J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1966

157 N.L.R.B. 869 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

J. P. STEVENS AND CO.,- -INC. . - 869
dence establishes, whatever misconduct there was prior to the revocation consisted
substantially of interrogation of some employees (perhaps no more than three or
four) regarding the execution of authorization cards, and the record is barren of
any evidence that any query or remark -by the management regarding unionization
or union representation was either addressed to Kempf or ever came to her attention
prior to the revocation (or, for that matter, thereafter, since there is even no evi-
dence that she was present during Werstein's talk on April 6 or 7, or was informed
of anything he said). Moreover, the General Counsel neither called Kempf as a
witness nor offered any explanation of the omission, with the result that one is
left to grope in the dark for the reason that impelled her to write the letter. In the
posture of the record, to conclude that the revocation was not "a purely voluntary
and uncoerced act," is to substitute a guess for evidence, and that is a course for-
bidden the factfinder.
The sum of the matter is that the Union was not, at the time of the bargaining
request on April 6, 1964, or at any material time thereafter, the collective-bargaining
representative of the relevant unit, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act;
that the Respondent has thus not been legally obligated to bargain with the Union;
and that the record does not establish that the Company has unlawfully refused to
bargain with the Union or has otherwise violated the settlement agreement by any
unfair labor practices. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint be
dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
this proceeding, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is, and has been at all material times, an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. The Union is, and has been at all material times, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production employees of the Company, excluding all other employees,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute,
and have at all material times constituted, a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. The Union was not, on April 6, 1964, and has not been at any material time
since, the representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. The evidence does not establish that the Company has engaged in any unfair
labor practices since the settlement agreement described in the findings made above.
RECOMMENDED- ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the
entire record in this proceeding, it is recommended that the National Labor Rela-
tions Board enter an order dismissing the complaint.
J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc. and Industrial Union Department,
AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 11-CA-2180, 11-CA-2206, 11-CA-2252,
11-CA-2447, 11-CA-2382, 11-CA-2293, 11-CA-2258, 11-CA-2366,
11-CA-2409, 11=CA-2203, 11-CA-2220 , 11-CA-2269 , 11-CA-2419;
11-CA-2216, 11-CA-2225, 11-CA 2360, 11-CA-2286, 11=CA-2365;
11-CA-2218, 11-CA-2233, 11-CA-2287, 11-CA-2351, 11-CA-2224
11-CA-2229, 11-CA-2359, 11-CA-2266, 11-CA-2275, 11-CA-2240,
11-CA-2457, 11-CA 2380; 11-CA-2285 , 11-CA-2250, 11-CA-2228,
and 11-CA-2267. March 22,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 26, 1965, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the Respond-
157 NLRB No. 90.
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations.
Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has reviewed the rulings of
the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the
briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
with the modifications noted below.
A. 8(a) (1) conduct
The Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to find specifically that
certain conduct of the Respondent, which he described, violated Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) of the Act. In order to clarify his Decision, we list the
incidents mentioned in his Decision, which, in context, we find violated
Section 8(a) (1).
Threats of reprisals, promises of benefits, and related acts of inter-
f erence : p. 890, Wood's statement to employee Couch ; p. 892, Lefler's
statement to employee Yearwood ; p. 893, Lefler 's statement to employee
Heath ; p. 893, footnote 12, Lefler 's statement to employee Heath ; p.
895, Dixon 's statement to employee Walden; pp. 896 -897, Burns ' state-
ment to employees Hyatt, Surrett, and Price; pp. 897-898, Dixon's
statements to employee Charles Capps; p. 904 , Carter's statement to
employee Virginia Trotter ; pp. 906-907 , Stone's statements to Jesse
Cudd ; p. 908 , Sealy's statement to employee Fields; p. 909 , Hartsell's
statement to employee Carter ; p. 911 , Wood 's statement to employee
Sims; p. 914 , Griffin 's statement to the employees ; p. 914 , Hunter's
statement to employee Rosemond ; p. 915 , Griffin's statement to the
group of employees ; p. 925 , Kirby's statement to employee Collins;
p. 929, Fann 's statement to employee Edens; p. 933, Kirby's statement
to employee Brock Adams ; p. 938, Burrell 's statement to employee
King ; p. 939, Hendrix 's statement to employee Jenkins; p. 940, Beeks'
statement to employee Jenkins; and p. 947, Rawlings ' statement to
employee Fred Nicholson.
Interrogation: p. 888, by Bankhead of employee Wright; p. 890, by
Wood of employee Hegler ; p. 890, by Bankhead of employee Hegler;
p. 891, by Wood of employee James Lee; p. 895, by Dixon of employee
Walden and others; pp. 896-897 , by Burns of employees Hyatt, Sur-
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 871
nett, and Price; pp. 897-898, by Dixon of employee Charles Capps; p.
'909, by Hartsell, Morgan, and Tarte of employee Carter; p. 911, by
Wood of employee Sims; p. 914, the ruse used to get the union adher-
,ents to go to Kitties' office; p. 917, by McDowell of employee Sanders;
p. 917, by Lollis of employee Tumblin; p. 938, by Beeks of employee
Payne; p. 939, by Hendrix of employee Jenkins; p. 941, by Pennington
•of employee Merrill; and p. 943, by Gilbreath of employee Burgess.
Surveillance: p. 888, Bankhead's request for Wright to engage in
surveillance; p. 908, Sealy's statement to employee Fields; p. 923,
Reese's admission to James Walker that the Respondent was engaging
in surveillance; p. 941, Pennington's statement to employee Merrill.
Union buttons: p. 910, Supervisor Tarte's demand that employee
Hicklin remove her union button.
In addition to the above violations of 8 (a) (1), we find that the
-following conduct of Respondent was also unlawful:
(1) Employee Robinson, who worked in the Respondent's Dunean
plant, was interrogated by Supervisors Stamps and Vaughn as to
union matters. Stamps asked Robinson how the Union was coming
and stated the "people got hurt when they fool with the union."
Supervisor Vaughn asked Robinson where he had gone on Sunday,
the day a union meeting was held in Charlotte. The above testimony
is uncontradicted.
Employee Robinson also had a conversation with Plant Manager
Pride, who told him that he "ought to leave the union alone and not
mess with it" and that he was waiting for Robinson to mention it to
him because he knew when Robinson had sent his authorization card
to the Union. Robinson also testified that on April 10, 1964, he was
called to Pride's office and asked about a statement he had given to
the Board. Robinson was also asked by Pride to sign a statement
for Pride, and Robinson did this. A few days later Robinson was
requested by Pride to sign a second statement for him. Robinson
hesitated about signing it, but, after being assured by Pride that it
was all right, he went ahead and signed. This statement said that the
previous statement that Robinson had given the Board agent was not
true. After Robinson had signed this statement, Pride told him, "I
wouldn't have to worry about my job, that I would have a job."
Pride did not deny the statements attributed to him by Robinson.
We find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) by inter-
rogating and threatening Robinson, by creating an impression of sur-
veillance of union activities, and by intimidating Robinson concern-
ing the statement he had given the Board.'
3 The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner 's failure to discuss or find that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by interrogating and threatening
Robert Carsey with respect to his union activities , and by engaging in surveillance of m.
union meeting attended by Carsey and others . Carsey testified that on or about May 22
or 23, 1963, he was called into the office of General Overseer Cranford , where Cranford
872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) We also find' that the notice 2 mailed to' the employees and
posted on plant bulletin boards constituted a threat to employees in'
violation of Section 8 (a) (1). This notice informed- the- employees
that if "the union were to get in here it would not work to your
benefit but, in the long run would itself operate to your serious harm."
As the Respondent- immediately thereafter embarked upon- `its cam-
paign of coercive conduct, it is plain that the Respondent was force-
fully bringing home to the employees that the "serious harm" was not
to be long delayed. .
(3) Finally, we find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1),
by posting the names of the union adherents on plant bulletin boards.
The Respondent could give no justifiable reason for such posting. The
record shows that many of the employees whose names were posted
were shortly thereafter discharged for their union activities. The
record also shows that when employees informed the Respondent of
their withdrawal from the Union, the Respondent scratched their
names from the list. In the light of these circumstances , and in the
context of the flagrant unlawfulness of the Respondent's antiunion
campaign, it is clear to us, and we find, that the posting was an intimi-
datory tactic which was deliberately calculated to, and did, coerce
and restrain employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
B. 8(a) (3)
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent discharged 69
employees in violation of the Act .3 We agree with the Trial Exam-
iner that these employees were unlawfully discharged. In addition,
contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that employees Leroy Sims
and Herman Burgess were also unlawfully discharged or denied
reinstatement.
questioned him about how Carsey felt about the Union. According to Carsey, Cranford
stated, "Well, I want to let you know how I feel about this [the Union ]. If you're not
for me you 're against me, and I 'll firmly get rid of everybody who's against me, because
I've done it before." Cranford denied questioning Carsey or making the remarks attributed
to him.
Carsey and employee Lloyd Edwards testified that at the time of a scheduled union
meeting on May 25, 1963, at the Dixie Motel, they saw Respondent Supervisors Sidney
Matthews and John Lyles observing them from a car parked in a parking lot opposite
the motel . Matthews and Lyles admitted that they were in the car but asserted that
they were parked in the lot only while buying a part for a piece of farm machinery at a
nearby store and that they did not engage in surveillance . In view of the credibility
Issues raised by the foregoing testimony , and the Trial Examiner 's failure to rule thereon,
and as the alleged 8 ( a) (1) conduct would only be cumulative , we do not pass upon the
above issues.
2 This notice is reproduced on page 886 of the Trial Examiner 's Decision.
8 The Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to make specific findings that the following
employees were discharged in violation of Section 8(a) (3) : Jack Simpson, James Walden,
Donald and Jesse Cudd , John Eller , Engine Evans, Harold Robinson , Garvis Powers,
David Collins, James Cantrell , M. C. Richardson , Lillian Hux, and Guy Jordan . We hereby
find that these employees were discharged in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. We
further find that Garvis Powers' discharge was also in violation of Section 8(a) (4).
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 873.
(1) Leroy Sims, the record shows,. had worked 19 years for the
Respondent at the time of his termination on January 30,1964. Before
the latter date, Sims had joined the Union, his name had been posted,.
and, after several of his fellow union members had been discharged,,
he spoke to Plant Superintendent Wood about getting out of the
Union. Sims told Wood that he was through with the Union. Wood
asked Sims if he would name the employees who belonged. Sims
declined to do this. Wood also told Sims, as the latter testified, "that
as long as I wasn't going to have anything to do with the union, and
run my job right, I had a job there as long as I wanted it." Sims con-
tinued to work without incident until the middle of January, when
Sims was asked by Wood whether he had given a statement to the,
Board accusing Wood of promising employees benefits to persuade,
them to withdraw from the Union. Sims said he had given a state-
ment to a Board agent, but insisted that it did not incriminate Wood.
Wood replied that he would know next month, referring to the time
when the hearing in this case was to commence. A few days later
Sims, who worked in the cardroom running roller frames, reported
for work and found some fly frames stopped off and left in a condi-
tion which affected his earnings since he was paid by the hank. This
happened several times and, although Sims protested to Supervisor
Temple, Temple replied that there was nothing he could do. Sims,
became disgusted and, on January 30, he told Temple to give him
his pay check, it being payday. Sims explained to Temple that he
would come back and see General' Overseer Bankhead, which he did
on Saturday morning, February 1. When Bankhead and Sims talked
on Saturday, Bankhead. told Sims to return on Monday. Pursuant,
to Bankhead's request;, Sims came back on Monday and was told by
Bankhead to "come back prepared to go to work Thursday." 4 The
next day, February 4, the Respondent received a copy of Sims' affi-
davit.5 When Sims returned on Thursday, he was told that there was;
no job available for him.
The Trial Examiner concluded that the evidence did not support a
finding that Sims was constructively discharged on January 30. He
did not consider the General Counsel's alternative contention that,
even assuming Sims was not constructively discharged on January 30,
he was unlawfully denied reemployment on February 6. We find this
latter contention has merit for the following reasons :
Sims had been a satisfactory employee for many years. Although
he had had a disagreement with Temple, his immediate supervisor,
4 When Sims returned on Monday , Bankhead said, according to Sims' credited testi-
mony: "'Come back prepared to go to work Thursday ',; he says, 'I may have to work you
a while longer on the second shift,' and I said, 'Well , Mr. Temple might not want to work
me any more, after I walked out ,' and he says , 'Well , we've got that straightened out, he
ain't got no objections ,' he says, 'I talked with him.'!'
T This statement was produced in 'the 10(j) injunction proceeding.
874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and had walked out, Bankhead, according to the testimony of Sims
which we credit, 6 did not hold this against him but met Sims' request
for employment elsewhere with a promise to put him-to work on
Thursday, February 6. When Sims did report as requested, Bank-
head told him there was no job. In the interval between the promise
of a job and its fulfillment, Respondent became aware of Sims' affi-
davit to a Board agent which was adverse to Respondent's case. In
view of Respondent's animus toward the Union, its adherents and
supporters, the inference is inescapable that Respondent withdrew
its job offer to Sims because, of the contents of the affidavit which
established in Respondent's estimation that Sims was prounion despite
his announced withdrawal from that organization. We so find. We
further find that by denying Sims employment on and after Feb-
ruary 6, Respondent violated Section 8(a) (4) as well as 8(a) (3)
.of the Act.
(2) Herman Burgess had worked 17 years for the Respondent at
its Piedmont plant at the time he was terminated on April 27, 1964.
During this time, Burgess had worked at several jobs in the cardroom,
including a stripping job and as a sweeper. Burgess joined the Union
in March 1964, before the Respondent had opened its new Piedmont
plant. Prior to the new plant opening, Supervisor Gilbreath told the
employees at the old plant "there would be jobs there for all of us."
Burgess was transferred to the new plant and ran a bobbin machine
in the cardroom for about 3 weeks before he was terminated.
A few days prior to his termination, Burgess was approached by
-Supervisor Gilbreath who asked him whether the union men had been
to see him and whether he would sign a card. Burgess responded by
asking the same question of Gilbreath. Gilbreath also told Burgess
-he would be fired if he signed a card. When Burgess came to work
,on April 27 he was told to go home. The next day Burgess returned
and was told by Supervisor Gilbreath that he was laid off. Burgess'
-uncontradicted testimony was that he had seniority over the people
-who were running the carding machines. Burgess also stated that
after his layoff, employee Woodson, who was junior to him, ran the
-bobbin machine that he had been running.
The Trial Examiner found that the General Counsel had not met
his burden of proving that Burgess had been discriminatorily dis-
charged. We do not agree. Burgess was a long-time employee who
was capable of, and had performed, a number of different jobs in the
carding room, in addition to his regular job of cleaner. At the time
of his discharge, he was in fact operating a bobbin machine and had
9 Bankhead denied that he had offered Sims a job on Saturday, February 1, but did not
testify as to the conversation he had had with Sims on Monday, February 3 To the
extent' that Bankhead's testimony contradicts Sims, we do not credit it and note that, in
conjunction with other matters, Bankhead's testimony was discredited by the Trial
'Examiner.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 875
seniority over many other carding machine operators, including his
replacement. At the time of the opening of the new Piedmont plant,
Burgess together with other employees had been promised jobs at the
new plant. On April 27, approximately a month after the new plant
opening, without forewarning, Burgess was abruptly laid off.
Respondent did not call any witnesses in an attempt to justify
Burgess' discharge. It is significant that the discharge followed
shortly after Burgess was interrogated as to union activities and
threatened with discharge if he signed a union card. We find that,
in view of Respondent's union animus, its discharge of other employ-
ees for engaging in union activities, the timing of the discharge imme-
diately after the interrogation and threat, and Respondent's failure
to call witnesses to justify the discharge, Respondent discharged
Burgess for discriminatory reasons in violation of Section 8(a) (3).
(3) We also modify the Trial Examiner's Decision in the follow-
ing respects :
On page 905 of the Trial Examiner's Decision he states that he does.
not credit Supervisor Carter's testimony, absent corroboration. Con-
trary to the Trial Examiner, Carter's testimony was partially corrob-
orated by Supervisor Morgan. Morgan also testified, however, that
the mixed fillings he observed before Virginia Trotter's discharge,
could have been caused by someone other than Trotter, and he did not
corroborate Carter as to the existence of mixed fillings shortly after-
her name was posted as a union adherent. Accordingly, we conclude,
in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that Trotter was discharged'
for her union activities.
On page 913 of his Decision the Trial Examiner states that Super--
visor Haddon was not asked whether he had knowledge of the union
status of employees Eller and Evans. Haddon was asked this ques-
tion and denied having such knowledge. We correct this inadvertent
error and note that the Trial Examiner relied upon other evidence of-
company knowledge. The Trial Examiner also stated that Haddon
testified that he could not remember any employee having been dis-
charged for horseplay. Haddon did testify, however, that he knew
of six employees who were discharged for horseplay, but on cross-
examination he had difficulty in naming them. The two he did name
were discharged for more serious offenses. Modifying the findings
accordingly, we nevertheless conclude that the evidence supports the
Trial Examiner's findings that these two employees, Eller and Evans,
were discharged for their union activities.
The Trial Examiner found on pages 931-932 of his Decision that
employee Richmond was discharged for his union activities. We agree-
and we note that the record contains additional evidence to support
this finding. Thus, the print roll had been damaged previously with-
out anyone having been discharged, and employee Edwards, Rich--
-876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mond's replacement, damaged the print roll after Richmond was dis-
charged . On this occasion , Edwards testified that it was necessary to
send the print roll away to be repaired and that he received no repri-
mand or writeup for the damage which he did.
With respect to the employment history of employee Rochella Hug,
-discussed on page 945 of his Decision, the Trial Examiner stated that a
writeup given Hug on July 18, 1963, was the first she had received
for low production. Supervisor Griffin testified, however, that Hux
also had received a writeup for low quantity on November 27, 1962.
Although we note that the Trial Examiner did not discuss this earlier
writeup, we find that this does not detract from his conclusion that
Rochella Hux was discharged for her union activity. Rather, the
writeup in November 1962 actually supports the Trial Examiner's
finding that the Respondent was aware of Hux 's low production ever
since she was hired , but she was not discharged until she was seen
receiving a union leaflet in July 1963 . We agree that Rochella -Hug
was discharged for her union activity.
On pages 946-947 of his Decision the Trial Examiner discusses the
union activity of employee Leroy Casey. He states, "[Supervisor]
Rawlings ... saw him [Casey] at the union hall on May 14." The
record shows that, although Casey drove past the union hall in his
car, he did not stop at the hall. While the above evidence may not be
used to show the -Respondent 's knowledge of Casey's union activity,
there is sufficient other evidence in the record to support a finding
that the Respondent was aware of it. Thus , as found by the Trial
Examiner, Casey solicited the membership of three diaper folders,
one of whom was the wife of a supervisor . Casey was also cautioned
by a floorlady about talking about the Union on the job. Finally,
although not discussed by the Trial Examiner , the record shows that
Casey had solicited union memberships in the restroom. Accordingly,
we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent knew of
Casey's union activity and discharged him for that reason.
In discussing the details of the writeups received by employee Hor-
ace Spence , the Trial Examiner , at page 949 of his Decision , states,
"On June 4 [Supervisor] Draughan wrote up Spence for tying two
doubles in a warp. Then on June 6, the last night he worked he tied
doubles in the last warp he worked on before the end of the shift
according to Draughan ." Draughan's testimony was that the June 4
writeup was for tying 10 doubles in 1 warp and some in another, and
not just 2 doubles as reported by the Trial Examiner . Draughan also
testified that on Spence 's last night Spence not only tied doubles in
the last warp he worked on, as found by the Trial Examiner , but that
he also hooked up a loom wrong and tied doubles in another loom.
We are not persuaded, however, that these errors not discussed by the
Trial Examiner bolster the Respondent's claim that Spence was dis-
J. P. STEVENS AND Co., INC. 877
charged for poor work. We find it significant, as did the Trial Exam-
iner, that there was no showing that any of Spence's errors resulted
in the production of seconds. Accordingly, we agree with the Trial
Examiner that the Respondent's reason for Horace Spence's discharge
was a pretext, and that the real reason was his union activity.
At pages 951-952 of his Decision, the Trial Examiner discussed the
circumstances surrounding the discharge of Jarman Hobbs. He noted
that, according to the testimony of employee Britt, Britt complained
to Supervisor Sims once, on the day of Hobbs' discharge, that Hobbs
was importuning Britt to join the Union while Britt was at work. The
testimony of employee Jones is that on one occasion, several weeks
before Hobbs' discharge, Jones complained to Sims that Hobbs had
asked.Jones to sign a card while Jones was at work. The Trial Exam-
iner did not discuss Jones' testimony. Assuming, arguendo, that Jones
did speak to Sims about Hobbs, this does not detract from the Trial
Examiner's finding that Hobbs had never received a writeup for inter-
fering with another person's work, and that Hobbs was discharged
without any investigation or any attempt to obtain Hobbs' version of
the matter. We conclude, as did the Trial Examiner, that Jarman
Hobbs was discharged for his union activity.
The Respondent contends that, in discussing the Respondent's
knowledge of employee Reginald Nicholson's union activity at page 947
of his Decision, the Trial Examiner incorrectly assumed that Super-
visor Rawlings had reported Rawlings' observation of the union meet-
ings to Plant Superintendent Lee. Contrary to the Respondent, we
believe that such an inference is reasonable in view of the close contact
between the two supervisors as demonstrated by the record, the fact
that employees Bell, Nicholson, Casey, and Edwards, who attended the
meeting, were discriminatorily discharged, and in view of the Trial
Examiner's finding that the Respondent was engaged in a systematic
attempt to rid itself of union adherents.
THE REMEDY
In its brief, the Union asserts that this case is unique and requests
the Board, as part of its remedy for the 8(a) (1) and (3) violations,
to issue a bargaining order covering Respondent's three Great Falls
plants. We are not persuaded that such an order is appropriate.
Although there is a possibility that, but for Respondent's unfair labor
practices, the Union might ultimately have secured majority status, it
has not done so. In view of the majority principle in Section 9 (a) of
the Act, we do not believe that the policies of the Act require or even
permit the issuance of a bargaining order where majority status has
never been attained.1
7 H. W. Eleon Bottling Company, 155 NLRB 714.
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We do agree, however, that the conventional reinstatement, baekpay,
and posting-of-notice requirements for 8 ( a) (3) 8 and ( 1) violations
are not completely adequate to undo the effect of the massive and delib-
erate unfair labor practices committed by Respondent in its successful
efforts to frustrate organization by its employees. Thus, we have
found that the Respondent discharged 71 employees and discriminated
in assigning overtime to 2 employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) ;
that it discriminated against 2 employees in violation of Section
8(a) (4) ; that it made at least 23 threats of reprisal and promises of
benefit to employees; that it engaged in at least 17 acts of interroga-
tion of employees about their union activities; that it engaged in 4
acts of surveillance and in another instance created the impression of
surveillance of union activities ; and that it posted threatening notices
on plant bulletin boards, all in violation of Section 8(a) (1). Accord-
ingly, we shall require Respondent, in addition to posting the attached
notice to employees at all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted, to mail copies thereof, after it has been signed by
Respondent's representative, to each of its employees in its plants in
the States of North and South Carolina.9 We shall also require
Respondent, upon request of the Union to give the Union and its rep-
resentatives reasonable access, for a period of 1 year beginning with
the issuance date of this Decision to its bulletin boards and other
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Finally,
to make further effective its notification to employees of its intent to
remedy the unfair labor practices committed and to refrain from com-
mitting other unfair labor practices in the future, we shall require
8 In finding that Shirley Hobbs was discharged for her union activity , and in ordering
that she be reinstated , the Trial Examiner failed to discuss an incident that occurred in
Supervisor Griffin's office at the time of her discharge . Griffin informed Hobbs that she
was being discharged for miscounting napkins and handed her a pay voucher and check.
Hobbs then said , "Give me the damned thing ," or "Give me my damned check," and
yanked the check out of Griffin 's hand. Hobbs looked at the check and then gave Griffin
a slap on the face. Finally , Hobbs left, slamming the office doors . While we do not
condone this kind of employee misconduct, we do not believe that it was sufficiently serious,
in all the circumstances , to warrant a denial of reinstatement and backpay Thus, there
is no evidence that prior to, or after , the incident in Griffin's office Hobbs made intem-
perate remarks or engaged in physical violence . Just prior to the incident in question,
Griffin had announced Hobb's discharge, which was discriminatorily motivated With,
good justification , therefore , Hobbs believed she had been treated unfairly. The Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals ( N L R B v. M & B Headware Co., Inc., 349 F. 2d 170 ) recently
held in similar circumstances that*
An employer cannot provoke an employee to the point where she commits such an
indiscretion as is shown here and then rely on this to terminate her employment. .
The more extreme an employer's wrongful provocation the greater would be the
employee 's justified sense of indignation and the more likely its excessive expres-
sion . . . . [ R]efusal to reinstate her would put a premium on the employer's
misconduct.
Cf. Local 833 , International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America (Kohler Co .) v. N.L.R.B., 300 F. 2d 699 ( C.A.D.C.). Ac-
cordingly , we agree with the Trial Examiner that Shirley Hobbs should be reinstated with
backpay. Product Engineering and Manufacturing Corp., 133 NLRB 1375, 1392,
footnote 34.
0 H. W. El8on Bottling Company, supra.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 879
Respondent to convei e during working time meetings of employees in
the various departments of the North and South Carolina plants and
read to them a copy of the attached notice.10
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Respondent is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment
,or any terms or condition of employment of those employees whose
names appear in the attached Appendix and Marshall Phillips and
Jerry Dean King, thereby discouraging membership in the above-
named Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. By discharging an employee because he had given testimony
under the Act, Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act.
5. By engaging in interference, restraint, and coercion, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. Respondent did not violate the Act by discriminating with
respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Shirley Bowers, Ollie
Varnadore, Basil Totter, Johnny Gambrell, Thomas Bishop, James
Dyer, Robert Carsey, and Gordon Ray.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER11
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
Respondent, J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc., Rock Hill and Greenville,
South Carolina, and Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discharging, forcing the termination of, refusing overtime
work to, or otherwise discriminating against employees in order to dis-
courage membership in Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-
,CIO, or any other labor organization.
(b) Discharge or otherwise discriminating against employees for
giving testimony under the Act.
IO We have also required the Respondent to mail copies of the notice to insure that those
employees not present when the notice Is read during working hours will be adequately
informed of the Respondent 's Intention to refrain from engaging in unfair labor practices.
u The Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order contained paragraphs ordering the Re-
spondent to cease threatening employees with a shutdown and interrogating job ap-
plicants . We do not adopt these paragraphs because he made , no findings that the Re-
spondent had engaged in such conduct. -,t,
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Engaging in surveillance of employees ' activity in respect to
union organization. 12
(d) Interrogating any employee concerning such union activity by
him or other employees.
(e) Threatening its employees with discharge or other reprisals if
they become or remain members of the Union or give any assistance
or support to it. -
(f) Altering its working - conditions for the purpose of defeating
the organizational efforts of its employees or of Textile Workers.
Union of America, AFL-CIO, or the efforts of any other labor orga-
nization of its employees.
(g) Encouraging or permitting'employees to engage in antiunion
activity while prohibiting employees from engaging in activity on,
behalf of the Union.
(h) Interrogating and intimidating employees concerning state-
ments the employees gave to Board agents.
(i) 'Encouraging and assisting employees in withdrawing from the
Union.
(j) Instructing employees to watch for and report to the Respond-
ent the union activities of other employees.
(k) Requiring its employees to remove , and prohibiting its employ-
ees from wearing, union insignia or threatening its employees with
discharge for wearing union insignia in its plants.
(1) Intimidating and coercing employees into withdrawing from
the Union.
(m) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self -organization, to,
form , join , or assist Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the purposes of the Act :
(a) Offer to the employees , whose names appear in the attached
Appendix , reinstatement to their former or a substantially equivalent
position , without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed , and make each such employee whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
discrimination against him, in the manner described in the section of
the Trial Examiner 's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Offer to Marshall Phillips and Jerry Dean King overtime work
in accordance with the practice of offering these said employees over-
"The Trial Examiner inadvertently left these paragraphs out of his recommended
notice. We have corrected this omission.
J.1. STEVENS AND, C0., `INC. - 881
time work prior to the date overtime work was first discriminatorily
withheld from-each, of them and make them whole for loss of overtime
pay during the period of time overtime work was discriminatorily
withheld from each of them, with interest at 6 percent per annum.
(c) Notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full rein-
statement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the, -Universal Military Training and Service Act; as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces:
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its.
agents, for examination.and copying, all payroll records, social secu-
rity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due and the
rights of employment under the terms'of this Order.
(e) Mail a copy of'the attached notice marked "Appendix" 13 to
each employee and post copies at all of its plants located in the States
of North and South Carolina.14 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for Region 11, shall, after being signed by
a company representative, be mailed by the Company to each of its
employees working in, its North and South Carolina plants and be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and-be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Upon request of the Union, immediately grant the Union and
its representatives reasonable access, for a 1-year period beginning
with the issuance date of this Decision, to its bulletin boards and all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(g) Convene during working time, by departments and by shifts,
all its employees, and a responsible official of the Respondent at
departmental supervisor level or above, shall read to department
employees the contents of the attached Appendix. `
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to
comply herewith.
"In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order`
1* Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner ' s recommendation that it be required to
post a notice at all of its plants located in North and South Carolina even though not
all of them are involved in these proceedings . We find no merit in this exception as the
unfair labor practices in these cases were so extensive and so well publicized that they
must inevitably have had a coercive impact on employees of Respondent 's other plants in
the area. We find that this posting is necessary in order that such employees may be
reasonably secure in the exercise of their Section 7 rights and to remedy this atmosphere
of fear . For the same reasons, we order the Company to mail copies of the notice to these
employees.
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found
herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the purposes of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discharge, force the termination of, refuse over-
time work to, or otherwise discriminate against employees in order
to discourage membership in or support of Textile Workers Union
of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against
employees for giving testimony under the Act.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of employees' activities
with respect to union organization.
WE WILL NOT interrogate any employee concerning such activity
by them or other employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge or other
reprisal if they become or remain members of the Union or give
any assistance or support to it.
WE WILL NOT alter our working conditions for the purpose of
defeating the organizational effort of our employees or of Textile
Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or the efforts of any
other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT encourage or permit employees to engage in anti-
union activity while prohibiting employees from engaging in
activity on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT interrogate and intimidate employees concerning
statements the employees gave to Board agents.
WE WILL NOT encourage and assist employees in withdrawing
from the Union.
WE WILL NOT instruct employees to watch for and report to the
Respondent the union activities of other employees.
AVE WILL NOT prohibit employees from wearing union insignia
or threaten them with discharge for wearing union insignia.
WE WILL NOT intimidate and coerce employees into withdrawing
from the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the
aforesaid Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
J P STEVENS AND CO, INC 883
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from
any or all such activities
WE wna. offer to the employees named below immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without loss of seniority or other lights and privileges, and
WE wires. make them whole, with intei est, for any pay they lost
because of the discrimination against them
William Sibley
Edward Varnadore
Charles Capps
Arthur Wright
Charles Knight
Donald Cudd
Jessee Cudd
Billy Pressley
James Lee
Earl Roberts
William H Varnadore
Clarence J Poole
M C Richardson
Lillian Hux
Rochella Hux
Guy S Jordan
Shirley Hobbs
Jarman Hobbs
Jimmy Wood
Dale Payne
Leroy D Casey
Virginia Ray
Rosa Rogers
Idolene Steele
James Walden
William Aldridge
Jack Simpson
Ralph Harrison
Randall Ross
Jack Ross
Eugene Evans
John Eller
James Goodwin
Harold Robinson
Garvis Powers
Richard Dean Wike
221-374-66-vol 157-57
Albeit Sanders
Horace Anderson
Walter Rackley
Alvin Baker
Charles Plemmons
Cliailes Coley
Charlie D Jenkins
Reginald Nicholson
Charles L Haithcock
Lav rence M Haithcock
Thomas Connor
William Butler
Jarvis Capps
Virginia Trotter
Doris Hicklm
John C Carter
Grady O'Neal Fields
Burrell Knight
Carl Richmond
Cornell Laughter
Theodore R Adams
Richard Bell
James Cantrell
David Collins
Sedric Drake
Joseph Laughter
William Looper
Thomas 0 Edens
Adolphus A Bell
Artes E Smith
Lloyd R Edwards
Horace Lee Spence, Jr
Alex Faison
Leroy Sims
Herman Burgess
884 DECISIONS OF - NATIONAI. LABOR `,BELTATIONS BOARD
WE WILL offer to Marshall Phillips'and Jerry Dean King over-
time work in accordance with the practice of offering-these said
employees overtime work prior to the date overtime, work was first
discriminatorily withheld from each of them and make 'them
whole for loss of overtime pay during the period of time over-
time work was discriminatorily withheld from each of them, with
interest.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By--------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NoTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently
serving in- the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to
full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional
Office, 1831 Nissen Building, 310 West Fourth Street, Winston- Salem,
North Carolina, Telephone No. 723-2911, Extension 371.
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR TXD
Page
Statement of the Case- ------------------------------------------------ 885
Findings of Fact----------------------------------------------------- 885
1. The business of Respondent----------------------------------- 885
II. The labor organization involved ------------------------------- 886
III. The unfair labor practices------------------------------------- 886
A. Background---------------------------------------------- 886
B. The discharges and other acts of interference , restraint , and coercion 887
1. Plants in the Rock Hill area----------------------------- 887
a. Republic plant 2 ------------------------------------ 887
b. 'Republic plant 1---------------------------------- 892
c. Republic plant 3---------------------------------- 895
d. The Whitmire plant-------------------------------- 905
e. The Industrial plant-------------------------------- 907
2. Plants in the Greenville area---------------------------- 912
a. The Blackhawk Tufting plant and warehouse----------- 912
b. The Dunean plant--------------------------------- 916
c. The, White Horse plants---------------------------- 919
'd: The Slater plant---------------------------------- 923
Background ; Surveillance--------------------------- 923
e. The Greer plant----------------------------------- 934
f. The Appalache plant------------------------------- 936
g. The Victor plant---------------------------------- 938
h. The Watts plant----------------------------------- 940
Background to the Discharges; ,.
Decimation of the Union Ranks----- -------------- 940
i. The Piedmont plant-----------------.--------------- 942
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 885,
TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued
Page
3. Plants in the Roanoke Rapids area----------- ----------- 943
Background ; Surveillance by Respondent of Union Meetings-- 943
a. The Roanoke fabricating plant---------------------- 944
b. The Rosemary plant------------------------------- 948
c. The Rosemary fabricating plant- -------------------- 951,
d. Roanoke plant 1 ------------------------------------ 953
e. Roanoke plant 2----------------------------------- 955
f. The Patterson plant-------------------------------- 958
C. Summary------------------------------------------------ 960
1. The general employment background -------------------- 960
2. The coming of the Union------------ ----------------- 963
IV. The effect of the unfair labor practices upon commerce ------------ 966
V. The Remedy------------------------------------------------ 966
Conclusions of Law-------------------------------------------------- 966
APPENDIX A------------------------------------------------------ 967
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges filed during a period beginning in August 1963
by Industrial Union Department , A.F.L.-C.I.O., herein called the Union , the Regional
Director for Region 11 of the National Labor Relations Board (Winston-Salem,
North Carolina ), herein called the Board , issued complaints against J. P. Stevens and
Co., Inc., herein called Respondent, and on January 14 issued his order consolidating
the several cases for the purpose of hearing.
The consolidated complaints , as amended at the hearing , alleged in substance that
Respondent interrogated its employees concerning their union interest and affiliation;
threatened them with discharge if they engaged in union activities , engaged in sur-
veillance of their union activities and their places of meeting; induced and encouraged
employees to withdraw from organizing activities ; changed the working conditions of
employees to their detriment by, among other things, subjecting them to unusual and
harassing surveillance while performing their work , more strictly enforcing existing
rules pertaining to their use of the smoking and eating areas in the plant during their
free time , and promulgating new rules with respect thereto ; issued "warning slips" or
-personnel action reports for acts theretofore not cause for warning ; for the purpose of
harassing its union employees , and discharged 82 named employees (the cases of 2
employees , Warner Wyatt and Don Stephens , were dismissed at the hearing ) because
of their activity or because they filed charges or gave testimony under the Act, with-
held overtime work from 3 others, and denied reemployment to 1 other. Thereby, the
complaint alleges, Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1), (3 ), and (4 ) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 29 U.S .C. Sec. 151, etc. ), herein called the Act.
Respondent filed an answer denying that it had engaged in any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice , Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel conducted a hearing at
Rock Hill and Greenville , South Carolina, and Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, on
various dates from March 24 to September 8, 1964 , at which the parties were repre-
sented by counsel and participated in the proceedings . At the conclusion of the
hearing the parties waived oral argument . Subsequently, the General Counsel and
the Union filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Delaware corporation owning and operating textile plants in
.North and South Carolina, among. other States, where it is engaged in the manufac-
ture and distribution of textile products. -This case has to do with plants located in
-the vicinity of Rock-Hill, South Carolina, including Republic plants'], 2, and 3 and
the Industrial plant located at Great Falls, sometimes referred to as-the Great Falls
group; plants located in the vicinity of Greenville, South Carolina, including the
Dunean plant, Black Hawk Tufting plant and Black Hawk warehouse, and the White
Horse, Greer, Victor, Piedmont, Appalache, Slater, and Watts plants; the Whitmire
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant at Whitmire, South Carolina; and plants located near Roanoke Rapids, North
Carolina, including Roanoke fabricating, Patterson, Rosemary, and Roanoke plants
1 and 2. -
' The consolidated complaints allege , and Respondent's answers admit, that Respond-
ent, during the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaints, at each of its
plants manufactured finished products valued in excess of $100,000 and sold and
shipped finished products valued in excess of that amount from its plants in North
and South Carolina to points outside the States of North and South Carolina.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaints - allege , and the •Respondent 's- answers admit, that Textile Workers
Union of America ,-AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the-Act. , , i , - - . ,
-- . -- - III.- THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In the spring of 1963 the Union began a concerted drive to organize Respondent's
employees in Respondent's North and South Carolina mills. This drive was accom-
panied and followed by the discharge of the employees named in the complaint.
General Counsel contends that this was cause and effect; Respondent contends that
the discharges were for good cause. In either case, they were individual discharges
and each must be considered individually. My findings as to these discharges and
other alleged unfair labor practices which are said to have accompanied them are set
forth in the sequence in which the hearing was held and the evidence presented; first
the events which occurred at plants in the Rock Hill area, then those in plants in the
Greenville area, and finally those which transpired at plants in the vicinity of Roanoke
Rapids. -
The organizing compaign got under way about June 1963. In June and July
Respondent posted the following notice on the bulletin boards in the plants involved
in this case:
TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Since the Union is putting on a campaign to get in here, a good many questions
have arisen with regard to the following matters. We have decided to state the
Company's position on these subjects as clearly as we can for everybody alike:
-(1) This matter is, of course, one of concern to the Company. It is
also, however, a matter of serious concern to you and our sincere belief is
that if this Union were to get in here, it would not work to your benefit but,
in the long run, would itself operate to your serious harm.
1 (2) It is our positive intention to oppose this Union and by every proper
means to prevent-it from coming in here.
(3) We would like to make it clear that it is not necessary, and it is not
ever going to be necessary, for anybody to belong to the Textile Workers
AFL-CIO Union, or any other Union, in order to work for this Company.
The law of South Carolina guarantees this to you. - -
(4) Those who might join or belong to a Union are not going to get any
advantages or any preferred treatment of any sort over those who do not
join or belong. to any Union:
(5) If anybody causes you any trouble at your work or puts you under
any sort of pressure to join the Union, you should let the Company know,
and we will undertake to see that this is stopped.
(6) No person will be allowed to carry on Union organizing activities on
the job. Anybody who does so and who thereby neglects his own work or
interferes with the work of others will be subject to discharge.
Anybody who tells you anything contrary to the foregoing is not telling you
the truth.
Respondent at the same time it posted the above notice mailed copies to its employ-
ees with a covering letter describing it as of "vital importance." Despite Respondent's
openly avowed opposition to the organization of its employees, during the spring
and summer of 1963, a substantial number of them signed up in the Union. Most
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 887
of them in the Rock Hill and Greenville plants, under the aegis of the Union ; directed
joint letters to the managers of Respondent 's mills of which the following is typical: 1
This is to advise you that we , the undersigned , have joined the Textile Workers
Union of America , A.F.L.-C.I.O.-CLC, and intend to help in every way that is
legal to get our fellow workers to do the same.
We are aware of our rights under the law and any unlawful attempt on the
part of the Company or its supervisors to interfere with the rights of Union
people in this plant will be immediately referred to the National Labor Relations
Board and charges against the parties involved will be filed.
Respondent at most of its plants replied to these communications over the signatures
of its managers and superintendents , in the following style:
We have received a letter written on the stationery of the Textile Workers
Union of America , AFL-CIO-CLC, informing us' that you have joined that
union . We are taking due note of this information.
We would like for you to understand , however, that your signing up with the
union does not give you any immunity of any sort , nor any preference of any
sort, nor any preference over other employees . You will be expected and
required to perform your job as fully as anybody else-if you wish to remain in
the Company's employment.
