufacturing Company, a North Carolina corpo-
ration, operates a factory at Hickory, North Carolina, where it is
engaged in the manufacture of furniture. The materials used by
the respondent consist principally of lumber, veneers, upholstering
materials, glue, hardware, and glass. During the year 1941 the
respondent purchased materials valued in excess of $600,000 of
which approximately 70 percent was transported by railroad and
motor truck to the Hickory plant from places outside the State of
North Carolina. During the same year the value of the respondent's
finished products was in excess of $2,000,000, of which approximately
90 percent was shipped to purchasers outside the State of North
Carolina. The respondent employed about 670 employees during
1941. The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce,
within the meaning of the Act.
HICKORY CHAIR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 291
II. TIDE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
1
A. F. of L. Furniture Workers Local 2869, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and, Joiners of America, is a labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the respondent at its Hickory,
North Carolina,' plant.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Interference,.restraint, and coercion; the discriminatory discharges
In June or July 1941, the Congress of Industrial Organizations
distributed leaflets at the respondent's plant, and unionization became
a topic of conversation among the respondent's employees. At about
the same time, E. C. Bolich, an employee who had for a number
of years been an officer of Local 1781 of the Carpenters,5 discussed
with A. Y. Cline, and other employees, the formation of a local
in the respondent's plant. No steps to this end were taken at that
time. During _ the latter part of the summer, however, discontent
arose among the respondent's employees with respect to their wage
scale. In August 1941, three employees from the cabinet room, A. Y.
Cline, A. J. Abernethy, and- B. E. Berry, approached J. W. _ Freeman,
the cabirietroom foreman; and asked for an increase in their wages.
At the time of the request Freeman did not give the three employees
any specific answer, but sometime later-in the month he invited
them to his house in the evening. The employees accepted the invi-
tation. Freeman testified at the hearing that at the meeting at
his home he told the employees he had decided to grant their request
for a raise in pay and then stated, "I would appreciate it very much,
boys, if you know about some of the men being 'dissatisfied with
wages if you could do what you can to hold the organization to-
gether. Men are hard to get at this tine." Then Freeman, accord-
ing to Cline's testimony, said that he was informed that a union was
coming into the plant, and that Cline, Abernethy,, and Berry' should
stay away from unions because they were "communistic and fascistic."
Freeman denied having mentioned the subject of unions during the
conversation with Cline, Abernethy, and Berry. Freeman's testi-
mony was corroborated by that of Berry. Abernethy testified, that
Freeman advised the employees present in his home to keep away
from unions, but could not recall Freeman's referring to them as
"communistic and fascistic." ' We find,, as did, the Trial ' Examiner,
Local 1781,, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, was a city-
wide local admitting to membership employees, of various employers in Hickory , including
those of the respondent
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who observed and heard the witnesses, that Freeman made substan-
tially the statements attributed to him by Cline.6
On October 20, 1941, W. A. Houser, an American Federation of
Labor organizer, arrived in Hickory, got in touch with Bolich and
Cline, and gave them a number of membership application cards.
Bolich, Cline, and others distributed these among the respondent's em-
ployees, a number of whom joined the Union. At approximately the
same time, dissatisfaction again arose among the respondent's employ-
ees with respect to wages and working conditions, and on October 29,
1941, employees in the machine room went on strike. As a result of
the strike the machine and cabinet rooms were closed down. It is not
disputed that the cause of the strike was a fear that the respondent
did not intend to increase wages to meet the requirements of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the consequent uncertainty in the
minds of the employees as to what their wages were to be in the
near future.7
On October 29, the striking employees gathered around the plant,
and Bolich, Cline, Rudisill, and other members of the Union dis-
tributed membership application cards among them as well as among
those who remained at work. This distribution was carried on
openly, both inside and outside the plant, frequently in the presence
of supervisory employees, including Freeman, T. L. Lingerfelt, the
respondent's superintendent, and L. Bost, assistant cabinet room fore-
man. Lingerfelt testified that, at one time during the day of October
29, in response to a statement by Bolich that the employees should
have an, "organization" to represent them, Lingerfelt stated that
the employees had a right to belong to any organization they wished.