After consultation between the superintendents and general managers of Respond-
ent's various groups of plants, according to Leland Burns, manager of the Great Falls
group around Rock Hill, Respondent caused to be posted on plant bulletin boards in
its Rock Hill and Greenville plants the names of those employees from whom it had
received letters, together with copies of Respondent 's reply. The names appeared
alongside Respondent 's already posted notice "To all Employees."
The posting of the names of union adherents , identifying them to all employees,
supervisory and rank-and -file alike, was promptly followed by a rash of antiunion
statements , interrogations , and writeups 2 by supervisors , and by the discharge of
many of the employees named in the complaint . The discharge of others occurred
during the succeeding months. A substantial number of still other employees whose
names were posted went to management to report that they wished to leave the
Union, to ask how that could be accomplished , and to request that their names be
"scratched" from the list on the bulletin boards . For a time Respondent drew, or
permitted to be drawn , lines through the names of such employees , thus revealing to
all how the fortunes of the Union ebbed and flowed.
B. The discharges and other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Plants in the Rock Hill area
a. Republic plant 2
Arthur Wright, Idolene Steele, Frankie Couch, and Elizabeth Hegler worked on the
third shift in the spinning room under Assistant Overseer Alvin Bankhead. These
four employees were all the employees in the spinning room whose names had been
posted by Respondent as union members. All four, with the addition of Charles
Knight, a union member who worked in the cardroom in plant 2 under Assistant
Overseer Coker, Shirley Bowers, a union member who worked in the spooling depart-
ment in plant 1, and Clarence Miles,' not a union member, constituted a car pool.
Wright and Steele were discharged by Bankhead and Knight by Coker on the night of
August 18. Immediately following these discharges, Hegler and Couch went to
Bankhead and to Superintendent Wood and asked how they could get out of the
Union. They were not discharged. Their conversation with supervisors is hereinafter
related.
Arthur Wright: Wright had worked 6 ,years for Respondent. At the time of his
discharge he was working in the spinning department on the third shift as oiler and
bander. His job was to clean the bobbins on the spinning frames and to sweep the
'In the Roanoke Rapids plants, to which, in April or May 1963, the Union directed
its first efforts, the names of members were not sent Respondent until the campaign was
well along
2 Entitled "Personnel Aotion Reports."
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
floor . In addition to Bankhead , his supervisors were Marion Mendenhall , spinning
department overseer, and John Wood, plant 2 superintendent. Wright joined the
Union in June 1963, shortly after it began its organizing drive. During the week of
July 4, while at work, Bankhead called him to one side and asked him how he felt
about the Union and if he would sign a union card. During the discussion which
followed Bankhead asked Wright to keep him posted as to the Union's progress.
Wright said he would do so. During the first week in July, Bankhead again
approached him and asked him if he had "heard anything," to which Wright replied
that he had not.
A copy of Respondent's letter of August 13 to Wright, Steele, Couch, and Hegler,
warning them that Respondent was "taking due note" of their proclamation of union
membership and their intention to organize Respondent's plants, was posted by
Respondent on the bulletin boards about August 17. Wright came to work at mid-
night on the 18th. In the morning, a half hour before the end of the shift, Bankhead
came to him and led him to an area of the floor where 35 to 40 cartons had been piled
and under which, on Bankhead's shoving aside some of them, it appeared that a con-
siderable quantity of lint had accumulated. This, according to Bankhead, could have
been accidently blown here by a blower which was used in cleaning the spinning
frames. Bankhead asked Wright if he had cleaned the floor, showed him a bobbin
which he had neglected to clean, and discharged him on the spot. When Wright
asked Bankhead what he should do about the bobbin, Bankhead said not to worry
about it because "that 's an automatic termination."
Bankhead admitted that the half hour remaining before the end of the shift would
have been sufficient time for Wright to clean the bobbin, which would take about 15
minutes. No explanation appears as to why he did not instruct Wright to do this
instead of discharging him. Bankhead stated while testifying that he did not know
but that the waste under the boxes might have been accumulating over a period of
weeks. He also admitted that Carroll Davis and Walter Holman, cleaners on the
first and second- shifts, were equally responsible with Wright in keeping the area in
question clean, and that he spoke to their supervisors' about the matter, but they were
not 'discharged.' He'further testified that he had not seen the names of Davis and
Holman posted on the bulletin board as union members. In fact, they were not
posted. -
Wright's uncontradicted testimony is, and I find, that during his 6 years' employ-
ment he had never been written up for any reason.3 Nor is there any evidence that
any other person in the spinning department was ever discharged for failing to per-
form properly the duties of a cleaner.
Idolene Steele- After Bankhead had discharged Wright he sought out Steele and
discharged her. She had been employed a year as a spinner on the third shift,4 and
occasionally did cleanup work. On the night of August 18, when she reported for
work, Bankhead assigned her to clean the sides of the spinning frames He indicated
by gestures ("from here to here") the number of frames she was to do. In fact the
number was 29.5 At the end of the shift Bankhead showed her seven frames whose
sides she had not cleaned and told her she was discharged. Her credited testimony is
that the regular cleaners, whose full time was devoted to the task, seldom cleaned
all the frames in one shift, but customarily cleaned half of them one night and left the
others to the following night. Her testimony on this point is supported by that of
Couch.
3A writeup ( personnel action report ) is a written complaint against an employee which
is kept in his personnel file. There is no limit to the number which an employee may
receive without being discharged . Although the employee is not required to sign it, his
doing so is equivalent to an admission that he is guilty of the offense complained of.
Oral complaints do not, of course , have the specificity of writeups . Since the vocabulary
of many of the witnesses is limited , the testimony of supervisors on direct examination
that such-and-such an employee was "warned ," or that he was "got after," frequently
boils - down to mean , only that the employee was spoken to critically, or merely cautioned
-or instructed , with no.hint,of disciplinary action. Such admonitions are of daily occur-
rence. If the complaint is serious it is normally reduced to writing in the form of. a
personnel action report . When the Respondent introduces a writeup in evidence it is in
defense to a discharge . On the other hand, the complaint alleges that in the case of
many employees , a large proportion of whom received their first writeups only after they
joined the Union , sometimes receiving one after another; the ,writeups 'were:-Intended to
harass, and constituted in themselves acts of intimidation in violation of the Act. Write-
ups consequently play an important part in my consideration of the discharges.
* Steele had worked 17 years as a spinner at other mills.
5 Steele says 31, but I accept Bankhead 's figure as probably more accurate.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 889
Bankhead's testimony, which I did not find convincing, is that he had "got after"
Steele for poor cleaning ever since she had been employed a year previously. He
admitted that he had never given her a writeup, and that he had not discharged any
other employee for not cleaning properly in the entire 4 years he had been in the
department.
Charles Knight: Knight had worked on the third shift in the cardroom 11 years, up
to his discharge on August 18, 1963. At this time he was under the supervision of
Shift Overseer Bill Coker and General Overseer James Bankhead. He had been
tending a draw frame for 2 years and a draw and speeder frame for 4 years. He
became active in the Union at the beginning of its campaign, and the first two union
meetings were held in his home. As already stated, he was a member of the same car
pool as Wright, Steele, Hegler, and Couch, and his name was posted as being a
member of the Union at the same time their names were posted. On the following
night, August 18, the same night that Bankhead discharged Wright and Steele in the
spinning room, Coker discharged Knight in the cardroom. The reason given was that
he had not tied together the ends of the finished, drawn material he was then working
on. This material is about the thickness of one's finger and as it comes off the finish-
ing machine it feeds into a can. Knight's testimony is that previously, when the mate-
rial fell into a small can, the operator was supposed to tie the end of the material
coming off the machine to the material already in the can, but that when these cans
were replaced by larger cans 2 years previously he was instructed by Coker not to
piece the ends together when the can was more than half full of material because this
would do more harm than good. He had proceeded in this fashion, he stated, ever
since . Knight 's testimony in this respect was supported by that of William Aldridge,
card tender on the second shift. -
When Coker told Knight that he had orders to discharge everybody that he caught
not tying ends, Knight suggested that he check 15 to 20 other cans standing nearby.
Coker replied, "To hell with that, I didn't catch them, I caught you."
Coker, no longer employed, was not called as a witness. The' testimony of Bank-
head is that Knight and the other tenders who performed the same operations on the
other shifts had been told some time before, when Respondent was having trouble
with tenders not tying ends, always to splice them together, and that he had instructed
the overseers to shut down the machine and send the operator home if he was caught
not doing so. Immediately after sending Knight home, Coker, about 6 o'clock in the
morning, 2 hours before the end of the shift, called Bankhead at his home to inform
him that he had done so and that his machine had been shut down. Bankhead told
Coker he would be along shortly. Asked on cross-examination what the emergency
was which prompted calling Bankhead at his home instead of waiting until he came
on duty at 8 o 'clock, Bankhead replied that Respondent needed to resume work.
I have some difficulty understanding this explanation in light of the fact that the
machine was kept out of production until Bankhead could arrive at the plant, although
according to his further testimony Coker could have pieced the ends together and got
the machine back to production "in half a minute or so." Moreover, he admitted that
it was not necessary as a production matter to stop the machine, and that Wood could
have fully informed himself of the facts merely by looking at the material as it lay in
the can. As it was, Bankhead arrived at the plant about 7 a.m., and counseled with
Coker and Plant Superintendent Wood about the discharge of Knight (who had
already been discharged and sent home).6 Some time later Knight's machine was
started up.
Bankhead testified that he could not recall ever discharging an employee for not
piecing ends together, and4hat he had never previously caught Knight not piecing
them. Knight testified that he knew of no other discharge for this reason in the 11
years he had worked at this job. Nor was Knight written up during his entire period
of employment.
6 Throughout the case there persists an uncertainty in the minds of supervisors , called
as witnesses , as to when an employee is discharged . Bankhead 's testimony , supported
by that of other representatives of management, is that an employee "is discharged when
a second hand sends him out." If he is thereafter taken back it is a question of rein-
statement, according to Bankhead . At another point, however , Bankhead testified that a
discharge is not "final" until the plant superintendent signs it, since he has to approve
all discharges . At another point Bankhead stated that in Knight's case, for example,
he was discharged about 9 a.m . when he so advised him , after talking with Wood, but
that before talking with the superintendent such an employee "is fired, as far-as I-am
concerned" but the superintendent has, the -right "to stop a, discharge if,he•so - sees fit."
What the distinction is between "stopping a discharge" after an employee is told he is
discharged and sent home and "reinstating him" Bankhead did not reveal.
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
These discharges had an immediate and salutary effect on Hegler and Couch; the
other two employees in the spinning room on the night shift whose names were posted
as union members. They went at once to see Wood and Bankhead in their offices,
told them that they wanted to get out of the Union, and asked them what to do.
Hegler testified that after her name had been posted Bankhead watched her' very
closely, which was unusual for him. When she went to see him upon Steele's'dis-
charge she told him that she would like to have her name removed from the bulletin
board, because her job was more important to her than the Union Wood asked
Hegler if she had been attending union meetings, and Hegler said she had attended
one. Wood told Couch that she would have "to prove" to him that she was not for
the Union. Shortly afterward Bankhead asked Hegler if she had received a letter
announcing the place of a union meeting, and asked her to bring him the letter. He
also inquired at whose house meetings were held, and asked her on three different
occasions if a representative of the Board had interviewed her and if she had a copy
of what he wrote down. According to Hegler, after she renounced the Union Bank-
head ceased his close scrutiny of her movements in the plant.
Wood, called as a witness, admitted the substantial accuracy of Hegler's and
Couch's testimony, stating only that he "made no promises to anyone about any-
thing," an irrelevancy, since neither Hegler nor Couch stated that he did'
Couch's further testimony is that at the time she was talking to Wood and Bankhead
about getting out of the Union, Mendenhall, superintendent of the spinning depart-
ment, told her that he was pleased about this, going on to say that he had "tried to
talk to James Lee about the Union," but Lee was "all union, and he [Lee] said' he
always would be." He asked Couch to talk to him. Couch did so, but unsuccessfully.
Mendenhall, although he admitted talking with Couch about withdrawing from the
Union, denied that he inquired about Lee. It is obvious, whether justified or not,
that Couch, as a witness, felt herself vulnerable as an employee. I credit her testi-
mony. Respondent's assurances to Couch that she would have to prove that she was
not for the Union were patently violative of the Act as an illegal condition of con-
tinued employment. '
Wright, Steele, and Knight, who had been employed by Respondent for 4, 1, and
11 years, respectively, are thus seen to have been individually discharged on the same
night and within a matter almost of minutes of one another. Respondent says that
this was because of unsatisfactory work. I am unable to credit it. None of the three
had been given a personnel action report during his entire period of employment. The
reasons which are now advanced for imposing on them the extreme penalty of dis-
charge, appear to me only pretexts. Were one tempted to believe them genuine, it
would remain to be explained why Respondent's dissatisfactions with these employees
working at separate and unrelated jobs, culminated simultaneously on a night 24
hours after Respondent had posted their names as union members. This is the more
remarkable since no other employee had ever previously been discharged for any of
the assigned reasons, so far as management witnesses could recall No one whose
name was not posted as a union member was terminated. If any doubt remained
that this was cause and effect it would be dispelled by the treatment accorded Hegler
and Couch, the remaining two in the spinning department on the third shift whose
names were posted, and who, fearing for their own jobs' because of the discharge of
Wright and Steele, went at once to the foreman and to the plant superintendent to ask
that their names be removed from the posted list of union members, and to inquire
what else they should do to disaffiliate from the Union. They kept their jobs, Super-
intendent Wood embracing the opportunity to ask them about the Union's meetings
and to request Couch to persuade James Lee, who was "all for the Union," to
abandon it.
The discharge of Wright, Steele, and Knight, and the disaffiliation of Hegler and
Couch, accounted for every posted union adherent in the department. I find that by
discharging Wright, Steele, and Knight, and by interrogating Hegler and Couch about
the union meeting hall and the union activities of its employees, Respondent violated
the Act.
William Aldridge: Aldridge had been employed by Respondent for 9 years or
more when Respondent discharged him on August 28, 1963. He was working at the
time as a card tender on the second shift. The assistant shift supervisor was John
Temple, and the general overseer was James Bankhead. Respondent was notified of
'Aldridge's union membership by a letter mailed on August 8 and acknowledged' on
'August 13. ' Aldridge's name, like those of Wright, Steele, and' Knight, was 'posted on
* Lee's discharge on September 12 is hereinafter discussed. '
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 891
the bulletin board in the cardroom about August 17. He testified that thereafter he
was more closely watched by Temple and Ed Lindsey, another supervisor. On the-
evening of August 28, just-before the 8 o'clock quitting time, Aldridge went to the
washroom. Upon his return Charles Funderburk, Bankhead's section hand, on
Bankhead's instructions, showed him several laps which Temple had unrolled on the
floor and which Temple said he had taken off 1 of the 53 machines which Aldridge
was tending that night.
According to Temple, these laps had,run off Aldridge's machine while -Aldridge
was in the washroom. When a lap runs off another is put in its place by the tender.
Occasionally, however, when a lap runs off it doubles back on itself in such a way as
might damage the machine if it is unattended. Temple testified that one of the laps
in question on one of Aldridge's machines had damaged the machine, which to repair
would cost an amount of money which he had jotted down on a piece of paper some-
time after he had discharged Aldridge, but which later he destroyed and which he was
unable to recall while testifying. Nor did he describe the nature or extent of the
damage. Both Aldridge and Funderburk, the latter Temple's section hand, testified
that they had not observed any. Temple admitted that he had never written up
Aldridge for poor work performance and there is nothing to show that any other
supervisor had done, so during the 9 years Aldridge was employed. Nor could Temple
or Funderburk, either one, recall a card tender being discharged in the entire time
they had worked in the cardroom.
According to Funderburk, a Respondent witness, it is not uncommon for laps to
run through a machine, and he, like others, when he sees a lap about to do so will call
it to the tender's attention, or take care of it himself if the tender is absent, and this
has been the practice ever since he has worked there.
I do not credit Respondent's stated reason for the discharge of Aldridge. He had
been employed for 9 years without once being written up for poor work performance.
No other employee, so far as the record reveals, had ever been discharged for a simi-
lar offense, although the record does show that it is not uncommon for laps to run out,
or for tenders to leave their machines to go to the toilet. I am convinced that
Aldridge, like other employees whose names had been posted as union members, was
,discharged for his collective activity.
James Lee: Lee had worked for Respondent for 7 years when he was terminated
on September 12, 1963. At the time he was a direct filling doffer in the spinning
room. Respondent posted his name on the bulletin board about August 17 I have
found that Wood, when Couch told him that she was leaving the Union, quizzed her
about union meetings and asked her to see if she could persuade James Lee to leave
the Union, since he himself had tried to do so but found that he was "all union and
always would be," and that Couch subsequently did try to persuade Lee but without
success. - - -
About the first of September Wood approached Lee at his machine and asked him
if he could doff warp, a different type of doffing than he was then doing, and Lee told
him not too well, although he had-done it and could do it better with a little practices
Wood went on to ask Lee what his grievances were against the Company, and Lee
asked Wood if he was referring to his name being posted as a union member. Wood
said that he was. Lee concluded the conversation by saying that it was there because
he believed in the Union. Lee's testimony as to this conversation was not denied by
Wood while testifying.
On September 12, Mendenhall, spinning room general overseer, told Lee that his
job was being abolished and that he would not be needed any more. Lee had never
before been laid off when work in the spinning room was slack, but, had been given
work in the spoolroom as a sweeper, and he asked Mendenhall why he could not go
back to the spoolroom. Mendenhall told him that he would make more money
drawing unemployment compensation.
Mendenhall, testified that he ,laid off Lee because of "production changes," in the
spinning of oxford cloth, as the result of which one doffer on each shift was laid off.
Lee was the one selected on the second shift, together with Threatt and Allen on other'
shifts. These, he said, were the youngest in seniority. Mendenhall testified that he
"had jobs" for Threatt and Allen, the first being transferred to a job in the cardroom
and the second being dropped down to sweeper on the same shift, the job which Lee
suggested to Mendenhall should be ' given' him. The upshot 'of these moves was that
Lee was the only one to be terminated. ` Threatt testified that he and Allen had less
length of service than Lee.
B Direct filling doffing and warp doffing both pay $1. 25 an hour.
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although Mendenhall testified that Lee was the younger in point of service of the
two doffers on the second shift when the- layoff was made-the other being Year-
wood-he testified at another point that Yearwood was "transferred into spinning"
about 2 months before Lee's separation. Since Lee had been doffing in the spinning
department longer than 2 months, he would seem to have had more seniority than
Yearwood, for Respondent's seniority policy is said throughout the record to mean
departmental seniority .9
Yearwood, however, had one qualification which Lee did not have. Lee, in
Mendenhall's own phrasing, "was all union," and "always would be," and Lee had told
Wood, when Wood interrogated him just before his termination, that his name was on
the bulletin board because he believed in the Union. Yearwood on the other hand,
came to Superintendent Lefler, and asked him how he could get out of the Union and
Lefler told him, according to his own testimony, that he "would have to take steps
to show people that he wasn't in it."
I conclude and find that Respondent's selection of Lee for layoff, and its subse-
quent refusal to hire him later upon his application, were not motivated by legitimate
business considerations, but by Lee's activity in behalf of the Union.
b. Republic plant 1
The three card tenders in the carding room in plant I were Edward Varnadore,
James Heath, and William Sibley. All three were union members. Varnadore and
Sibley were discharged as hereafter related. Heath, who withdrew from the Union,
was not.
Edward Vainadore: Varnadore had worked as a card tender for about 2 years
prior to his termination on August 13,' 1963. On this night, about 9 o'clock, his
name and that of Heath were posted on the bulletin board by Barnett, general over-
seer of preparation, while Varnadore and Heath looked on. Shortly thereafter,
Jacobs, second shift overseer, passed where Varnadore was working and Varnadore
asked him if he was mad at him and Heath for joining the Union. Jacobs replied
that they had a right to join the Union but that he himself would not "want any
dealings" with "a man that goes around blowing up mills," by which Jacobs referred
to one Gore, a union representative. The "blowing up mills" is without explanation.
On the following night, shortly before the shift ended, Williams, overseer on the
third shift, asked Varnadore if he would work the third shift that night. Varnadore,
although he had already worked two double shifts that week, agreed to do so. Heath,
who worked on the second-shift along with Varnadore, also worked the double shift
that night. Varnadore had more cards to run than Heath, who had a "short job."
6 If, that is, it means anything at all. One or two of Respondent's higher supervisors
define seniority as meaning length of service in a department. Others speak of the policy
as one where length of service is determinative in laying off employees only where ability
is first found to be equal. Since Respondent is the sole judge of ability, its seniority policy
may be only what it wishes it to be in a particular situation, as is suggested by the cross-
examination of Lee: -
Q. Since then [i.e., since Lee's termination], as you understand, a Mr. Yearwood
has gone in there and is doing the kind of filling doffing that you were doing?
A. He was already there
Q. Yes, I mean, he has gone to doing some of what you were doing.
A. Yes, sir. -
Q. Now Mr. Yearwood, of course, had seniority on you?
A. No, sir.
Q. He did not 9
A. No, sir
Q. Mr. Yearwood, however, could do warp work doffing, couldn't he?
A. I guess be could.
Q. He was an experienced warp doffer and you were not?
A. That's right.
r r r r r r, r
Q. Do you know how [Yearwood and Threatt] compared with you on seniority'
A. Well, I had about six years on Mr. Threatt, and I had a few months -on Yearwood.
Q. Now Yearwood . . . could do warp doffing; what jobs could Threatt -do,-do
you know? , 'I -
A. All I ever seen him do is doff filling and he's pulled up yarn and swept, which
anybody can do that
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 893
The card machines were scheduled to have the waste that accumulates under them
pulled at 12:30, 3:30, and 5:30 a.m. It was Varnadore's responsibility on this shift
to make the 12:30 and 5:30 a.m. pullings, and Heath's to make the 3:30 a.m. pulling.10
Any waste that accumulates after 5:30 a.m. is pulled by the tender on the first shift
when he comes on the job at 8 a.m. The machine which Varnadore was tending was
scheduled to go down for its regular cleaning every Tuesday and Thursday nights."
This was a Tuesday and the machine was taken out of production about 3:30 a.m. for
cleaning. Since no waste accumulates when the carding machine is not running,
there was no waste for Varnadore to clean at 5:30, when the machine started back in
production, provided that Heath had pulled the waste at 3:30 a.m.
Varnadore and Heath completed their double shift at 8 a in. That night, when
Varnadore came to work, Jacobs met him at the plant door and handed him his pay-
check, stating "That's your last one," and told him to report to the office. There
Nunnery, general overseer of carding, and Barnett were present Nunnery asked
him if he had pulled the waste at 5:30 that morning and Varnadore said that he had
not because the job had been stopped and the machine was not running, so no waste
could have accumulated after the 3.30 cleaning. Nunnery said that a large amount
of waste was found shortly after 8 a.m., when the following shift had begun, and
discharged Varnadore.
Heath went to Lefler's office immediately upon Varnadore's discharge and told
Lefler that he had fired the wrong man, that it was his, Heath's, job to make the
3:30 a.m. pulling, and that he had not done so. During the conversation which fol-
lowed Heath told Lefler that he was quitting the Union, and Lefler showed him a
picture of Gore, previously mentioned by Mendenhall, and said that he himself would
not want a man like that running a union. Lefler testified that his conversation with
Heath was "lengthy" and admitted that during it he said, among other things, that
Heath "would have to take steps to show people he wasn't in it " 12
As to Varnadore's discharge, Lefler said he would sleep on the matter. Heath saw
Lefler again the following Monday and Lefler told him that there was nothing he
could do about Varnadore because he should have "checked" the job, and that he was
not going to fire Heath but only write him up.
So Varnadoie, who at most was only secondarily responsible for not pulling the
waste, was discharged, while Heath, who was primarily responsible, was only
reprimanded. Varnadore had been written up only once during his employment, and
that on a matter not related to his work performance. Nunnery testified, furthermore,
that he could not recall that any tender had ever before been discharged for failing to
pull waste, or even written up for failing to do so, although the evidence shows that
this failure periodically occurs. Barnett testified that he and Nunnery arrived at
the decision to discharge Varnadore not only without consulting with either Jacobs or
Williams, Varnadore's immediate supervisors, but before talking to Varnadore him-
self. I find that this decision was bottomed on Varnadore's union activity and not his
work as an employee.
Ralph Harrison: Harrison had worked for Respondent for more than 12 years
when he was discharged on September 11, 1963. At that time he had been working as,
a loom fixer for 2 months under Assistant Overseer S. A. Dawkins and Arthur Justice,
general overseer of the weaveroom. Just prior to being transferred to the job of
loom fixer, he had worked for a year as overhauler-changer. The testimony of Burns,
assistant general manager of the Rock Hill group of plants, is that there is little
difference between the two jobs. Dawkins testified, in substance, that about the time
of Harrison's separation all the overhaulers were assigned to jobs as fixers, and a new
section created because efficiency was low in the weaveroom and the looms were not
in good shape. Harrison joined the Union, and about the middle of August Respond-
ent posted his name on the plant bulletin board as a union member.
10 This is the testimony of Nunnery , general overseer of the cardroom:
Q.
A.
Now at 3: 30 who was responsible?
There's a short job we have created with the cards, he comes and pulls it at 3. 30.
Q.
A.
Who would that be?
James Heath.
ss This is a cleaning of the machine itself on the inside, and has nothing to do with
pulling the waste, which is not visible while cleaning the machine The cleaning is not
done by the card tenders.
Is Heath's further credited uncontradicted testimony, is that a few days after this con-
versation Lefler came to him in the pickerroom and accused him of not keeping his promise
to get out of the Union , and of having attended a meeting at Varnadore 's home. Heath
told him that he had gone to Varnadore 's house but not to a union meeting, and that,
anyway, it was no one ' s business but his own
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dawkins testified that weavers Faulkenberry and Ellis complained to him that
Harrison was slow in responding to the flags they raised when they needed a fixer.
Ellis was not called as a witness . Faulkenberry , who had had 30 years' experience
as a weaver , testified that she did complain to Dawkins about Harrison , "but not too
much" because he was "working very hard " and the job was "in real bad shape," so
bad that a maintenance man was brought in from plant 2 who did a great deal of
extra work on the rooms. Gardner , a newly hired employee who replaced Harrison
after he was discharged and is still employed , was worse than Harrison , according to
Faulkenberry.
On the night of Harrison's discharge his job , according to Dawkins , was "loaded
with flap" and he asked Justice to discharge Harrison , which he did. Dawkins testified
that he had many complaints from Faulkenberry about Harrison being slow to answer
her flags, and that on the night in question there were more flags up than he had ever
seen before . Harrison was discharged rather than transferred back to the job of
overhauler-changer which he had been doing before being assigned as a fixer, because,
according to Justice , Harrison did not ask to be transferred . On cross-examination,
Justice testified that he did not transfer Harrison back to the job of overhauler -changer
because "he didn't give me time," but "as soon as I told him that he was discharged
he got up and left ." I find this to be an afterthought . I am unable to understand why
Harrison should not leave when told that he was no longer employed , or how Justice
can truthfully claim that he could first fire him and then transfer him. The record is
clear from Justice's own and Dawkins ' previous testimony that Dawkins asked
Justice to "terminate" Harrison and that Justice did so. Transferring him back to his
previous job was never considered.
Dawkins admitted while testifying that all the looms in Harrison 's section were in
bad shape at the time Harrison was assigned to them . Harrison testified without con-
tradiction , and I find , that he had never been written up during the entire 10 years
before he joined the Union . He did receive one shortly thereafter because, according
to Dawkins , "too many flags were up " I do not believe that Respondent 's discharge
of Harrison was for the reason assigned by Respondent , but was caused by his union
affiliation.
Jack Simpson : Simpson had worked for Respondent for 10 to 12 years as a slasher.
When discharged , he was head slasher-tender on the third shift, where he worked with
two other slashers, H. D. Jones and John Sims, under Overseer James Blanton.
Respondent posted Simpson 's name on its bulletin boards as a union member in
August 1963. On August 11 Simpson went to the hospital , returning to work on
August 19. Blanton had been designated shift overseer during his absence. Prior to
the appearance of the Union , Simpson had never been written up for any reason.
However, on the morning of August 20 E. W. Barnett, department foreman, wrote
him up, allegedly because Simpson "left his job on August 20, 1963, in the slasher
room and went to the boiler room . He will have to stay on his job and not wander
around the mill."
There is no testimony in support or explanation of this writeup Simpson's uncon-
troverted testimony is that in the course of his duties it was necessary periodically to
go to the boilerroom for oil for the slasher , and to see about getting sufficient steam
to dry the yarn and to cook sizing, which were among his duties . He received a
second writeup on August 27, when Blanton called him aside to show him some bad
warps. (A warp consists of 2,500 or more ends of yarn joined together as cloth,
which goes from the slasher room to the weaveroom .) Simpson denied that the warps
were done by him, and he testified at the hearing that they were done by Sims and
Jones as evidenced by a tag on the warp initialed by them. On September 3 Blanton
came to Simpson and told him that he had a termination -of-employment form drawn
up because of certain bad warps which he had come across in the weaveroom. Simp-
son examined the warps and told Blanton that these warps were the same for which he
had been written up on August 27, and pointing out the tags initialed by Sims and
Jones. Blanton said they were not, and asked Simpson to sign the writeup. Simpson
refused to do so. According to Simpson , Blanton then told him: "You can sign it or
go home," to which Simpson replied that he would go home, and he left.
Respondent 's contention is that Simpson was discharged for making bad warps and
because he spent too much time in the boilerroom . There is no contention , however,
that he spent too much time in the boilerroom after the writeup issued him before
going to the hospital. As to the bad warps, the record shows that they are continually
being made and management is continually endeavoring to reduce their number. The
weavers blame the slashers for the laps, the slashers blame the weavers , and both
blame the cloth.
Simpson had on occasion made bad laps or warps during the 10 , years prior to
Respondent's posting his name as a union member and had been written ur for them.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 895
But there is no evidence that any slasher other than Simpson was ever discharged
for this reason. There is, in fact, no evidence that any slashers had ever been dis-
charged for any reason. The credible testimony of Henry Jones, one of the slashers
who worked with Simpson, who is still employed, and whose brother, H. B. Jones,
replaced Simpson as head slasher-tender, is that there have always been, and still
are, bad warps that he himself had made and was still making them, and that he had
never been written up foi doing so. As to discharges for making bad warps his tes-
timony was as follows:
Q. (By Mr. BLAKENEY.) Do you know whether-anybody had been fired for
bad warps?
A. Well, I don't recollect off-hand of anyone, anybody being fired down there
in the last 14 years.
Q. You mean of anybody being fired in the whole plant in the 14 years?
A. In the slasher room, in the slashing department; they've either died of old
age or something happened to them; they have either got another job or moved
out or something.
Sims, too, who had worked in the slasher room 12 years, testified that no one in the
department, prior to the Union's campaign, had been discharged for any reason dur-
ing his entire time of employment, and that bad warps were still being run.13
c. Republic plant 3
James Walden• Walden had been employed in the weaveroom on the third shift
as a tie-in operator for 11/2 years at the tune of his discharge on August 23, 1963.
His shift overseer was Carl Gregg and his department overseer, W. M. Carter. Mel-
vin Smith is plant superintendent. On August 17 or 18 Respondent had posted his
name on the bulletin board as a union member. Previous to this, on a morning in
July when Walden reported to work, he saw a union application card on the floor
near his machine. Shortly afterward it was on the tie-in board where he worked,
but he left it undisturbed. A little later Assistant Overseer Bert Dixon came to his
place of work and asked-him if he had brought the card into the mill. Walden said
that he had not. Dixon then went on to say that Walden could be fired for bringing
"things like this" into the plant. Walden denied again that he had anything to do
with the card, but gave it as his opinion that employees did need a union and that
they could not be discharged for trying to get one. Dixon, according to Walden,
warned him that he could lose his job for talking like that, and that Respondent
could think of various ways of getting rid of him.. Dixon's testimony was that when
he found the union card on Walden's tie-in board he proceeded to ask Walden and
6 or 7 of the 20 employees under his direction, including Charles Capps who was
also discharged, who had brought the card into the plant, warning them against dis-
>s On cross-examination Sims testified as follows covering Respondent 's efforts to cut
down on bad warps:
Q. (By Mr. BLAKIDNEY .) Mr. Sims, it's true, isn 't It, that for a period of some
time , maybe two or three months, before Mr. Simpson was lot go, that the company
was pushing pretty hard about warps coming out of the slasher room?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it was about that time that they even went to the extent of putting in
extra supervision in the slasher room , isn't that so?
A. Yes, sir.
I do not find this latter testimony persuasive as to whether Respondent was conducting
a "drive," as counsel characterizes it, to keep down bad laps and the cloth sometimes sold
as seconds . The whole record demonstrates that Respondent, in all its plants and in all
its departments, wrestles at all times with the problem of seconds whether resulting from
careless slashing , careless loom fixing, careless weaving, careless supervision, poor or
different material , or sheer accident. The effort is directed toward keeping seconds "nor-
mal," and "normal" is nowhere defined . In every department, in every plant, employees
are continually being cautioned about seconds. So far as the slasher room is concerned,
there is no evidence of any of the usual elements of a "drive," or "pushing," for greater
efficiency, such as meetings of employees addressed by supervisors (except one meeting in
March 1963 , 6 months before Simpson 's discharge ), or meetings of supervisors to discuss
the problem or notices on the bulletin board, or interoffice memorandums, or any statistics,
to show the extent of seconds resulting from had warps. Sims' assent to counsel's sug-
gestion that they "even went to the extent" of putting a supervisor in the slasher room,
involving as it does the mental operations of management, is something that Sims could
not know about and his answer is without probative value.
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tributing union cards in the plant. However, this is no evidence that any of t city
engaged in distribution.14 Dixon did not deny making these comments to Walden
and other employees.
Walden was due to go off duty at 8 a.m. on August 22. While he was working on
his tie-in machine,15 it tied several doubles in one warp. Believing there was some-
thing wrong with the machine, he reported the trouble to Henry Bogan, his immedi-
ate supervisor. Before doing so, however, he took certain corrective measures and
started tying again, only to have more doubles result. His testimony is that when
this point is reached, the operator has the alternatives of completing the warp, though
doubles are still being tied, or of cutting the material off the loom and changing the
harness. The first is quicker. He had been doing this, he stated, during all the time
he had been on the tie-in machine 16 On the occasion in question, when he had fin-
ished the warp, he reported the trouble to Bogan and Bogan told him to set the
machine aside and he would have it looked at. Bogan alerted the supervisor on the
following (first) shift and Walden called for Homer Carter, the repairman. A few
minutes later the repairman arrived, found the selector on the machine was sticking,
and repaired it, finishing a few minutes before quitting time at 8 a.m. The testimony
of Bogan supports that of Walden.
When Walden reported to work at midnight on August 22, he was met at the door
of the weaveroom by Carter, who told him that the warp he had tied the night before
was full of doubles and that he was discharged. When Walden endeavored to tell him
that the machine was out of order, Carter cut him off and, pointing at the door, told
him that he was through. While testifying, he contradicted Walden's testimony that
in some' circumstances where doubles are being tied the operator should continue
the process, and stated that the operator should instead discontinue work immedi-
ately. The record shows, however, that prior to Walden no one had ever been fired
for tying doubles. Homer Carter, the tie-in repair operator, who had worked in
plant 3 for 20 years, testified among others that he had never known of any tie-in
operator being discharged for this' reason, though doubles were continually being
tied. In this instance, he stated, the doubles were due to the selector on the machine
sticking. Bogan testified that he did not know of any employees being discharged,
for any reason, in the 2 years he had been in the weaveroom. 'Nor had Walden ever
been written up for any reason, so far as this record reveals.
Bogan's further testimony is that on the evening of the day of Walden's discharge,
and shortly preceding it, W. M. Carter, shift overseer, came to his home and asked
him at what time Walden had reported to him that the tie-in machine was out of
order. Bogan told him that it was about 7:30 that morning. That night, as has been
stated, Carter discharged Walden. Some time after the discharge, Carter, in the
weaveroom, again brought up the subject of Walden with Bogan and suggested to
Bogan that he had told him, Carter, on the evening that Carter came to Bogan's
home, that Walden had not reported to Bogan that the tie-in machine was out of fix.
He also attempted to persuade Bogan that he had asked Bogan before they left the
mill on the morning of Walden's discharge about the machine, and that Bogan had
said that Walden did not report the machine out of order. On a third 'occasion the
following January, after Bogan had been interviewed by an agent for the Board,
Carter again came to Bogan and again suggested to him that both in the mill on the
morning of Walden's discharge and at- Bogan's home that evening, Bogan had told
him that Walden had not reported the machine out of fix. Bogan said there must
have been a "misunderstanding."
No part of the above testimony of- Bogan was contradicted by Carter. I find that
Carter, on thinking the matter over, concluded that Respondent could not, reasonably
hope to defend Walden's discharge on the ground that he had made a poor warp,
an, all too common occurrence for which no employee had ever been discharged,
and attempted to frame him on the more serious charge of-failing to report the con-
dition of the tie-in machine to his supervisor. • ,
.On August 24, the day following Walden's discharge, Cecil Hyatt, Ben Surrett, and
James Price, who worked on Walden's shift and whose names Respondent had posted
as union members, called on Superintendent Melvin Smith and Leland Burns, assist-
ant manager of the group of plants in the Rock Hill area, in Smith's office, and told
them they wanted to get out of the Union.. The substance of the testimony of the
three men is that Burns, who did most of the talking for management, said they
14 Union solicitation on company time is not alleged as a reason for the discharge of
any of the employees named in the complaint.
is This machine is movable and is pushed from loom to loom . It ties the ends of the
patterns to the ends of the warps.
1s The testimony of Hyatt, a weaver on Walden 's shift, is to the same effect.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 897
could help themselves by getting out of the Union, but that they would have to
"prove" themselves to him and watch the company they kept. As to Walden, he was
"a damned ringleader" in the Union. Warming to his task Burns continued his
interrogation, as related by Hyatt:
Q. What did you say to them and what did they say to you?
A. I told them I want to get my name off that union paper, or that list. Mr.
Burns says, "Well, you. can help yourself." He then said, I believe he said,
"What has the union promised you all?" I said, "A better life, a longer vaca-
tion, and more pay," and he pulled a little old magazine of some sort there that
had some pictures in it, and showed me a dynamited house, and asked me what
was that, and he says, "That's a dynamited house; does that look like a better
life?" and I said, "No, sir."
He showed me another picture of a car with a bullet hole, or broken glass,
and said, "Does that look like a better life?" and I said, "No, sir."
He said, "You don't know the company you have been keeping, do you?"
I told him, "No," and he asked me about Jarvis Capps,17 he said, "What did
Jarvis Capps think about the union?" I told him I thought he was a little sore
because they let Charles [Capps] go.18 -
He said, "Well, we had to lay Charles off, we cut that job out." Then he
says, "Since Jimmy Walden is a damned,ring-leader, what does he think about
it?"
I says, "I don't know." He had another list of names lying there, he pulled
them out, and he said, "Do you know these people, Ollie Varnadore,19 Virginia
Trotter,20 and John Little,21 "and some names on there." I said, "Yes, I know
them" and he,said, "What have they got-to do with it?"
I said , I didn't know; he says, "I am not going to ask you to sign anything,"
he says, "I am going to take you at your word there"; he says, "If you ever decide
to get back in [the Union], you come to me and let me know first, but I can't
promise you anything. '
Q. (By Mr. BUTLER.) Do you recall, if he said anything about an employee
by the name of Foster' Roberts? 22
A. He says, "Do you know there was a boy that came in here to see me, his
name is Foster Roberts," he said, "He's got six children"; he said, "I don't know
why in the world he would want to put his name on that thing; to start with,
if he was to lose his job, he couldn't even get back on, he's not got any education
at all, he couldn't even pass the little tests we give down there."
Neither Burns nor Smith denied any part of the above account by Hyatt. Burns
testified that his remarks to Price and Surrett were substantially the same. I note
particularly his description of Walden as "a damned ring leader" in the Union, in
connection with Walden's discharge, discussed immediately above. The discharge
of Charles and James Capps, Virginia Carter, and James Price, the brother of Foster
Price, are hereinafter discussed.
Charles Capps: Capps first came to work in 1952 for Respondent. At the time
of his discharge on August 15, 1963, he was working as a loom fixer, a sample loom
weaver, a warp service hand, and other jobs. His immediate overseer- was Dixon
and his department overseer was Carter.
Capps' name was sent to Respondent by the Union in a letter dated August 13,
1963. Respondent posted his name and on August 15 acknowledged receipt of the
letter. It discharged Capps the same night. It will be recalled that Capps was one
of the several employees whom Dixon questioned the month before concerning a
union application card which he had found on a machine in his department. Wal-
17 Discharged on October 29, 1963.
18 Discharged 9 days previously on August 15, 1963.
10 Ollie Varnadore 's husband , William, was discharged on October 8, and Ollie Varnadore
herself is alleged to have been constructively suspended for 30 days because of , a nervous
, condition induced by the discrimination against other members of her family.