Bost admitted that, he had been informed by some of the employees
that Bolich, Cline, and Rudisill belonged to the Union, and in addi-
6 The Trial Examiner found Abernethy to be reluctant and evasive as a witness
Although he joined the Union , he subsequently became inactive On November 28, 1941,
while he was still active, be and Cline signed a statement which attributed to Freeman
the remarks quoted above According to his own admission , Abernethy at one time
attempted to persuade Cline to let him remove his name from this statement, at the
same time telling Cline that if the latter stopped "cussing" the respondent he might
get his job back J L. Flowers, a member of the Union, testified that at one time Aber-
nethy, after , sweating Flowers to secrecy , told him about the meeting at Freeman's
house and gave him substantially the same account given by Cline at the hearing
Abernethy , recalled by the respondent,' admitted sweaiing Flowers to secrecy and telling
him that they should "forget about" the Union and the Board hearing , but stated that
he did not remember telling Flowers that- Fieeman had refereed in dcrogatoiy teims
to the Union
° The respondent had, as of October 26 , 1941, increased wages in accordance with
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, but this had not yet been reflected in
the pay envelopes of the employees , all of whom were paid bi-monthly . The record
discloses that the strike was a spontaneous walk -out rather than one called by the
Union . The men in the machine room walked out and, as a result, the Company
closed down the cabinet room. Bolich , Cline, and Rudisill , the three employees whose
discharges are discussed below, all worked in the cabinet room . The Company contends
that work in the cabinet room depended upon continued machine -room production.
There is no contention that the strike was brought on by any unfair labor practices.
HICKORY CHAIR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 293
tion that he saw some of the employees distributing and signing
cards on October 29. He denied that he knew what the cards were.
Freeman denied -seeing any union activity., The Trial Examiner
found that these denials by Bost and Freeman were not credible,
thereby in effect rejecting the respondent's contention that it was
unaware of its employees' union interest and activity, and-we agree
with the Trial Examiner's finding. Bost admittedly was told that
Bolick, Cline, and Rudisill belonged to the Union and, although he
may not have seen any of the cards distributed- by them and other
employees on October 29, he must have understood that the 'distribu-
tion had some connection with the Union. Similarly, we do not be-
lieve that Freeman and Lingerfelt, when the union application cards
were openly distributed in their presence, failed to note the distri-
bution and to understand its significance. This is particularly true
because the distribution took place during a period of unrest among-
the employees in the plant. Our conclusion is supported by Linger-
felt's testimony, stated above, as to his reply to Bolich's statement
that the men should have an "organization." The reply indicates
an awareness on Lingerfelt's part of the existence of union activity.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that on October 29, 1941, and
'thereafter, the respondent knew that the Union was being formed,
and that Bolich, Cline, and Rudisill were among its active proponents.
The striking employees returned to the plant on the morning of
October 30, 1941, although operations did not become normal until
later in the day. On November 7, 1941, the Union held a meeting
at which a charter was installed and at which Ruudisill and Cline
were elected president and vice president, respectively. On Novem-
ber 11, 1941, the respondent discharged Bolich, Cline, and Rudisill.
The discharges occurred 13 days after -these three employees had
actively engaged in the distribution of union' application cards in
the 'presence of supervisory employees of the respondent-and 4 days
after Rudisill and Cline had been elected president and vice president,
respectively, of the Union. The pertinent facts as to these discharges
are as follows:
• Bolick.- Bolich-came to work for the respondent in 1925. During
the latter part of his employment he did repair work in the cabinet
room in plant No. 3,$ along with three other employees. This type
of work required considerable skill: During the early afternoon of
November 10, 1941, Lingerfelt gave instructions to Freeman to have
a small frame prepared for use in the office. The task required no
8 The respondent's factory consists of three separate but neighboring buildings, referred
to as Plants No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3. The general office and certain production depart-
ments are located in Plant No. 1. Plant No 2 is used primarily as a warehouse Plant
No 3 includes the machine and cabinet rooms
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR: RELATIONS BOARD
more than 15 ' minutes. Freeman procured some wood and gave it
to Bost with instructions to have Bolich make the ' frame and to
-have it ready for use the following morning. Bost gave Bolich
the wood and told him of Freeman's instructions. Bolich testified
that 'work of this nature was generally done in Plant No. 2, that
he did not have available the wedges required to reinforce the frame,
that he asked Bost to bring him the wedges, and that Bost promised
to do so. C. L. Townsend, a cabinet-room inspector, testified that
-he heard Bost state that he would bring the wedges to Bolich. We
credit the testimony of Bolich and Townsend, as did the Trial
Examiner.
On the morning of November 11, Bost stopped at Bolich's be
to pick up the frame, and Bolich said that he had forgotten about it.
,Bolich then obtained the necessary wedges and completed the frame,
and Bost picked it up later that same morning. Neither Bost nor
Freeman reprimanded Bolich for not having the 'frame finished
sooner, and there is evidence that no serious inconvenience resulted
from the delay in completing the frame. On Bolich's return from
lunch on November 11, while walking between articles of furniture
awaiting repair, he accidentally struck his leg against an extended
.cabinet drawer. Bolich, according to his own testimony, pushed
the drawer shut with his foot. Freeman and Bost, who witnessed
'the occurrence, testified that Bolish kicked the drawer shut in an
angry manner. Later, Freeman and Bost examined the cabinet.
Bost testified that, in closing the drawer, Bolich damaged a drawer
stop "a little bit."' Neither Freeman nor Bost said anything to
-Bolich concerning his action at the time of its occurrence. Freeman
admitted, moreover, that the damage to the cabinet caused by Bolich's
kicking the drawer required only 10 or 15 minutes to repair. At the
end of the day's work, Freeman paid Bolich his wages and told him
he was discharged for neglecting to make the frame and for "kicking
the'case around."
We are of the opinion, as was the Trial Examiner, that the reasons
thus advanced by the respondent for the discharge of 'Bolich are
'unconvincing. • Bolich started working for the respondent more than
15 years prior to his discharge. During that time, so far as the
record discloses, he had never before been reprimanded for negligence,
misconduct,. or delay. Even assuming that Bolich was slow in doing
the work on the frame, the evidence indicates that the delay did
not inconvenience the respondent in any respect. The damage caused
by Bolich's closing the dresser drawer with his -foot was inconse-
quential. Both incidents were so trivial that -we are convinced that
9 Freeman described the result of Bolich' s action as ' damage to the, backpanel of the
cabinet.
HICKORY CHAIR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 295
they would not ordinarily have led to the discharge of an otherwise
satisfactory employee of such long standing. We are of the opinion
that they were used by the respondent as a pretext for ridding itself
.of an employee known to be one of the leaders in the formation of
the Union. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the real reason
for Bolich's discharge was his membership in and activity on behalf
of the Union.
Cline. , Cline was continuously employed by the respondent from
1933 until his discharge on November 11, 1941. At the time of his
discharge he worked in the cabinet room hanging and fitting furni-
ture drawers, skilled work which he performed along with three other
employees. In May 1941, when Cline was about to take a job else-
where, Freeman persuaded him to remain with the respondent, and
raised his wages. Cline received another raise on September 1, 1941,
which brought his wages up to 55 cents an hour, the highest rate of
pay received by any of the approximately 74 employees in the cabinet
room.'0
At.quitting time on November 11, 1941, Freeman discharged' Cline,
and told him he was- being discharged because he had not been at
his bench that day when the 1 o'clock whistle blew. 'Freeman testi-
fied that on November 11, 1941, when the 1 o'clock whistle blew,
Cline, instead of taking advantage of a 5-minute warning whistle,
made last-minute "arrangements," as a result of which he was 2
minutes late in starting work. Freeman did not state what these ar-
Irangements were. Cline testified that they consisted of his putting on
his cap, and denied that he was more than a minute late." Freeman
testified that Cline had been late getting to his bench on ' previous
occasions, and that lie had spoken to Bost about this and had told
him to warn Cline. Bost, however, testified that he did not know
anything about Cline's being late resuming work on any occasion,
although he had spoken to Cline at times about visiting with other
employees. So far as the record discloses, Cline had never prior
to his discharge been reprimanded for being late to work. Freeman
admitted at the hearing that he could not recall ever having dis-
charged any employee other than Cline for this reason, and that
when an employee was as much as 15 minutes late the custom was to
dock his wages.