20 Discharged on November 10, 1963.
a Little announced his withdrawal from the Union.
m As Burns stated , Foster Roberts made his own pilgrimage to the office , just prior to
the visit of Hyatt, Surrett , and, Price, to tell Burns and Smith that he was resigning
from the Union "to keep from being fired .". His ' brother , Earl, was discharged on
September 17.
898 DECISIONS, OF ' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
den's and Dixon's account of this event is set forth immediately above in connection
with Walden's discharge. Dixon, during his questioning, told Capps that "someone
is going to get their fired over these damned union cards," and asked him if
he had signed one of them. Before this incident Capps had asked Carter three or
four times for a fixer's job which was opening up on the first shift and which Moss,
first-shift assistant overseer in the weaveroom, had told him lay between him and
Emmett Baker, who had more seniority than Capos.
On August 15, immediately after Respondent posted Capps' name on the bulletin
board, Carter, according to Capps, came up to him and said. "Charles, I started to call
you yesterday evening to come in on the first shift, on that first shift fixing job but
something's come up and I can't now." He asked Capps if the Company had ever
given him a raw deal, to which Capps replied that it had not. Close on Carter's heels
Dixon came to Capps and said, "I don't know how Buck [Carter] found out about it,
but the pasture is greener on this side than the side you are getting on," adding:
"It made Melvin Smith and Buck Carter sick when they saw you and your brother's
name [Jarvis] on that list." Later during that shift Dixon told Capps that he did not
know why he sent his name to the Company as a union member, adding, "But it
ain't too late to change over here on the other side."
Dixon did not deny making any of the statements attributed to him by Capps. I
find that he did make them. Carter, however, testified that when he told Capps
"something had come up" which made him decide not to call him the night before,
the "something" was that Emmett Baker had come to him and asked for the first-shift
fixer's job. Capps' testimony that Carter asked him if Respondent had ever given
him a raw deal, Carter said, had reference to Baker's getting the job in preference
to Capps.
I find this explanation by Carter to be sheer fabrication. As to dates, Carter did
not deny Capps' accuracy in fixing the date of this conversation as August 15, just
before his termination and the day after his name had been posted. Carter testified
only that the conversation was "after he had asked for that first shift fixer's job."
The fact that Capps had asked for this job and was being considered for it is admit-
ted. Capps' testimony is that while it was being considered he had reminded Carter
of it three or four times, and that Moss, assistant overseer, had told him that the job
was between him and Baker, first-shift overhauler. This is not denied by Moss.
The question of who should get the job, Capps or Baker, had been under considera-
tion for some time. Carter, himself, testified that Baker had approached him twice
on the subject. It could not therefore have come to Carter on August 14 or 15 as a
new discovery that Baker was an applicant for the first-shift job. The "something"
which had "come up" and which caused him not to call Capps after he had started
to do so, I find was the announcement of Capps' membership in the Union as con-
tained in the Union's letter of August 13, which Respondent had just received.
Carter's explanation of his asking Capps if the Company had ever given him a raw
deal is equally disingenuous. Capps could not have construed Baker's being given
the job instead of himself as a raw deal, since Baker had concededly more seniority
by far than Capps, having been employed 35 years, and could have the job if he
wanted it. And if the "something" which came up was only Baker making it known
that he wanted the first-shift job, why should not Carter have told Capps that this
was why he might not get the job, instead of employing the cryptic language he did?
About 7 a.m., an hour before Capps' quitting time on August 16, Carter called him
to the office and told him that Respondent was eliminating the running of samples on
the third shift, the result of which his job was abolished and he was through as an
employee. Carter's testimony is that Capps' termination was a layoff due to "the
lack of sample orders." On several occasions after his termination Capps came
to the plant to ask for a job, only to be told that there was no work. On one
occasion he unsuccessfully applied for the job of William Varnadore, a loom
fixer on the third shift, who was discharged on October 8, 1963,23 about 2 months
after Capps' termination. The job instead went to Preston Green, a serviceman,
for whom it was a promotion. Carter admitted that one weaver, Carl Fowler,
and a smashhand, Donnie Whitley, were newly hired in the department after
Capps left. Capps had done both these jobs and Carter admitted that he could
do any type of work in the weaving department.24 Moreover, he admitted on
cross-examination, after having first said that Capps had less seniority than anyone
in the department, that when he terminated Capps there were two weavers, Martin
23 For union activity , as I later find.
ss In fact, although Capps was classified as a loom fixer he was also doing weaving,
warp servicing , and smashing, and, at the time of his termination , was running a
sample loom.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 899
-and Jordan, who had less departmental seniority than Capps. Length of service
in the weaving department, not in the plant and not on the particular job, he
stated, was the type of seniority which governed in layoffs.
Carter further admitted that although previously there had been occasions when
the sample looms were being cut back, no sample loom fixer had been laid off during
his entire 11 years in the weaving room. Instead, employees were given other work
in the department. Good loom fixers, Carter admitted, were hard to get and
Respondent had to keep them when there was other work for them to do. Capps,
he testified, was a good loom fixer. The occasion of Capp's termination, he said,
was the first time during Carter's 11 years in the plant when there had not been other
work to give the "junior" loom fixer.
I find the termination of Capps, who had been employed for 10 years, who accord-
ing to Carter himself could do almost any job in his department, and who on previous
occasions of temporary cutbacks had always been transferred to other work, was
-because of his membership in the Union, knowledge of which Respondent had
received the day before when it posted his name on the bulletin board.
William Varnadore: Varnadore had worked in the weaving room of plant 3 for
11 years, up to his discharge on October 8, 1963, and as a loom fixer for the previous
8 or 9 years. His wife, Ollie Varnadore, was a weaver on his shift and her looms
were among the 53 which her husband tended. Hubert Varnadore was a brother
to-William. The Varnadores were all strong union people. Their names had been
sent to Respondent and Respondent posted them as was its practice. William Varna-
dore's name was contained in a letter mailed on August 8. It was posted on
August 15, the day on which Edward Varnadore, whose name was posted the same
day, was discharged.
The night of August 15 was a night of trouble for the Varnadores. On this night
Respondent posted their names on its bulletin board as members of the Union, gave
William Varnadore his first writeup in the 11 years he had worked for the Company
assertedly because of a wornout shuttle on one of his wife's looms, and discharged
Edward Varnadore over in plant 1. We are concerned at this point only with Wil-
liam Varnadore's writeup. Within a matter of hours after the names of the Varna-
dores had been posted, "Buck" Carter called William to his office and showed him
a shuttle which he said had been handed to him by C. B. Trotter, a first-shift fixer,
as having come from loom 3308, run by Ollie Varnadore and tended by her husband.
It was in bad shape. Both Varnadores denied that it was from any loom for whose
upkeep he was responsible. Carter testified on cross-examination as follows:
Q. Now, did you take Mr. Varnadore out to the looms and show him that
it came out ....
A. I did.
Q. And did it come
A. Mr. Trotter said
* *
out of those looms?
it did.
Q. Did Mr. Varnadore point out to you the shuttles that were in that par-
ticular loom where the two of you were standing there?
A. Mr. Varnadore did not stop the loom off.25
Q. Did you call Mr. Trotter over to the loom when you had Mr. Varnadore
there, sir?
A. I did not.
Varnadore's version, however, is that when they went to the loom they did examine
the shuttles on loom 3308.
Q. What did Mr. Carter say, sir?
A. I took the two shuttles out of the loom that I had run three warps out
with my shuttle that I had in that loom; and showed [them] to him, and he said,
"Well, C. -B. Trotter told me that he took that shuttle out of that 3308 ...
I said, you see the shuttle didn't come out of the loom, and I told him "Nothing
like this has ever happened to me, until my name went up on the board over
there," and he said, "Well, C. B. Trotter said he took it out of the loom."
I accept Varnadore's account of this conversation as in accord with the facts. I
do not credit that of Carter, whose credibility I have previously found wanting and
whom I found to be evasive, hesitant, argumentative and unresponsive by turn.
z Shuttles are not removed without stopping the loom.
221-374-66-vol. 157-58
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There was no point in Carter's taking Varnadore to look at loom 3308 when Varna-
dore was protesting that the shuttle did not come off that loom, except to ascertain
if this was true. This could be only done by looking at the shuttles then on the loom,
or by confronting Varnadore with Trotter, or both. I am convinced that Carter did
look at the shuttles which were on loom 3308. But I am not convinced that the shut-
tle which he showed Varnadore and which he testified Trotter had given him, in fact
came from Varnadore's loom or that it was the same shuttle to which Trotter had
called Carter's attention. Carter was content to have matters as they were without
summoning Trotter.
Trotter's testimony, when asked by counsel if he "brought anything to the attention
of Mr. Carter about any shuttle off another man's upkeep," was that he did at a time
which he fixed only as "one morning." This is not helpful in fixing the day on which
he called Carter's attention to the shuttle from loom 3308. Carter, too, gave no
dates. There is nothing in the testimony of either of these witnesses relating the
incident of this shuttle to any other event in time. So far as their testimony is con-
cerned, Trotter's showing a shuttle to Carter could have taken place any time in the
past, in which case the question arises why Carter postponed showing it to Varna-
dore until the night his name was posted as a union member.
I think it significant that not only did Carter not call Trotter to loom 3308 when
Carter and Varnadore were inspecting the loom, which would have seemed the
natural thing to do though Trotter would inevitably have seen the shuttle which Car-
ter had with him, but neither was Trotter present when Carter showed the shuttle
to Varnadore in his office. There is no evidence other than Carter's unsupported
testimony that the shuttle which Ti otter showed Carter was the same shuttle that
Carter showed Varnadore.26
When Ollie Varnadore heard about the shuttle from her husband she went to Car-
Aer carrying the two shuttles she was currently using on loom 3308 and denied that
the shuttle described by her husband came from her loom. Carter did not at any
time show her the shuttle which he claimed had been removed- from her loom by
Trotter. I find this a strange omission, since the whole record shows that both the
weaver and fixer are responsible for the functioning of the looms, the weaver perhaps
more so than the fixer since if a loom begins to make seconds the weaver is likely to
be the first to notice it.
Two or three weeks before Varnadore's discharge, Clifford Brannon, assistant over-
seer in the weaving room, criticized Varnadore orally because of a loom which was
making jerkbacks in cloth, a not uncommon cause of seconds. Varnadore protested
that the loom was not flagged so that he could not know that anything was wrong.
On October 8, when Varnadore came on duty on the night shift, he found 19 flags
up on his 53 looms, remaining from the second shift. There was also a new warp
starting on one loom and this did not weave correctly because the multiplier was
stuck. Consequently, he worked at it off and on during the remainder of the shift.
Finally, he oiled the multiplier, pulled down the flag, and left the oil to soak in,
with the loom running while he attended to the flagged looms , first telling Brannon
what he was doing. Toward the end of the shift he returned to the loom at the same
time that Brannon and Carter arrived on the scene. The loom was still down but
Brannon, assisted by Varnadore, was able to get it back into operation. A few min-
utes later, at the end of the shift, Carter called Varnadore to the office and discharged
him.
The testimony of Brannon is that Carter, when he discharged Varnadore, knew
nothing of the jerkbacks for which Brannon had criticized Varnadore 2 weeks previ-
ously, since he, Brannon, had not reported the matter to him. The sole reason which
Carter gave Varnadore for discharging him was that he was "starting his warps too
slow." This could have referred only to the trouble Varnadore had been experi-
encing that night with the new warp on the loom with the stuck multiplier, since
.no other warps were being started for which Varnadore was responsible. I do not
credit this as the reason for Varnadore's discharge. I find the reason to have been
28 There is, in fact, evidence' to the contrary . For example , Varnadore described the
shuttle which Carter showed him as so "beat up" that it couldn 't have been running in any
loom recently , And that the fur on the shuttle was mildewed, which happens when a shuttle
has been kept in a drawer , as some fixers do, in the hope of matching it up with another
shuttle. Trotter , on the other hand, testified that there was, no mildew and that the
shuttle was only warped, but stated that he did not know whether Carter had -shown
Varnadore the same shuttle Trotter had given Carter. i
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 901
Varnadore's announced activity in the Union. Within a matter of hours after
Respondent posted Varnadore's name on the bulletin board, Smith and Carter under-
took to harass him in the performance of his work and gave him his first writeup
during his 11 years' employment, for the dual purpose of intimidating him and pro-
viding an additional pretext for his discharge 3 weeks later.
Jarvis Capps: When Respondent discharged William Varnadore it assigned Jarvis
Capps to his looms. Capps had come to work 6 years previously, and prior to taking
over Varnadore's job he was an overhauler.27 A week or so later, he was called to
-Carter's office where Carter gave him a personnel action report which stated that
one of his looms was making jerkbacks, and asked him to sign the report. He
refused to do so protesting that he never knew any fixer to be written up because the
machines they tended were making jerkbacks, although jerkbacks were common.
As to the reason for the writeup, Carter testified that on Saturday, October 26, while
making a periodic visit to the plant, he observed a shuttle on one of the looms which
Capps tended which in his opinion needed replacing. It was not bad enough to make
seconds, however, so he left the shuttle in the loom and it operated from midnight
Sunday until Tuesday morning throughout the first shift on which Trotter was
fixer, the second shift on which Harris was fixer, and the third shift on which Capps
was fixer. These men succeeded one another in the upkeep of the same one-third
of the looms. The other two-third's were tended by other fixers.
Just before the end of the third shift on Tuesday morning Carter arrived at the
plant, went to the loom in question, shut it down, took out the shuttle to see how it
was wearing, and showed it to Capps. At the same time he pointed to certain harness
sheaths, not otherwise described, which he said were worn out. A little later Carter
called Capps to his office and told him, without consulting Brannon, that he was dis-
charged for "not maintaining the third of his upkeep. He testified as follows:
TRIAL EXAMINER: I am not quite clear.
Mr. BUTLER: I am not either, sir.
TRIAL EXAMINER: The shuttle was in bad condition and then you put it back
in the machine and operated, with it, on Monday. , 1
The WITNESS: Mr. Examiner, it wasn't in too bad a condition on Saturday; it
wasn't in condition enough that it would cause seconds at the time.
TRIAL EXAMINER: When was it in bad enough. condition to cause seconds'
The WITNESS: Well, when we called Mr. Capps'attention to it, it was the
following Tuesday morning.
TRIAL EXAMINER: You knew it was becoming worse all the time?
The WITNESS: All the shuttles became worse every day that they are run.
* * * * * * *
TRIAL EXAMINER: So on Tuesday morning, you called Mr. [Capps'] attention
to it?-What was your criticism of him at that point?
The WITNESS: Well, nothing in particular with that shuttle, no criticism up
until that time, for that bad shuttle.
* * * * *
TRIAL EXAMINER: Was there later?
The WITNESS: No, sir, because he was terminated that morning.
There is no contention that the shuttle in fact caused seconds. The gist of Carter's
testimony seems to be that although it was not in such a condition as to cause sec-
onds when he inspected it on Saturday, it was Tuesday morning at the end of Capps'
shift. But there is no showing as to when, or on what shifts, it went bad, and Carter
made no effort to find out from Hanes who had preceded Capps, or from Trotter
who had preceded Hanes. For all Carter knew it might have been in a condition
to cause seconds through all the second shift and part of the first. Yet Capps, alone
of the three fixers, was held responsible. By Carter's own showing it was a matter
of judgment as to when the shuttle should be,changed, and since the shuttle did
not in fact cause seconds Capps' judgment in the circumstances may have been
as sound as Carter's. In fact Carter ends by saying that even on Tuesday he had no
criticism of Capps as to the shuttle. If Carter was genuinely concerned as to: how
long the shuttle would last I am unable to understand why, when the loom started
up after he inspected it on Saturday, he did not leave a note on the loom, as the rec-
ord shows is sometimes done, for the attention of the fixers.
27 The job of overhauler Is similar to that of loom fixer.
902 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I am convinced that Carter who, as I found in connection with Walden's discharge,
unsuccessfully attempted to get Overseer Bogan to state falsely that Walden had not
reported to him that the tying-in machine was out of order, here attempted to entrap
Capps into running seconds so as to furnish a reason for his discharge. When at the
end of Capps' shift 2 days later the loom was still not running seconds, and might
not for some time, Carter settled for second best, as he did in Walden's case, and dis-
charged Capps on the more general charge of "not maintaining his upkeep," a com-
plaint just as applicable to Trotter or Hanes, neither of whom was even reprimanded.
I find it significant that, of the three, only Capps was posted on the bulletin board
as a union member, and that prior to the discharge of Capps no loom fixer was ever
discharged for not replacing a weak shuttle. I conclude that Respondent discharged
Jarvis Capps, as it had previously discharged his brother Charles and others, because
of his membership in the Union.28
Earl Roberts: Roberts worked in the weaving room as a blowoff boy, or loom
cleaner, on the first shift, under the immediate supervision of Olin Moss, shift over-
seer. His name, together with that of his brother, Foster, who also worked in the
weaving room, was posted on the bulletin boards as a union member. It has been
found that on August 24, 1963, the day that Burns, assistant general manager of
Respondent's group of plant in the Rock Hill area, discharged James Walden, he
also interrogated a number of employees about their union affiliation and stated that
he could not understand why Foster should join the Union, since if he were to lose
his job he could not get,back in Respondent's employ. This thought communicated
itself to Foster who came to Burns the same morning and told him that he was leav-
ing the Union so as not to be discharged. Foster kept his job. Earl Roberts remained
with the Union. He was discharged on September 17.
Prior to August 15, when his name was posted on the bulletin board, Roberts, dur-
ing his 5 years' employment, had never received a writeup because of his perform-
ance .2 On August 19 Moss, his shift foreman, called him to the office and told
him that he was being written up for blowing oil on the cloth with the airhose while
cleaning a loom.30 On September 17, the last day he worked, while Roberts was
cleaning a loom with an airhose, some oil blew on to the cloth on an adjoining loom,
spotting it. To prevent this, the loom cleaner is supposed to cover the near loom
with paper: Roberts had done so, but apparently inadequately.31 When cloth is
thus spotted it may run for a number of yards, making seconds. Sometimes it is
possible to blow off the oil with a special device. There is no contention that seconds
were made in this instance. When the matter was called to Moss' attention by the
weaver, Juanita Faulkenberry, Moss reported it to Carter and Carter discharged
Roberts. Moss testified that "they had been riding me about the oil and stuff getting
on the cloth and making seconds," for some time, and the record is replete with evi-
dence that seconds were continually being made in all Respondent's plants by one
means or another. Moss' further testimony, however, is that although he had seen
other blowoff boys blow oil on the cloth, not in his 25 years as supervisor in the weav-
ing room did he know of an employee who was discharged because of it.
Juanita Faulkenberry, who had been a weaver for 30 years, called as a witness by
Respondent, on cross-examination testified that during the entire time of her employ-
ment there was the problem of oil stains on the cloth, but like Moss, she knew of no
blowoff boy being discharged for it I regard the spotting of the cloth as a pretext
only, and that Respondent's real reason for discharging Roberts was his activity in
the Union, in contrast with his brother, Foster.
Billy Presley Presley worked as a cloth doffer on the second shift in the weaving
room for 2 years before "Buck" Carter discharged him on August 20, 1963. His
21 It will be recalled in connection with Walden 's discharge that Burns , while interrogat-
ing a group of employees who came to him to announce their withdrawal from the Union,
asked them what Jarvis Capps thought about the Union.
3 About August 9, however, he was written up for smoking in a smoking area other
than that provided for him and other employees in the weaving room.
30 This is Roberts' testimony and that of Carter. Moss, while testifying, made no men-
tion of having written up Roberts on this occasion.
ffi Moss admitted while testifying that he observed the loom while Roberts was cleaning
it, and that he thought it was not adequately covered, but that he did not speak to Roberts
about it. He did not say why
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 903
name was posted about August 15 as a union member 32 Thereafter he was watched
more closely on his job than before.33
About 6 p.m. on Friday, August 16, during the second shift, trouble developed on
a loom run by James Broughton which caused a hole in the cloth which he was weav-
ing. Broughton put up a white flag calling for-the services of the doffer, in this case
Presley, who was doffer on the 30 looms operated by Broughton in addition to other
looms. Presley did not get around to the loom before the end of the shift at mid-
night, by which time the cloth had run 24 to 26 yards. On the following Monday,
Carter noticed that the cloth had not been doffed so he had the first-shift doffer cut
off the cloth. Carter showed it to Presley when he came in on the second shift and
told him he was discharged.
No contention is made that Presley was in any way responsible for the hole in the
cloth, or for the loom's continuing to operate. His offense is said to be that he did
not cut the hole out of the cloth before the end of the shift. It is asserted that if, at
some time before the cloth went to the clothroom, it was not called to the attention
of the weaver, the doffer, the shift overseer, or Carter himself, by reason of the flag
still flying on the loom, or by some other means, that the cloth had not been doffed,
then [Carter's testimony] "if that cloth had gotten to the cloth room, and if the
employees in the cloth room had run it over the shearing machine, there was a pos-
sible chance of catching their hand in the hole." Carter said that someone once
got his finger broken in what he inferred, though he did not say, were similar
circumstances.
Broughton testified, however, that in his 12 years' experience as a weaver he had
not known a doffer to be discharged for not doffing a roll of cloth. The reason
advanced for Presley's discharge impresses me as farfetched, and I find that the real
reason was the announcement of his membership in the Union a day or two before.
Ollie Varnadore: This employee had worked as a weaver during several periods
of employment, the last beginning in 1953. For the last 4 years she operated looms
which her husband, William, tended as loom fixer. It has been related in connection
with his discharge on October 9 that on August 15, 1963, the night the Varnadore's
names were posted as union members, Department Overseer Carter wrote William
Varnadore up because of his alleged failure to replace a worn shuttle on one of his
wife's looms. Ollie Varnadore testified that beginning on that date Carter watched
her work more closely than he had ever done. As the result of this, and the shuttle
incident, she testified she was in a highly nervous condition and on the advice of her
doctor took 30 days off from work. She did not ask for this time off, but during
her absence she sent several doctor's statements to the plant. When she returned,
she was put back on her looms and continued to be regularly employed.
The General Counsel contends that this absence constituted a constructive or
forced layoff, brought about by Respondent's harassment of her husband and herself
because of their union activities. I am unable to agree, in the absence of medical
testimony relating the one to the other. I have no doubt that Respondent harassed
the two Varnadores, as it did other employees when their union affiliations became
known, and that this did aggravate Ollie Varnadore's already existing nervous condi-
tion . But in the absence of expert testimony, I am unable to say whether the aggra-
vation was sufficient to compel a 30-day absence. I shall recommend that the com-
plaint be dismissed as to her.
Virginia and Basil Trotter. The two Trotters are husband and wife. ' Virginia
Trotter worked on the third shift in the weaveroom as a magazine filler. Her duties
were to insert in looms the bobbins brought in from the bobbinroom by the filling boy,
in her case William Lee, who places them in a rack alongside the filler. Trotter had
17 years' experience in this work. She joined the Union and her name was sent to
Respondent on August 21 and posted on the bulletin board Three days after posting
32 This was the date Respondent acknowledged receipt of letter from the Union notify-
ing it of Presley's membership.
83 His testimony is typical of that of numerous other employees: "Every time I'd go to
the smoker, and when I'd set down and light my cigarette and look tip, Dlr. Broughton
[shift overseer], would be just as far as from me to you, from me, and when I'd go to
the water house, he'd be right there, I'd look up and there he was; and I'd go to the
waste house , and he'd be out on the platform watching me, and I'd come in and go down
the alley doffing cloth, and he'd be down at the other end, watching."
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she was called to General Overseer Carter's office along with Hubert Varnadore, a
weaver who worked along with her, and William Lee, where Carter interviewed them-
separately. He showed Trotter four bobbins of filling and asked her if she could
tell the difference in color between them. She was able to do so as to two of them.
Carter then pointed to a roll of cloth on the table, stated that the filling in it was
mixed, and wrote out a personnel action report. He also wrote up Varnadore for
running mixed fillings, and Lee apparently because of the possibility that he mixed
the bobbins when he placed them in the rack beside Trotter. The names of all three
of these employees were posted as union members. Neither Varnadore nor Trotter
signed the writeup because, since Carter did not unroll the cloth to show mixed
colors, they were not convinced that the mixing had occurred.
Before Trotter joined the Union she had been written up once, several years
previously, for staying home from work without notifying supervision. In September
1963 she was written up twice for staying out when transportation to the plant was
not available. She had never been written up because of the quality of her work.
On Sunday night, November 10, shortly after midnight, when Virginia Trotter
came to work on the night shift, Brannon told her that Carter had told him to
send her home for mixing filling She told Brannon that she had been expecting
this and said, "I guess you call this fired," to which Brannon replied that he was
sorry but that he had to do what Carter told him, and she left the plant. Brannon's
testimony was that he told Trotter that Carter had said for her to come to the plant
the next day and see him. Trotter denies this. I do not question Brannon's truth-
fulness, but I think it more likely that what Carter told Brannon was that Trotter could
come back the next morning if she wished. When Trotter left the plant she con-
sidered herself discharged. That her status was in fact that of a discharged employee
is amply substantiated by the record. The question arose repeatedly during the hear-
ing, and the testimony of supervisors was consistent that when a supervisor sends an
employee home during his shift for cause, he is considered to be discharged, though
with the "right of appeal" to the plant superintendent. It was testified to more than
once that there is no such thing at Respondent's plants as a disciplinary layoff,
such as Trotter's status would have been if it had not constituted a discharge. The
record shows, too, as to various employees named in the complaint who exercised
their "right of appeal"; not one was successful. Some time later Virginia Trotter
did come back to the plant to see about being rehired, but she was unsuccessful.
Basil Trotter had worked in plant 3 for about 25 years when, about the middle
of February 1963, he was let go. Shortly thereafter he was refused employment at
plant 2 but later was hired at plant 1, where he worked until some time in August,
when he quit. About a week later he went to plant 3 to ask for a job there and
Superintendent Smi'h told him that he had nothing then but would let him know
later. Respondent i'id not let him know, and he got a job in another city.
Sometime after Virginia Trotter's name appeared on the bulletin board, and after
her husband had left Respondent's employ but was hoping to be reemployed, she
went to Carter, who was Basil's department overseer as well as her own, and asked
him to consider taking, Basil back. According to Virginia Trotter his reply was, "I
can't hire him with your name up there." Carter denied making this statement and
testified that he merely said that he did not have any work at the time. I have found
that Carter was untrustworthy as a witness, and I credit Virginia Trotter's account.
Basil Trotter testified that he signed a union card but that his name was not sent
to Respondent Concededly, unlike his wife's name, it was not posted. Virginia
Trotter testified, contrary to her husband, that he was not a member of the Union.
I credit her testimony. The General Counsel contends that Respondent's failure to
rehire Basil Trotter .after he had been let go, a termination which counsel does not
claim to have been discriminatorily motivated, was violative of the At, and that
Carter's statement to Virginia Trotter proves that the real reason he was not reem-
ployed was, his wife's membership in the Union I do not agree. While, as I have
found, Carter did say that Basil Trotter would not be rehired so long as his wife's
name was on the board, and while, as I now find, this statement was coercive and in
violation of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act, I do not find it to be persuasive as the reason
for Respondent's not rehiring Basil Trotter. He had been let go at plant 3 for good
cause, he had failed to obtain reemployment at plant 2 prior to the advent of the
Union, and he had quit his job at plant 1. I am not persuaded that Respondent would,
have rehired Trotter at any foreseeable time after he quit at plant 1, even if his wife
had not later joined the Union In any event, I do not find that the General Counsel
has met his burden of proof in the premises, and I hereinafter recommend that the
complaint as to Basil Trotter be dismissed.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 905•
But Carter's statement I do`-fihd eloquent as to Virginia Trotter herself. Before
her name was posted on the board as a union member she had been written up but
once, and that was several years previously. She was written up twice after her pro-
claimed union activity, the first time almost immediately afterward, for not sending
in notice that she was not coming to work.
As to her alleged mixing of colors, there is no evidence that they were mixed,
except Carter's testimony, which I do not credit without corroboration. I think it
noteworthy that on neither occasion did Carter show the cloth in which the colors
were said to be mixed to either Trotter or to her immediate supervisor, Brannon.
Here, too, as in the case of almost all the employees named in this proceeding, there
is no showing that any other employee had ever, at any time, been discharged for
the reason assigned in Virginia Trotter's case. Carter's statement to her that her
husband would not be reemployed so long as her name remained on the bulletin
board as a union member, was a clear threat to her that her own continued employ-
ment was in question unless she, like others, made her own pilgrimage to the office
and renounced the Union. When this did not happen, Respondent discharged her on
what I regard as a pretext.
William Sibley' Sibley had been employed for 21 years. At the time of his dis-
charge on July 16, 1963, he was working as one of three card tenders, under the
immediate supervision of Shift Supervisor Rex Jacobs. He tended 42 cards. The
other two card tenders on the shift were Edward Varnadore and James Heath. It wil
be recalled that Edward Varnadore was discharged on August 15, assertedly for fail-
ing to pull the fly waste which Heath reported to management he himself was respon-
sible for pulling, that Heath at the same time told the plant superintendent and assist-
ant group manager that he was getting out of the Union, and that he was not dis-
charged. Sibley joined the Union in June 1963, among the first to do so, and called
on employees at their homes in the company of the union organizer. His name was
not sent to Respondent as a union member, a practice which did not begin until the
first part of August.
The first writeup Sibley had ever received because of work performance was given
him that summer for mixing waste. This waste, unlike fly waste which accumulates
under a machine, is reworkable stock and it is placed in cans near the carding
machine, according to color. Employees are continually being cautioned about not
mixing this waste, since if it is mixed it may be worked into cloth, which is then sold
as seconds34 On the occasion of Sibley's writeup, according to Jacobs, he found
some waste mixed in the cans near Sibley's machine. Sibley denied that he had
put it there. Jacobs' testimony on the point is very general, and it does not appear
from either his testimony or Sibley's that Jacobs showed Sibley the waste at any
time.
On July 16, Jacobs, according to his testimony, again found mixed waste in one
of Sibley's cans. On this occasion he discharged him, after consulting with Lefler.
Lefler testified that he could not recall ever previously discharging a card tender for
mixing waste. Two days later Willie Lathan, a card grinder, went to Bums, assistant
general, manager of the Rock Hill plants, and asked him to put Sibley back to work
for the sake of his four children. Burns said to give him a few days and he would
find him a job at some other mill. In the meantime, however, Burns observed Sib-
ley passing out union leaflets at the gate of plant 3. Burns reported this to Lathan,
stating that Sibley "must have went to work for the Union," but added that he would
talk with Sibley if he came in. Sibley did not come in and he was not reemployed.
1find that he was discharged because of the Union.
d. The Whitmire plant
Donald and Jess Cudd: Donald Cudd is the son of Jess Cudd. He first came to
work for Respondent in 1949. His last period of employment was from 1961 to Octo-
ber 1963, when he worked on the second shift in the spinning department at Respond-
ent's Whitmire plant, under Clyde Taylor, assistant overseer, and D. W. Stone, gen-
eral overseer. He joined the Union in the summer of 1963 , and together with Fred
Dough, a union organizer, called on employees at their home to solicit their mem-
bership and on local merchants in search of a union meeting place.
"When Jacobs was asked on cross-examination, "Did you ever point out to the card
tenders that they mixed waste, and asked them to take it out [of the cans] "" he answered,
"Mr. Sibley is the only one I ever had any mixing with, to my knowledge ." I find this
implausible , since elsewhere he testified that "one time I got on all of them." There is
other evidence in the ' record that mixing waste , or reworkable stock, was not uncommon.
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL-LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The two Cudd families lived together in a part of Whitmire known as Mill Village,
largely inhabited by Respondent's employees. During the Union's campaign Dough
frequently visited the Cudd home, parking his car in front of the house . General
Overseer Stone lived a few doors from the Cudds and on one or more occasions
passed the Cudd house while Cudd and Dough were talking in the front yard. Dough
was known by Stone and by Taylor, who lived a half block from the Cudds, to be a
union representative.
Whitmire itself is a community of about 3,500 people, largely mill employees. I
have no doubt, and I find, that the interest of the Cudds in the Union was known to
Respondent before their discharge.35
Donald Cudd had never received a writeup before he joined the Union. On Sep-
tember 6, after he joined, Taylor gave him his first one for not piecing a doff well, and
on September 26 another one for piecing an end too high. The record shows that
some high end piecing happens on nearly every shift. Taylor, Cudd's shift foreman,
made the rounds every shift watching for it. All doffers had this trouble, and all
had improved, according to Taylor, but Cudd improved the least. On October 2
Taylor showed Cudd four or five bobbins on which the ends were badly pieced and
which he said he had taken from one of Cudd's frames, and discharged Cudd. He
did not, however, show the bobbins to Cudd while at the machine, and he admitted
while testifying that after 30 minutes or an hour the bad places would be covered up
by the traversing of the frame, and that if the bobbins were to be taken off and
shown to Cudd it would have had to be done around 5 p.m., or about an hour after
Cudd began work. Admittedly, he did not show the bobbins to Cudd until about 10
o'clock, because he was "thinking it over" and because he "hated to let the boy go."
During the period of "thinking it over" it became too late for Cudd or anyone else to
check the frames and the bobbins to see whether, in fact, the bobbins did come from
Cudd's frames. Although Taylor "hated to let the boy go," he did let him go, the
only doffer within his recollection that he had discharged.
Jess Cudd, Donald Cudd's father, came to work for the Company when he was 13
years old. At the time of his discharge, he had worked 50 years,36 all of it as a
doffer in the spinning department in the Whitmire plant. During this entire time he
had been written up only twice, once in 1948 and again in September 1963, for run-
ning short doffs.
On October 6 the two Cudds attended a union meeting, and on the following day
they formally advised Respondent of their union membership by telegram, the only
two employees in the plant to do so. On October 17 Jess Cudd was written up for
poor end piecing. Three months later, on January 2, 1964, when he came on duty
on the first shift, he found three frames left over by the third-shift doffer which
needed doffing, and which were out of production. During the morning he doffed
two of these frames as well as six of his own which, according to Cudd, were also
out of production, but which according to Reed were operating. During the latter
part of the shift Reed came to Cudd and reminded him of the frame from the third
shift remaining to be doffed, and said that Respondent was "not going to stand" for
that. He accordingly discharged Cudd, disregarding his protestations that he had
been working as fast as he could all day. Cudd's discharge was confirmed by Stone
who admitted that he was not certain that he had ever before discharged a doffer
for any reason at all, but thought he had back in 1947, though he could not recall
his name.
In the Cudd establishment the care of Donald's children devolved to a consider-
able degree upon Jess. Shortly before Christmas 1963, after Respondent had dis-
charged Donald Cudd but before it discharged his father, Stone approached Jess and
informed him that Donald was passing out union literature in the neighborhood. He
proposed the following plan- Jess to adopt Donald's children and so receive $250 a
month in public relief for their upkeep, and Jess to quit his job at the mill. Stone
argued that his social security, added to the $250 in relief, would amount to almost
as much as the company was paying him. The children thus arranged for, and with
35 Burns, general manager of Respondent's group of plants in the Great Falls area, com-
mented as follows on the pervasiveness of the Union's presence in a small town.
Well, let me say this, we live in a town of 3500 people down there, and we have got,
100 to 125 supervisors, and we got all these people giving out leaflets ; somebody
always sees them ; "So-and-so gave, out leaflets today," or "so-and-so gave them out,
yesterday," they all pass that information along to me
?e Less 2 months' leave of absence back in the 1930's to be married, and less about 18
months in 1927 when he ran the "dope" wagon , or soft drink concession , in the plant.
J..P.' STEVENS AND CO.,'INC. 907
Jess terminated as an employee, the problem of Donald was simplified. He was to
be run out of town. As Jess put it while testifying, "He said if I'd run Donald, my
son, off, and adopt them two younguns, and quit myself, it'd be all right." Stone put
it somewhat more euphemistically He said that he suggested that Donald go some-
where else and get a job. He did not deny the substance of Jess' account
The attractions of this plan for Respondent are obvious. Donald had been removed
from the plant, but he was carrying on his organizing activities among the employees
in Milltown. Jess, another source of union infection, would be out of the plant and
out of contact with his fellow employees With the grandchildren taken care of by
combined public relief and social security, administered by Jess, the community
could dispense with Donald.
In the meantime, Christmas was at hand. It had been the practice for many years
for Respondent to give families of employees with children tickets which were
exchangeable for fruit. This year Respondent skipped the Cudds When Jess Cudd
asked Stone the reason he replied, according to Cudd, that if he "would run Donald off"
and quit himself, it would be "all right." Following this, Stone went to the office and
on his return he told Cudd, according to Cudd's uncontradicted testimony, that if he
gave Cudd fruit tickets "they'd run me off from here." Cudd opined that it was a
shame that he would not get fruit at Christmas, considering how long he had worked
for the Company.
Stone denied no part of Cudd's testimony about the fruit. He admitted that the
Cudds had been given tickets in 1961 and 1962, but contended that the Cudds did'
not qualify for fruit at Christmas 1963 under Respondent's policy which he under-
took to describe as follows:
Our policy is, if children lives in the house with the grandparents, and they
keep them up, and the father and mother is dead or working off somewhere else,
not in our community, we give the children fruit; but if the parents are there, or
are working somewhere and have a job, then the grandparents do not get the
fruit for the children.
On cross-examination Stone tried to clarify the Company's policy:
Q Now, you stated that you assumed that Jess Cudd did not have the respon-
sibility for the children of Donald Cudd, and that's the reason that you didn't give
him any tickets for the fruit?
A. That is right.
Q. By, that do you mean that you assumed that he didn't have the legal
responsibility or he wasn't actually keeping them
A. The legal responsibility.
Q. You knew for a fact that they were there in his house?
A. Oh, they'd been there, I knew they'd been there.
Q. In fact, he stated to you there was some financial problems, hadn't he9
A. That's right.
Q. And you knew he was not working at any plant?
A. . . . I assumed he was not working at any other plant . . . .
I have pondered Stone's testimony and weighed the conditions attached to the Com-
pany's largesse - grandchildren and grandparents, both in residence, father resident
or nonresident , employed or unemployed, and situs of employment; whether there is
a Mrs. Donald Cudd and, if so, whether she is "off working somewhere else"; and
legal versus actual responsibility for the grandchildren, and I am not wholly clear.
Stone's later testimony is that he "assumed that Jess Cudd did not have the [legal],
responsibility for the children of Donald Cudd," and that "that was the reason [we]
didn't give him any fruit." I am still not clear Since this was the case both in 1961
and 1962 it seems likely that the Cudds were not eligible for the Company's bounty
in those years.
I conclude, however, that Stone does not describe any actual existing policy, and
that his testimony is an attempt to tailor whatever policy there may be to fit the
Cudds. Respondent's conduct respecting the fruit tickets is of a piece with its pro-
posed deal to get Jess Cudd out of the plant and Donald Cudd out of town . Its aim
was to force Cudd to quit. When this was unsuccessful Respondent discharged him
on January 2, 1964. With his discharge the Whitmire spinning department, if not
Milltown , was rid of the Union's presence.
e. The Industrial plant
Grady Fields: Fields first came to work for Respondent in January 1955 for I
year, when he quit for 3=months. He returned on September 17, 1963, to his job and
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was assigned as a regular doffer on the third shift on a section of looms under the
direction of Brice Henson, section head. Henson testified that he himself requested
this because Fields was an excellent filling doffer. Otherwise, he would have been
given work on the spare floor because of his broken employment. He joined the
Union in the summer of 1963, but was not active. After his return in September he
became more active, and attended a union meeting on November 17. On Novem-
ber 22 he wrote Respondent advising it that he was a committeeman for the Union.
His testimony is that immediately following the meeting on November 17, Sealy, his
section hand, watched him more closely than he had done before On November 19,
2 days after the meeting, when he had finished doffing his first frame and had started
on his second, Sealy approached him and asked him why he had not marked the yarn
as having come from the first frame, in accordance with instructions, and wrote him
up for it. Fields accused Sealy of trying to force him to quit, and Sealy said, accord-
ing to Fields, that that was right, and that he had orders from Wade West; general
overseer of the spinning room, to get rid of him but that he did not know-the reason
for it. On the next evening Fields was taken off his job as a regular filling doffer and
transferred to the spare floor as a spare doffer, and McAllister, a warp doffer on the
spare floor, was put in his place. The next night when Fields reported to work, Sealy
called him to his office and gave him a personnel action report for his failure to work
the yarn on the first frame 2 days previously. Fields refused to sign it and Sealy
asked Fields what he thought was the reason for Respondent's trying to run him off,
to which Fields replied that Sealy must have a good idea but that in his own opinion
it was because he had been attending union meetings Sealy said, according to Fields,
that Plant Manager Albert Hartsell knew that Fields and four others had attended
the union meeting on November 17. Shortly afterward, Fields met West, general
overseer of spinning on the plant floor, who took him to Hartsell's office where Hart-
sell read him Respondent's answer to Fields' letter of November 22 announcing his
membership in the Union. Both letter and reply were similar to those sent to employ-
ees in the other Respondent mills, and previously described.