At the hearing, the respondent for the first time advanced addi-
tional reasons in explanation of the discharge of Cline. Freeman
testified that Cline's production had been falling off for a period of
0
"Berry and ,Abernethy , previously identified , were the only other employees in this
wage bracket.
11 The employees in- the cabinet room did not work on a production line, and there is
nothing in the record to indicate that Cline's tardiness affected the work of other
employees
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6 months or a year, and that he "believed" he spoke to Cline about
his production when he received a wage increase in May 1941. The
respondent contends further that, when it raised the wages of its
employees in October 1941, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair
'Labor, Standards Act, it called a group of its employees together and
warned them that they would have to "step up" production in order
to prevent the respondent from losing money. Cline was included
in the group so warned. Freeman testified that after the strike on
-October 29, 1941, and after the wage increase of October 1941, Cline's
production did not "step' up," and 'that he warned Clue, sometime
between November 8 and November 11 to keep up with the other
drawer fitters. According to Freeman, Cline admitted that lie wcs
having difficulty in doing so. Cline fixed this conversation as having
occurred on November 10, but stated that he told Freeman only that
he found it difficult to keep up with Abernethy.12 We accept Cline's
version of the conversation, as did the Trial Examiner.
We are not persuaded that the reasons advanced by the respondent
explain the discharge of Cline. We do not believe that the respondent
discharged Cline, an employee of 8 years' standing, merely because he
was 2 minutes 'late in' returning to work on November 11, particularly
in view of Freeman's testimony that no other employee had ever been
discharged for the same reason, and that it was the custom of the
respondent merely to, dock the wages of employees who were as much
as 15 minutes, late. Nor do we believe that Cline's disniissal,,was
due to' a. poor production record, or to any failure on his part to "step
up" production after the wage increase of October 1941., The re-
spondent did not offer in evidence any records or statistics 'to' show
'that Cline's production had fallen off or that it was lower. than that
of other drawer fitters, and it is unlikely that ' the respondent would
.have granted Cline two wage increases or that Freeman"would' have
persuaded Cline to remain in the respondent's employ if Cline's pro-
duction record was as unsatisfactory as the respondent would now
have us believe. Similarly, the claim that Cline failed to' increase
his production after the wage increases of October 1941 is completely
unsupported by production records or comparative data. Nor was
Cline told on November 11, 1941, that he was being discharged because
of his failure to maintain or reach satisfactory production figures. On
all the facts, including Cline's long employment by the respondent,"'
we are convinced and we find that the record does not sustain the
12Abernetby had the reputation of being a fast woikei Foi this reason he was nick-
named "Speed" Abernethy -
13 As the Court pointed out in Montgomery Ward & Co. v, N. L. R B., 107 F. ( 2d) 555,
561 (C C. A 7) : ". . . although long service does not necessarily indicate efficiency,
it does indicate that the employee ' s work is not considered so unsatisfactory as to merit
discharge "
HICKORY CHAIR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 297
respondent's contention that Cline's production record was unsatis-
factory.
Some attempt was made by the respondent at the hearing to show
that employees other than Cline had been discharged because of un-
satisfactory production records. However, since Superintendent
Lingerfelt admittedly kept no adequate production or personnel rec-
ords, and since he was unable, to give even the names of some of
the employees allegedly discharged -for that reason, or the dates on
which the discharges took place, we find the evidence entirely uncon-
vincing. Moreover, the evidence is irrelevant in view of our finding
above, that the record does not establish that Cline's production record
was in fact unsatisfactory.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent discharged
Cline because of his membership in and activity on behalf of the
Union.
Rudisill. Rudisill first worked for the respondent from 1932 until
1939, when he quit. On several occasions thereafter, Freeman admit-
tedly endeavored to persuade Rudisill to, return. Rudisill did so on
May 27, 1941, at a wage of 10 cents an hour more. than he had
formerly been paid by the respondent, and he worked for the re-
spondent until November 11, 1941, when Freeman discharged him,
telling him merely that his work was unsatisfactory. At the time of
his discharge, he was working in the cabinet room under Foreman
Freeman, along with Bolich and Cline.
At the hearing, the respondent contended specifically that Rudisill
had been losing time from work and that his production had fallen
off. Freeman testified that, beginning about November 7, 1941,14
Rudisill occasionally left his place of work to talk to other employees,
and that Freeman gave Bost orders to speak to Rudisill about it.
Bost testified that he did so on November 10. Bost also testified
that he specifically told Rudisill not to wash his hands before the
4 o'clock quitting.-whistle, blew, and not to go to another department
to get material, which Rudisill had been accustomed to doing. Rudi-
sill's testimony, which the Trial Examiner found was credible, was
that prior to November 10 he had always washed his hands before the
whistle blew, that he was never told not to do so, and that he had
never been warned about his production. Bost admitted, in any event,
that Rudisill did not on November 10 violate either of the instructions
allegedly given him on that day. Freeman testified that Rudisill's
work had fallen off, but admitted that on no occasion had he spoken
to Rudisill about it. The respondent also made the same contention
with respect to Rudisill's production following the wage increases of
14 As has previously been found , this was the date of ltudisill 's election as president
of the Union.
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
October 1941 as it made with respect to Cline's production record, as
described above. As in the Cline case, however, no records were pro-
duced by the respondent in support of its claim that Rudisill was not
coming up to work standards. We find,' as did the Trial Examiner,
that the record fails to show that Rudisill's production record was
unsatisfactory.
As in the Bolich and Cline cases, the reasons advanced by the re-
spondent for Rudisill's discharge are completely unconvincing. We
find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent's alleged reasons
are not supported by the evidence, and that Rudisill, like Bolich and
Cline, was in fact discharged because of his membership in and
activities on behalf of the Union.
By thus discharging Bolich, Cline and Rudisill, the respondent
discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, and
thereby discouraged membership in the Union. By this discrimina-
tion, and by the anti-union statements made by Freeman, the respond-
ent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.16
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor,practices, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and
that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of E. C. Bolich, A. Y. Cline, and G.
M. Rudisill because of their union membership and activity. To
effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the respondent to
offer each of them immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges; and to make each of them whole for
'b We agree with and sustain the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the allegations in the com-
plaint that the respondent threatened employees with bodily harm because of their activi-
ties on behalf of the Union, inquired as to the progress of union organization, threatened
to discharge employees because of their union activity, urged its employees to denounce the
Union, and promised increases in pay to employees if they worked against the Union.
HICKORY CHAIR, MANUFACTURING COMPANY . - 299
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to the amount which he would normally have earned as wages
from November 11, 1941, the date of his discharge, to the date of
the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings' is during
said period.
Since the respondent's acts of discrimination "go to the very heart
of the Act," 17 and are coupled with Foreman Freeman's anti-union
statements, we shall require the respondent to refrain from interfering
with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in the Act, by discrimination or in any other
manner.1s
Upon , the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. A. F. of L. Furniture Workers Local 2869, UBC & J of A, is
a labor organization , within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of E. C. Bolich , A. Y. Cline, and G. Al. Rudisill, and thereby
discouraging membership in A. F . of L. Furniture Workers Local
2869, UBC & J of A , the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of
the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his
unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere.
See Matter of Crosset Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America. Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L. R. B. 440.
Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal or other
work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v.
N. L R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
17 See N. L. R. B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 120 F. (2d) 532, 536.
" Cf N L R B. v Express Publishing Co., 312 U. S. 426.
'300 DECISIONS'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Hickory Chair Manufacturing Company,, Hickory, North
Carolina, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in A. F. of L. Furniture Workers
Local 2869, UBC & J of A, or in any other labor organization of its
employees, by discharging any of its employees or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment or any term or. condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes,of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will-effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to E. C. Bolich, A. Y. Cline, and G. M. Rudisill immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges ;
(b) Make whole E. C. Bolick, A. Y. Cline, and G. M. Rudisill for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against then by ,payment to each of them of a sum
of money equal to that which lie normally would have earned as wages
during the period from November 11, 1941, the date of his discharge,
to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during said,period;
(c) Immediately post in conspicuous places throughout its plant in
Hickory, North Carolina, and maintain for a period of a least sixty
(60)' consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its em-
ployees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the con-
duct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a)
and (b) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirma-
tive action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) and (b) of this Order: and
(3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain
members of A. F. of L. Furniture Workers Local 2869, UBC & J
of A, and that the respondent will not discriminate against any em-
ployee because of membership or activity in that organization ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.