On the morning of December 7, just before the end of the shift, West called Fields
to his office and told him that he was being laid off because the Company was cutting
out his section, that the section hands on the three shifts were being put to doffing and
that he and English, a doffer on the spare floor who had worked a shorter time than
any doffer, were being let go.
Respondent defends the layoff as being economically determined, and its selection
of Fields and English on the ground of their lesser service. The record shows, how-
ever, that length of service is only determinative when abilities are equal. Fields'
ability was conceded by his supervisors while testifying. Fields' own and undisputed
testimony is that Hartsell on the occasion related above when he took Fields to his
office, said to him, "Grady, I told them over the table and under the table and across
the table and every other way that you are the best doffer I have, and that's all I can
do." As has been seen, when Fields was rehired Henson, his section hand, specifically
asked that he be put on as a regular doffer on his section instead of going on the spare
floor as was the practice. Henson testified that his doffing was "excellent," and "much
better" than that of McAllister who took Fields' place as filling doffer. McAllister
was more of a warp doffer and did not like filling doffing, according to Henson.
West testified on direct examination that he "laid out" the plans for the layoff
which had been under consideration for several months, and that "after we stated
what we were going to do, and everything, they went along with us; management did,"
specifying Carl Sinclair, plant superintendent. Asked, however, when the "curtail-
ment" was decided upon, and how long it was before Fields' layoff, he answered that
he did not know. Asked what brought the "curtailment" about, he answered that he
was "rearranging the duties of the fixers." Further pressed as to why this was neces-
sary, he stated merely that it was not due to any reduction in the amount of work
to be done. Asked if the idea was brought to him, or whether he "carried the idea"
to someone else, he stated that he, himself, suggested it to Plant Superintendent
Sinclair, but could not recall whether it was in the summer or fall. Asked if it was in
the year of 1963, he said that he thought it was. Asked if he could name anyone
with whom he consulted regarding the change, or if in fact he did consult with anyone,
his answer was that he could not recall. Later, he testified that he discussed it with
Sinclair, but could not remember when. He continued as follows:
Q. Now, - if he was laid off, on December 7, when was the decision to lay
him off made?
A. If it was, if he was laid off on the 7th, it would have come up on the 7th.
TRIAL-EXAMINER: 'Mi. Witness, is it fair to say-now if it is not,-tell'me=is
it fair to say that the decision to lay someone off, and the lay-off of these two men
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 909
occurred together ; as one decision, to lay off and who was to be laid off, at the
same time?
The WITNESS : According to length of service.
Later the witness said that the two decisions were made at the same time, then that
the decision to make a reduction was 2 or 3 days before the selection of Fields. He
continued:
Q (By Mr . JOLLY .) Now, Mr. West, why was the decision to effectuate this
curtailment made at this particular time?
A. Well, we wouldn 't need the two operators.
Q. Why, at this time , did you do that ? Why didn't you do it a month ago
rather than at the time you did?
A. I couldn 't answer that.
The examination continues in the same vein . Sinclair 's testimony on direct exami-
nation is that when he came on his job November 1 he was told by the production
engineering department that the costs of the spinning department were "not com-
petitive" with those in similar plants , and that a "reduction in labor complement"
would be necessary . No figures on costs or profits were offered in evidence, or esti-
mates or computations made, so far as Sinclair knew, nor was any correspondence or
inner office memorandums offered in support of Respondent 's contentions. Sinclair
denied that West brought to him the suggestion of a layoff, as West stated, but he was
unable to say who did.
I do not credit the testimony of either West or Sinclair as to the reasons for laying
off two doffers, or for selecting Fields as one of them . The reason , I find, lies in
Fields' union activity. Henson , Fields' section hand and working foreman, still
employed by Respondent at the time of the hearing, testified that a week or two before
Fields' discharge , Sealy told him that the Union had sent Hartsell a letter and "Fields
signed it with a bunch of stuff," and that Hartsell had said Respondent was.going to
have to get rid of him . Later, according to Henson , Sealy asked him to help him
watch Fields to see if they could find something wrong with his work. Henson said
that that was going to be hard to do, to which Sealy agreed, stating that he had told
Hartsell that, but that it had to be done. Henson continued:
Q. Did you have another conversation with Mr. Sealy about Mr. Fields?
A. Yes, sir, a night or two nights after-I saw one of Mr. Fields' frames that
it looked like it had been kicked up on-run the traverse up to make it doff-
they do that sometimes , and I told Mr. Sealy, I said , "There's as much as you are
going to find wrong with his job , it looks like that frame has been kicked up," so
Mr. Sealy said , "Well, that won't stand up, I don 't think, I'll have to see him do
something ." I said , "Well, you 'll have to watch him , then , because I haven't
got time."
Sealy made a qualified denial of the statements attributed to him by Henson and
Fields. I found Sealy to be shifting and evasive as a witness and I do not credit his
denial. In view of this evidence and the conflicting testimony of Hartsell and West as
to the origin of and the need for an economic layoff, and Sealy 's admission that he
could not recall ever having laid off any -, other employees , I conclude that Respondent
terminated Fields because of his union activity.
John Carter: Carter had been continuously employed by Respondent for 16 years,
except for Army service , as a loom fixer in the weaving room, until his discharge on
December 3, 1963. His second-shift overseer was John Melton and the general over-
seer , Pat Tarte . Carter joined the Union in the summer of 1963. Shortly after Labor
Day, according to Carter , Plant Manager Hartsell came to him on two occasions at
his job, told him that he understood that a union representative had been to see him,
and asked him what he thought of the Union , to which he replied that he thought it
would be a good thing. Hartsell said that Respondent was going to fight it tooth and
nail. A few days later , still according to -Carter , Max Morgan , general regional
manager, asked him what he thought of the Union ; and about the same time Tarte
asked him the same thing. Later still, Hartsell again approached him and , calling
him to one side, repeated that Respondent was going to fight the Union tooth and nail
and said that Carter had been with the Company a long time and he would hate to see
anything happen to him. Carter's testimony is that , about the middle of November,
Hartsell asked him about the date of a union meeting and said that he had been told
that Carter , Fields, and two other employees had been to a meeting.
The interrogation attributed by Carter to Morgan is not denied . Hartsell did not
deny making in substance the statements attributed to him , but he contended that the
conversations were initiated by Carter and that Carter volunteered information as to
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
union 'meetings. As to Carter's own interest, in the Union, Hartsell said that he con-
cluded that Carter favored the Union, but not in the plant. He denied saying that
he hoped nothing would happen to Carter. 'I do not credit his testimony. I credit
Carter's version.
With the exception of two or three writeups 10 years previously, Carter had
received no writeups prior to the advent of the Union except one in March 1963 for
visiting with other employees and another on June 7 for failing to fill out a report on
looms he had fixed. On November 8, after joining the Union, he was given a writeup
for visiting in the plant.
On December 3, when Carter reported 'for work, Tarte called him to his office and
asked him if he had cut a piece of cloth off his loom, and Carter acknowledged that
,he had. As to the reason, he stated that the cloth had wound around the pickup
roller three times, twice tearing the gears out and necessitating their replacement. He
finally cut off the cloth so that it would not further damage the loom. The behavior
of the cloth and the tearing of the gears are not attributed by Respondent to Carter,
but Respondent asserts that he should not have doffed the cloth without permission
of the overseer and'that he should have called the doffer. Carter's testimony is that in
this situation it is standard practice for the loom fixer to cut off the cloth, and in this
he is corroborated by Carl Boling and Emmett Baker, both loom fixers, who testified
'that although they ask the overseer's permission when he is near. at hand, if he is not
they cut the cloth on their own authority.
'Respondent does not argue that the cloth should not have been cut off, or that it
could have been kept from making seconds, but only that Carter should not have cut
the cloth himself.37 The evidence is that no loom fixer had ever before been dis-
charged for cutting cloth from a loom nor had Carter ever been reprimanded for
-doing so during his years as a'loom fixer. I find the real cause for Carter's discharge
to have been his acknowledged interest in the Union. -
Doris Hicklin: Hicklin was employed in February 1956. At the time of her dis-
charge on October 7, 1965, she was working as a battery filler in the weaving room on
the second shift. Pat Tarte was her general overseer and John Welton, second-shift
overseer.' She attended the regional union meeting at Charlotte, North Carolina, on
the evening of October 6, 1964. On the following day the Union telegraphed
Respondent that she was a union member.'
When Hicklin arrived at the plant on the afternoon of Ocotber 7, she wore on the
blouse of her dress a union badge with the legend, "I AM FOR TWA, AFL-CIO."
Within 15 or 20 minutes after starting time, Tarte came to her place of work and
-stood in front of her, gazing at the badge, and asked her if she was proud of it. Upon
.her saying that she was, Tarte asked her how large the badge was. When she said
that she did not know he borrowed a tape measure from an employee and measured
it. It was 4 inches in diameter. Tarte asked her, according to Hicklin's account,
which I credit, how much the Union was paying her to wear it. When she asked him
what he meant by this he replied, according to Hicklin, that she could take it any way
she liked and could "go back and tell the sons of bitches so." A little later Tarte
called her to his office and asked her to take the badge off. When she declined, he
told her that he did not care if she wore a smaller button. When she said that she did
not have a smaller one, Tarte said to take it off or go home. When she refused to
take it off, Tarte discharged her.
Respondent's defense to Hicklin's discharge seems to be that the badge created an
element of disturbance and possible danger. Hicklin, on one or more occasions, had
fainting spells and the theory is that if she were to faint while wearing the badge it
'might get caught in her loom. I think this farfetched and an afterthought only I find
equally devoid of merit Respondent's other contention that the badge created a dis-
turbance among the employees. There is no evidence to support this. As might be
expected, there were glances of curiosity directed to Hicklin, probably as much
induced by Tarte's efforts to find a tape measure and his burlesque measuring of the
button on Hickhn's person as by its size. Moreover, the testimony of several witnesses
is undisputed and I find that during the 1960 presidential campaign various employees
wore buttons as large as Hicklin's union button, or larger, bearing the name of one of
the presidential candidates, continued to wear them during the entire campaign. and
were congratulated for doing so. Respondent's demand that Hicklin remove the
union button and her discharge for refusing to do so were both in violation of the Act.
Shirley Bowers: Bowers first came to work in December 1962. She quit the fol-
lowing March. She returned in July 1963 to the spooling department in plant 1,
where she remained until her discharge on September 13. On August 29 her name
was sent to Respondent as being a member of the Union. On Friday, September 6,
87 Respondent's testimony is that the loss entailed in making seconds of this cloth
amounted to about $3
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 911
Bowers' husband, who worked on the night shift in plant 2, was taken to the hospital
and Bowers obtained leave to go home to look after her children. She worked on
Sunday night, September 8, her next scheduled shift. On Monday, September 9, she
went home early because she was not feeling well. On Tuesday-she sent word that
she would not be in. On Wednesday she neither reported for work nor sent word
that she was not coming. On Thursday night she reported to the plant an hour late.
On this occasion Blanton, her second hand, told her,that he would-have to have some-
one who came regularly and -discharged her. -
Respondent's hostility to the Union and its discharge of numerous employees for
joining it, as I find herein, and, its -knowledge of, Bowers' membership, raise the
suspicion that Respondent utilized her absences as an excuse for discharging her.
However, Bowers had worked only 2- months for Respondent during her last period
of employment, and her attendance record was bad. I find that the General Counsel
has not met his burden of proving that her discharge was because of her union activity.
Leroy Sims: Sims was employed at-'running roller frames in the carding-room of
Republic plant 2, on the second shift; at the-time of'his termination on January 30;
1964. Shortly after his name was posted as a union member, and after several of his -
fellow employees had been discharged, Sims called on 'Plant -Superintendent Wood
and asked how he could get his name off the bulletin board and -be restored to good
standing with Respondent.' Wood told him, as I have found he'told others,' that he
would have to prove himself, and that if he had' nothing to do-with-the Union and did
his work well he did not need to worry about' his 'job. Sim's insisted that he was
through with the Union, and-Wood embraced the opportunity to ask him if he would
name the employees who belonged to'the Union. -Sims said .he would not. About
the middle of January, Wood came to him and asked him' if-he knew who had given a
statement to a Board' agent accusing Wood' of having promised employees certain
benefits if they got out of the Union, and Sims said he did not., On the following day
Wood asked him again, and to Sims' denial that he knew anything about it, Wood
said , "We'll -know the 24th or 25th of next month, which I find to have been a
reference to the original- date set for this hearing.
A few days later, at the beginning of his shift, Sims found two of the three fly
frames he was running stopped off and, left in bad shape by,the frame hand on the
previous shift . He complained to Temple , assistant- overseer, that 'this was cutting
into his earnings and Temple said he would look into it. The next - day and-the fol-
lowing day the same thing happened , and Sims told Temple that something would
have to -be done; and asked to be- assigned'^to another` job. Temple said there was
nothing he could do . On the next-day Sims went to Temple's office in the middle of
the shift and again protested his situation, and asked-him'again if he could be trans-
ferred to another shift. Temple said that Sims would have -to see Bankhead, general
overseer of the cardroom., Sims testimony' as to what then transpired,was as follows:
,, ,
Bankhead '' ' -ome back and see MrI'll . ,.c
... he said, "What you gonna do, go home right now7" and -I said, "Yes." He
said, "You mean you're gonna quit? And. go home right now?",• And L said,
"I'll come back and see Mr. Bankhead, and if I'm not back just go ahead and
mail my check." So I left, and I came back Saturday-and I asked Mr. Bank-
head,-I said, "I walked out and I want to know if you can use me on the third
shift." "
According to Sims, Bankhead said , that he would have something for him, but nothing
materialized .
The General Counsel contends that the separation of Sims constitutes a construc-
tive discharge, or forced quit. I disagree. There is not sufficient evidence to support
a finding that Respondent was endeavoring to force Sims to quit his job. Any
suspicion that this might be the case is allayed by the consideration that Sims had
told Wood several months previously that he had renounced the Union. During the
interval that elapsed between that time and his termination Sims had not resumed
his affiliation with the Union, and the only reason for Respondent's thinking that he
might have done so is Wood's subsequent inquiries as to what he told a Board agent.
While I find these inquiries constitute interference, restraint, and coercion within the
meaning of the Act, I do not find them sufficient to support a finding that Respondent
believed he had resumed his union activities and sought to force his quitting. I con-
clude that Sims did not find continued employment with Respondent intolerable,
since he asked to"be given other work. I do not find'that the General Counsel has
met his burden of proving that Sim's quitting was forced. It will be recommended
that the complaint be dismissed as to Leroy Sims.
check;,I'll get out of here, andif you'll be giving,ine'myand I said "Well
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Plants in the Greenville area
a. The Blackhawk Tufting plant and warehouse
Richard Wike: Wike came to work in 1956. When he was discharged on
August 29, 1963, he was working as a mender-inspector on the first shift under the
immediate, supervision of Tom Rutledge. James Dunn was shift foreman. The
mender-inspector's job is to mend the places where the yarn has broken on the
machine . He and the machine operator spell each other during breaks, sometimes
by direction of the foreman and at other times voluntarily, perhaps more often the
latter.
Wike's name was sent Respondent as a union member in a letter dated August 21,
and posted on the bulletin board on August 23. During the latter part of August,
Dunn once criticized him orally for relieving an operator at his machine, and sent
him back to his own job. During the morning of August 29, Wike again relieved an
operator on another machine. Later the same morning Wike went over to a machine
run by Kenneth Moody, a friend, and was again sent back to his own machine where
his work, according to Dunn, was falling behind, and then to Rutledge's office.
Upon entering the office Rutledge handed him his termination notice, already made
out, and told him that he was discharged because he had been talking to Moody at
his machine . According to Wike's uncontradicted testimony, Rutledge did not ask
him the occasion for being away from his machine or permit him an explanation.38
I have stated that it is not uncommon for an inspector-mender to relieve an operator
during a break period, and at times when the operator goes to the waterhouse, and
vice versa. Wike himself had frequently relieved Moody and had visited with him
without being reprimanded in view of the foreman. During his entire 7 years' employ-
ment he had never been given a writeup for this or any other reason.
Dunn 's statement that while Wike was away from his machine, his work was begin-
ning to pile up, is without substance as a reason for his discharge. Haddon, assistant
plant superintendent, after having testified that it was important that the mender-
inspector stay at his machine, admitted that during the lunch period, or at breaks, or
when he goes to the waterhouse no one relieves him. At these times, according to
Haddon, the work simply piles up. Haddon's further testimony was that he could not
recall that Respondent had ever previously discharged a mender-inspector for any
reason at all. ,
I conclude and find that Wike was not discharged for the season advanced by
Respondent, but_ because of his activity in the Union, announcement of which
Respondent had received 1 week previously and posted on the bulletin board.
John Eller and Eugene Evans: Eller was first employed in October 1962. He
worked as a tufting machine operator on the second shift under Earl Rains, assistant
overseer, and Haddon, superintendent. Evans, employed in September 1962, worked
as a tufting machine operator next to Eller. Eller and Evans each attended their first
union meeting on August 19. On the following day during a break period in the
canteen Eller solicited the union membership of Paul Payne, another tufting machine
operator who is still in Respondent's employ, and left a union card with him.
Shortly afterward Payne went to the office, showed Rains the card, and told him that
he had found it and did not want to have anything to do with it. Payne testified that
he brought it to Rains because he wanted to get rid of it. Payne denied telling Rains
that Eller had given him the card, and this is also the testimony of Rains. It does not
appear why Payne should have gone to the trouble of going to Rains with the card
unless it was to tell him that Eller had given it to him, since if he had only wished to
dispose of it as he said he could more easily have thrown it in a trash can.
Shortly after Eller returned from the canteen, Evans, who was cleaning his machine
with an airhose, turned the hose in the direction of Eller who in turn grabbed Evans
and pinioned his arms from behind. Rains, who was present, called them to his office
separately and gave them each a writeup for horseplay. They returned to, their
machines and worked the'remaining 2 hours until the end of the shift. On the follow-
ing day when they reported for work together at 4 p.m., each had on a union button.
On the way to their machines they passed by Rains and Fuller, second-shift foreman.
After they had worked 15 or 20•minutes Rains told them to report to Assistant Super-
intendent Haddon's office. In the office Haddon told Eller that he had a poor work
record 39 and he told both of them that if Rains had known when he had written up
38 Rutledge was not called as a witness.
39 Eller had been written up on two occasions, in February and July. Evans had never
been written up.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO.,.INC. 913
Eller and Evans the day before that horseplaying was in violation of a safety rule and
a serious offense, he, Rains would have discharged them the day before instead of
only reprimanding them.
. The testimony of Haddon and Rains is that on the morning following. the incident
in question, and before the arrival of Eller and Evans on the second shift, Haddon
talked with Rains and told him that he should have discharged them the day before
instead of writing them up. Haddon overruled Rains and decided to discharge the
two men when they reported for work. Haddon's decision was thus made before he
had asked Eller and Evans for their side of the story and before they wore union
buttons.
Haddon and Rains testified that when they called Eller and Evans to the office to
discharge them, they "had no information from any source" that the two employees
had arrived at the plant wearing union buttons. Rains was also asked if anything
had come to his attention indicating that the two employees were connected with the
Union, and he replied in the negative. The question was not put to Haddon. I am
convinced that Respondent, whether by reason of Payne coming to Rains the day
before to tell him that he had been given a union card application by Eller, or by
reason of other information, knew of the union interest of both Eller and Evans.
The whole record reveals that Respondent was continually receiving information as
to what went on at union meetings and among the employees. Haddon testified that
he could not remember that any employee had previously been discharged for horse-
play, although the record shows it was common in the plant. I conclude that none
had been.
Jack Ross: Ross, who came to work in 1962, was a tufting machine operator on the
second shift, under the immediate supervision of Fuller, second-shift overseer, when
he was discharged on September 24, 1963. His name was posted on the bulletin
board on August 23 as a union member.
Odell Payne, who was a union member but whose name was not posted, was the
mender-inspector at Ross' machine and Frank Sargee was the fixer. The operator is
stationed at the rear end of the tufting machine and the mender-inspector at the front
where the cloth comes off the machine. The fixer circulates among the tufting
machines keeping an eye open for such defects in the cloth as would indicate that a
repair adjustment of the machine is needed.
When Ross came to work on the afternoon of Monday, September 23, the operator
from the,first shift and Sargee , the second-shift fixer, were at his machine, having
threaded it up and run and weighed a yard of carpet to see if the machine was prop-
erly set up for operation. Ross testified that he, too, counted the number of threads
in the machine and checked it with Sargee who reported to him that it was all right.
After Ross had operated the machine for about an hour, Payne asked him to stop
the machine because a streak had developed in the carpet due to two threads going
through the same needle. There were approximately 250 needles in operation at the
time.
Fuller, shift overseer, called to Ross to come around the machine to where he was
standing at a spot and in a position where the two threads in a needle could be seen.
Ross was unable to see• this from the operator's section in the rear of the machine.
The carpet was doffed at the point where the double needle defect began, and Ross
resumed this operation. About an hour later Rains, assistant overseer, called Ross to
the office and discharged him, and a little later discharged Payne, on the ground that
they were responsible for the double thread defect. The fixer was not discharged,
nor was he reprimanded, although Fuller testified that it was the fixer's duty to set up
the machine and to count the number of threads, as well as to check the needle spread.
Asked if the needle spread in this instance was short, since two threads were going
through one needle, Fuller stated that he "imagined" so.
Rains testified that in general the operator is responsible for the quality of carpet
coming off the tufting machine, but he also stated that "it's the fixer's responsibility
to see that the machine is performing properly." He admitted that he had not
checked with the fixer to see if he had set up the machine properly before he dis-
charged Ross and Payne. Respondent's failure even to reprimand the fixer for having
improperly threaded the machine, coupled with the fact that no machine operator had
ever before been discharged for failing to notice a defect in material, or for a related
reason, leads me to conclude that Respondent's discharge of Ross was motivated
by his previous union membership.4°
James Goodwin: Goodwin worked in the Blackhawk warehouse from 1956 to
Monday, August 26, 1963, when he was discharged. At this.time he was working as
a machine driver on an extractor, which pulled bales of cotton out of a stack. He
41 Payne's name is not included in the complaint ; hence no order may issue as to him
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
joined the Union during its organizing campaign. On August 21 his name together
with that of Harold Robinson, whose discharge is immediately hereinafter discussed,
was sent by the Union to the Respondent as a union member. A day or so following
the posting of the names of the union members in the warehouse, and 1 or 2 days
before Goodwin's discharge on August 26, Griffin called the warehouse employees
together, told them they were all doing good work, and he would love to have them
all back next cotton season. There was going to be plenty of work and plenty of
overtime, he said, but they should "use your head before you do anything wrong,"
immediately explaining, "I'm not talking about the union because I'm not allowed
to say anything about the union." I find this statement to be an obvious reference to
the Union and his statement as to plenty of work and overtime next season to be a
promise of reward if the employees stayed away from the Union. It was violative of
the- Act. On Friday, August 26, the last working day before Goodwin's discharge,
Everett Hunter, a working foreman, called out to the approximately 27 employees in
the warehouse.for those who had signed union cards to report at once to Kitties'
office. About 16 responded, including Goodwin and Harold Robinson, whose dis-
charges shortly followed. As the group entered the office Kitties asked them what
was on their minds, to which one of them answered that there was nothing on their
minds but that Hunter had told them that Kitties wanted to see them. Kitties replied
that he did not tell Hunter that, but only that he "thought maybe there was some ques-
tion that you all wanted to ask me about something." When some of the group said
that there was nothing they had to say, Kitties dismissed them. By this ruse Respond-
ent ascertained which of its warehouse employees had joined the Union. .
On the following Monday when Goodwin reported to work, Griffin, •warehouse
superintendent, instructed all machine. drivers to go to the warehouse shop and get
their machines and to stand by, because later they were going to have some orders to
fill. While they were waiting for further instructions, Hellem, a nonunion employee,
asked Robinson to go with him in Hellem's car to Red's cafe nearby. Some 6 or 7
minutes later, as Goodwin estimated it, they returned with coffee and sandwiches.
About 30 to 45 minutes after their return, their orders were ready and the group
began to fill them. At noon, Griffin came up to Goodwin and Hellem and told them
they were discharged for leaving the mill without obtaining permission, in violation
of a company rule, and told Goodwin to get off the Company's property as quick as
he could get to his car.
Goodwin's credited testimony is that when he and Hellem left to go for coffee and
sandwiches, Hinton, head warehouse foreman, was standing near them and saw
them get into Hellem's car about 35 feet away, but said nothing, and that when they
returned, carrying coffee and sandwiches in their hands, they passed by Griffin, who
also said nothing. Griffin testified that he asked them at that time if they had had
permission to leave and they said they had not. Hellem did not testify. Hinton,
although called as a witness, did not testify as to the circumstances attending the dis-
charge of Goodwin. The record shows that the decision to discharge Goodwin was
made by Kitties and Griffin in consultation 'and that Hinton was not consulted.
The warehouse rule is that employees must get permission from a supervisor before
leaving the plant to get coffee. The record shows that the rule is sometimes breached.
According to Griffin himself no one had ever been discharged for breaking this rule
before Goodwin.
The testimony of James Rosemond, an employee in the warehouse, is that Hunter,
a working foreman, who, as has been related, Kitties instructed to bring warehouse
employees to his office to ascertain their union membership, 3 or 4 days after Good-
win's discharge drew him aside and suggested that he should talk to Kitties and get
his name taken off the posted list of union members. The two were joined by John
Mansell, the other working foreman. Rosemond's testimony continues as follows:
Q. (By Mr. JOLLY.) Was anything said about James Goodwin?
A. Well, yes, I don't know which one said it but that's what got me, you know,
studying about it, wondering what I could do, because one of them said, he said,
"If enough of you go up there and take your name off, they will hire James
Goodwin back."
Q. (By Mr. JOLLY.) Did they say anything about Scuddy Heilem in this
conversation?
A. I say, "He didn't sign one of those cards," and one of them said, "... they
fired him because he was with James. . . ."
J. P. STEVENS AND CO:,- INC. 915
If any doubt remained in my mind that Goodwin was discharged because of his
union membership, it would be resolved by the testimony of Garvis Powers, a
machine operator, who stated that on an occasion, when Goodwin returned to the
mill to see about getting his job back, Griffin said to a group of three or four employ-
ees, while they were at work in No. 10 room in the warehouse, that Goodwin had
6 or 7 years' seniority in the warehouse and was trying to get his job back, and that
if the other warehouse employees who had joined the Union would come to him,
Griffin, and admit that they were wrong in doing so, Goodwin would have a better
chance of being reemployed. Powers' testimony was not denied by Griffin and I find
that he made in substance the statements attributed to him.
I find that Respondent's asserted reason for discharging Goodwin was not the real
reason, which was his membership in the Union.
Harold Robinson: Robinson had worked a year in the shop at the Blackhawk ware-
house, latterly as helper on a forklift, assisting Murdock, the shop mechanic, when he
was discharged on August 30, 1963. Respondent posted his name on the bulletin
board on August 25, along with those of other union adherents in the warehouse.
However, only two of these worked in the shop-Robinson and William Gamble, a
mechanic.
On the morning of his discharge, Shop Foreman Robert Haney assigned Murdock,
a mechanic , and Robinson to repair a machine . After the job was completed Haney
told Robinson that he had failed to reconnect the oil filter tube on a machine in which
he had installed a motor, an adjustment which would have taken 4 or 5 minutes.
Robinson offered then to go and put it on , but Haney instead assigned him to other
work. Also that morning, Haney sent out of the shop for a spare part for another
machine on which Robinson was working, but when it arrived Haney put it on a
nearby table without calling Robinson's attention to it, as the result of which it was
not put on the machine until some time later when Haney called Robinson 's attention
to it
Haney's testimony is that because of the failure to put the oil filter tube back on the
machine an amount of oil leaked out onto the floor. However, the testimony of
Gamble, still in Respondent's employ, is that it happens occasionally that a mechanic
or mechanic 's helper will fail to replace an oil tube when finishing with a machine.
Robinson himself had done this on an occasion before the advent of the Union and
had not been written up for it.
Haney, Griffin, and Kittles conferred over the incident of oil filter tube, as the
result of which Kittles told Robinson he was discharged, "the specific reason," accord-
ing to Kittle, being that he left the oil tube disconnected.
I am not wholly convinced that the machine from which the oil filter tube was left
off was in fact a machine on which Robinson worked, since Haney did not show the
oil on the floor and the machine from which it came to Robinson, but only told
Robinson about it. Assuming that it was the machine on which Robinson worked
as helper, I cannot understand why neither Haney, nor Griffin, nor Kitties spoke to
Murdock, the mechanic to whom Haney assigned Robinson, or to the operator of the
machine,41 to find out who did fail to connect the oil filter tube. Murdock, certainly,
would be as much at fault for the disconnected tube as Robinson, or more so, since
he was responsible for the job.
My lack of confidence in the bona fides of Respondent in this instance is enhanced
by contradictions in the testimony of Griffin and Haney. The latter testified on direct
examination that he was first informed of the incident by Griffin, who called him on
the intercom, and told him that the machine was "spraying oil all over the floor and
on the cotton." While testifying, Griffin said that the machine had "sprayed oil and
contaminated the cotton for from 25 to 30 feet on either side of the operator." It
does not appear how Griffin's attention was called to the occurrence, or what his basis
is for this statement. According to Haney, there was no oil at all on the cotton. In
this he is corroborated by Gamble. Nor did Haney testify that any spraying
occurred, only that there was oil on the floor which was leaking from the machine.
I am convinced that Robinson's discharge was not occasioned by his failure, or
that of Murdock, or anyone else, to reconnect the oil line on the machine. A few days
after his discharge Gamble, having seen the light, stopped Griffin as he was passing by
and told him that there was "no sense in me losing my job," and that if it was "going
to cause anyone to lose a job," he would get out of the Union, to which Griffin replied
that that was up to him. Gamble thus accepted Griffin's invitation to the employees,
given on the discharge of Goodwin 4 days before, to admit that they were wiong in
joining the Union, and thus help Goodwin get his job back. He need not have
troubled. It was an empty promise.
41 The name of neither Murdock nor the operator was posted as a union member.
221-374-66-vol. 157-59
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With the discharge of Goodwin and Robinson and the withdrawal of Gamble, no
union adherents were left in the shop of the Blackhawk warehouse.
Garvis Powers: I have alluded to the fact that Powers testified in connection with
the discharge of Goodwin that Griffin, warehouse superintendent, shortly after his
discharge, told a group of employees that if those who had joined the Union would
come to him and confess they had done wrong, Goodwin would have a better chance
of getting his job back. I have found this violative of the Act.
Powers gave this testimony at a session of this hearing held on Tuesday, May 12,
1964. He had been subpenaed for the previous day and was in court, but was not
put on the stand until Tuesday. Griffin and Hinton, head warehouse foreman, were
present both days and observed Powers. During the interval, Powers remained under
subpena. On Wednesday, May 13, Powers' employment was terminated under cir-
cumstances which the General Counsel asserts constituted a discharge in violation
of Section 8(a) (4) of the Act, "because he has filed charges or given testimony under
the Act," but which Respondent contends was a voluntary quit. When Powers
arrived at work on Wednesday, Hinton met him in front of the office and asked him
where he had been the day before. Powers replied that he had been in court and
referred Hinton to Griffin as one who was familiar with the circumstances. About a
half hour after Powers had started to work at his machine, Griffin called him to the
office where he opened the conversation by telling him that Hinton had reported that
he had been selling lottery tickets in the plant, that Respondent could not put up with
it, that if it happened again Respondent would discharge him, and told him to go back
to work. Powers, on the way out, turned and said, "Well, I'll just quit now." Griffin
then got his final paycheck, gave it to Powers, and Powers left the plant.
The above is the substance of testimony of Griffin and Hinton. Powers' testimony
is that Griffin, after he had finished upbraiding him, allegedly for buying or selling
lottery tickets, then said, "Where were you yesterday, and the day before that?" adding
that he had already been out enough days to warrant "firing right now," and that he
would have to be on the job at all times in the future. He concluded, according to
Powers, by telling him in an angry voice to get back to his machine. Powers' account
is that as he was half way out the door Griffin yelled, "Now, if you want me to I'll go
get your check right now," to which he replied, "If you want to, go and get it."
Whereupon Griffin rushed to the timeclock, picked up Powers' timecard, got on a
motor scooter, and drove to the office for Powers' final paycheck.
I credit Powers' version as being more nearly in accord with the facts. Specifically,
I do not credit the testimony that Powers said, "Well, I'll just quit now." I credit
instead Powers' account, "If you want to, go and get it," after Griffin had, in effect,
invited him to quit. On cross-examination Powers stated, when he was asked if he
thought Griffin wanted him to quit, that he did think so, and when asked if he did
quit, replied that he did. Later during his examination he denied that he told Griffin
that he was quitting. I do not consider anything that Powers said to Griffin to con-
stitute a voluntary quit. It would be more reasonable, if he did quit, to construe it
as a forced quit or constructive discharge. It is clear that Powers did not ask for this
interview and that he had no thought of quitting when he was called to the office.
Respondent's upbraiding him, allegedly for "gambling," is without significance as far
as characterizing the discharge is concerned, since the defense is a vountary resigna-
tion, not a discharge.42 However, I do not believe that Powers' action was a quit,
either forced or voluntary. In my construction of the situation, Griffin was clearly
angry with Powers for having testified at the hearing, on the day before his discharge,
unfavorably to Respondent. Griffin did not deny making the statements attributed
to him by Powers. I find that Powers' testimony was the truth, and that the truth
hurt. When Powers, in effect, dared Griffin to discharge him, Griffin's anger got the
better of him and he did so.
b. The Duncan plant
Albert Sanders: Sanders first came to work in 1948. At the time of his discharge
on August 29, 1963, he was working as a loom fixer on the second shift . He joined
the Union in June 1963 and became active in signing up other employees during break
periods in the waterhouse and on the parking lot. At a meeting of loom fixers called
the middle of July by Assistant Shift Overseer Wallace Greer to discuss production,
4 Inasmuch as Respondent stated at the hearing that the alleged sale of lottery tickets
by Powers was not a reason for his discharge, I see no reason to go into it in detail, except
to say that Hinton, on the previous Friday, found a group of employees dealing in the
tickets, did not reprimand anyone but Powers for violation of the rule against gambling,
and did not report the matter to Griffin until sometime the following Monday.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 917
Sanders expressed the opinion that when the Union got in the plant perhaps the
employees would work more efficiently. Greer replied, according to Sanders, that
they would have to do without the Union and do their best to get the looms fixed.
On August 22, 1963, according to Sanders, McDowell, another overseer, came up to
him at his machine and asked him if he had not belonged to a union when he drove a
truck at a former place of employment. Sanders said he had not, but that the Com-
pany was in the process of signing a contract with a union and that it was a good
contract. McDowell did not deny making this inquiry.
About August 22 McDowell showed Sanders a roll of cloth which had some defects
in it which he attributed to Sanders but which Sanders attributed to the weaver.
Sanders was not written up 43 On August 27 or 28 Tathum showed Sanders another
roll of cloth which had run through all three shifts and told him that the cloth showed
bad loom fixing, and Sanders agreed. Tathum did not charge Sanders with personal
responsibility for the condition of the cloth, nor did he at the hearing testify spe-
cifically that he was responsible for it. On the contrary, he showed the cloth not only
to Sanders but to Sanders' weaver on the loom in question, and to the fixer and weaver
on the other two shifts, none of whom was written up for it. Sanders was. A day or
two later Tathum called Sanders to the office, where, without any preliminaries and
without giving any reason, handed Sanders a termination slip, already prepared.
While testifying, Tathurn stated that between the writeup 2 or possibly 3 days pre-
viously, and Sanders' actual discharge, nothing else occurred on which the discharge
was based. He did not explain why he should be written up and then the writeup, in
effect, be superseded by discharge. When Sanders asked if he could go back to
weaving, which he had done for 11 years before he became a fixer, Tathum told him
that Respondent needed younger men.44 While testifying he stated that he could
not recall any other fixer who had ever been discharged but thought that there was
one on another shift, possibly in 1960 or 1962.
McDowell's testimony as to why he discharged Sanders is vague and unconvincing.
He testified that Sanders caused seconds to be made. Seconds in cloth are actually
made by the weaver, and' not by the loom fixer, although the fixer might also be
responsible if a loom had not been properly maintained. O. C. Taylor, superintendent
of Respondent's Appalache plant, testified with respect to the discharge of Aries
Smith, a weaver, that the weaver is primarily responsible for a running defect and the
fixer secondarily. In that case the weaver was posted as a union member and the fixer
was not. The fixer was not disciplined. In this case, the fixer Sanders was discharged
and the weaver was not. McDowell admitted that seconds were "routine" and that
he had had complaints about Sanders from only one weaver. I find that Sanders
was discharged for his association with the Union, which he was known to favor.
Burrell Knight: Knight was hired by Respondent in August 1941 and discharged
on October 30, 1963. At that time there was one shuttle shop man on the second
and third shifts, and two on the first. Knight was the one on the second shift He
had more seniority than any one except C. P. Tumblin, one of the two men on the
first shift.
Knight joined the Union and signed up other employees in the restroom during
breaks and outside the plant. On October 30, Lollis, superintendent of weaving,
called Knight to his office and told him that "due to style changes and loom changes"
Respondent was going to have to lay off a man in the shuttle shop and that he was the
man. Knight said he had been there a long while and asked Lollis if there was any
other work for him and Lollis said there was not. Sometime later Knight returned
to the plant in seaich for work and was told by Lollis that he would be kept in mind.
Tumblin testified that prior to Knight's separation he had heard that Knight was
affiliated with the Union, and that when Lollis asked him to send Knight to the office
he asked Tumblin if Knight had ever said anything to him about his joining the
Union, to which Tumblin replied, "He's not mixed up with that, is he?" to which
Lollis answered, "That's what I understand." Lollis' version of this conversation is
that Tumblin asked him if he had heard anything about Knight's being "mixed up"
with the Union, and that he replied that he was always hearing rumors about some-
thing. I credit the verision given by Tumblin, a disinterested witness, rather than
Louis' account. Whatever version is accepted, however, it is clear that Lollis under-
stood that Knight was interested in the Union when he discharged him. Knight had
worked for Respondent 23 years. When he was discharged, two younger men were
kept. Massey, who had been working with Tumblin on the first shift, was transferred
*a Tathum later testified that he wrote him up but did not communicate the writeup to
Sanders, placing it in the Company's files. Sanders , in other words, was not formally
reprimanded or written up.
" Sanders was 48 and there were weavers older than he emnloved.
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to Knight's job on the second shift, and one Landers, newly hired, assigned to
Tumblin. Lollis admitted that Massey had only 6 or 7 weeks in the shuttle shop and
had the least seniority of the four employees. In the month following Knight's termi-
nation Massey was injured in an automobile accident and Knight unsuccessfully
asked Lollis for the vacancy. The following May, at the time Knight testified in this
hearing, Massey had still not returned to work. In the meantime, according to
Tumblm, two other employees have been hired in the shuttle shop, both of whom
since have left. Respondent has made no attempt to recall Knight.
I conclude that Knight was not laid off for reasons of economy as contended at the
hearing, but discharged, and that his discharge was because of his union activity. His
separation had none of the characteristics of a layoff motivated by considerations of
economy. Neither Lollis nor C. J. Pride, general superintendent, testified that that
was the reason; they simply testified that one man, Knight, was terminated and that
whereas there were once four employees in the shuttle room, now there were three.
Nor did either Lollis nor Pride, nor anyone else, tell Knight the reason for the layoff,
but just that he was the one selected.
Randall Ross: Ross had been employed for only 2 years when he was discharged
on March 4, 1964. At that time he was a serviceman and winder in preparation No. 1
department on the third shift. His testimony is that he joined the Union in Janu-
ary 1964, helped to get others to do so, and discussed the Union with his second hand.
He lived in Mill Village and several times Harold McIver, a union organizer, visited
him at his home. On two or more occasions while he talked with McIver in his front
yard, Maxie Ellison, second hand in preparation, who lived two doors from Ross,
passed his house and observed them. Lawson Hall, general overseer of preparation
No. 2, admitted that on one occasion in the waterhouse he exchanged remarks
about the Union with a group of employees which included Ross. I accept as true
Ross' statement that on this occasion he expressed himself in favor of the Union.
The reflections of L. E. Burns on the union knowledge of supervisors in Mill Village
have been recounted in connection with the discharge of the Cudds. I have little
doubt, and find, that Respondent was aware that Ross was interested in the Union.
Ross' duties as serviceman were to load spools of yarn on trucks for the use of the
winder-tender who set the yarn on her machine and doffed the spools. The trucks
have signs on them which indicate what types of yarn are called for at a particular
time at a specific machine. When the trucks are loaded they are placed in the aisles
between the machines within convenient reach of the operator who is using them. At
one time there may be a dozen or so trucks parked together with yarn for the use of
the winders.
On March 3, 1964, Miriam Donovan, winder-tender whom Ross kept supplied
with yarn, had occasion toward the end of her shift to use 30 and 40 denier yarn on
her frame. At the end of the shift when the second-shift operator came to relieve
Donovan, it was discovered that the 30 denier yarn had been set on the machine where
the 40 denier should have been set, and that some of this yarn had been mixed in the
cloth. The next day when Donovan reported for work, Woodson called her to him
and told her that she had mixed "some more" yarn and sent her home and told her
to come back the following day when he would have had a chance to discuss the
matter with M. J. Carroll, general overseer.
The next day when Donovan arrived at the plant, she and Ross were called to the
office where Carroll spoke to Donovan and Ross separately, Donovan first. Dono-
van's account of the interview was as follows:
-and they talked to me about it. And how serious it was, and I was very upset
about it and I told them that I was sorry it happened, and that I needed to work
and so, W. J. asked me if I would be willing to take a six weeks leave of absence
and go see my doctor and have a check-up-and so then I started out of the office
I heard them say something about Ross.-I said, "Well, now, listen, that boy
had nothing to do with mixing that yarn."-and don't go bawling that boy out
about it." I said, "I did that myself, and he did not put the wrong yarn in the
box."
Donovan's account is uncontradicted and I accept it as true. She was told to go
home and to return on April 20. During this time she had a physical examination,
including her eyes, reported back on April 20, and resumed work. Following Dono-
van's interview in the office, Ross was called in. Ross had also been sent home the
previous day by Woodson who told him that he had "had to send the operator out,
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. gig
so that he'd have to send me out too," and that either he or Donovan could have
been at fault. However, when Ross was summoned into the office on Donovan's
heels, Woodson told him that he was discharged.
Woodson, the second hand, admitted on cross-examination that mixing yarn was
not uncommon, that Donovan as well as Ross 45 had previously been written up for
that reason, and that he did not know of any employee in any category having been
discharged because of it. The testimony of Donovan, who had been employed for
27 years, is to the same effect.
The testimony of Woodson is that he concluded after an investigation of the inci-
dent in question that Ross was primarily to blame for the mixing, and Donovan only
secondarily. I do not credit his testimony in this respect. The evidence indicates that
Respondent's first reaction was to put the blame on Donovan. This must have been
strengthened by the admission of Donovan, an old and trusted employee, that Ross
had nothing to do with the mixing of the yarn, and in fact had supplied her with the
proper yarn. I am of the opinion, and I find, that Respondent's disparate treatment of
Ross by discharging him was not due to a genuine belief that he was responsible for
the mixing, but to his known interest in the Union.
c. The White Horse plants
Horace Anderson: Anderson had been employed for 11 years until his discharge
on October 7, 1963. He had worked in White Horse plant 1 as junior slasher-tender
on the first shift for the last 7 years. He signed a card in the Union in September,
shortly after its organizational activities began. Wilton Conley, senior tender, called
as a witness by Respondent on another matter, testified that he had heard Anderson's
name mentioned along with others by a number of employees as a member of the
Union. On October 6, Anderson attended the Union's regional meeting at Charlotte,
and that night the Union informed Respondent by telegrams that he and several
others were union members.
The next day Ralph Hayes, overseer of preparations, discharged Anderson. Accord-
ing to his own testimony, this was after Respondent's receipt of the Union's telegram
announcing Anderson's union membership.
On September 19, Hayes had spoken to Anderson and Conley about leaving their
jobs to go to the waterhouse, and "asked them" according to his own account, to limit
their breaks to two 7-minute breaks in the morning and afternoon, and one 15-minute
break at noon for lunch, and not to take these breaks unless one of them was relieved
by the other on the job. Later that day Hayes gave Anderson a writeup for being in
the lockerroom 46 twice during the course of the afternoon. This was the only
writeup he had received during his 11 years as an employee with the exception of one
a year and a half previously. Up to September 19, according to Hayes, Anderson's
work had been "excellent."
On the morning of Monday, October 7, shortly after Respondent received the
Union's telegram of the night before, Hayes shut down Anderson's slashing machine
and assigned him to various odd jobs around the plant. Hayes testified that he was
watching Anderson that morning for a "particular reason," which was that he had
found some steel shavings around Anderson's machine which indicated to him that
Anderson had been applying too much tension on the section beam of his slasher,
which sometimes results in damaging the yarn. Accordingly, Hayes decided to test
some of the yarn which Anderson had run on Saturday "and show Horace the damage
that was caused from this excess tension on the beam." It was to await the result of
the test that he shut down Anderson's machine on Monday morning.
No evidence was offered as to the result, and it must therefore be concluded that
the yam was not found to be damaged. Hayes admitted that he had no report that
Anderson had been off his job on Saturday, and that he did not observe it himself
although he had worked part of that day. Nor did he check with Patterson, the
foreman on shift.
It must be understood that Hayes' roundabout investigation of Anderson's work on
Saturday was to ascertain if he had been off his job. The presence of the steel
46 Ross had been written up for mixing yarn on one previous occasion a year and a
half before his discharge.
The lockerroom, waterhouse, and restroom are the same thing. Waterhouse is the
most common term.
'920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shavings argued that there was too much tension 'on the beam, and too much tension
on the beam argued that Anderson had not been present all the time at his machine
,or he would have noticed it. His testimony on the point was as follows:
Q. Is this why the slasher was down?
A. Standing. Yes, sir-I was watching Horace that morning (October 7) for
a particular reason.
Q. What particular reason?
A. Well, if he had,been on the job Saturday and patrolled his job ... he would
have discovered this bearing, and since I wasn't there I assumed that he wasn't
staying on the job, that he had been abusing the smoking breaks ... after he
had been warned.
Hayes testified that on Monday, however; he saw Anderson go to the lockerroom six
times, and saw him smoking several times though he could not say how long he was
there on any of these occasions. He admitted that on some of these occasions Ander-
son could have been going through the lockerroom on his way to another part of the
plant. When he saw Anderson smoking he said nothing to him. He admitted that
he "wanted as much as [I] could get on him." He was unable to say whether Ander-
son's presence in the lockerroom might have been when Anderson had completed
some of the utility jobs assigned him that day, and was temporarily without any
thing to do.
The fact, if it is a fact, that Anderson was in the waterhouse six times on October 7,
played no part in Hayes' decision to discharge Anderson. He had already made up
his mind to do so, and it is for that reason, too, that he did not show him the yarn:
Q. (By Mr. HORN.) You didn't check with any supervisor in other words, or
anybody to find out directly whether Mr. Anderson had been off on that job
Saturday, did you.
TRIAL EXAMINER: He said he did not-
Q. (By Mr. HoRN.)-You said, I believe that you were going to set up this
yarn that had run this stretcher in it, to show Mr. Anderson?
A. Yes, I was having the work drawn because I was going to discharge him
and I wanted to show him why I was going to discharge him.
Q. Was that on Monday morning?
A. Yes.
Q. Before he was in the water house these six times you had already made
up your mind to discharge him?
A. That's true.
Since Hayes had already decided to discharge Anderson by Monday morning he
had been six times in the waterhouse, it follows, since 'he is said to have been dis-
charged for taking too many breaks on Saturday or Monday, or both, that we must
confine our attention to Saturday. Hayes, as he testified, did not see Anderson away
from his machine on Saturday, although he was present part of the day, and he had
no report from anyone that this was the case, nor did he make any inquiry of the
supervisor present on Saturday, though this would have been normal procedure.
But, he says, he saw some metal filings, which he judged were made by the beam
on Anderson's machine being stretched too tightly, and from this he "assumed that
he wasn't staying on the job."
For Hayes it required no overexertion of his imagination to conclude that Ander-
son had been "abusing the smoking breaks after he had been warned," although
were one to follow him thus far and thus tortuously the question would still remain
why "abuse," since only,by divination could he have known whether or not such
absences were during established break periods and for permissible reasons.
Hayes' remaining step in his chain of deductive reasoning was, as we have seen,
to test some of the yarn which Anderson had run on Saturday to "show Horace the
damage that was caused from this excess tension on the beam, due to his absence from
his machine." For this purpose he "was having the warps drawn because I was going
t6 discharge him and I wanted to show him why I was going to discharge him." The
yarn is taken for testing, Anderson's machine is shut down, and Anderson himself
put at odd jobs in the intervals between which he repairs to the waterhouse-six
times. And then, nothing. No information as to the result of the test. It can only
be concluded, and I do, that it did not fulfill Hayes' expectations. It might be
expected that Hayes, pursuing his deductive method, would have reversed at this
point and reasoned: no yarn stretch, no beam tension, no beam tension, no absence
of Anderson from his machine, no absence of Anderson from his machine, and no
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 921
abuse of smoking breaks 47 Instead, he discharged Anderson. With no evidence
persuasive even to himself that Anderson had abused his smoking breaks on Satur-
day, and his alleged abuse on Monday not yet having occurred, Hayes nevertheless
decided to terminate him. As he admitted, even before the yarn from Anderson's
Saturday production had been sent for testing, he had decided to discharge him:
"Yes, I was having the warps drawn because I was going to discharge him-" He
arrived at this decision within hours of Respondent's receipt of the Union's tele-
gram announcing Anderson's membership in the Union. I find this to be cause and
effect.
Alvin Baker: Respondent hired Baker about the middle of September 1963 as a
sweeper in the spinning department. Smith was his immediate supervisor, C. L.
Harrison the assistant overseer of the spinning department, and Rafield, overseer.
Baker joined the Union on the night of October 10, and he so advised Respondent
by telegram on Friday, October 11. On the following working day, Monday, Octo-
ber 14, he quit. The issue is whether this was a forced quitting; that is, a constructive
discharge. The revelant facts are as follows:
Baker's duty was to sweep the spinning room floor, an area of 25,000 square feet,
three times a day, with a push broom. During the first few weeks of his employment
he performed this task along with another sweeper for a wage of $1.25 per hour.
During the week preceding his termination he was assigned to do this work by him-
self for a wage of $1.31.
Among the trash swept up from the floor are rovings, or slivers of material an
inch and longer having about the thickness of a pencil, or less, which slough off the
spinning frames. Baker, fresh from the meeting the night before, arrived at his job
Friday morning wearing a union button an inch in diameter. When he started his
day's work, Harrison came into the area where Baker was sweeping and walked in
front of him as he pushed the litter to the end of the aisles and dumped it in a trash
can. As they proceeded, Harrison would call Baker's attention to an occasional bob-
bin on the floor, an unnecessary thing since Baker was picking them up as he came
to them, and insisted that Baker stoop down and pick up the rovings among the trash
with his fingers, something which he had never done before and which he had not
been previously told to do by any supervisor. The following is Baker's account:
Q. All right, go ahead-
A. I started sweeping, and Mr. Harris [sic] started watching me there, he
would stand in front of me; as I would be sweeping down an alley, he would
point to a bobbin, and pick that bobbin up, and he continued watching me there
as I worked that morning.
Q. Did he give you any other instructions-?
A. Well, he told me to pick up little strings, of roving that, the spinners
dropped.
Q. How big are those little strings of roving?
A. It's just small cotton thread that will vary anywhere from an inch to three
to five inches.
Baker's testimony is that Harrison's activities continued most of the morning and
into the afternoon. As he went down one aisle and -up another Harrison preceded
him, pointing out pieces of roving, and had Baker stoop and pick them up. Baker's
description is not contradicted by Harrison, and it is supported by the testimony of
Donald Chappell, an oiler in .the spinning room, who observed the proceedings a
good part of the morning, and by Ronnie McLain, a warp doffer, whose account is
similar. Chappell stated that in the 9 years he had worked in the department he
bad never' seen sweepers pick up rovings from the floor, and that roving once fallen
on the floor was swept up with the other trash and thrown away. McLain, who had
worked as a sweeper, testified that he had never been instructed to pick up pieces of
roving, but simply pushed them along with the other trash.
44 Although Anderson' s alleged six smoking breaks on Monday, played no part in Re-
spondent's decision to discharge ' Anderson since it was made sometime previously, I set
forth the testimony of Conley , the senior slasher-tender called by Respondent as a witness:
The WITNESS: If your job is caught up, we have ' another fellow-there watching it,
and if anything happens, the waterhouse door is as close as from here to that door
over there ; we step in and smoke a few draws off a cigarette and throw it down, and
back to the job.
TRIAL EXAMINER : Everybody does that?
The WITNESS : Yes, sir, everybody that smokes.
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Harrison's testimony is that waste on the,floor in the form' of rovings, if not dirty,
is supposed to be picked up and saved, as was other larger waste. The latter I
credit. The former I do not Waste of larger dimensions, if it is not dirty, is deemed
to be "reworkable stock" and is salvaged and sold for about 20 cents a pound. The
rovings on the spinning room floor were not reworkable stock. Harrison did not
deny the accuracy of Baker's description of his supervision of Baker's work.
Baker's further testimony is that on the Friday in question when he went to the
waterhouse Harrison followed him and remained with him until.he came out, and
at lunch he sat down next to him and engaged him in conversation. This, too, is
supported by the testimony of Chappell and McLain. Asked if he recalled eating
with Baker, Harrison's answer was "not in particular"; asked if he had followed him
to the waterhouse he did not deny it, stating merely that Baker could possibly have
been there at the same time he was.
Lunch finished, Baker resumed his sweeping and again Harrison joined him,
accompanying him up and down the aisles, pointing to bobbins and pieces of roving,
and saying "get that," "pick that up," and telling him that he was behind in his work
and that if he did not get his job done Respondent would get rid of him. He kept
this up until about 2:30 o'clock.
The result of this bit of sadism was that instead of his sweeping the floor three
times during the day, he "almost got it swept twice." When the sweeper on the sec-
ond shift came on at 4 o'clock and saw that Baker was behind, he picked up a broom
and started to give Baker a hand until Harrison stopped him, saying that he was not
supposed to go to work until 4 o'clock, and this was a few minutes before the bell
rang.
The next working day, Monday, October 14, when Baker punched his timecard,
he found that his hourly wage appearing thereon had been reduced from the $1 31,
which he had been receiving, to $1.25. He was given no reason for this reduction,
nor did he ask. He only resumed his sweeping, and this day "things were a little
quieter," with Harrison not following him about except in and out of the waterhouse.
Later during the morning, however, Harrison called him to the office and read a per-
sonnel action report to him, reprimanding him for his work on Friday and warning
him that the next time he was reprimanded he would be discharged. Baker swept
the remainder of the day, but when 4 o'clock came he left "disgusted" and never
thereafter returned to the plant.
Harrison's explanation of the reduction of Baker's wage was that because Baker
did not get his work done on Saturday, on Monday he assigned another employee to
help Baker sweep the floor, and in accordance with past practice, this automatically
called for a reduction of 6 cents an hour in wages. Harrison I found to be conten-
tious, evasive, and unresponsive as a witness, and I do not credit his testimony in this
respect. Assuming its truth, it is patent that Respondent's whole course of conduct
as to Baker on October 11 and 14, immediately upon being informed of his member-
ship in the Union, was a calculated plan of harassment designed to force Baker to
quit its employment. In this it succeeded. It was clear to Baker and it is clear to
me that it was only a question of time, and a short time at that, before his work,
regardless of its quality, would have been found unsatisfactory and the Company's
threat to discharge him made good. I find that his quitting was forced, and that it
constitutes a constructive discharge in violation of the Act.
Walter Rackley: When Rackley, a checker in the clothroom, was discharged on
October 8, 1963, he had been employed 11 years. He joined the Union and attended
the Union's regional meeting in Charlotte on Sunday, October 6. He informed the
Company that night by telegram of his membership. Respondent discharged him
the following day.
Rackley's duties were to check the cuts of each ball of cloth by weighing them
and thus arriving at the yards of cloth in each ball. If the ball was found to be more
than a few yards in excess of what it should be, he set it aside and Section hand Wil-
liam Gambrell removed or added the necessary amount of cloth. Around the first
of October, according to Thomas Osborne, clothroom overseer, he received a report
from Respondent's grading section, where the balls were spot checked, that there
were 40 yards of excess cloth in a ball checked by Rackley, 107 yards in another,
and a third ball was short 40 yards: • The report on the ball which was 40 yards short
showed, in addition, five major defects in 121 yards, though this-was not beyond the
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 923
number permitted per hundred yards, according to Osborne.48 He did not state
what error was allowed in yardage, other than to say that 40 yards was too much.
He also admitted that there was no way of knowing definitely whether Rackley was
responsible for the errors in these balls, since after they left his hands they passed
through the hands of two other employees . When the checker sets aside balls
for the second hand's attention because they are short or over, they do not come
back to the checker. The mistake could as well have been Gambrell's as Rackley's.
Rackley was written up for these shortcomings on October 5. On October 7
Respondent received Rackley's telegram announcing his union membership, which
promptly came to Osborne 's personal attention , as he testified . On the following
afternoon, Osborne had some of Rackley's balls checked and found three balls with
too much cloth in them, and called him into the office and discharged him. I am not
satisfied that the asserted mistakes in the three balls which Osborne caused to be
checked on October 8 were properly attributed to Rackley, or that Osborne believed
that they were . Whether they were or not , I am unable to view Respondent 's receipt
of information that he was a union member only a matter of hours before as merely
a coincidence . I find that it was because of his union membership that Respondent
discharged Rackley, an employee of 11 years' standing.
Johnny Gambrel! : Gambrell came to work in January 1962. At the time of his
discharge on December 11, 1963, he was working in the weaving room as a helper.
He joined the Union and his name was posted on the bulletin board on October 12.
On the night of October 11, Gambrell , who was due at work at midnight, failed
to report. His testimony is that he overslept , that when he did get up he could not
get his car started , and that he was unable to get to a telephone to inform his super-
visor that he would not be present . Nor did he call in during the day. The following
night when he reported for work Supervisor William McNeese told him that he was
discharged for excessive absenteeism.
The record shows that in the 21 months that Gambrell had been employed, he
had been absent 28 days and 17 of these were unexcused . 49 Gambrell 's last unex-
cused absence prior to his discharge was on October 28 when he was given a writeup.
His unexcused absences seem to me excessive , even though the record throughout
discloses considerable permissiveness in this regard . Although his name was posted
as a union member, it does not appear that any supervisor ever spoke to him about
the Union . On the record as a whole, I am of the opinion that the General Counsel
has not met the burden of proof imposed on him as to Gambrell , and I shall recom-
mend that the complaint be dismissed as to him.
d. The Slater plant
Background; Surveillance
James Walker, proprietor of a barber shop in Greenville who was formerly
employed at Respondent 's Slater mill, and who numbers employees of Respondent
among his customers , testified that around the first part of October 1963, he had in
his barber chair Gentry Reese, third -shift supervisor of the finishing department,
and the two of them discussed the Union 's campaign at the Slater mill. According
to Walker, he asked Reese how the Union was doing and Reese replied that he did
not think it was doing very well , that he did not think it had a chance, and that
Respondent "had been laying off some of the hands on account of the Union."
Respondent , he said, had to have a "reason for letting them go but they could always
find one if they wanted to." The conversation continued and Reese boasted that he
"had two [employees ] in his department that was attending the union meetings to
let him know how things were going ." These persons, Reese related , were a little
worried that they might lose their own jobs if seen at the meetings, but he, Reese,
had talked with H . H. Fann, group manager of the Slater plant, and he assured
Reese that their jobs were safe.
'e Osborne's testimony is that Respondent ' s standard permits eight major defects to a
hundred yards of cloth . The five defects in the ball checked by Rackley were not charge-
able to him . They included a broken pick , a jerk back , a thick place , an end out, and
one other major defect . Osborne also testified that every day a report is made on the
number of mixed filling defects, which indicates that mixed fillings are common. ,
49 An unexcused absence is one where the employee does not call the plant to advise his
supervisor that he.will , not be in.
924 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Some time later Walker was interviewed by an agent of the Board investigating
this case, and he executed a written statement concerning this conversation. This
statement was produced in the injunction proceedings 50 in connection with this case,
and Respondent's counsel supplied with a copy. This was shown Reese who there-
upon called on Walker and confronted him with it. Reese protested to Walker that
he had not made the statement which Walker attributed to him, and presented Walker
with a typed statement which he had drafted repudiating Walker's statement to the
Board, for Walker's signature. Walker refused to sign, saying that Reese knew that
he had said the things Walker related, to which Reese replied that he did not think
Walker would repeat them. Walker said that he was "sorry about the whole thing"
and would think it over.
Reese returned the next day, to be told by Walker that the affidavit he had given
the Board was true and that he could not repudiate it. Reese left, threatening Walker
with ruining his business, and saying that when he testified at the Board hearing he
would deny saying the things Walker had attributed to him.
And he did. It was Walker, Reese testified, who said that he had heard that
every supervisor "had pimps working" for him, and that the Company was going to
discharge the union supporters, and Reese denied this. Reese, while testifying, also
denied saying that he had two employees at union meetings who reported what went
on, or that Fann had said they should not worry about being seen, and denied that
he had said anything about Respondent's firing union members.
Independently of what he said to Walker and what Walker said to him, Reese
testified on direct examination that the only employees he knew who were active in
the Union were those whose names were on the bulletin board. On cross-examination
he was asked if he knew who had attended the Union's regional meeting of August 22
at Charlotte, and he replied that he did not, that he never found out, that no one
told him what went on at the meeting, and finally that he did not know that there
was a meeting on that date.
There was produced, however, an affidavit which Reese had given the Board
Regional Office on December 19 after his interview with Walker, which he acknowl-
edged reading and signing and acknowledged to be true. This stated:
On August 22nd there was a union meeting in Greenville; and at work that night
I heard who was there and what went on. I recall most of them were second
shift cloth room employees. I can't recall who the one was who told me.
Reese's further testimony on cross-examination is that on the same day he gave
this affidavit to the Board he reported to Fann that he had done so, and that Fann
asked him what the statement said and he told him. Fann, while testifying, said that
Reese only mentioned somethmg about one Loftis, whose name is not relevant to
the question in issue. - -
Reese's manner on the stand was evasive, reluctant, and contradictory by turns.
I do not credit his account of his conversation with Walker, who was composed
and straightforward. The affidavit Reese gave the Board confirms Walker's testi-
mony. Certainly, that affidavit renders Reese's testimony of little probative value,
except that as between Reese and Fann, where Fann denies that Reese said anything
about Respondent having informers at the union meeting. I credit Reese as being
against interest. I cannot' believe that Reese, so prompt in reporting the interview
with the Board's agent, to Fann, when questioned specifically by Fann as to what
he said mentioned only the name of a person not germaine to the matter, and failed
to mention the relevant statements concerning the meeting of August 22.
Nor can I believe that Reese refrained from sharing this information with his
fellow supervisors. I am convinced on the basis of Reese's activities, the observa-
tions of union meetings by other supervisors, hereafter related, numerous interroga-
tions of employees who were leaving the Union as to the time, location of, and
attendance at union meetings, General Manager Bums' comments on the awareness
of supervisors of union goings-on in a small town, and on the record as a whole, that
Respondent, in all its plants, had a comprehensive knowledge of who among its
employees, even those who did not send their names to the Company, supported
the Union.
David Collins: This employee came to work in 1952 or 1953, and at the time of
his discharge on October 7, 1963, was working as a laborer in the, warehouse at the
Slater plant, loading and unloading trucks. The Union sent his name to Respondent
as a union member and it was posted on the bulletin board. He attended the union
meeting in Charlotte on August 22 and thereafter wore a union button while at work.
50 Reed Johnston, Reg. Dir. v. J. P. Stevens d Co., Inc., 57 LRRM 2322 (D.C.W.S.C.).
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 925
On October 4 Collins had a slight back injury and he was driven to the company
doctor by Edward Kirby, personnel director. On the way back Kirby, according to,
Collins, told him that he could not understand why he had joined the Union, but
that he still had time to get out and suggested that he go to higher supervision and
tell them that he had made a mistake. Collins said that it would not be fair to the
other members if he did this. Kirby's version is that Collins brought up the subject
of the Union and said he was "in a mess" and wanted to get out of it, and that
Kirby told him that the only way he knew to get out of it was the way he got in it.
I credit Collins' version of this conversation, which is consistent with other and
undenied attempts of Respondent supervisors to persuade employees to leave the
Union, as well as with the fact that Collins did not resign.
Sometimes when the carloaders are not busy they are required to help the stackers
pile cartons in the warehouse, for that purpose using a flat stacker truck, a forklift,
or a squeeze truck. The squeeze truck is not popular because it is considered easier
to fall off. The flat stack, however, is built for the purpose and is the one mostly
used when reaching for the upper rows. On October 3, the day before he was taken
to the doctor's, Collins was assigned to help stack in the clothroom along with one
Gilbert, using the squeeze truck to arrange cartons on the highest row, about 14 feet
from the floor.51 Later, Gilbert complained to Payne that Collins was refusing to
go up on the squeeze truck, and asked that someone else be assigned in his place.
Payne refused the request. Later in the day Collins came to Payne to protest
having to go up on the squeeze truck, saying that it made him dizzy and hurt his
back,52 and Payne took the matter up with Lyerly, assistant plant superintendent,
who said that Collins would have to use the squeeze truck. A few days later, on
Monday, October 7, Payne pointed out a case which was out of line on the top
row of a stack and insisted that Collins go up on the squeeze truck to straighten it
with Hood, another employee driving the truck. Collins protested that it was too
dangerous and asked if he could use the flat stacker. Payne said that he could not,
and insisted that he go up on the squeeze truck. When Collins refused, Payne took
him to the office and discharged him. - -
The testimony of Collins is that the squeeze truck was never used to straighten a
case on the top row, but generally only for rows 4 or 5 feet high, and that,on previous
occasions when he had gone that high he had used the flat stacker. No one used
the squeeze truck for the top rows, but occasionally did use the forklift truck after
putting a heavy pallet on the truck to stand on. Collins had never before been ordered
to use the squeeze truck for this purpose.
I conclude that when Collins refused Kirby's invitation to go to management and
withdraw from the Union, Respondent determined to get rid of him and accordingly
assigned him to a task which it thought he would, not do, and which did not pertain
to his regular job as a truckloader, in order ,to provide a reason for his discharge.
Collins had been, with Respondent for 10 years and had never prior to joining the
Union been written up for any reason pertaining to his work performance.
Joseph Laughter: Laughter had worked for 5 months, the last 4 in the clothroom
as a cloth, doffer, or. service grader, on the first shift, up to his discharge on Novem-
ber 22, 1963.. He joined the Union and-attended the meeting on August 22. His
name-was sent to the Company as a member and posted on the bulletin board. He
frequently wore his union button to work. He had not received a personnel action
report up to this time.
Laughter's job in the plant was to put cloth up on frames and doff it. There are
2 rows with 6 frames each to doff, and 12 women who grade the cloth. After
Laughter doffed the cloth he would bring it over to one of the graders. He was the
only doffer supplying the 12 graders. He worked on an hourly basis, whereas the
graders worked on an incentive basis; that is, after the production norm was met
they were paid for everything above that on ,a piecework basis. The norm is almost
always met, and the graders largely depend for their" earnings' on what they grade
above the norm.
W. K. Knox, assistant overseer and Laughter's immediate supervisor, testified that
for some time prior to Laughter's discharge most of the graders were complaining
to him from time to time that Laughter was slow in bringing cloth to them. Several
of the graders testified to this effect, though it does not appear from their collective
testimony that he was any slower at the time of his discharge than he had been when
he was first transferred to the first shift., Their testimony does, however, serve to
despite the conflict between 12 graders largely dependent for their income on piece-
51 According to Collins it was 18 feet.
sa Collins received a shrapnel wound while in the service, a fact recorded in his per-
sonnel file, and he testified that he had been nervous ever since.
926 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
work, and I doffer working on straight time to supply them the cloth. Several of
them testified that they cut short their lunch break from the alloted 20 minutes to 15,
10, and even to 5 minutes, so that they could get back to their machines, and even
ate at their machines. I think it may be assumed that Laughter took his full 20
minutes. Frankie Bailey, for example, testified that once when she had finished grad-
ing one doffing frame and was ready for another, she saw Laughter disappearing
through a door to be gone 15 to 20 minutes, though she did not know where he went.
It does not appear whether anyone took Laughter's place when he was on his break,
or eating lunch, or in the waterhouse, but it is clear from Bailey's further testimony
the extent of the pressures on Laughter which occasioned the complaints of the
graders:
Q. And Mr. Laughter doffed all twelve [frames]?
A. See, we eat in that time, too.
Q. You ate in that time?
A. That there twenty minutes that the one boy was putting up and doffing.
Q. All the graders were eating at that time?
A. Yes, but we didn't take that long.
* * * * * * *
Q. How many graders would be there with just one man on the job?
A. There'd be the twelve of us but we'd be eating most of that time, too.
* * * * * * *
Q. You say you don't take the full twenty minutes to eat, the graders do not?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. We're not getting any money.
The cross-examination of Ethel Morrison is further illustrative:
Q. If Mr. Laughter is doffing for you he can't be doffing for another grader,
is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. And, of course, all you graders are interested in incentive and making
higher earning, aren't you?
A. Sure.
Q. So you all want the grader to be doffing for you, don't you?
A. Well, we're not selfish with it. We'll wait until he takes someone else's
cloth off.
On November 22 Finley called Laughter to the office, stated he was getting too
many complaints from the girls, and discharged him. He mentioned no specific
complaint, stating while testifying only that he had several complaints that day.
It is clear that with 12 graders being paid on an incentive basis and the cloth
doffer on straight hourly time, complaints by the graders were practically guaranteed.
It would be difficult to imagine a stage better set for dissention between the service
doffer and the graders, as well as among the graders themselves. Knox and Finley,
general overseer of the clothroom, must have known this and must have long since
become inured to complaints about the doffer, whether Laughter or his predecessors.
It is noteworthy that Knox's testimony is that he told Laughter he was being dis-
charged because of the complaints of the graders. There is no evidence that Knox
or Finley ever criticized Laughter for being slow, or, for that matter, any specific
testimony that either one of them believed that the complaints had substance. Nor
was any evidence adduced, documentary or oral, that the production of any grader
actually suffered by slowness on the part of Laughter. I am of the opinion, and I
find, that Respondent used the chronic grumbling of some of the graders as a pretext
for Laughter's discharge, but that its real reason was his union affiliation.
James Cantrell: Cantrell came to work in July 1962 and upon his discharge on
August 30, 1963, was a bale checker and stamper in the clothroom on the second
shift. His overseer was Maynard Veal and the general overseer, Charles Finley. He
joined the Union and attended the meeting of August 22, the first organizational
meeting for Slater employees. His name was posted on August 28. On August 23,
the day following the union meeting, Veal called to the office seven or eight employ-
ees in the clothroom and wrote them up for being together in the smoking area the
day before, allegedly in violation of a rule against more than one person smoking
in the area at the same time For this purpose two smoking chairs were provided.
On this day when Veal saw them, he asked them to leave. He gave' no explanation
as 'to why he did not, write them' up at that time instead of waiting until the' next
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 927 ,
day after the union meeting had been held. I cannot accept as only coincidental the
fact that on the very day following the organizational meeting for Slater employees
Respondent should not only more stringently enforce, and apparently in some
respects change, its smoking rules but, at the same time, stagger the lunchtime of
employees and confine them to the area nearest their places of work. Both the
smoking and eating regulations had the effect of making more difficult communica-
tions between employees on their own time, and reducing the opportunity to sign
up employees in the Union.
Veal did not give Cantrell a personnel action report, apparently because he does
not smoke, but did so at 4:30 p.m. the same day allegedly for misstamping a case.
This was the first writeup he had ever been given. The testimony on the point was
as follows:
TRIAL EXAMINER: Between the time then, that he said, "You don't smoke?"
Since he was not writing you up for smoking, and the time he had you in the'
office; did he have any other conversation with you in between these two times?
The WITNESS: No, sir, this all happened at the same time, sir, in other
words, he came out there and said, "You don't smoke, do you, James, on the
job?" and I told him, "No, sir," and he said, "Well come to the office a minute,"
and then when we got in the office
TRIAL EXAMINER: Had he already written up these other people?
The WITNESS: Yes, sir.
Q. (By Mr. JOLLY.) Now, had you stamped the case wrong at four-thirty9
A. There was a case sitting out there that I had stamped wrong, yes, sir.
The clothroom during this period had been working intermittently on Saturdays,
but had not on August 10 or 17. On August 24 it did work but Cantrell did not
report. On the following Monday Veal asked him why he had not come in and
Cantrell replied that he had not been told to do so. Finley, who was present, did
not deny this but said that he should have come in anyway, and wrote him up. I
credit Cantrell's testimony that when the employees were to work on Saturdays
Veal would tell them so beforehand, and that Cantrell was not told on this occasion.
On August 29 another departmental meeting was called by Veal at which a change
in the lunch arrangements was announced. Previously, the clothroom employees
had eaten wherever they wished and at the same time. Under the new schedule they
were to eat at staggered intervals of 20 minutes and only at certain designated places.
Those who worked in the industrial end, and the packers and service graders, were
to eat in the industrial area, those in the decorative end, two in number, in their
area, and the clerks and the case markers "more or less in the center of the cloth
room." The room is about 100 feet long.
Veal testified that during this meeting, while Veal was speaking, and his testimony
is in general supported by Finley, Cantrell on one or more occasions would nudge
the employee sitting next to him and laugh, whereupon when the meeting ended
Veal, who was assistant overseer of the clothroom, called Lyerly, assistant superin-
tendent of the mill, who called Roger Couch, superintendent of the mill, and Cantrell
was brought before them. Couch told him that he should show more respect to
Veal. According to Veal, Cantrell "didn't say much of anything. He was just kindly
indifferent." According to Finley, Cantrell replied simply that he had always shown
respect to his supervisors. Couch concluded his remarks to Cantrell by asking him
if he was going to show more respect to Veal in the future, to which Cantrell made
a reply which Veal, according to his testimony, could not hear. He testified in effect,
however, that he considered Cantrell insubordinate, and that after Cantrell left he
discussed Cantrell with Finley until the supper break. On his way to the canteen
he came across Cantrell eating his supper with the employees in the industrial end
of the clothroom instead of "more or less in the center" of the clothroom; and asked
him, "Well, how about you eating up in your work area?" Veal called Finley at his
home several times during the night, without reaching him, but the next day he
and Finley decided to discharge Cantrell. At the terminal interview on August 30
Personnel Manager Kirby told him he was being discharged for insubordination and
not eating in his own lunch area.
Respondent's whole pattern of conduct, beginning the day following the union
meeting on August 22, persuades me that it entered on a course of action designed
to discourage union activity by staggering the lunch period for its cloth room employ-
ees and assigning and confining them to particular areas in the plant, whereas prior
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the advent of the Union they had not been so circumscribed 63 In my opinion
this was done so as to make contact between its employees more difficult and to
minimize the opportunities for discussion of the Union, as well as to convey to
them Respondent's reaction to the union meeting the day before. Under familiar
Board decision lunchtime is the employee's own time, and an employer normally
may not proscribe such contacts for the purpose of discouraging their collective
activity.54 Having changed the customary location for eating lunch for a discrim-
inatory purpose, Respondent may not now plead the violation of these arrangements
as a defense to the discharge of Cantrell.
William Looper: This employee was hired in May 1961. At the time of his dis-
charge on September 16, 1963, he worked in the warehouse on the first shift storing
cases sent in from the clothroom. As he took them off the conveyor belt he placed
them where he could find room and wrote the number of each case on a card, as
well as the number of the bin in which it was stored. There were from 20,000 to
30,000 cases in the warehouse and Looper handled from 250 to 400 a day. Another
employee on the second shift did similar work.
Looper joined the Union and his name was forwarded to Respondent. Beginning
on August 28 he wore his union button at work. He had not up to this time been
given a writeup since he had been employed more than 2 years before. On this
morning he was given his first one by Richard Payne, warehouse supervisor, for
being in the smoking area with two other employees, who were also written up, in
violation of the recently emphasized prohibition against more than one employee
at a time being in the area. I have found in my discussion of the Cantrell discharge
that this requirement, or its enforcement, was discriminatory in that its purpose,
like that of separating the employees into small groups while eating, was to make
communication between them more difficult. Looper's uncontradicted testimony
was that when Payne wrote him up he told him that he was putting a stop to the
employees smoking together and that they would have to smoke one at a time just
inside the warehouse door where the smoking chair was located. If someone was
already there, then the next comer would have to smoke out on the loading platform.
On Friday, September 13, Looper passed out union leaflets at the truck entrance
to the plant. Later that day Payne told him he had misplaced seven cases, but with-
out stating over what period of time or giving other particulars. On the following
Monday, shortly before the end of the shift, Looper and a warehouse laborer were
unable to locate a case which had been stacked and recorded by the second shift,
and Looper gave Payne the card pertaining to the case, as was the custom. At the
end of the shift Payne called Looper to the office where Payne, in the presence of
Kirby, personnel head, asked him how many cases he had misplaced, without specify-
ing over what period of time, and Looper said several. Payne then told him he was
discharged and Kirby handed him his notice of termination.
Looper's testimony is that both he and Roger Payne, on the second shift, mis-
marked cards on 5 to 10 cases a week. Payne's estimate was two or three cards.
Richard Payne testified that on the Thursday previous to Looper's discharge he
found four cases mismarked, on Friday three, and that on Monday, the day of
Looper's discharge, one. He did not show these mismarkings to Looper at the time
they are said to have been made. I find it noteworthy that when Payne discharged
Looper be did not mention having found a case mismarked that day, and that at
the hearing he did not deny Looper's testimony that that case was mismarked on the
second shift, and not on Looper's shift. I also find it significant that Payne, accord-
ing to his own testimony, had already prepared Looper's termination notice before
he was called to the office on Monday. It was based not on any mismarking of
cases on Monday but on cases mismarked on the previous Friday. Assuming the
truth of Payne's testimony that on Friday he found that Payne had mismarked cases,
something for which he had never been written up, I do not find on this record that
this was the real cause of Looper's discharge, but rather his activity in the Union
including his distribution of the union literature at the truck entrance that morning.
Thomas Edens: Edens came to work for Respondent in November 1961. At the
time of his discharge on February 19, 1964, he was a weaver on the second shift
and Walter Coleman was his immediate supervisor. He joined the Union during
51 The record is not entirely clear as to whether at this time the lunch rules were
,changed or the previous rules were enforced after a period in which they had been
,unenforced.
ss Although I find that this was Respondent's purpose it should be noted that there is no
evidence that, in fact, the employees discussed the Union during their lunch period. It
is noteworthy that of all the employees whom Respondent discharged, not one is alleged
to have been discharged because of the violation of a rule against solicitation in the plant
on company time.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC . 929
the summer of 1963 . Respondent was advised of the fact by letter, and his name
was posted on the bulletin board . On September 10 he wore his button to work for
the first time and showed it to Coleman on arriving at the plant. Later that day he
received a writeup for making wrong draws, the first writeup he had ever been given,
according to Coleman himself. On September 13, as has been found, the Union
passed out leaflets at the plant gate. Edens participated in this for an hour in the
morning along with Looper, whose discharge has been discussed above. He went
to work at 4 p.m. That evening he received his second writeup, this one for wrong
draws and broken picks. Previously, Edens had seen Coleman standing over his
loom in what Edens deemed to be a suspicious manner and he refused to sign the
writeup Coleman gave him, charging Coleman, in effect, with tampering with his
cloth. I do not find it necessary to pass on the validity of Edens' contention, which
the General Counsel adopts, since it played no part in his later discharge.
Edens, like so many others, testified that when he put on his union button he was
followed about and more closely supervised than before the advent of the Union.
After this had gone on a while Edens, like many other employees, but unlike others
such as Looper, who was discharged, took off his union button and went to see
Coleman. He told him that he was afraid he was going to be discharged and asked
what he would have to do to get out of the Union. Coleman referred him to Pierce,
general overseer of the weaving room. Pierce arranged for him to talk with V. H.
Fann, manager of the cloth plant, and General Superintendent Roger Couch. Edens
told Fann and Couch that he had made a mistake and wanted to correct it, and Fann
suggested that he write the Board's Regional Office and say that he did not want the
Union to represent him, and furthermore did not want its representatives even to
speak to him in the future. Edens wrote both the Board and the Union and showed
copies of both letters to Fann and Kirby before mailing. They shook his hand,
complimented him, and told him he had done the right thing in coming to them.
Edens' credited testimony is that there was another , and immediate change in his
supervision, this time for the better. There were no more complaints as to his work,
and no one followed him around, and this happy state of affairs continued until the
following February. Although Edens, at least for the time being, became inactive
in the Union, he executed two affidavits dated September 11 and 14 which were
submitted in the United States district court on February 4, 1964, in connection with
an injunction proceeding under Section 10(j) of the Act. Copies of the affidavits,
supporting the Union's side of the case, were furnished Respondent and Respondent
referred them to Coleman for the preparation of a counteraffidavit. About the
same time Edens resumed his activity in the Union and went around the community
with an organizer, calling upon Respondent 's employees . Respondent 's attitude
toward Edens thereupon shifted again. It discharged him on February 17 under the
following described circumstances.
On that date Edens was delayed leaving home for the plant and his wife called
at 3:30 p.m., a half hour before he was due to arrive, to say that he would not be
there because his father was ill. About 6 p.m., however, his father appeared better
and Edens set out for the plant, his wife calling Coleman to ask him to meet her
husband at the gate, since the custom was to lock the plant gates and give the keys to
the foreman. Edens, whose home was only 15 minutes from the plant, arrived at the
gate before Coleman got there and, not seeing Coleman, climbed over the fence.
On his way to the gate Coleman saw Edens near his machine, expressed surprise
that he was inside the plant, and Edens told him how he had got in. Coleman told
him that he had put another man on his job and to go home and report back to
work the next day. The testimony of both Edens and Coleman is that Coleman
did not criticize or reproach Edens for his mode of entry 55
On thinking it over, however, Coleman the following morning wrote out a per-
sonnel action report which he presented to Edens the following afternoon when he
reported for work. Edens signed it and went to his looms and worked the entire
day, and Coleman sent the writeup to Manager Fann. On the next morning,
February 19, Fann and Kirby conferred and decided to discharge Edens. Coleman
called him to the office and told him he was discharged for climbing the fence 2
days previously, allegedly in violation of a rule against doing so.
No evidence was adduced to show them the existence of any such rule and I am
convinced that Edens' climbing the fence was put forward, after Coleman had
already written Edens up and he had done a full day's work, merely as a pretext
for his discharge. Coleman testified that he did not know that climbing the fence
was "a dischargeable offense" until Fann said it was. Several witnesses testified this
was not an uncommon method of entering or leaving the premises, and a photograph
es Later, Coleman changed his testimony on this point and said that he told Edens that
he should not have done what he did.
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was received in evidence showing the wire bent down where employees had obvi-
ously put their feet to boost themselves up. This was within a foot of the gatepost
and evident to all persons , supervisory and nonsupervisory alike, going in or out
the plant. Edens testified that he supported his hand on the gatepost while he put
his foot in the wire. I find that Respondent discharged Edens because of what
seemed to it to be a revival a few days before of his activities in the Union, and
not for the reason it advanced.
Richard Bell: Bell was employed in April 1963 as a mill end clerk in the cloth-
room on the second shift and he was discharged on September 28, 1963. His duties
were to separate ends of cloth after doffing by the cloth graders into two categories,
mill ends, which are marketable , and rags. The latter he carried out to the platform
and dumped in a trash can. Bell's shift overseer was Veal and general overseer,
Finley. He attended the union meeting on August 22 , previously referred to in
connection with several of the discharges , and Respondent was advised of this by a
letter from the Union which it received on about August 24, and further advised
when Bell, concurrently , started wearing his union button at work. Respondent's
pro forma reply to the Union's letter was dated August 28, and a copy simultaneously
posted on the bulletin board. Respondent also had knowledge of the August 22
meeting.
On the day following the meeting Veal called-to the office five or six employees
who had attended it and only those, according to Bell , and wrote them all up for
congregating in a smoking area in violation of what is said to be a company rule
against more than one person being in such an area at the same time . On August 29,
simultaneously with the Company 's acknowledgement of the Union 's letter advising
it of the union membership of various employees including Bell, Finley called meet-
ings of clothroom employees on the three shifts, and he and Bell informed them
that Respondent was tightening up its smoking rules at the same time the employees
were told that their lunch periods were to be staggered and they were assigned to
certain eating areas, whereas previously they had eaten anyplace they wished in
the department.
The picture revealed by this record as to the smoking habits of the employees is
fairly clear Employees were not supposed to congregate in any number in a
smoking area, of which there were three in the clothroom, each equipped with a
smoking chair. Nor were employees to resort to smoking within.the first hour after
reporting for work or the last hour before leaving. Over a period of time, however,
these rules seem to have been observed in their breach as much as in their observ-
ance. The record shows that it was common for several employees to smoke at the
same time in the smoking area, and that this was a matter of discussion at group
meetings of employees , accompanied by injunctions in the nature of "Remember, no
congregating in the smoking area." There is much other evidence in the iecord
that the rules , long relaxed in practice , were tightened and possibly new restrictions
added at the meeting on August 29. Since they were not reduced to writing they
remained vague, and susceptible to the interpretation of the overseers . Hence grant-
ing, without finding, undiscriminatory enforcement of the rules, the question still
remained , what rules? The iecord is clear as to the smoking chair, at least in the
cloth department . There was one chair in each of the three smoking areas and,
after August 29 , only one person was to be in the area-it is not necessary to state
on the chair-at a time, and each smoker was to smoke in the area nearest his place
of work. Several female employees, called as witnesses by Respondent , were quite
firm in this, although not too clear as to the proprieties attending the circumstances
that the same chair was used for male and female employees alike. Jackie Childs
testified that when she was first on the chair she would remain there until she was
through smoking. If some other employee arrived before she was through, he or
she would withdraw . She stated that there had never been anyone "smoke with
me in the smoking chair," which I take to mean in the smoking area. Childs' hus-
band was a supervisor.
Lois Brady, who stated that her husband was not a supervisor, was certain that
employees could smoke , one at a time , in the area nearest the employees ' work loca-
tion. No one, she said, had ever been in the area at the time she was there. She was
unable to say just how long one might remain in the chair, but thought perhaps 4
minutes or less, or "just long enough to smoke." She indicated that by this she
meant a cigarette; not a cigar, for she did not smoke cigars. She thought perhaps a
man might smoke a pipe there. She really did not know how long one might remain
on the chair, but if another person approached, "They won't come on up to where
you're at to see what you're doing." She was clear that if a male employee came
up while she was on the chair, he would leave.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 931
Of more difficulty than the amenities are the questions presented by the fact that
employees have stated breaks for meals, staggered after the Union appeared, but
nevertheless still raising difficulties if several employees might wish to smoke at the
same time, or when, possibly, the first one on the scene might wish to spend his
entire 20-minute break on the chair. No answers are provided for these questions
and I raise them because I believe they help to explain what I believe to be the fact,
and what the record shows Respondent's supervisors knew to be a fact, that the
"rules" pertaining to smoking were not susceptible of strict enforcement, and had
inevitably lapsed in their observance. The record is replete with evidence that
employees, when their looms or other work can be safely left, repair to the Water-
house where they smoke, or pass by a smoking area other than their own, and stop
to smoke, or step away from their work locations a few feet to the smoking chair
and, if it is occupied, stay long enough for a short smoke there while they watch
their looms or other contrivances, and this is even more true when they are taking
their regular breaks.
The rule against being in a smoking area within the hour after coming to work
or the hour before leaving, though more clear cut, is nevertheless frequently ignored.
It was this provision of the rule which Respondent used to discharge Richard Bell.
This was preceded, as has been found, by giving him a writeup on August 23, along
with other employees who had been at the union meeting the day before. As to
Bell, at least, this was the first writeup for violation of the smoking rule, according
to the admission of Veal on cross-examination. Nor is there any evidence that any
other employee was ever written up for this reason, much less discharged.
On the night of September 28, Veal saw Bell smoking in the loading platform
office when he took some barrels of trash to the loading platform to dump them,
and dropped into the smoking area on the platform where he was joined by another
clothroom employee. Veal spotted them and told them they were not supposed to
smoke in that area. Under the new dispensation the chair in Bell's area had been
moved from its time-honored, but inconspicuous, place under some shelves where
cartons were stacked, and where Veal testified he could not see the employees smok-
ing or eating, to a spot immediately in front of Finley's and Veal's glass paneled
office. A few minutes before the end of the shift, at midnight, after he had cleaned
up his work place, Bell dropped into it. Veal saw him and took him to the office
where he discharged him for violating the smoking rule by smoking in the ware-
house office and, later, in his own smoking area but during the last hour before the
end of work. Veal admitted that Bell had finished his cleaning and straightening
up his work area prior to leaving the plant, and admitted further that it was proper
for him to take 15 minutes to do this before the end of the shift. He admitted also
that he had no complaints as to Bell's work performance.
-I find that the reason advanced by Respondent for Bell's discharge was a pretext
only, and that like union members in the clothroom he was discharged because of
his union activity.
Carl Richmond: Richmond operated a print machine on the first shift in finishing
department 2, along with two other employees. He was hired in July 1958. He
joined the Union and on September 19, 1963, he began wearing his union button
while at work. He was discharged 4 days later. On that date while Childs, the
second hand and Richmond's supervisor, together with Richmond and two helpers,
were clearing the copper print roller on the print machine and setting it up for pro-
duction, the doctor blade, weighing about 40 pounds, fell down into the pan. When
cleaning the machine Richmond's practice was to raise the doctor blade and hook
it up with a weight to keep it from sliding. On this occasion he neglected to do so.
Childs was away from the machine at the moment and Richmond examined the print
roll to see whether the doctor blade had struck it, and concluded that it had not.
When Childs returned he started up the print machine and Childs and Richmond
immediately saw that the cloth was streaking. Childs adjusted the blade but the
cloth continued to streak so he shut down the machine. It was then seen that the
print roll had a hole and several scratches in it. Childs asked what had happened
and Richmond told him the blade dropped into the pan. It was concluded, appar-
ently correctly, that it had struck the print roll in falling. Childs told the crew to
clean up the machine and he reported the matter to William Lybrand, superintendent
of the finishing department, who came to examine the machine. Shortly afterward
Lybrand sent for Richmond and told him he was discharged The machine was
sent away to be repaired.
In discharging Richmond, Lybrand testified that "most of all" he blamed Richmond
for not telling Childs, when he returned to the print machine and started it up,
"what had happened." Richmond's contention was that nothing had happened
worthy of reporting to Childs since, as he believed, no damage had been done.
221-374-66-vol 15 7-6 0
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Richmond had been employed for 5 years. There is no evidence that Respondent
had ever before criticized him for the manner in which he operated the print machine,
or had ever written him up for any reason whatever. I find that its real reason for
discharging him on September 19 was his activity in the Union, announced 4 days
before that, and further proclaimed by wearing his union button at work.
Cedric Drake: Drake worked as a filling hauler on the third shift in weaveroom 3
until his discharge on September 12, 1963. He had been employed 9 years. He
joined the Union that summer and Respondent was so advised. On August 22 he
attended the union meeting previously referred to and signed a letter to Respondent
advising of his affiliation, and on August 26 started wearing his union button at
work. On August 24 following Respondent's receipt of his letter of the 22d, he
received a writeup for smoking in violation of a department rule against smoking
during the first hour at work. This was the first writeup since the early years of
his employment. On September 12 at 2 p.m. Ray Smith, assistant overseer in the
clothroom and Drake's immediate supervisor, took Drake off his regular job as
service grader and put him to work on a sample job in place of another employee
who had to leave the plant. Smith's testimony is that "casually" and "not par-
ticularly noticing" he nevertheless saw Drake leave the department five times, for
periods of 7 to 10iminutes, up to the end of the shift at 4 p.m., although he did not
see where he went. He did not at the time say anything about this to Drake, although
on several of the five occasions Drake passed him in the aisle. He testified he was
"too busy" to do so.
Drake's testimony is that the grading frames on which he worked were unusually
greasy and when he left them it was to go to the waterhouse to wash his hands and
to obtain rags to wipe the rollers and frames. At the end of the shift Smith called
Drake to his office and told him he was discharged. He did not ask him what his
absences from his frame were due to, or give him a chance to say.
Not only did Smith not speak to Drake about leaving his frames or ask him why
he did so, but he admitted while on the stand that he had decided to discharge
him before he called him to the office.
Smith's close observation of Drake's actions during the 2 hours preceding his
discharge, despite his emphasis that this was only "casual," and his failure to speak
to Drake about leaving his department at the time, coupled with his failure to ask
at the terminal interview why he had absented himself or to give him a chance to
explain , and his failure otherwise to investigate whether Drake's absence was due
to the requirements of his job, convince me, and I find, that the writeup of Drake,
an employee of 9 years' standing, and his discharge simultaneously with Respond-
ent's being advised of his union membership, were not for any legitimate business
reason, but because of his just announced membership in the Union.
Theodore Adams: Adams was employed in May 1962. He worked as a filling
hauler in weaveroom 3 on the third shift and had the responsibility for bringing
filling from the preparation department to about 125 third-shift looms. His second
hand was Phillips and the general overseer, J. B. Martin.
Adams joined the Union during the summer and his name appeared along with
others on a union leaflet distributed at the plant on September 13. Respondent thus
acquired knowledge of his union affiliation.
Adams had never received a writeup for any reason up to the night of his dis-
charge on September 19, 1963. On this night Phillips told him that 2 looms among
the 125 which he tended needed filling brought to them. He went to the truck on
which the boards with filling were placed and brought back a board and hung it up
on the loom. It was shortly found to be filling of the wrong type. Phillips called
him to the office and showed him a personnel action report for laying up the wrong
board of filling. Adams refused to sign it and went back to his job. Just before the
end of the shift he was called to the office again where Phillips and Martin were
present. Phillips told him he was discharged for letting quills fall on the floor and
for bringing the wrong type of filling to a loom, the offense for which he had been
written up on his first call to the office a few hours before.56
Nothing was cited at the time of his discharge that had happened in the interval
since the writeup, and the testimony of Martin seems to corroborate this. Phillips,
it has been stated, did not testify. Sutherlin, however, the other second hand on the
51 The writeup which he had been given, in addition to putting up boards of the wrong
material , made mention of an incident sometime previously when Adams , as he admitted
while testifying, let a can of quills, or bobbins, overflow onto the floor. Just what happened
is not clear since Phillips , who observed the incident , was not called as a witness. The
record shows that quills are often spilled for one reason or another by the employees.
Martin testified that on occasion he himself picked them up.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 933
shift along with Phillips, and under whose direction Adams worked that night due
to the temporary absence of Phillips, testified that Adams let filling run out on one
of his looms so that it had to be shut down until more could be obtained. As I
read the record, this occurred prior to the incident of Adams' bringing the wrong
filling board to the looms.
I find the reason advanced by Respondent for Adams' discharge trivial and the
actual reason was his union activity. Brock Adams, a cousin of Theodore and him-
self an employee, testified credibly that when he was hired on February 20 by "Snow"
Kirby, personnel manager, just a month after his cousin's discharge, Kirby said
during the hiring interview, "I guess you know about the people outside the gate,
and the union," going on to say, "We're not telling you what to do, don't get me
wrong. You can do whatever you want to, but we don't want it in here ourselves...."
So as to drive the point home Kirby continued, "I guess you heard about your
brother Theodore, ..." when Adams cut him off by saying that Theodore Adams
was his cousin. Although Kirby did not complete his sentence it is obvious that
what he did say, when taken in context, connected his cousin's discharge with the
Union, which he had said Respondent did not want in the plant. Kirby testified
that in this interview he told Brock Adams, as he did all new employees, that he
did not have to join the Union. He did not deny making the statement concerning
Theodore Adams which Brock Adams attributed to him.
Cornell Laughter: Laughter came to work in May 1963 and was discharged on
the following August 23. At this time he was a cloth doffer for 400 looms in the
weaveroom on the first shift, and the only cloth doffer so employed. His assistant
overseer was King Bramlett. During this 3-month period he was given four wage
increases. He attended the union meeting on August 22 which, as has been noted,
was the first organizational meeting for employees of the entire plant. At that meet-
ing he signed a letter to Respondent advising it of his membership. This was
apparently not received by Respondent before his discharge the next day.
On the following day Laughter returned to the floor after a visit to the water-
house to find five flags up on looms which needed doffing. He proceeded to attend
to them but ran into difficulty with one loom when he found that the battery was
dead on an electric jack he was using. He had also to remove a roll of cloth from
another loom and take it down on the elevator to No. 2 weaveroom. When he got
around to the other looms one of them had stood for 25 minutes. Bramlett called
him to the office and discharged him. About 2 weeks before this he was given the
only personnel action report received during his 2 months' employment. This was
for letting a loom stand.
Laughter's union activity at Respondent's mills was not the first such activity of
which it had knowledge. Prior to starting work at the Slater plant he was employed
at Cranston Print Works, where he was a member of the Union. His brother,
Thomas Laughter, was instrumental in his getting a job with Respondent through
Finley, general overseer of the clothroom. Laughter testified that Finley asked him
if his brother worked "under a union" at Cranston, and Laughter told him that he
did. Finley said that he would not say that he would not hire Cornell Laughter,
but that it was "against the company rules" to hire anybody who worked "under a
Union," Respondent did not hire Cornell at this time. A year or more later
Thomas Laughter again applied for a job for his brother, and this time he was
successful. Laughter told Finley that his brother had told him that he would have
nothing more to do with the Union if Respondent hired him. This was just prior
to the Union's organizing drive at Respondent's plants.
As has been found, Cornell Laughter did join the Union at the August 22 meeting.
It has been found that what was done and who was present at this meeting was
promptly reported to Supervisor Reese, and that on the following day some employ-
ees who were present were written up and others discharged. Thomas Laughter,
who also attended the meeting, was written up 2 days later, on August 24, by Roy
Smith, assistant overseer in the clothroom, as was, among others, Cedric Drake,
whose discriminatory discharge followed. When Smith started to writeup Laughter
he told him that it was for violating the smoking rules. Laughter reminded him
that he did not smoke. Smith then changed the writeup to charge him with talking
too much on the job. But before Laughter signed it he reminded Smith that his
brother, Cornell, had been discharged the day before and gave it as his opinion
that this was because of the Union, to which Smith replied, "Well, yes, the Company
is kind of reared up about it." Smith then asked Laughter if he himself had any-
thing to do with the Union and he replied that he was not going to have anything
to do with it. A few days later, however, provoked by being written up by Smith,
Thomas Laughter changed his mind, joined the Union, and began wearing his union
button in the mill. Finley came to him and reminded him that he had told Overseer
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Smith that he was not going to have anything to do with the Union and Laughter
told him he had changed his mind. Thereupon , he testified , Smith and Finley watched
him more closely than before on the job and followed him into the waterhouse.
After a day or so of this Laughter removed his union button . He was still employed
at the time he testified.
Laughter 's testimony as to the statements of Finley and Smith and their interro-
gations of him was not denied by them, although they were called as witnesses. I find
that they were made as Laughter related. I further find that Cornell Laughter was
hired when his brother , Thomas, assured Respondent that Cornell was not further
interested in the Union , which he had joined at his previous place of work , and that
when Cornell Laughter did in fact join the Union at Respondent's plant, Respondent
discharged him.
Thomas Bishop: Bishop was hired in October 1962 as a filling hauler at $1.39 an
hour. He did this work for several months and was demoted to loom shiner on the
spare floor at $1.32 an hour. According to Bishop, this was because Blackwell,
assistant overseer, was dissatisfied with his work , and he was told at the time that
the transfer was the alternative to being discharged. Subsequently , he was trans-
ferred to a job as battery filler in the weaveroom and performed this work about 2
months up to his discharge on September 9, 1963. These transfers were prior to^
the appearance of the Union. Also prior to the Union's campaign Bishop was wnt-
ten up twice for unsatisfactory work. He joined the Union and attended the meeting
on August 22. It has been found that Reese, supervisor on the third shift in the
finishing department, was informed as to who was present at that meeting. A few
days following the meeting Bishop began wearing his union button at work.
After he joined the Union he was written up twice more, once on August 29 for
reporting late to work which , according to Leslie Conner , assistant shift overseer, he
did about once a week . Bishop admitted that once he was an hour and a half late.
The second writeup was on September 4 because several of the looms which he
serviced were stopped because he had not supplied them with yarn . On September 8,
the last night he worked , he had about 6 looms standing at various times during the
shift because of a lack of battery filling. Conner spoke to him about it twice. Bishop
finished the shift, but when he reported for work on the following night he was
discharged.
Bishop 's known presence at the union meeting on August 22 , immediately followed'
by strict enforcement of the smoking rules, the separation of employees at lunch,,
and the discharge for union activity of several who attended the meeting , raises a
suspicion that Bishop, too , was discharged because of his union activity. Suspicion,
however, is not enough. Bishop was demoted from his filling-hauling job to work
on the spare floor , as an alternative to discharge prior to the Union 's advent. So,
too, the writeups he received before he was given the battery filler job were prior
to the coming of the Union. After that event he was late for work on several occa-
sions, and some of his looms were stopped off because of his failure to keep them
supplied with yarn. On this state of the record I find that the General Counsel has
not met the burden of proof which rests upon him. I shall recommend that the
complaint be dismissed as to Thomas Bishop.
e. The Greer plant
Charles Plemmons- Plemmons was hired in 1961 and discharged on August 23,
1963, the day following the first organizational meeting of the Union in the Slater
and Greer plants. At the time of his discharge he was running four pin drafter
machines in the cardroom on the third shift. The other pin drafter operators were
Steve Verdin, William Coley, Joe Williams, and Troy Robertson. All of these
operators joined the Union on or about August 8, and Respondent was notified of
the event by letter which Respondent acknowledged on August 13. Simultaneously,
as was the practice, Respondent posted their names on the plant bulletin board.
These five operators were the only ones among the 25 employees in the department
whose names were posted as union members . Immediately upon posting, Charles
Brannon, overseer of the cardroom, watched their job performance more closely,
standing at the machines for substantial periods of time instead of only patroling
the aisles as formerly.
During the night that Plemmons name was posted he left his machine on one
occasion to speak to Williams at his machine, about 40 feet away from his own,
close enough so that he could keep an eye on it Brannon saw him, took him to the
office, and wrote him up for being off his job talking with another employee. This
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 935
was the first writeup he had been given since he had been hired.5T The testimony
,of both Plemmons and Williams, and other evidence in the record, is that an oper-
ator is permitted to leave the immediate vicinity of his machine provided that he
can see it and intervene if for any reason it is stopped off. Consistent with this
practice, operators are supposed to smoke in the smoking chair from which the pin
drafter machines can be observed, and not in the waterhouse unless they work on
machines in view from the waterhouse. Under these conditions employees were
permitted by practice to talk with other operators.
On August 24, the day of his discharge, it was reported to Brannon that he
engaged in horseplay in that, a few minutes before going on duty and while waiting
for the bell to ring, he swung a mop like a baseball bat and "hollered" in a loud voice,
"not at nobody or nothing" but "just hollering," and. a little later he "disturbed"
Verdin, another fellow operator. Verdin was not called as a witness.
At the end of the shift Brannon recommended to Mullinax, general overseer of
the cardroom, that Plemmons be discharged. An hour or two later Mullinax approved
it and Brannon told Plemmons that he was terminated because he had been away
from his machine twice that night. According to Plemmons' credited testimony,
when he asked for his termination slip to give to the unemployment service he was
told that it would be sent directly there by Respondent. Later, when he saw it at
the unemployment office, he learned for the first time that "horseplay" was given as
the reason for his discharge.
Brannon testified that employees were not supposed to engage in horseplay, but
admitted that it frequently occurred, particularly the slamming of heavy cans on
the floor to make a loud noise, in which there is credible testimony that he himself
engaged. The testimony of Charles Wall, an employee witness called by Respondent,
is that all the employees engaged in horseplay, including himself, and that though
Brannon "condemned" it and would "always call us down, and maybe put it on our
record. I don't know-." The testimony of Charles Coley, a pin drafter, is that
not a night passes without some type of horseplay such as "slamming a can down
behind you, or running up and punching you in the ribs, or yelling like a panther."
Brannon further admitted that he could not recall that in the 12 years he had
been on the job he had discharged any employee before Plemmons for interfering
with another employee, or, in fact, for any reason at all. I conclude and find the
incidents cited as reasons for discharging Plemmons were pretexts only, and that
the true reason was he just recently announced membership in the Union.
Charles Coley: Coley, like Plemmons, operated four machines in the cardroom.
He was on the third shift under the supervision of Brannon. Like Plemmons,-he
signed a card designating the Union, and his name was one of the five in the depart-
ment posted on the bulletin board.
Brannon first wrote up a personnel action report on Coley in March 1963 for
running some sliver on his machine which was bad because of a lapped nip roll.
The second time was on August 13, the same day Respondent posted his name on
the bulletin board as a member of the Union, assertedly for not cleaning one of his
machines properly. On September 3, Brannon wrote him up again, assertedly for
not cleaning a machine properly. As in the case of Plemmons, whose discharge had
been discussed above, Brannon did not show or read the writeups to Coley but
simply sent it on to Mullinax, the general overseer. I have previously found this
procedure to be pointless in achieving the stated purpose of a personnel action report,
which is to inform an employee of his shortcoming, and to caution or warn him
against its repetition. Brannon's action in simply filing these writeups without
communicating them to Plemmons or Coley served only the purpose of building up
a case against them.
On the night of September 20, 1963, Coley's No. 7 machine was shut down because
the rip roller had lapped and interfered with the bars. Coley took the bars out,
cleaned the machine, and went to the pickerroom and obtained other bars which he
67 That is, the first and only writeup which he was handed or had read to him Bran-
non testified in cross-examination as to an incident of alleged horseplay and another in-
cident of talking to another employee, that he wrote up personnel action reports but put
them in Plemmons' personnel file without showing or reading them to him. The principal
purpose of issuing a personnel action report is a disciplinary one, and serves to reprimand
the employee and to inform him what his shortcomings are. Obviously neither purpose
is served by merely pigeon-holding a writeup. In doing so Respondent violated its declared
policy of letting the employee see the report and initialing it, or not, as he wishes I
find that Respondent's only purpose in writing up these reports was to build a case against
Plemmons
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
brought to No. 7 machine for installing . Brannon called him over to No. 5 machine,
pointed out that that machine had been started up again after it had automatically
stopped to permit cleaning , and that it had not in fact been cleaned . It had run
for 325 yards, which Brannon stated would take 3 or 4 minutes. Coley denied that
he had started up the machine and so testified , but Brannon , after asking other
employees if they had done so, without obtaining any enlightenment, insisted that
Coley must have started it . Brannon told him that he was discharged and sent him
home. Shift Overseer Brannon consulted with Assistant Plant Superintendent James
Hazel who consulted with Plant Superintendent Huff, and the next morning Mullinax
made Coley's discharge final.
It does not appear from Brannon 's testimony that any harm was done by running
the sliver for 325 yards, as it is said to have done, without the machine having
been cleaned:
TRIAL EXAMINER: Mr. Witness , with respect to this 325 yards that ran after
the machine was started up again-you are not contending that there was any
damage done to the quality of this cloth?
The WITNESS: Well, if the cleaning is not performed, now-
TRIAL EXAMINER : I am not saying in any likelihood; was actually any dam-
age done to this particular 325 yards.
The WITNESS: I cannot say whether there was or not-
TRIAL, EXAMINER : -I think you said not to your knowledge?
The WITNESS: I say again , if you run it, you got sheds, it builds up on the
clearers, and it will-drop off the clearers , and drop in the sliver, which will cause
slubs and nips-
TRIAL EXAMINER : I understand that; that is why you want it cleaned every
1100 yards, but in this case, was any actual damage done that you know of?
Don't look at Mr. Blakeney ; just look at me; was there any actual damage done
that you know of?
The WITNESS: Well, the only possible way we could have told that was [tot
run and put it in the cloth , and look at the cloth.
I am not convinced that Coley started up the machine before cleaning it. Assum-
ing, without finding, that to be the case, I cannot on this record believe that this
was the reason for his discharge. I find that Coley, like his fellow operator,
Plemmons, was discharged because of his union membership. '
James Dyer: Dyer, who has been continuously employed on the second shift in
the No. 1 finishing department of the Slater plant , sent his name to the Company on
September 27, 1963, as a union member . His testimony is that up to the time he
joined the Union he had worked 16 to 24 hours a week overtime ever since he had
been employed, but that after he joined he received none, although other employees
did. Since April 20, 1964, after the complaint herein had been issued , he has been
given "some" overtime . This is substantially all of Dyer 's testimony on direct exam-
ination on the subject of overtime . It was developed , however, that shortly after
September 27 the finishing department went on a 6-day week and that not only
Dyer but the other employees worked 6, and sometimes 7, days a week. In the
sense that all beyond 40 hours a week was overtime , Dyer got as much overtime
pay as previously , and perhaps more. By overtime , however, Dyer testified that he
meant working a double shift when some employee on the third shift failed to
show up. Before he joined the Union, he stated , this amounted to 16 to 24 hours
a week or 2 or 3 double shifts. This was when the regular workweek was 5 days.
After he joined the Union , he testified , he did not work over into the next shift,
although other employees did. Asked on cross-examination if it was not true that
during the 6 months prior to his joining the Union the only occasions he worked
overtime in any 1 week was when the whole department worked on Saturdays, with
the exception of about three occasions when he worked onto the next shift, Dyer
answered that he could not remember . On this state of the record there is no
meaningful comparison which can be drawn between overtime worked after Sep-
tember 27, 1963, by Dyer and that worked by other employees.
I find that the General Counsel has not met the evidential burden imposed upon
him, and that the allegations of the complaint as to Dyer should be dismissed.
f. The Appalache plant
Artes Smith: Smith came to work in 1962 as a weaver in the Appalache plant on
the second shift. He had had 25 years' previous experience in weaving . He joined
the Union in August 1963 , and in accordance with practice the Union sent his name
T. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 937
to Respondent who posted it on the bulletin board. When Carl Burrell, Smith's shift
overseer, saw it, he told Smith, according to the latter, that it "shocked him." Bur-
rell denied saying this. There is other evidence, some of it undenied of Burrell's
antiunion statements, and I find this one in character and that he made it. Smith
became active in the organizational drive, calling on employees at their homes with
a union organizer. On August 21, in the company of a union representative, he
passed out leaflets at the mill gate to employees coming to work on the first shift,
until Mill Manager A. C. Taylor ordered him to get off company property. On the
following day Respondent discharged him. According to Taylor, it was for
making seconds.
Burrell admitted that Smith had not been issued a personnel action report during
his year of employment. Like all weavers, he had been criticized orally for making
seconds. For several weeks before Smith's discharge Respondent was engaged in
one of its periodic "drives" to keep the seconds down. The percentage of seconds
to total output of each weaver was posted weekly in the plant. Smith's testimony is
that for the week ending August 12 his seconds were 14 percent. Burrell's testimony
is that they were 171/z percent.58 In any event, there is no dispute but that for the
following week, the week last fall before Smith's discharge, his seconds had fallen
to 9 percent, and that this was posted on August 21, the day before his discharge.
On the evening of August 21, Burrell found a loom running cloth with a misreed
and another making jerkbacks with every change of filling, and called these to
Smith's attention.59 Smith took out the misreed and started the loom up again.
Burrell reported the incident to Wade, general overseer of the weaveroom, who
reported it to Taylor. Taylor as I found, earlier that day had chased Smith away
from the plant gate when he was passing out union leaflets. Taylor decided that
Respondent should discharge him and when he reported for work the following
afternoon Burrell did so. Taylor was able to name, while testifying, only three
employees out of several hundred in the weaveroom in all classifications who had
been discharged in the 6 years he had been there, and these had been' employed
for only a few weeks.
As I have found, Smith's seconds had come down from •14 or 171/2 percent, accord-
ing to whether one credits Smith or Taylor, for the week ending August '12, to 9
percent for the week ending August 19. The figures for the week in which Smith
was discharged would not be posted until a few days later. At the hearing, Respond-
ent did not adduce testimony as to what they were.
The substantial improvement in Smith's rate of seconds in the week prior to his
discharge, Smith's long experience as a weaver, and the absence of any writeups
during his entire employment with Respondent, coupled with his current activity in
the Union in which Taylor had intervened the day before, leads me to conclude that
Respondent discharged Smith because of his union activity.
Marshall Phillips: Phillips is still employed by Respondent, and the allegations
of the complaint in his case are that he was discriminatoriy denied overtime work.
He signed up for the Union on August 8, 1963, and his name was sent to Respondent
and posted about August 13. He wore his union button in the plant for 2 or 3 weeks
and then ceased doing so. His testimony is that prior to this time he was averaging
2 days a week in overtime work as a weaver, and that after his name was posted he
was not assigned to such work until the following November, when he worked 3
nights, although other weavers, some of less seniority than he, were. He testified
that on two occasions, probably in May 1964, he was offered this work but refused
it. He did not inquire why he was not given more.
The above is the extent of Phillips' testimony. Malcomb Jones, assistant overseer
on the third shift, testified that Phillips, on August 20, worked one night during the
period that Phillips testified he was offered no work. Otherwise, his testimony agrees
substantially with Phillips' except that on several Sunday nights during the summer
and early fall of 1963, after midnight, he went to Phillips' home to get him to come
in but on each occasion he was not at home or refused to come. On these nights
Jones, who worked on the third shift, needed someone to take the place of a weaver
who did not show up. The plant worked all week for three shifts through Friday.
It then shut down and started up at midnight Sunday. The result was that weavers
on the proceeding second shift, who during the week would be asked to work the
following shift, were not available Sunday night.
,;e Smith 's uncontradicted testimony is that for this week the seconds of Burrell's wife
were 27 percent.
5'Burrell 's testimony is that the fixer is responsible for the making of jerkbacks and
not the weaver, since jerkbacks are due to a mechanical defect . But the weaver is sup-
posed to catch them. There is no showing that Smith would not have caught them.
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
• Jones' testimony is that getting anyone to come in on Sunday nights at midnight
is a "desperation" effort. To summarize, the evidence is that with the possible excep-
tion of the night of August 20 , shortly after his name was posted, Phillips was not
offered overtime work from the time he joined the Union until May 1964, after the
charges herein were filed, except on three or four Sunday nights when Respondent
was unable to obtain anyone else ; whereas previous to joining the Union he worked
one or two nights overtime almost every week on other nights than Sunday. On
these occasions he would be asked by Jones, when he found he was short a weaver,
to stay over and work the third shift. No reason is advanced by Respondent for not
offering Phillips overtime work during this period , except on Sunday nights, with
the possible exception of August 20. The only defense is that on some Sunday
nights it did, in fact , offer him overtime but he refused it. The record supports this
contention . It also supports the conclusion , which I draw, that Respondent 's "des-
peration" on some Sunday nights was greater then its hostility to the Union. On
other nights than Sunday I find Respondent denied Phillips overtime work because
of his union activity.
Jerry King: King worked in the weaveroom as a warp service hand under the
immediate supervision of Carl Burrell, assistant overseer . He joined the Union and,
along with Artes Smith , a weaver whom I have found Respondent discriminatorily
discharged , and Phillips , to whom I have found it discriminatorily denied overtime,
King wore his union button at work. His name was posted on the bulletin board as
a union member about the middle of August . Shortly afterward , Burrell came up
to him on the job and said , according to King's uncontradicted testimony which I
credit , that Respondent did not need outside help in solving its problems and that
it was his understanding that "some of the guys had backed out who had sent their
names in" as union members. King replied that he did not think he himself would
do so . I have previously found that Burrell told Artes Smith , a weaver whom I
have found Respondent discriminatorily discharged , that it "shocked" him when
he saw Smith 's name posted as a union supporter.
King's further testimony is that after his name was posted he , like Phillips, was
not asked to work overtime until sometime in April 1964 , when he received 8 hours,
although others were consistently assigned overtime. Before he joined the Union
he averaged about 16 hours a week overtime.
The testimony of James Herring, assistant overseer in the weaveroom , differs from
that of King in that he states that on several Sunday nights , shortly after midnight
when the mill started up after being shut down over Saturday , he did attempt to get
in touch with King but when he managed to do so he refused to come in . I credit
this testimony . It seems clear that it was only on the shift starting at midnight on
Sundays that Respondent , out of its "desperate" need , as Jones termed it in connection
with Phillips , resorted to calling King. Like Phillips he was not asked to work over
from the second shift to the third as he had done before he joined the Union. I find
that by not assigning King overtime work of this type , Respondent discriminated
against him because of his union affiliation.
g. The Victor plant
Dale Payne: Payne had worked at the Victor plant for 2 years when he was dis-
charged on September 9, 1963. At this time he was working as a helper in the slash-
ing room under the supervision of Leonard Padgett, shift foreman. He joined the
Union and called at the homes of employees with William Stamps, a union repre-
sentative, to solicit their membership. At this time Brock Beeks, general overseer;
asked him how he felt about the Union. When Payne did not reply Beeks told him
that if there w-is anything Payne would like to talk over with him he wished he would
come to Beeks rather than to someone else. Later, Beeks asked him if he had been
thinking over what Beeks had said and asked him if he had any questions, to which
Payne said he did not. During the same period Padgett told him that a "lot of places"
had been "torn all to pieces by the Union."
About half of Payne's time as a slasher helper was spent in taking warps off the
slasher after they had been doffed and hanging them up on a rack. When he did so
he tore the stub off a ticket attached to the warp, and marked on it the number of the
rack and the row where the warp was hung. He then hung the stub back on the slasher
where the supervisor would pick it up and post it on a large board in the slasher room.
There. it stayed until the warp was needed in the weaveroom. The supervisor would
pick up the stub, put a loom number on the back of it, and drop it in a box where
the warp hand would pick it up and procure the warp from the rack and row indicated
on the stub. There are from 400 to 500 racks in all When the wrong rack number
is put on a warp stub it may take 30 minutes or longer to locate it, or it may take very
little'time.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 939
On September 4 Beeks wrote Payne up for putting incorrect rack numbers on four
stubs on August 12 and 13, as a result of which, he testified, a warp service helper
was delayed in finding the warps. Moon, warp service foreman on the first shift, testi-
fied, however, that he found duplicate warps so that no production time was lost.
On September 6, Payne handled 15 to 25 warps during his shift. Before the shift
ended Beeks called him to the office and told him that there had been a mistake in
marking the row or rack number on one of the rows, although it does not appear when
the mistake was made, whether before or after Payne was written up on September 4.
Payne, accordin gto Padgett, when told there was a mistake, went directly to the warp.
Beeks, however, told Payne he was discharged. The record shows that no slasher
helper had ever previously been discharged for mismarking or misplacing warps.
Payne had not been written up before he joined the Union. As to the writeup of
September 4, assuming that he was responsible for misfiling four warps, production
was not affected. Nor was it on September 6, the last day he worked. These two
complaints as to Payne impress me as insubstantial. I am of the opinion that
Respondent's reason for discharging him was his activity on behalf of the Union.
Charlie Jenkins. Jenkins had worked a total of 33 years for Respondent when he
was discharged on October 23, 1963. During his last 16 to 18 years he worked as a
loom fixer on the second shift. When the Union began organizing in the spring or
summer of 1963 he became active in it and, in the company of Stamps, a union repre-
sentative, called on employees at their homes. About August 15 or 16, on a day
when the Union was distributing literature at the mill gate, Harold Hendrix, assistant
overseer of No. 1 weaveroom, called Jenkins and three other loom fixers together and
cautioned them, as he did periodically, to be careful to keep the cloth on a loom clean
and to be careful about laying dirty tools on the cloth while working on a loom.
After Jenkins had gone back to his job, Hendrix came to him and asked him how
many more years his daughter had to go to college. Wren Jenkins said only 1 year
more and that he hoped she could finish, Hendrix agreed and in the same breath asked
him, according to Hendrix's own account, if Jenkins knew the people who were
passing out union literature at the gate, where they were from, and if he had ever
talked with them, all of which Jenkins answered in the affirmative. Hendrix was not
able to say on cross-examination what led him to bring Jenkins' daughter into his
interrogation of Jenkins concerning the Union.
It is evident, and I find, that this coupling of Jenkins' daughter and her future at
college with inquiries as to Jenkins own contacts with the Union, was designed to be,
and was, a warning that any collective activity on his part would endanger his
daughter 's future.
About a week later, on August 23 (the day after the union meeting previously
referred to), when Jenkins was repairing a loom, Hendrix observed that he had one or
more tools lying on the cloth as he worked. Hendrix called his attention to this,
pointed to what he asserted were spots on the cloth, and wrote him up.
It is undisputed that this was the first writeup Jenkins had received in his 33 years'
employment.
On September 12 Hendrix wrote up Jenkins a second time, assertedly for not
setting a loom correctly after putting on a new shuttle, and for working on a reed on
the loom which, according to Hendrix, is supposed to be worked on only by the
second hand, in this instance, Woodrow Phillips. Jenkins denied that Hendrix had
ever told him not to work on a reed. In any event, after Jenkins had started working
on the reed, Phillips came over and worked with him and in about 3 minutes, accord-
ing to Phillips, a Respondent witness, he thought he had fixed the reed and ordered
Jenkins to start the loom up. After it had run a few yards the loom began making
streaks in the cloth, so Phillips shut it off and put in a new reed.
Jenkins attended the regional meeting of the Union at Charlotte on October 6,
reference to which has previously been made in connection with the discharge of
other employees. Jenkins and Payne, as has been stated, were the only two in the
Victor plant whose names were posted as union members.
On Friday, October 18, Hendrix told Jenkins that he had set a temple bar too
close on one of the machines he was repairing , and sent him home with instructions
to return the following Monday. On Monday, Jenkins reported to the office of
Thomas Fowler, general overseer of the weaveroom, where Stasney, superintendent
of weaving, in the presence of Fowler and Hendrix, read him a writeup which had
been made concerning Hendrix's complaint of the preceding Friday. Stasney turned
to Fowler and Hendrix and asked them if they wanted Jenkins in the weaveroom
any longer, and they said they did not. Stasney, accordingly, suggested to Jenkins
that he quit, promising him that Respondent would give him a good recommenda-
tion. Jenkins replied that he did not want to quit, protesting that he had a good
record with Respondent, and reminded management that he had not missed a day's
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work in the last 8 or 9 years, and only 3 or so days in the more than 20 years before
that. This is not disputed. With reference to the two writeups which Stasney read
him, Jenkins rejoined that Hendrix had never complained about his work until his
name was posted as a union member when, as I have found, Hendrix asked him if
he knew the union organizers distributing literature at the mill gate, and Jenkins had
replied that he did. Stasney asked Hendrix if Jenkins' statement that Hendrix had
asked him about the union organizers was true, and Hendrix said it was.
Stasney, after Jenkins refused his invitation to quit his job, offered him one as a
warp serviceman paying $1.98 an hour. As loom fixer, Jenkins had been getting
$2.15. Stasney told him, according to Stasney's own account, "If you don't take it,
as far as I am concerned, you've quit " Jenkins said that he wasn't quitting but that
he would like to get advice on the matter from someone else. When Stasney demurred
to this, Jenkins then said he would take the job and the meeting broke up.
On the following day, October 22, Stasney took Jenkins up to the warp service
department and turned him over to Beeks, department overseer, with whom Stasney
had previously discussed Jenkins' transfer. Beeks, I have found above, had dis-
charged Dale Payne, the only other posted union member in the Victor plant. Beeks
expressed his desire to help Jenkins any way he could both inside and outside the
mill, stated that he would be a good friend to Jenkins, and congratulated him on hav-
ing an opportunity to work at warp servicing. This job, like others, had really been
created by the efforts of those who were to be his fellow employees, and if Jenkins
did not believe this he could ask them. However, Jenkins would have to "cooperate"
with him.
Beeks put Jenkins to work at warp doffing. After he had worked about an hour
Beeks called him to his office and presented him with a change-of-status slip and
requested that he sign it, saying that this was plant policy when an employee was
transferred from one job to another. He testified that the object was to prevent an
employee from claiming later that he misunderstood his wage rate. The form stated
that Jenkins' rate as loom fixer had been $2.15 60 an hour and that his rate as a warp
serviceman would be $1.75 per hour. On the transfer slip, however, Fowler had
written as the reason for his transfer, "Taken off section due to poor loom fixing and
quality." Jenkins refused to sign the slip with this wording on it, protesting that it
was not true.
Beeks' testimony is that he told Jenkins that all he was interested in was in Jenkins'
acknowledging by signing the slip that he knew the warp service job was rated lower.
Jenkins had no objection to this and he suggested that the language confessing poor
loom fixing be crossed out, and he would sign. Beeks, instead, hailed another super-
visor, Tidwell, who was passing, and Beeks in Tidwell's presence again read the trans-
fer slip to Jenkins as it pertained to the rate of pay, and Tidwell signed the slip as a
witness to this fact. Since Jenkins had been informed of his change in rate the pre-
vious day by General Overseer Fowler, in the presence of Superintendent of Weaving
Stasney and Assistant Overseer Hendrix, and now by General Overseer Beeks in the
presence of Overseer Tidwell, a change he freely acknowledged but protested, it
might be thought that Jenkins' knowledge of the fact was established and annotated
beyond dispute. But Beeks again insisted that Jenkins sign the transfer slip. Jenkins
again refused unless the confession that he had done poor loom fixing was stricken.
Beeks then sought out Stasney and, failing to find him, spoke to General Superin-
tendent Crow, and Crow directed him to give Jenkins another opportunity to sign the
transfer slip. Again Beeks insisted that Jenkins sign the transfer slip without change,
reminding him of Beeks' reflections only that morning on the beauty of cooperation.
When Jenkins again refused, Beeks discharged him.
By the discharge of Jenkins, following that of Payne, Respondent eliminated the
only known pocket of union activity in the Victor plant. I find the reason Respondent
advances for his discharge-that he refused to sign the transfer slip as written-to be
only a pretext. Like Jess Cudd in the Whitmire plant, whom Respondent discharged
after 50 years in its employ when it had unsuccessfully failed to force his quitting, so
Respondent here discharged Jenkins after 33 years' service, because of his union
membership, when it failed to obtain his resignation.
h. The Watts plant
Background to the Discharges; Decimation of the Union Ranks
Forty-six employees at the Watts plant sent their names to the Company as being
members of the Union, some, including Clarence Poole, M. C. Richardson, and
Thomas Chappell, the union employees in the cording and picking room, in a telegram
81 This is what the form shows. Beeks testified that he had been getting $2.25 an hour.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 941
dated October 6 and the remainder in letters dated October 10 and 15. As in the
other plants, these communications were replied to and the names of the writers
posted on the bulletin board. Beginning around the middle of the month, mimeo-
graphed slips addressed to J. D. Good, a staff representative of the Union, in the fol-
lowing language, were circulated around the plant on company time:
Please remove my name as a member of the Union, as I want no part of it. A
copy of this letter is being sent to the main office of the Watts Mills Plant.61
The uncontroverted testimony of A. L. Hill, still employed as a loom fixer, who
joined the Union in October, is that about October 17 he was approached on the plant
floor by several fellow employees who gave him a slip similar to the above and asked
him to sign it, and later during the shift an employee came to him to tell him that the
supply of slips had been exhausted and asked him to type some more. Hill agreed
and, seeing that no flags were down at the moment on his looms, he went to the
weaveroom office. This is separated by a partition and a door from the office of
Superintendent Todd. In the presence of several other employees there he struck
,off a number of slips together with a mast copy for the duplicating machine, which
another employee ran off. These were then taken by employees present and circulated
among the others. Harold King, assistant overseer, passed in and out of the room on
the way to Todd's office while these activities were taking place, as did Todd himself.
Todd was present when Hill left and returned to his loom fixing. As he was leaving,
Todd remarked to another employee, in effect, that although he himself could have
nothing to do with these activities he was glad to see that they were taking place.
Neither Todd nor King was called as a witness. I credit Hill's account of these events.
A day or so later F. J. Hamrick, general superintendent, came to Hill's place of
work, and after shaking his hand said that he bore no hard feelings and that he was
glad to know that he had decided to leave the Union. The testimony of Claude
Shipman and Paul Brown, still employed, who signed these slips on their jobs, is that
Hamrick also patted them on the back and congratulated them on making the "right
decision."
As the result of these activities, known to and aided by Respondent, of the 46
employees in the plant whose names Respondent had posted on the bulletin board as
having joined, 42 within a few days notified Respondent they were withdrawing from
it. The four who did not sign a slip were Ford Kennedy, Wilbur Burke, Claude
Poole, and M. C. Richardson. Kennedy left the plant about the time with a heart
attack and was confined to the hospital 2 or 3 months. The record is not clear as to
Burke, but he was not in Respondent's employ at the time of the hearing. There
remained' Poole and Richardson. Respondent discharged them under the circum-
stances related hereinafter.
Clarence Poole: Poole came to work in January 1963, as a picker tender and doffer
in the pickerroom on the second shift at the Watts plant. His duties were to doff
several lines of picking machines, and to feed some of them with material.
Poole attended the union regional meeting at Charlotte on October 6, 1963, and the
Union advised Respondent by telegram the same evening that he was a union sup-
porter. On October 7 or 8 Respondent posted his name on the bulletin board. James
Merrill, a tender who worked alongside Poole and is still employed, testified without
contradiction that shortly before Poole's discharge Merrill's immediate supervisor,
Ernie Pennington, asked him if he had signed up in the Union, and stated that the
Company knew that Poole was trying to get all the carding and picker room employees
to join. Pennington was not called as a witness. I credit Merrill's testimony.
It is not disputed that prior to the Union's telegram Poole had never received a
writeup. On October 8, however, immediately upon receipt of the Union's telegram,
Russell Lyons, general overseer of the pickerroom and cardroom, told both him and
Thomas Chappell, whose name was posted 62 along with Poole's, that the production
of the second shift was off, but gave no details. Lyons at the same time spoke simi-
larly to the other second-shift employees. A week later, on October 15, James Bright,
assistant overseer, told him that the number of laps which he doffed per shift was the
lowest in amount of six pickers on the three shifts, and gave him the first writeup he
had received since his hiring. His testimony on cross-examination is that although
Poole's production was lower than Chappell's, Poole had to feed the machines and
Chappell did not. He said that Poole's production was lower than his opposite
numbers on the first and third shift, although he had never compared the figures'.
The testimony of Bright as to the production figures I find of little probative value.
m The slip in evidence bears the date of October 1'T.
E9 Chappell, however, later told Respondent that he was withdrawing from the Union.
He was not discharged.
942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
No records of any kind-were offered. The only conclusion I am able to draw is that
the production of the entire second shift was, during the first .week in October 1963,
the lowest of the three shifts in the card and picker rooms.
Bright further testified on cross-examination that the reason he wrote up Poole on
October 15 was for putting too large chunks of rayon in the hopper when he fed his
machines. He had observed Poole do that previously, but he had not written him up
for it. When he wrote Poole up for this on October 15 it was not only the only time
he had written up Poole, but the first time he had written anyone up for it,63 although
he admitted all employees at times feed the machines with too large chunks In
Poole's case he found that a piece was too large by coming over to his line of machines
and picking one out of the hopper and laying it on the floor for Poole to look at. He
admitted that he did not know it there was any other piece there which was too large,
and that he did not weigh it. At the hearing he estimated that it weighed around
5 pounds. After Bright had left his machine Poole put it on his scales and it weighed
14 ounces. Poole's testimony is that it was his understanding that pieces of material
fed the machine should not weigh more than a pound . Bright's testimony is that there
is no specified limit to the size or weight of the material fed the machines , but that it
is a matter of judgment.
On the following day, October 16, Bright observed that neither Poole nor Chappell
was at the picking machines , in spite of instructions that they were not to leave them
unattended . Chappell , according to Bright , returned in about 10 minutes after Bright
arrived, and Poole 10 minutes after Chappell. Poole told Bright that he had told
Chappell that he was leaving the job to go to the waterhouse. Bright did not ask
Chappell if this was the case, or make any other investigation to ascertain it, or to find
out how long either of them was gone. I find this to be a strange omission since if
Chappell remained at the machines when Poole left, it was Chappell, and not Poole,
who left them unattended when he himself went to the waterhouse. Poole's credited
testimony is that this was the fact. Chappell was not called as a witness.
On the following day, October 17, when Bright arrived at the plant, he went to
Lyons, told him about Poole's being away from his machine the night before, and
recommended that he be discharged. He did not mention that Chappell had been
absent at the same time. Lyons gave his consent and Bright told Poole that he was
through. Poole, according to Bright, was the only employee he had ever discharged
"for production purposes." I find, in fact, that Poole was not discharged for legiti-
mate business reasons but because of his affiliation with the Union. With the dis-
charge of Poole and Richardson, whose later separation is hereafter discussed, no
union members remained in the card and picker room.64
M. C. Richardson: Richardson came to work in May 1963 as a blender tender
whose job it was to bring bales of fabric to picker hoppers operated by him and
Poole, whose discharge has been discussed immediately above, and to feed 15 of them
with the material. Richardson , like Poole, attended the Union 's regional meeting in
Charlotte on October 6, and sent his name to Respondent who posted it on the
bulletin board in the card and picker room.
As in the case of Poole, since his hiring Respondent did not issue a personnel action
report to Richardson until after his name was posted. This was October 15, the same
day on which Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Union's telegram The
asserted reason for the writeup was that Richardson was letting his hopper run low
on material. On October 21 he was written up for the same cause and for not sweep-
ing up properly around his machine. On November 7 he was written up for not
setting up the stock for a blend change on No 2 picker, which is done so as not to
delay the picker. There is no evidence that the picker was in fact delayed. On
November 15 he was given a writeup for putting too large chunks of material in a
hopper. On one of these occasions Lyons, his overseer, reminded him of a previous
time when he had promised, according to Lyons, to quit his job if his work was not
satisfactory. On November 26, Lyons reminded him again of this and Richardson
replied that if Respondent was going to get rid of him it would have to fire him
Lyons accordingly did so. Richardson was the last union survivor in the Watts plant
whose name was posted.
i. The Piedmont plant
Herman Burgess: Burgess started to work in 1947 in the cardroom, where he was
still employed when he was terminated on April 27, 1964. His job originally was
68 Subsequently he did write up Richardson, the only remaining union member in his
department after Chappell 's withdrawal Richardson 's discharge on November 26 Is here-
after discussed.
14 Chappell withdrew from the Union
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 943
sweeping, but he had been hanging laps for 8 months before his layoff, and sometimes
ran a bobbin machine. He signed up with the Union around the latter part of March.
His name was not sent in to the Company. On one occasion he had a conversation
with Gibreath, carding overseer, who asked him if a union representative had been
to see him and Burgess gave him an enigmatic answer.
About the first of April Respondent moved into a new plant where Burgess was
put to work running a bobbin machine on the second shift. There were three
sweepers employed there, all of whom had been moved from the old plant, and all of
whom had more seniority than Burgess.
When Burgess came to work on April 27 he was told to go home and return the
next morning and see Gibreath, carding overseer. Gibreath told him he was laid off.
The record seems to reflect that the person who took his place as a bobbin machine
operator had less seniority in the department than Burgess had, but that he was a
regular bobbin operator with more seniority as such than Burgess. Burgess con-
sidered, as did Respondent, that his "regular" job was that of sweeper. On the
record as a whole I find that the General Counsel did not meet the burden imposed
upon him with respect to Burgess. It will be recommended that the complaint as to
him be dismissed.
3. Plants in the Roanoke Rapids area
Background; Surveillance by Respondent of Union Meetings
As stated previously, organization first began at the Roanoke, North Carolina,
plants of Respondent, and spread from there to plants in the Rock Hill and Green-
ville, South Carolina, areas. The Roanoke Rapids plants are Roanoke fabricating,
Patterson, Rosemary, including Rosemary fabricating, Roanoke 1, and Roanoke 2.
The first union activity of which the record speaks was in May 1963 and the first
union meeting on May 14. Employees in the Roanoke Rapids plants joined the Union
during the months of May, June, and July, but it was not until the latter part of
August, after various union members had been discharged, that the Union sent
Respondent the names of employees who had joined the Union, as it had done almost
from the beginning of organization in the Rock Hill and Greenville plants.
The question of employer knowledge of, or belief in, the union activities of its
employees, therefore, must during several months and as to certain employees rest on
such evidence as it generally rests on its situations where the question has not been so
conveniently removed from controversy; that is, on statements or interrogation by
supervision, scrutiny of employees distributing or receiving union literature at the
plant, conversations overheard in restrooms, furtive asides on the plant floor, and so
forth. In addition, at Greenville at least one supervisor obtained information from
employees as to what went on and who was present at the August 22 meeting. It
happened that up to that time the names of no union employees had been posted in his
own department. But I have found that he reported his arrangements to procure
information to the plant superintendent. It is a reasonable presumption that he also
communicated the names of the employees who had been reported to him. The
record shows close cooperation and a unity of action between the top management
at all Respondent's plants, even to the extent of identical posted notices to its employ-
ees, identical reply letters to the Union, and the posting of copies on the bulletin
boards. At the Watts plant in Greenville it was found that 42 of 46 employees who
sent their names to Respondent withdrew from the Union when encouraged to do so
by Respondent. Many of these were interviewed by management 65 and questioned
as to the membership of other employees. The object of interrogation is information
as it is of surveillance When they are engaged in it, it is a reasonable conclusion that
they meet with some success. Furthermore, it will be recalled that Burns, general
manager of Respondent's group of plants in the Great Falls area, testified that in
Mill Town where 100 to 125 supervisors and numerous employees lived, they all
passed along to him the information they gathered about the Union.
In Roanoke Rapids, unlike Rock Hill and Greenville where union meetings were
held in motels at out-of-town places, meetings of the Union took place in the hall of
the Paper Workers Union on the outskirts of town and directly across the street from
Chip's Drive-In, a new and popular place. It is strictly car service and anyone
parking there has an undisturbed view of the Paper Workers' union hall directly
across the road. No trees or other buildings impede the view, the two-story hall is
about 20 feet wide with no buildings on either side, its sole tenant is the Paper Workers
w As was also true at Republic plants 2 and 3 at Great Palls, where a group of employees
told Overseer Bankhead and Superintendent Smith that they wanted to get out of the
Union, and were questioned by them as to the union sentiments, of other employees and
what went on at union meetings
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union, and a sign on the building so proclaims. Unless the light is bad, anyone sitting
in a car in the lot at Chip's Drive-In can recognize anyone going in or out of the
union hall. Certainly any meeting of Respondent's employees would be recognized
as such by a plant supervisor, even if he did not recognize any particular individual.
Robert Rawlings, an overseer in the Roanoke fabricating plant, was sitting there in his
car with his wife and child on the evening of May 14, before dark, while the first
meeting of the Union was taking place across the street. Employees were entering
the hall, and Adolphus Bell, employed in the department where Rawlings worked, was
talking outside with a union organizer before entering. Bell recognized Rawlings.
Leroy Casey, another employee in Rawlings' department, testified credibly that as he
approached the hall in his car intending to go to the meeting he saw Rawlings and
continued on past the hall. Some 15 or 20 minutes later when he returned Rawlings
was still there. He drove on without attending the meeting.
Another meeting of the Union was held at the same hall on June 6, which Bell'
attended. Again he saw Rawlings in his car across the street. Rawlings, as will be
seen, brought about Casey's discharge on May 24 and Bell's on June 19, as well as
those of two other employees who were present at the meetings, namely, Reginald
Nicholson and Lloyd Edwards.
Rawlings testified that although he sometimes drove in at Chip's he could not
remember being there when there was a meeting across the street, or seeing Bell or
Casey there. He stated that if he was there it would have been with his wife and
child 66 I find that Rawlings was present on the occasions in question and that he-
engaged in surveillance of the union meetings.
a. The Roanoke fab, icating plant
Lillian Hux: The two Hux girls, Lillian and Rochel]a, are cousins by marriage.
Rochella had worked about a year and a half folding towels in the put-up department
on the first shift under the supervision of Rawlings, previously identified. Lillian
went to work in the hemming department on July 15, 1963, on the second shift under
Merriman, assistant overseer. She was discharged on July 18, Rochella was dis-
charged on July 23.
The put-up department and the hemming department occupy adjacent space in a
large room, and there is no partition between them. On July 17, the third day Lil-
lian Hux reported for work, the Union was distributing leaflets at the plant gate.
As she came through the gate a few minutes before 4 p.m , the beginning of the
second shift, she was handed a leaflet and she proceeded into the plant carrying it in
her hand. One of the girls she passed told her that she should get rid of it, so she
looked around for a trash can and could not find one. Her credited testimony is
that she did not yet know where the cans were located. Accordingly, she went over
to Rochella's table where, having finished work, Rochella was figuring up her pro-
duction time preparatory to going off duty The time then, according to both Hux
girls, was only a few minutes before 4 o'clock. Lillian told Rochella that she had
been advised to get rid of the leaflet but that she could not find a trash can, and
asked Rochella to dispose of it as she went out. Rochella put the leaflet in her purse.
At this moment Rawlings came upon them and he stopped and surveyed them but
said nothing to them. His testimony is that he saw Lillian give Rochella a paper
which he believed to be union literature, and that the two talked "two or three min-
utes." Rochella brushed by Rawlings and deposited the leaflet in a nearby can as
the whistle blew and Lillian went to her work station.
At the end of the shift at midnight, Merriman, her immediate supervisor, called
Lillian Hux to his office and told her that he had been instructed to discharge her
because of a complaint by Rochella's overseer, Rawlings,67 that she had been keep-
ing "one of his girls" (Rochella) from her work. She protested that she had not
been told when she was hired that she was not supposed to speak to other employees,
and that other employees coming on shift commonly talked with employees going
off shift while waiting for the whistle to blow. This unquestionably is true. Merri-
man told her that perhaps he was not explaining it satisfactorily and to see Plant
Superintendent Mason Lee. She did so the following morning
While waiting for Lee in his outer office she engaged in conversation with Rawl-
ings and she renewed her protest that she had not been told not to talk to other girls
while waiting for the bell to ring, and expressed the opinion "it was because of that
OsBell 's testimony gains added credence in that he testified as to the presence of the
wife and child before Rawlings testified
67 Rawlings made the complaint directly to Mason Lee , plant superintendent , who in-
structed her supervisor, Merriman , to discharge her.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 945
union paper," to which he replied, "That's right." Rawlings did not deny making
this response. He testified that he told her he had nothing to do with her discharge
and that she would have to talk to Lee. When Lee came in she repeated to him
what had happened the day before. Lee said that Rochella should have known bet-
ter than to let Lillian talk to her, and for her to come back that afternoon prepared
to go to work. When she reported back, however, Lee told her that things stood as
they had the day before, but that "as soon as this thing blew over" he would see
about using her again. Lee testified that he told her that Respondent had "a justifi-
able reason" for discharging her, and denied that he used the phrase "as soon as thing
blows over." I do not credit his denial and I find that by "this thing" he meant
the Union's organizational drive. The reason he gave while testifying for discharg-
ing her was "interfering with the work of a first shift employee-passing papers to
her and so forth." He "assumed" that the "papers" were union literature, the dis-
tribution of which at the plant gate during shift changes he had been observing for a
number of weeks. He admitted that he could not recall if Rawlings said how long
the Hux girls had talked, although he knew that it was at shift change time, and had
made no investigation of the matter himself. Rawlings further admitted having
authorized her discharge during the same shift and before he had talked to her in
his office.
I find the reason advanced by Respondent for Hux's discharge, that she had inter-
fered with the work of another employee, to be only a pretext, and a peculiarly uncon-
vincing one. It is clear from the record that employees when they are waiting to
take the places of others on a shift that is going off duty, do speak to them. Rochella
Hux had finished her work and was figuring up her production 68 when Lillian
approached her. It is not contended otherwise. Nor is Lillian Hux's testimony dis-
puted that she had not been instructed to the contrary. To Rawlings, who had pre-
viously observed Bell and Casey at the union hall opposite Chip's Drive-In and, as I
have found, was instrumental in bringing about their discharge for union activity,
along with Nicholson and Edwards, it was not the fact that the two Hux girls engaged
in conversation which disturbed him and Lee, but that the conversation obviously
pertained to the union leaflet which Lillian held in her hand 69 It was for this reason,
I believe, that Rawlings did not speak to them on the spot, the natural thing for a
supervisor to have done, but instead went directly to Superintendent Lee to report.
Nor did he pause to inform or consult -with Merriman, who was Lillian Hux's imme-
diate supervisor and bore the same relationship to Lillian Hux that he himself did to
Rochella Hux.70 I cannot -believe that this invocation of the highest authority in the
plant and the ignoring of the employee's own supervisor was simply because one girl
spoke to another while both were waiting for the shift bell to ring.
Rochella Hut: Rochella Hux had been employed about a year and a half as a
towel folder at the time Respondent discharged Lillian Hux. Unlike Lillian, who
was not interested in the Union, Rochella had already signed a union card. It has
been noted in connection with Lillian's discharge that Rawlings did not speak to
either of them at the time Lilliam handed Rochella the union leaflet. It will be
recalled that this event occuired a few minutes before the end of her shift when she
was figuring up her production. On July 18, the day following the union leaflet epi-
sode, Rawlings gave her a writeup for low production, the first one she had received
for this reason during her employment. Although he testified that she was consist-
ently among the lowest producers, Hux testified that while she usually met her pro-
duction norm on small towels she often failed to do so on large ones.71
On Tuesday, July 23, the second workday following the writeup, Rawlings dis-
charged Hux, telling her that it was for low production. When he testified he ad-
vanced no specific instance which had occurred in the 2 days following the writeup
on July 18.
I am unable to believe that Respondent, who had tolerated what it characterized as
Hux's low production ever since she had been hired, should, for this reason, on the
day following the Lillian Hux incident, for the first time formally reprimand her,
61 She worked on an incentive basis.
es Lillian Hux, unlike, Rochella, had at the time of her discharge no affiliation with the
Union and no interest in it Respondent does not contend that Lillian was discharged
for distributing union literature on company time, which would have been a too obvious'
absurdity.
7O Lee also admitted that he did not consult with Merriman , Hux's own supervisor, be-
fore deciding to authorize Hux's discharge . The decision was made on Rawlings ' recom-
mendation and Merriman told to execute it.
71 Respondent did not produce the records of Hux's earnings during this period which
would reflect the state of her production she worked on a piecework basis.
-946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and should 2 days later, before it could know whether the reprimand had been effec-
tive, for the same reason discharge her. I am of the opinion, and find, that Respond-
ent discharged Rochella Hux because it believed that she was interested in the
Union. The pretext which served for Lillian, however, could not serve for Rochella,
because Lillian had not come on duty at the time she handed Rochella a union leaflet,
and it could not be maintained that Rochella was interfering with Lillian's work.
Another pretext would have to be found, and Respondent found it in her generally
less than average production, although it asserted that it had been low ever since
she had started working. I find the real reason to have been her interest in the Umon.
Adolphus Bell: Bell came to work in the fall of 1960. At the time of his discharge
on June 19, 1963, he was working as a serviceman in the cutting and sewing depart-
mOnt under the general supervision of Ronnie Griffin, general overseer of the cutting
department, and the immediate supervisor of Janet Evans, a forelady. As service-
man, Bell's duties were to bring cloth and other supplies from the storage area in the
cutting department in buggies and lay them on tables beside the hemmers, about 23
in number.
Bell joined the Union and he attended the meeting on May 14 at the union hall
across from Chip's Drive-In where Rawlings observed employees come and go. On
May 21 Bell was written up by Griffin for smoking in the restroom on the day
before when, according to Griffin, he should have been working. According to Bell,
it was during a break period. This was the first writeup he had received during his
entire employment.
During the afternoon of June 19, Bell made one of his seven or eight trips to the
supply room to pick up supplies for the hemmers and had to wait 5 or 6 minutes for
the employee in charge, according to Bell a not unusual occurrence. While he was
waiting, West, an office employee, came through the supply room and across the
loading platform on her way back from the canteen, and she stopped and talked to
Bell while he was waiting. The conversation took place on the platform a few feet
from the window to the supply room through which supplies were handed. Rawl-
ings saw this, called Griffin, and the two of them approached Bell and asked what
he was doing and Bell told them that he was picking up supplies, a fact not contro-
verted. Rawlings and Griffin left, the supply clerk came out from the rear of the
supply room, and Bell got his supplies.
An hour of so later Bell was called to the offices where Griffin, in Rawling's
presence, discharged him for being off his job. As has been found, the distance
from the supply room window to the platform where Bell and West were talking is
a matter of a few feet. It is not contended that Bell was not engaged in the perform-
ance of his duties in going to the supply room, or while waiting to be served. The
contention is that he should not have been on the platform outside his work area.
I consider the complaint a trivial one. Moreover, Rawlings was vague as to whether
he or Griffin ever reported West's presence on the platform, far removed from her
own work area, to her supervisor, Rice, but thought that he did sometime after
Bell's discharge. He could not remember when, where, or who was present at the
time . He admitted that when he summoned Griffin to reprove Bell he did not sum-
mon West's supervisor to reprove West. He had no knowledge of whether she was
reprimanded. Rice did not testify. Admittedly, West was not discharged and Bell
was. I find that this disparate treatment was because of his union activity.
Leroy Casey: Rawlings discharged Casey on July 25, 1963. He had been employed
as a serviceman in the put-up department under Rawling's immediate supervision. His
job was to get packing and labels for the three women who folded diapers and to put
the diapers in containers and ticket them for shipment. He joined the Union and
solicited the membership of the three diaper folders, one of whom was the wife of
a supervisor, without success. On an occasion when he was talking with an employee,
and another employee passing by humorously cautioned him against talking union,
the floorlady came over and said to Casey they were not to talk about the Union on
the job. Rawlings, I have found, saw him at the union hall on May 14. On June 18
Rawlings gave Casey the first writeup he had received since he had been employed,
for being off his job and smoking in the restroom.
Casey's brother worked in the cutting department directly across the aisle from
where Casey worked about 30 feet away. There is nothing which separates the two
departments other than the aisle which is about 15 feet wide. Both are in one large
room. On an occasion about the middle of July, Casey pushed across the aisle into
the cutting room an empty buggy or basket which had come from the cutting depart-
ment and which was' in his way. While across the aisle he spoke to his brother to
ask him if he could ride home with him that evening. Cox, assistant overseer in
the cutting department, took Casey to Rawlings and asked him if he had given per-
mission for him to be in the cutting department. Rawlings said he had not, and dis-
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 947
charged Casey . Casey's credited testimony is that he had been pushing buggies out
of his way and across the aisle or to other departments where they originated, after
he had unloaded them, ever since he had been on the job and had never been repri-
manded for it. The reason advanced for Casey 's discharge impressed me as only a
pretext . I find that it was not motivated by legitimate business reasons but by
Casey's activity in the Union.
Reginald Nicholson: Nicholson came to work in November 1962, first as a cutter
and then as a service boy in the fringe and inspection department on the first shift
servicing eight women inspectors to whom he brought supplies from the supply
room . He attended the union meeting on May 14, the coming and going at which I
have found Rawlings had under observation from across the street.
A few days later, on May 20, Nicholson was in the restroom smoking when Grif-
fin, general overseer of the cutting department , came in . Griffin , according to
Nicholson , asked him if his work was caught up and he replied that it was and that
he had worked through the regular breaktime . Griffin , however, told him to get
back on the floor and he did so. Nicholson 's testimony is that it was customary for
him and the other service boys when it appeared that the inspectors might run out
of material , to work through the 10 -minute morning or afternoon break so that the
inspectors might have enough to work on when they returned to their tables. In
these situations they took their own breaks later . A day or so after this Griffin, who
worked along with Rawlings as co-supervisor of the department , called Nicholson to
the office and gave him a personnel action report for taking an extra break and
told him that if he took any more he would be discharged . This was the first writeup
he had received during his employment.
On May 24, Nicholson arrived at the plant about 7 .45 a.m ., 15 minutes before the
start of his shift , and started bringing towels and other supplies to the inspectors'
benches preparatory to their arrival. As he was returning from the packing room
where he had returned a buggy, he passed the "drink man" who kept the soft drink
and other machines stocked , and stopped him to get some small change for drinks
and lunch during the day, a customary precaution among the employees . This neces-
sitated his diverging 15 to 20 feet from the direct route from the supply room to his
place of work in the fringe and inspection department . As he was turning away
from getting his change , Lee and Rawlings came in the door and observed him, and
also saw two other employees , Clifton Stone and Tom Pearson , getting change. This
was a short time after the bell had rung for the change of shifts . Neither Lee nor
Rawlings spoke to the employees.
About 5 minutes before the end of the shift that afternoon Lee called Nicholson
to the office and told him that he was discharged for taking an extra break. When
Nicholson asked what he meant by that , Lee said that he meant his stopping at the
drink machine . Griffin , called as a witness , testified that Nicholson was discharged
for taking an extra -break in stopping at the drink machine to get change.
I find this a pretext only. In fact , there was no real break , regular or extra, in any
ordinary meaning of the term. I find that Lee, Rawlings , and Griffin were watching
Nicholson in the hope that he might be caught in some infraction of a rule or some
neglect of his duties . Rawlings, in particular , was ubigquitous in the pursuit of this
purpose , having observed Nicholson and other employees at the meeting on May 14
and having reported the fact to Lee and , subsequent to Nicholson 's discharge,
arranging for the discharge of Lillian Hux , although he was not her supervisor.
Fred Nicholson , brother to Reginald , and still employed by Respondent as a
mechanic , testified that shortly after his brother was discharged he had a "friendly"
conversation with Rawlings in the sewing room during which he said that he hated to
see his brother lose his job , and that in reply Rawlings said , "Well he was a good
worker, he just got mixed up with the wrong crowd ." Rawlings denied making this
statement. I have not found him to be a credible witness, and I do not credit his
denial.
I find that by "the wrong crowd" Rawlings meant the Union , and that Respondent
discharged Nicholson for what it believed to be his union affiliation.
Lloyd Edwards: Edwards was working as one of four cutters for a year before he
was discharged on June 25 , 1963 . He joined the Union and attended the meeting on
May 14 , at which Rawlings observed employees coming and going , and the meeting
on May 25. In addition he solicited the membership of other employees. On
May 28 , Griffin , general overseer of the cutting and sewing department , called him
to his office where , in the presence of Marshall Cox, assistant overseer , he showed
Edwards about 12 towels which he said Edwards had cut poorly and gave him a
writeup . This was his first one . Griffin testified that a cutter would cut on the aver-
221-374-66-vol. 15 7- 61
948• DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
age df-6,000 to 8;000 towels a day. He further stated that Edwards was the first
cutter he had ever written up for cutting towels improperly, so far as he could remem--
ber, although other cutters did cut improperly.
Cox testified that on June 25 he found about 100 washcloths among about 5,000
on a truck,72 and out of perhaps 1,000 he checked, which were badly cut, and showed
them to Griffin. Griffin took a number of them to his office, called Edwards, showed
him the cloths, and discharged him. There is no evidence that any other cutter doing
work similar to that of Edwards had ever been discharged by Respondent for poor
cutting. I find that Edwards was discharged because of his affiliation with the
Union.
b. The Rosemary plant
Charles and Lawrence Haithcock: Charles Haithcock came to' work in July 1963
and Lawrence in November 1962. When discharged, they were in the harness depart-
ment on the second shift, ,4 p.m. to midnight, under the supervision of Alonzo Carver,
department overseer, and Paul King, supervisor of the weaveroom of which the har-
ness , department is a part. ' Their names as union , members' were sent Respondent
on Friday, September 18, -1963.
On the night of September 25 the Haithcocks did not bring their lunch with them,
as they usually did, so ,when it came time to eat they left the plant and went directly
across, the street to the Eleventh Street Restaurant and brought back something to
eat. It does not appear in the record how long the ,lunch break is' in the harness
room, but- it is not contended that they took more than the allotted time. 'It is
asserted, however, that it is against a company rule to leave the plant during a shift
without obtaining permission from a supervisor. There was no supervisor present,
since Carver worked only on the first shift. An employee, Stafford, said to be a lead-
man, was working along with the other employees and ate at the same table with
them, but it does not appear that he had any authority to grant or refuse permission
to leave the plant, although he reported to Carver everything which took place on
the second shift. In any event, permission was not asked, nor did Stafford say any-
thing to the Haithcocks on their leaving or-on their return with their lunches, although
he testified he saw them going out the door. Portia Shaw, a waitress at the Eleventh
Street Restaurant, testified that she worked there on the second shift beginning at
4 p.m., which coincides with the second shift in the Rosemary plant, and waited on
plant employees, some of whom ate lunch in the restaurant but most of whom took
their lunch back to the plant. She was not, of course, able to say what employees
had permission to come across the street and which had not.
Stafford also testified credibly that, although Carver did not work on the second
shift, when he reported to Carver the next morning Carver told him that he himself
had seen the Haithcocks leave the plant because he had driven to the plant that night
for the specific object of watching them, and had stationed himself on the parking
lot in a position to do so. Stafford's further testimony is that for the last few days of
their employment Carver had come back to the plant about the middle of the second
shift for the purpose of checking on the Haithcocks. Carver was not called,as a
witness.
When the Haithcocks reported for work on the following afternoon, Septem-
ber 26, King told them they were discharged. King testified he did this after being
informed by Carver that the Haithcocks were off the job and after consulting with
Earl Fuller, manager of the Rosemary plant.
Since the rule was that employees were not permitted to leave the plant without
permission, the Haithcocks were at-least in technical violation, though tempered by
the fact that no supervisor was present to give permission, and by the consideration
that not to go across the street was not eat lunch at all. I am convinced, however,
that an infraction of a rule was not the reason Respondent discharged them. Neither
employee had ever been written up during his employment. Only a few days prior
to the discharges Fuller, on behalf of Respondent, received the letter from the Union
that they had signed up with the Union. Carver thereupon proceeded to spend non-
working time at the plant for the express purpose of keeping the Haithcocks under
observation, as they moved around inside the plant and as they might leave the
plant. He did see them leave the plant on the night of September 25. No explana-
tion was given as to why he did not interpose. Instead, he took this information to
King, who, after consulting with Fuller, discharged them. I find their discharge was
,because of their union activity.
72 A cutter cuts about 10,000 washcloths daily
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. -/ ,, 949
Horace Spence: This employee started work in September 1961 as a chain builder
at $1.40 an hour. Three months later he was promoted to a job as weaver at $1.70
an hour, and then to tie-in machine operator in the No. 2 weaveroom on the second
shift at $1.76 an hour. Charles Draughan, shift overseer, was his immediate super-
visor and Lewis Jackson, department overseer. As a tie-in machine operator Spence
worked with warps of yarn which have about 3,200 separate ends. These ends are
separated by running a lease stick over and under each of these ends, and the tie-in
machine operator puts the tie-in frame up to the warp and sets the machine to tie in
the ends to the harness on the beam of the loom.
Spence joined the Union in May 1963, among the first to do so, and obtained the
membership of about 15 others according to his own testimony, some of them in the
plant washroom. It is not controverted that on one occasion he took three or four
leaflets while they were being passed out at the gate, attached to membership appli-
cation cards, and gave one to Draughan, his immediate supervisor, and asked him
to read it and to sign the card. Shortly after this, about the middle of May, Spence,
together with Strickland, a warpman, and Simmons, a leaser, both of whom worked
alongside 'Spence, were,in a group in the warp storage room talking, with Spence
describing the merits of the Union. Draughan came in and told them to disperse.
Strickland and Simmons, both of whom are still employed and were subpened as
witnesses, confirmed Spence's testimony that Draughan was close enough to hear
what was being said. There is no question but that Respondent was aware of
Spence's interest in the Union.
Immediately after this conversation, according to Spence, Draughan checked every
warp he was tying, something he had not previously done, calling his attention to
and warning him about one or,two ends which might be crossed (called a double
end). It is possible to have several of these without having to tie the warp over
again. Toward the latter part of May, while Spence was tying in a warp with
Draughan standing at his elbow, he crossed one or more double ends. Draughan said
nothing to him, but later in the shift called him to the office and wrote him up.
When Spence protested that Draughan was watching the warp as closely as he was
and did not see it, Draughan 'did not reply. In point of fact' after the warp left
Spence, the double ends were caught by the smash hands and removed. Apparently
the warp was not retied, and certainly no seconds resulted. On June 4 Draughan
wrote up Spence for tying two doubles in a warp. Then on June 6, the last, night
he worked he tied doubles in the last warp he worked on before the end of the shift
according to Draughan. He recommended to Jackson that he discharge Spence and
Jackson did so.
The record shows that Spence had received two promotions during the year and
a half he worked. I cannot believe that his tying doubles in a warp the last night of
his employment, in addition to having tied several doubles on two previous occasions,
can account for his discharge. It is not clear that any warp ever had to be retied,
and no seconds resulted. The whole record reveals that seconds , no matter in what
department and no matter what the process or what the material, are constantly
resulting. It is abundantly clear from this record that Respondent' s aim is simply
to keep them to a minimum. It is not the particular imperfection which causes the
doubles, in this case tying double ends, which is of itself important, but the doubles
which may result if the imperfection is not• caught. Here, the double ends were
caught soon enough so that the warp did not have to be tied over, much less seconds
result. The same is true-no seconds-as to the previous double-ends for which he
was written up. I conclude that Respondent did not discharge Spence for the rea-
sons which it alleges, but because of his activity in the Union.
Alex Faison: This employee came to work in February 1962 as a quill stripper
at $1.27 an hour. In February he was promoted to a job as a can filler at $1.42 an
hour. When he was discharged he was receiving $1.49 an hour. His duties were to
fill cans with filling in the quillerroom and bring them to the weaveroom, and to take
the empty bobbins off the looms and set the fuel-cans alongside the magazine fillers.
They in turn put them in the magazines on the looms for the weavers. Faison was
charged with supplying 32 looms run by 5 weavers. His immediate supervisor was
Edmunds and the shift overseer, Paul Flak.
' In May 1963 Faison signed up with the Union. On October-7, the day following
the regional meeting in Charlotte, the Union sent his name to Respondent as- a mem-
ber. He did not otherwise become active until April 1964, during the pendency of
this hearing, when he, began the solicitation of employees and obtained some signa-
tures in the restroom at the plant. Prior to this time he had received only one
writeup for any reason. '
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 27, however, Edmunds wrote him up for having one or more looms
standing for want of filling. On June 2, the last night he worked, Faison, according
to his own testimony, after first looking down his aisle to see if all the looms he
tended were running, went to the drink machine located in the same room to get a
drink. This was on his breaktime, shortly before 6 a.m., and it is not contended
otherwise. After he got his drink he turned away to go to the quillerroom to finish
his break. He then went back to check his flags and saw a flag up on one loom. As
he started toward it Edmunds came up to him and pointed it out. Faison found sev-
eral bobbins in the bobbin can and passed them to the magazine filler and brought
others from the quillerroom. This done he started to resume his other work when
Edmunds sent him home and told him to come back in'the morning and see Flak.
Faison's testimony that he looked down his aisle before going on his break and that
at that time no flags were out, is not controverted. Edmunds testified, however, that
when he himself was at the drink machine he glanced down Faison's aisle and saw a
flag on the loom which Faison saw and tended a few minutes later. Edmund's fur-
ther testimony is that at the moment he glanced down Faison's aisle from the drink
machine and saw the flag, he at the same instant saw Faison turn his head and look
down the aisle, from which he concluded that Faison also saw the flag but intended
not to do anything about it. Edmunds said nothing to Faison. On cross-examination
he admitted that as he was approaching the drink dispenser to get a drink, Faison
was coming away from there carrying a bottle in his hand and going in the direction
of the quillerroom where, according to Edmunds, employees were required to take
their drinks instead of finishing them at the drink machine. Instead of speaking to
Faison and calling his attention to the flagged loom, the normal function of manage-
ment,73 Edmunds checked to see whether there were bobbins in the can or the loom,
and went to the quillerroom to see if there was filling there. There was. He saw
Faison finishing his break in the smoking chair, but he still said nothing to him until
a few minutes later when Faison came onto the weaveroom floor. It was there that
he informed him that one of his looms was out of filler, and told him to go home
and come back the next day and see Flak. Faison left, after first bringing filling to
the loom. Edmunds then called Flak and Flak told him he would see him in the
morning. Edmunds then called Robert Musgrove, Flak's superior. Edmunds testi-
fied that he had never before called Flak or Musgrove at home on any matter involv-
ing an employee, but would always wait until the next day at the plant. He also
admitted that during his entire 6 years as assistant overseer he had never before sent
any employee home or discharged him.
Respondent points to Edmunds' testimony that when he saw a loom standing
flagged in Faison's aisle he at the same time saw Faison look in that direction. Coun-
sel argues that Faison saw the flag and deliberately ignored it. I am not impressed.
I credit Faison's testimony that he did not see it. I cannot understand why, if
Edmunds thought Faison was deliberately ignoring the flag, he did not call or speak
to him about it. This failure, coupled with his further failure to speak to him when
he passed him in the quillerroom a few minutes later, when Edmunds came there to
get filler, and his calls to Flak and Musgrove at their homes, admittedly without prec-
edent, and the fact that Faison was the only employee he had discharged in his entire
time at the plant, convince me that Respondent was endeavoring to make a case
against Faison, and discharged him because of his activity in the Union and not for
legitimate reasons, and I so find.
Gordon Ray: Ray came to work in January 1963 as a can filler in the quillerroom on
the third shift under the direction of Lester Outland, shift supervisor. His duties
were to pick up empty trucks on an upper floor near the weaveroom, take them down-
stairs on an elevator to the quillerroom, fill cans with bobbins, put them on the
truck, and take them back to the weaveroom. He worked on a production basis and
his norm was the filling of 110 cans per shift. There were three other can fillers
on his shift and they had norms of 135 cans because they did not carry trucks back
and forth. He admitted that during his employment he very seldom made his norm
and that at the time of his discharge on December 7, 1963, he was filling from 90 to
100 cans, which, according to Ray, made him average or a little less among the four
can fillers. 'He signed up for the Union and attended his first meeting in September
1963. Notice of his affiliation was mailed Respondent about October 1. Previous
The record also shows that on occasion when a loom is down , or about to go down,
for want of filler, and the can filler is not at hand , the supervisor on the job will hand
the bobbins in the can to , the magazine fillers, or even procure filling from the quiller-
room. The record shows that it is not unusual for flags Ito go up on looms when the can
filler or loom fixer is on break.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 951
to this, in March and again on April 5, he received a writeup for unexcused absences;
that is , being out and not calling in to say he would not be in . On October 2, about
the same day his name was sent the Company,74 Paul Flak, quillerroom overseer,
gave him a writeup for low production, and again on October 15.
From October to December according to Flak, Ray was not again written up,
although his production remained low, until his discharge on December 7. On the
nights of December 2 and 3 he stayed out, but sent word to the plant. On the night
of December 4 he worked. On the night of December 5 he was out again sick and
did not send word. He testified that he became ill about an hour before shift time
when he was at his mother's house where there was no telephone. However, about
noon on December 6 he appeared at the plant to pick up his paycheck and asked
Outland if he wanted him to work that night, and Outland said he did not, and sent
him to Flak. Flak told him to return the next day. Next day Flak showed him his
production figures, told him they were unsatisfactory, made references to his recent
absences, and discharged him.
It is admitted that Ray's production was, at least, only fair during the 10 months
he had been employed, and that his record of attendance was little better. He had
been written up on two occasions for absenteeism, before the Union began organiz-
ing, and once or twice after that event for low production. He was absent three
consecutive nights prior to his discharge, and on the last occasion did not notify
supervision. Although Ray's more recent writeups began immediately after Respond-
ent was notified of his union activity, 2 months passed without any further discipli-
nary action being taken against him before his discharge. In view of Respondent's
hostility to the Union, graphically manifested in this record, and because it gave him
two writeups immediately after it learned his affiliation with the Union, his discharge
is consistent with the pattern of discrimination in this case and is not free from
doubt. I do not believe, however, that the General Counsel has met the burden of
proof which devolves upon him, and I conclude that Respondent discharged Ray for
legitimate business reasons.
c. The Rosemary fabricating plant
Shirley Hobbs: This employee was last hired about February 1962. At the time-
of her discharge on October 9, 1963, she was working on the first shift as an inspec-
tor of corded napkins in the Roanoke fabricating plant. Her immediate supervisor
was Edna Parrish, and the general overseer, Ronnie Griffin. She joined the Union,-
became active, and attended the meetings of May 14 and June 6, and others, includ-
ing the Union's regional meeting on October 6 at Charlotte. At that meeting, along;
with others, she signed a letter to Respondent advising it that she was on the Union's
organizing committee. A few days before this, on October 3, Griffin gave her her
first and only writeup. This was for the shortage of one napkin in one bundle she
had inspected, and three in another. There are 100 napkins in each bundle and an
inspector on an average day inspects and counts 8,500 napkins and sorts them as to
first and seconds.
On October 9, the same day or the day after Respondent's receipt of the Union's
letter, Griffin called her to his office and told her that on that day, according to Par-
rish, her forelady, she was short several napkins in her count. She asked why the
inspector who had been working with her, and another inspector, Tanya Grey, who
she said were also short, had not been reprimanded and Griffin said he would get to
them later. There is no evidence he did so. After Parrish had reported Hobbs' mis-
counting to Griffin, Griffin took the matter up with Lee, general manager, who
ordered her discharge. Griffin made out her termination slip before he called her
to the office.
Parrish's testimony is that although the other women who helped count napkins
also made mistakes, Hobbs made more than they did. Hobbs also inspected as well
as counted, and in a day counted and inspected more napkins than any of the other
girls. I am persuaded that Respondent did not discharge Hobbs because she mis-
counted napkins, but because of her union activity. Respondent had been informed
of this the day before it discharged her. I cannot believe this was merely coincidental.
Jarman Hobbs: On October 22, 1963, 2 weeks after Respondent discharged Shirley
Hobbs for her union activity, it discharged her husband, Jarman. Hobbs' last term
of employment was in the open stack department and dated from the previous Janu-
ary. He attended the May 14 meeting and joined the Union on that occasion along
with his wife. After the regional meeting of the Union on October 6 at Charlotte,
44 The record does not show whether Respondent received this information before or
after Ray was written up.
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-his name was sent, to the Company as, a union member along with, that- of his-,wife and
others 75 - With this step; Jarman became active in the organizing campaign and
-signed up 25 or 30 employees at the mill and at their homes according to his testimony.
Hobbs' duties for the most part were confined to 'one area in the warehouse, but
at times they took him to other parts.' The testimony of Sims, Hobbs' immediate super-
visor, however, is that he was not supposed to leave his place of work without ,per-
mission but that he did so on various occasions and he spoke to Hobbs about it. But
he never gave him a writeup. His further testimony is that employees complained to
-him that Hobbs was talking with them while at work. On cross-examination Sims
admitted that only one employee ever complained to him, and that was one Britt, who
reported to him on five different occasions that Hobbs was talking to him in the
plant . Harris, general overseer, testified that on as many as six or eight occasions
Britt complained to him that Hobbs was importuning him to join the Union. Britt,
when called as a witness by Respondent, reduced these 8 or 10 occasions to one, and
that was the occasion of Hobbs' discharge. On this day, Hobbs, according to Britt,
came to him in the plant (whether on the employees' own time or company time is
not recorded) to pick up a union application card which he had given Britt for sig-
-nature the day before on the way home from work.76 Britt told him he had torn it
up and Hobbs said that he himself would sign Britt's name to a card and send it in.
The testimony of Hobbs and Britt is in disagreement as to whether Hobbs laughed
when he said this. In any event; Britt reported the conversation at once to Sims
and Sims suggested that he tell Reginald Harris, general overseer of the warehouse,
and he did so. Harris. expressed his appreciation to Britt for this information and
told him that he and all the employees knew they could always come to him with
their problems. Harris "immediately" reported Britt's complaint to Plant Superin-
tendent Lee. He stated that before he went to Lee, and without speaking to Hobbs,
he had decided to recommend Hobbs' discharge to Lee. Lee consented, and Harris
gave Hobbs a termination slip and told him he was discharged for interfering with
another person's work. Concededly, he did not say what he meant by this, and did
not name the employees he was supposed to have interfered with.
Hobbs had never been written up during his employment. I cannot believe that,
suddenly, he would be discharged for talking with his friend Britt, without any inves-
tigation as to whether this was on their own-or company time, without asking Hobbs
his version of the matter, and without even at the terminal interview telling Hobbs
with whose work he was supposed to have interfered. I find that Respondent on
October 22, 1963, 2 weeks after it discharged his wife for her union activity, dis-
charged Jarman Hobbs for the same reason.
Virginia Ray: This employee came to work for Respondent in October 1962 on
the second shift, grading and inspecting towels. At the time of her discharge on
October 9, 1963, her immediate supervisor was Lou Ciarrocca. Thomas Gardner
was assistant department overseer. As inspector, Ray's duties were to separate the
towels which came to her' into first, seconds, and rags. A rag is any towel with a
hole in it , but as to which are firsts and which are seconds there is no standard for
criterion except the inspector's judgment. To be classified as a first a towel should
be practically perfect. At the time of her discharge the towels Ray was inspecting
-admittedly were of low quality where more leeway was permitted.
Ray signed up in the Union in May or June 1963. On August 27 her name was
sent Respondent. She received her first personnel action report on October 3, stat-
ing that in a bundle of 24 towels she had included 7 towels which, in the opinion of
-the quality control girl, should have been classified as seconds. After this report
had been made, Ray called Gardner and showed him the seven towels, contending
that they were properly passed as firsts. Gardner, who had only 1 month's experi-
ence in connection with towels, according to Ray, agreed with her as to certain of
the 11 towels, but disagreed as to others.
On October 6 Ray attended the Union's regional meeting at Charlotte. On the
night of October 9 Gardner brought her 2 bundles of 24 towels each which he had
come across, he said, while he was spot checking. In one bundle were five towels
which according to Gardner should have been classified as seconds, and in the other,
four Ray agreed with him as to two of the four towels and disagreed as to the
'BAs I have previously stated , although the organizing campaign at Respondent's var-
ious plants began at Roanoke Rapids, it was not until about October that the Union
adopted the practice of sending the names of its members to Respondent with their consent.
This was done in Rock Hill and Greenville from the beginning.
76 Hobbs and Britt drove to and from work together Harris gave it as his opinion
that the two were goad friends.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO.,.INC. - _ 953
other two, one of which Gardner contended was cut crookedly and the.other which
he asserted lacked a,few strings from the fringe: He admitted while testifying that
all the towels Ray was inspecting were cheap towels of poor quality and loosely
woven. After talking with Ray, Gardner telephoned Griffin 'at his home to tell him
about Ray and to receive permission to discharge her. He did so at the end of the
shift. . I ' ` '
. I do' not accept the reason advanced by Respondent for the discharge of Ray who
Gardner admitted to be one of the best of the inspectors so far as quantity was con-
cerned; and as to whose quality she had not been written up. prior to her joining the
Union. I am not convinced that Gardner's spot checking on the evening of Ray's dis-
charge and his resulting selection of 2 bundles, each containing 24 towels out of the
several thousand which Ray normally inspected; is a fair sample of her work. There
is no evidence as to how Gardner conducted his spot check; no evidence, for exam-
ple, as to who selected for inclusion in two bundles the nine towels which Gardner
claimed should not have been passed as firsts. Ray's membership in the Union was
known and so, I find, was her attendance at the regional union meeting 3 days prior
to her discharge. It is for her union activity, and not for the reasons that Respondent
asserts, that I find Ray was discharged. { • r
d. Roanoke plant 1
Rosa Rogers: Rogers was employed by Respondent in 1958. At the time of her
discharge on October 21, 1963, she was working as a weaver on the third shift under
the supervision of George Bailey, assistant, overseer, and William Gardner, depart-
mental superintendent. She joined the Union in the early summer of 1963. On
October 1 the Union sent her name to Respondent as a union member.
The only personnel report that Rogers received before she, joined the Union was
in October 1962, when she was written up for running a wrong draw. On the night
of October 9, 1963, she was written up for running double ends. After the start of
her shift at midnight Bailey called her attention to a roll of cloth which had run
for 128 yards with a running defect in it. It is not disputed, that it was also run on the
first and second shifts by weavers Essie Doyle and Ida Ferguson. Doyle and Fergu-
son, still employed by Respondent, when called as witnesses by the General Counsel
testified that they were not given personnel action reports for this. The testimony
of Bailey is that they were. The record shows the reconciliation of this to be that
while Bailey did criticize Doyle and Ferguson orally, no personnel action report
was shown or read to them, but instead, he reduced his oral criticism to memoran-
dum form for Respondent's files: The General Counsel's contention is that by this
method of handling, Respondent avoided formally reprimanding or disciplining the
weavers on the first and second shift, in contrast to Rogers on the third shift, at the
same time it avoided a too sharp disparity of treatment. That there was a disparity,
however, is clear. The admitted fact is that Ferguson and Doyle were equally
responsible with Rogers for not observing the running defect in the cloth.77 Gard-
ner testified that it is not uncommon for a running defect to-run through three shifts.
;Bailey again wrote up Rogers on October 16 for having run a roll of cloth with a
double in it 2 days previously, and for the same thing on October 15., On October,21
Bailey called her to his office and called her attention to a bundle lying on his desk
which he stated was 30 yards of cloth with a double running through it.. He did
not unroll it to show it to her, or show, her her initials-on the cloth. Instead, he
handed her a termination slip already drawn up and sent her home. The following
day Gardner discharged her.
The test of a weaver's quality is the amount of seconds she runs, and Respondent
maintained a board in the weaveroom on which it posted daily the seconds produced
by the weavers. Whatever the particular flaw in the weaving, whether it be double
ends, as is alleged in Rogers' case, or something else, these are all subsumed under
the heading of seconds, and seconds sell -for less money than firsts. As has been
observed previously, Respondent is perennially engaged in efforts to reduce them.
It is conceded that Rogers' quantity was high. The quality of her work is best
ascertained by the percentage of seconds she produced. Respondent produced no
evidence on this point. Bailey testified he could not recall what they were. Her own
testimony Js that on the occasion on October 16 when she was written up, she
checked the board as the weavers regularly did and her own seconds were 9 percent.
77 The weaver is supposed once during a shift to turn on a light by the loom to see if
there is such a defect. It is not as a rule visible without a light. When Bailey took
Rogers to his office to show her the defect, he put the cloth over a lighted frame, main-
tained for the purpose, so that the defect would be seen.
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
She said that was good but not excellent. Although Bailey testified on cross-
examination that Rogers was one of his "sorriest" weavers, he could not recall what her
seconds were. Asked if they could have been the lowest of all the weavers, he replied,
"I don't think so." Asked if she had the highest seconds, his answer was, "I think
so, I am not sure."
Bailey also testified that all the looms Rogers and the other weavers were working
on were old, and that not long after her discharge they were replaced by new ones
and the number of seconds was greatly reduced.
I conclude that the reason for the discharge of Rogers is not to be found in the
performance of her duties but in her union membership, announced 3 weeks before
her discharge.
Thomas Conner: Conner was last employed in July 1961 as a loom fixer. He was
discharged on October 24, 1963. His job was that of preventative maintenance, or
repair of one-third of the 76 looms in the weaveroom and the operating maintenance
of all the looms when they were flagged by the weaver. Conner joined the Union
in June 1963. The first meeting he attended was on October 1. Following this
meeting Respondent received a letter from the Union advising it of his membership.
Prior to this time he had not, during his last period of employment or during any
one of several previous periods, been given a personnel action report.
On October 4, Joseph Craddock, weaveroom supervisor, on his weekly mainte-
nance check gave Conner a list of things he wanted him to repair of which he left
two undone, according to Craddock, and a third not done properly. These pertained
to wornout nylon in the shuttle on two looms and harness not accurately installed on
another. Conner's testimony was that he had replaced the nylon in the shuttles on
the two looms Craddock mentioned, and that if Craddock found it worn out it became
so later after Conner had attended to it. As to the third loom, Conner testified the
harness was about an eighth of an inch higher than it should have been so he
replaced a wornout jack stick. Since a new jack stick, according to Conner, tends to
pull the harness up a little, he usually checked such a loom a day or two later to make
any necessary adjustment. In this instance, before he could get around to the loom,
again Craddock wrote him up. Craddock admitted while testifying that after a loom
so repaired had run a while it might need minor adjustments. None of the three
looms in question was out of operation, in which event a flag would normally be
raised to summon the loom fixer. This would have been within Conner's duties as
operating fixer on all 76 looms on his shift. The adjustments which Conner made
here constituted preventive maintenance. Conner was given a writeup for this,
the first one he had ever received.
Craddock stated on direct examination that all loom fixers on all three shifts are
required to check the nylon filling on the looms at the beginning of their shifts. On
cross-examination, he admitted that they evidently had not done this in this case
and that they should have been written up if they were not. In fact, they were not,
although, according to Craddock, the worn nylon had run during the 4 days, or 12
shifts, which elapsed between October 4 when he gave Conner the list of needed
repairs and October 8 when he discovered that the nylon had not been replaced. Nor
did he call this fact to the attention of the other foremen. Since this condition was
not a hidden one and should have been observed by the loom fixers on the other
shifts, I conclude that the other loom fixers were equally negligent with Conner, or
else, as Conner testified, he did fix the nylon and there was nothing to notice, and the
nylon became torn out only shortly before Craddock spoke to Conner about it.
Craddock admitted that this was possible and that Conner might have replaced the
nylon as he testified he did. It is difficult to understand why, since at least 3 third
shifts elapsed during the 12 shifts the old nylon is said to have run, Craddock himself
did not long since discover that the nylon had not been changed, particularly since it
was he who had called it to Conner's attention in the first instance and made a note
of it. My conclusion is that not only did Conner fix the nylon on the two looms, as
Craddock instructed him to do, but that Craddock was aware that he had done so
and gave Conner, alone of the three loom fixers, a writeup with the object of build-
ing up a case against him.
Craddock next wrote up Conner on October 16. On the previous day, a half hour
before the end of the shift, Burnette, a weaver, told Conner when he responded to her
flag that she had been having trouble for 2 or 3 days with loom No. 18 breaking
filling. Conner looked at the loom, which he testified was in bad shape, and told her
that he could not fix it before the end of the shift but to leave the flag up and if the
loom was not fixed by the loom fixer on the following shifts he would attend to it
on his next shift. On the next night, October 16, Burnette told him that the loom
was still breaking filling, so he put a pick in and a box front in one end of it, lined up
the reed with the box front, and started the loom. He then answered some other
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 955
flags and later noticed that a flag was again up on No. 118,loom. When he went to it
he found a note on it from Craddock with instructions as to other repairs the loom
needed. After he had finished making them, Craddock called him to his office and
gave him his second writeup during his employment. Craddock's testimony is that
Burnette, who is the wife of a supervisor, had complained to him that Conner had
not fixed the loom properly.78 Conner's testimony is that the loom was in bad shape
and a proper subject of preventative fixing, a more fundamental thing than operating
fixing or repairing, a diagnosis which was not controverted.79 Neither it is contro-
verted that, although Conner was responsible for the preventative repair of 26 looms,
from 6 to 8 of which were Burnette's looms, loom No. 118 was not one of these.
Past midnight on October 24, about 4 a.m., Craddock came to Conner and told
him that he had checked loom No. 142 a little after midnight and found that the
nylon in the shuttle was out Asked what Conner replied, Craddock said he did not
recall. I do not credit his answer. Conner testified that he pointed out to Craddock
that loom No. 142 was not on his one-third of the looms for upkeep purposes, and
that he was not supposed to check the nylon. I find this to be a fact and Craddock
does not dispute it. Conner's further testimony is that when he told Craddock this
Craddock said that Conner nevertheless was supposed to check the nylon on all 76
looms, to which Conner protested that he had never been told this. It is clear from
this record that the 76 looms were divided among 3 loom fixers for maintenance
fixing, and that Conner's share was 26. It is not denied that loom No. 142 was not
1 of these 26, or that replacing the nylon was not a part of a preventative fixing.
Craddock admitted on cross-examination that Conner's record showed him to be
an average employee with respect both to his quantity of production and to his quality
or number of seconds.
Conner had never received a writeup until after he joined the Union. Then, almost
immediately, as I have found to be the case in numerous discharges, Respondent
began issuing him personnel action reports. It gave him two prior to his discharge,
both of which I find to be without substance, and the reasons advanced for his dis-
charge on October 24 no more so. I find that it was occasioned by his union
activity.
e. Roanoke plant 2
Guy Jordan: Jordan, a loom fixer on the third shift in Roanoke plant 2, was last
hired in 1961. He was discharged on October 5, 1963. He signed a union card in
May 1963. He testified that although before July he had been working one overtime
shift a week for some time, after July he was not given any overtime though other
employees were. The General Counsel contends that was due to his union affilia-
tion, and it is so pleaded. This is all the evidence which he adduced and I find it
insufficient to support the allegations. I shall dismiss the complaint in this respect,
Before Jordan affiliated with the Union he had not received a personnel action
report for any cause. On August 1, V. J. Wrenn, assistant shift overseer, saw Jordan
in the smoking area where he was with one or two other loom fixers, about 20 minutes
after the beginning of the shift. He said nothing to him at the time but later gave
him his first writeup since his hiring 2 years previously. Wrenn's complaint was not
that Jordan had not checked his threadcutters, as he was required to do at the begin-
ning of the shift, or that he was away from his job, or that he was smoking, or that his
looms were not running, but simply that he concluded, according to his testimony,'
that 20 minutes was not enough time to check his threadcutters. Therefore he had
not done it. Jordan testified he did it in 15 minutes because on this night they were
all in good condition. Wrenn could have ascertained this, had he looked. The per-
sonnel action which Wrenn gave Jordan was not countersigned by Brank, superin-
tendent of weaving. Brank testified that as a general rule he signs these reports only
when a serious offense is complained of.
78 Burnette testified that her opinion was that Conner "rushed through my job some
times to get to another one, and I felt like maybe that was why I would have to flag
that loom." I have noted before in connection with the discharge of grader service boys,
where the graders are paid on a piecework basis but the service boys are on straight time,
that the result of this is to push the service boys to a point where they sometimes work
through their lunch periods so as to service graders who bolt their lunch at their looms
in 5 or 10 minutes , and then complain to the foreman that they are being neglected by
the service boy, and other graders favored. As I pointed out there, this arrangement is
within the prerogative of management , but it cannot claim- surprise at the inevitable
result. I found there , as I do here, that management realized this and discounted the
complaints of incentive workers.
'+a After Conner was discharged new looms were installed The evidence , including
Burnette 's testimony , is that thereafter there were fewer complaints about the loom fixers.
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wrenn testified to various occasions following this writeup, and preceding it, when
he said he found Jordan in the supply room office smoking while waiting for sup-
plies, instead of waiting at the supply room window right next to the office door, or in
the carding room where he had no business, talking with a spinner. He did not
state that this was when he or the spinner was supposed to be working and not on a
break. Or he would be in the smoking booth where he occasionally would take a
cup of coffee and smoke a cigarette, although it is not stated categorically that this
was on company time.80
. On September 17 Jordan's name was sent to Respondent as a union member. At
that time, according to his own testimony, Wrenn came into the office of Paul Brank,
general overseer of weaving, where he and Brown, plant superintendent, were dis-
cussing the letter from the Union announcing Jordan's membership. Brank said to
Brown, though he looked at Wrenn, "That's one of Wrenn's boys." Brank then read
him the letter.
On October 5 Respondent discharged Jordan on the recommendation of Wrenn
because of an incident which occurred on the night of September 28, exactly a week
before. On this night, Massey, a weaver whose looms Jordan tended along with
three of the other weavers, complained to Wrenn that she had flagged two of her
looms, and that Jordan came by and pulled the flags down and started the looms
without fixing them. Wrenn testified that he went to the looms and found a spare
part lying on the floor near the loom, from which he concluded that the loom could
not run properly without, and went to look for Jordan. On the way, he looked at the
bulletin board where the numbers of the looms which have been flagged were posted.
When a loom has been fixed and is running again it is crossed off. Wrenn observed
that the two looms Massey complained about had not been crossed off, from which
he concluded they had not been fixed, since if the loom keeper considers that he has
fixed the loom he is supposed to mark it off.
Jordan's testimony is that both the looms had been flagged for jerking filling and
that he spent 10 or 15 minutes on them. He started them up again and pulled down
the flags, but did not mark them off the board because he could not be sure that he
was through with them until they had run a while. Meanwhile, there being no other
flags up, he went to the smoking room where a few minutes later Wrenn found him
and told him that the flags on the looms were up.
There is no'material inconsistency between Jordan's testimony and that of Wrenn
on the important points: Wrenn testified that the fixer is supposed to cross off the
loom numbers-on the board when he considers -that the looms are in running order:
Nor is Jordan's testimony inconsistent with that of Massey. Massey seems to have
concluded that because the looms still did'not run well and that the flags were down,
that Jordan had made no attempt to fix them. As for Wrenn, it is my belief that he
was content to believe that this was the case without inquiring too closely.81
80 This testimony is typical of supervisors when recounting the history of an employee
after discharge and is of course not peculiar to this employer. As I commented previously,
it is difficult to evaluate such accounts where, in retrospect, mere suggestions as to work
habits or conduct become criticisms, criticisms become reprimands, and reprimands be-
come warnings, and to compare them meaningfully with those directed to other employees.
I give'this evidence some consideration, but not much, giving more attention to personnel
action reports, or writeups, since as this record amply demonstrates the Respondent will
reduce to this form, provided for,this purpose, anything it considers'of real substance.
8' Wrenn was evasive and unresponsive as a witness and it iss difficult to understand
from his testimony just what it was that he complained about:
Q. (By Mr. BLARENEY.) Did you note whether he checked any looms-off the board?
A. He had not„no sir.
'TRIAL EXAMINER: What did you conclude from that?
The WITNESS: What did I conclude from that, sir? He should check it off-when
he takes the flag down.
TRIAL EXAMINER: I asked you what did you conclude' -
The WITNESS' I concluded he wasn't doing his job, sir.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Well, did you conclude or did you not conclude that•he hadn't at-
tended to the -loom at all? -
The WITNESS: Well, he had taken the flag down. - ,
TRIAL EXAMINER: Well, then, you did conclude'that he had fixed it, but simply did
not mark it off the board?
The WITNESS: That's the reason I went and check the loom myself-whether he
had tried fixing it or not. ' ,
TRIAL EXAMINER: I asked you what you concluded when you saw it had not been
checked off the board. •.•
- The WITNESS: Well, air, that's when I went to check the loom. •
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 957
Although the incident of Massey's two looms occurred on September 28, he did not
make out a personnel action report until the following Monday, October 1. Even
then he did not show it to Jordan because, he says, Brank was out of town. He
showed it to him on Thursday, October 3, and Brank said he would have to see
Superintendent Brown about it. Brown's consent was obtained on October 5 and
Jordan was discharged on the following day.
In discharging Jordan, Respondent eliminated the only published member of the
Union in the weaving room of plant 2, and the employee who Brank, in Brown's
presence , had 2 weeks before pointedly identified as "one of Wrenn's boys." I find
that Massey's complaint as to the two' looms was only a pretext. Massey herself
stated that Respondent had never complained about the quantity and quality of the
work of a loom fixer. There is no way of measuring the "quantity" of the repairs
which a fixer makes, or the "quality" of them. Nevertheless, Respondent uses these
terms and, lacking any measurement applicable to this job, couples the fixer together
with the various weavers whose looms he attends, for this purpose, since the total
yards a weaver produces and the number of seconds that come off a loom can be
exactly computed. Consequently, the fixer reflects the quantity and quality standing
of the weaver. Here, since Massey's quality and quantity standings were average, so
are said to be her fixer's, in this case Jordan.
William Butler: Butler began the last period of his employment in 1961 as a doffer
in the spinning room on the third shift. - His shift foreman was William Dixon and
his department foreman, Bernard Hawkins. All in all, including a predecessor com-
pany, Butler had worked for Respondent about 20 years as a doffer.
Each'spinnmg frame has 252 bobbins, and Butler doffed 30 to 35 frames each shift.
He signed up for the Union during the early part of June 1963.
O'n September 19, when the Union was distributing leaflets at the door to the
spinning room, Butler, according to his own account, accepted one and, when called
to by another employee, turned back for another and gave it to the employee, then
sat down at the door with a group of three other employees to read his own leaflet,
and handed it to another employee when he had finished. According to Butler,
Robert Rogers, general overseer, was standing a few feet from the group with an
uninterrupted view of him, at least at the moment he turned back to get another
leaflet to hand to Lewis. Rogers testified he was unable to recall the incident. Rogers
was an evasive, unconvincing witness. ' I credit Butler's testimony and find that
Rogers' observed him on this occasion.
On the following day, September 20, as Butler came on shift, Hawkins called him
to the office and in the presence of Rogers, gave him the first writeup he had received
since he had come to work 2 years before. 'It stated that Hawkins had spoken to him
3 weeks before, on August 28, about failing to tie the tails of the bobbins securely,
and that he was still failing to do so.. Hawkins testified that these reports came from
three of his overseers, Spraggles, Willard, and Williams, the last of.whom relieved
Willard for a week in Willard's absence and who was on the job on September 20.
Williams was not called as a witness, however, and there is nothing' in the testimony
of Hawkins or anyone, else to indicate what complaint had been made concerning
Butler's work after Hawkins had criticized him drally on August 28 which prompted
the issuance of the personnel action report on September 20, other than Hawkins'
generalized complaint that Butler's tying down of tails had not improved. Hawkins
did not show Butler any bobbins. Failure to tie down bobbin tails can under certain
circumstances result in the making of seconds. The record shows that Respondent
consistently had trouble getting doffers to tie down tails. Rogers testified' on cross-
examination, "We've always had some trouble and we probably 'always will have
some ." Hawkins testified that at the time of Butler's writeup and subsequent dis-
charge, Respondent was. conducting a"'drive" to get all tails tied down. There is no
evidence that the "drive" consisted of anything more than telling doffers gathered
together in groups to tie tails down, something which supervision was perennially
cautioning them about.82
On October 15 the Union mailed Respondent a letter' notifying it of Butler's mem-
bership. Respondent received this the following day. Butler as usual reported on
the third shift at midnight. About 7 a.m., an hour before the end of the shift, Willard
came to him with a bobbin in his hand without the tail tied down, and sent him home.
The following night, October 17, Rogers, Hawkins, and Willard together talked to
him in the office. Later, after Rogers had consulted with the plant superintendent,'
Brown, Hawkins told him he was'discharged.
e9 The testimony of Butler, who had had 20 years' eaperience a's a doffer, is that it is
easy to tie down tails of bobbins on some frames, more difficult on others, and impossible
on some, for technical reasons which he described.'
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hawkins' testimony is that during the 3 years he had been overseer of the spinning
room no supervisor under him had ever before sent an employee home for poor
performance. There is no evidence whatever that Butler's failure on occasion to
tie the tails of bobbins ever resulted in seconds or any other loss to Respondent.
Lillian Harris and Maude Price, now employed, and who have worked as spoolers
for 4 or 5 years, and worked on bobbins which Butler doffed, when called as wit-
nesses testified credibly that the matter of getting the tails of bobbins tied down had
always been a problem; that the situation was no worse and no better at the time of
Butler's discharge than it had always been, that Respondent's "drive" to eliminate the
fault was only its usual attempt, and that Butler was no better and no worse than the
usual run of doffers. I am of the opinion, and I find, that Respondent discharged
Butler , a doffer of 20 years' experience, not for poor work performance but because
of his affiliation with the Union.
f. The Patterson plant
Jimmy Wood: Wood was last employed in February 1963 as a weaver on the
second shift. His overseer was James Cranford and immediate supervisor, Rufus
Turner. He joined the Union about May 28, among the first to do so, and visited
the homes of employees and signed up 15 or 20 of them. He sent his name to
Respondent on September 19 as a union member. On the same date, but apparently
before receipt of the letter, Turner wrote him up for being away from his loom, the
first writeup he had received since being hired. On September 26, a few days after
Respondent had been informed of Wood's union affiliation, Turner wrote him up
again, this time for having a soft drink bottle at his place of work. There was a
safety rule which required that after an employee had taken a drink to his workplace
he return it to the empty bottle rack at the drink machine when finished. Wood's
uncontradicted, credited, testimony is that on the night in question, after he had
finished a drink, he sat down on the bench at his place of work and watched his
looms, placing the empty bottle on the floor between his legs. Turner came into the
department, saw the bottle, and told him to take it to the empty bottle rack immedi-
ately, which he did. Turner then wrote out his second personnel action report for
violating a safety rule.
On October 9 Turner called him to his office and turned on a light under a 42-yard
roll of cloth from his loom with a running defect in it. Wood protested that he
could not see it while the loom was running and refused to sign his writeup. Wood's
uncontradicted testimony was that on previous occasions when Turner passed by his
looms and inspected his work, if he saw a defect he would shut off the loom and Wood
would adjust the cloth. This was the first occasion he had been given a writeup for
anything pertaining to his weaving. It does not appear whether the running defect
was of such a nature as to make the cloth seconds. I conclude that it did not.
On October 22 Turner called him to his office and in Cranford's presence showed
him a roll of cloth with stringy terry which he stated had been removed from Wood's
loom, and discharged him. Turner stated on cross-examination, when asked if the
defect in the cloth could have been the fault of the loom, and hence the responsibility
of the loom fixer, that that could have been the case,-and admitted that he made no
attempt to find out. In fact, he stated, he had not seen the cloth at all on Wood's
loom, and first saw it when it was sent up from the clothroom and placed on his desk.
He admitted that it could have been run on the shift following Wood's as well as on
Wood's shift.
It is not contended that Wood's quantity of production was not satisfactory, and
there is a conflict in the evidence as to how he compared in quality with the other
weavers. Wood says that week in and week out he was about average. Turner's
testimony is vague as to averages, although he stated that he recalled that 1 week
Wood's seconds were about 25 percent, which was the highest of the three weavers on
these looms. He could not remember how long before his discharge that was.
Respondent posted daily reports on the percentages of seconds, but these are not
permanently kept. I conclude that among the 70 weavers on all the shifts Wood was
perhaps average.
James Cranford, general overseer of weaving who approved Wood's discharge,
testified that he could not recall any weaver having been discharged for poor work
prior to Wood. I conclude that Wood was in fact the first, at least during Cranford's
regime, and that his discharge was due not to the quality of his work but to his union
activity.
Robert Carsey: Carsey,was employed,by.Respondent in 1961. At the time of his
separation on June 6, 1963, he was working as a loom fixer on the third shift under
the supervision of Sydney Matthews, assistant overseer, and James Cranford, overseer
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 959
of the weaveroom. Carsey joined the Union in the latter part of May and obtained
the membership applications of others. On May 24, he was given a writeup for
refusing a direction of Matthews to drop work on a machine he was attending, and
resume work on a machine he had previously looked at. Matthews told him to go,
home and Carsey refused, saying that Matthews had not hired him and could not
fire him. Matthews conferred with Cranford who told him to writeup Carsey for
insubordination and let it go at that. On the night of June 5 Matthews gave him
another writeup which complained in general terms of his work and notified him
that he was being assigned another employee , Birdsong , as an assistant . Shortly
before the end of the shift, at 8 a.m ., Carsey came into Cranford's office where
.Matthews was present and, according to Carsey's testimony, said to Cranford that
Matthews was "riding" him, and "gave me the impression-that I wasn't doing so
good," and that he was "thinking about quitting." Cranford asked him when, and he
replied that he "would think about quitting after the fourth of July vacation." Cran-
ford asked him if he had another job in mind and he said he had not.
According to Cranford and Matthews, Carsey said, when he entered the office,
"I am going to put in [am putting in] my notice," and that when Cranford asked him
if he had a better job he answered that he had.
Matthews made arrangements for Birdsong to take Carsey's place as a regular
weaver. However, Carsey worked the entire shift the following night. At the end
of it he was called to the office where, according to Carsey, Cranford said that since
Carsey had told him the day before that he was quitting after July 4, and since
Respondent "did not require anybody to work a notice," Carsey could quit then and
could pick up his pay at the outer office. Carsey went to the outer office and got his
check. On cross-examination Carsey testified as follows:
Q. I'm asking you, didn't Cranford in the office that morning [that is, after
midnight of August 6] call you in and say to you, "Now, Mr. Carsey, you told
me yesterday that you were quitting; now we do not require you to work any
notice, and so you can go ahead today and pick up your time."
A. That's right, that's what he said.
Q. And you says, "Okay," and you left.
A. That's right.
Q. And that's all that was said.
A. That's right.
The evidence is that it is common for employees who intend to leave their employ-
ment to give notice beforehand. Thereafter, though they continue on the job, they
are said to be "working a notice." Respondent contends that that was what Carsey
meant when he said he was "putting in my notice," assuming he said it . Carsey denies
using the phrase, and insists that he only said that he was going to quit after July 4.
Counsel for Respondent insists that if the version of Respondent's witnesses is
accepted, then Carsey was no longer an employee as of the moment he said he was
"putting in [his] notice," or that he was giving notice. The following colloquy sets
forth counsel 's contention:
Mr. BLAKENEY : I am saying it's uncontradicted that it means , not that "I give
you notice , I may decide sometime to quit," rather, "I give you notice-I'm
quitting." That's what it means.
TRIAL EXAMINER: "And I am quitting as of now?"
Mr. BLAKENEY: "I am quitting as of now, but I will work on awhile," that's
exactly what it means.
TRIAL EXAMINER: I don 't see how one can quit and not quit at the same time.
Mr. BLAKENEY : No,-an employee in such a situation is saying "-I quit your
employment. Now I am willing to stay here and work some more," he don't say
how long-but my decision is quit.
TRIAL EXAMINER: But he doesn't quit-He continues on the payroll in fact.
Mr. BLAKENEY: He does indeed.
Counsel 's contention is reminiscent of the problem of whether an object can be at
two different points in space simultaneously. It is not necessary to resort to meta-
physics to answer the question here. Whether Carsey used the formula of words
imputed to him by Respondent's witnesses, and which counsel clothes with magic, or
whether he just said that he was not going to work much after July 4, it seems to me
that his purpose was to place himself and his employer in a relationship where the
employee could be expected to leave at any time and the employer could'be expected
to replace him at any time, without more ado.
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I do not find that Respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice by taking
advantage of the situation created. Although Respondent may have welcomed
Carsey's decision to leave its employ, the facts, I believe, do not add up to a discrimi-
natory discharge, actual or constructive. Although I think it not free from doubt, I
shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed as to Carsey.
C. Summary
1. The general employment background
Of a total of 82 employees named in the consolidated complaint, I have found that
Respondent discharged or otherwise discriminated against 71 of them in their employ-
ment, because of their union membership or affiliation. The reasons advanced by
Respondent for each individual discharge have been discussed in detail. I have
reserved until now any description of the overall tenure of Respondent's employees
during the period preceding the advent of the Union, in contrast to such tenure during
the latter part of 1963, and thereafter, when the Union was organizing. Several of
Respondent's officials, including Leland Burns, assistant manager for all three
Republic plants at Rock Hill, when questioned by Respondent's counsel on this point,
attempted to maintain that the discharges herein complained of represented, after all,
only a small percentage of the total discharges during the period in question.
Burns testified, for example, that from November 1962 to November 1963, the
discharges complained of at Republic plants 1, 2, and 3 constituted only about 10
percent of the total of 145 to 150 at those plants.83 This testimony was received over
the Union's objection that the best evidence would be Respondent's record of dis-
charges, acknowledged to be in its possession .84 The Union subpened these records
previous to the hearing but Respondent-refused to produce them. The Union's objec-
tion was renewed throughout the hearing and consistently overruled. Also renewed
throughout the hearing, and refused by Respondent, was the demand that Respondent
produce its records-pertaining to discharges. Burns did not state on direct examina-
tion what the source of his information was, or by what means he arrived at his
finding that the discharges complained of were only about 10 percent of the total
employees' tabulation figures. The source was revealed on cross-examination and I
find it to be something less than impressive:
Q. (By Mr. HoiN.) Mr. Burns, you spoke about making tabulations of these
discharges in '63.
A. That right.
Q. Do you have a copy of those tabulations, Mr. Burns?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Does the company have a copy?
A. No, sir.
Q. What did you do with the tabulation?
A. What did I do with the tabulation.85
ss Elsewhere in the record pegged at 147. These figures were submitted in affidavit
form in the injunction hearing in the Federal court, and referred to in the court's decision
denying the injunction.
as Odis Little, manager of industrial relations, called as an adverse by the General Coun-
sel, testified as follows:
Q. You have the terminations there broken down into quits and discharges?
A. In total number, yes, sir. -
Q. . . . So you would be able to tell how many actual discharges there were in a
given year, actual discharges as distinguished from quits.
A. Yes, sir. -
85Burns, a shifty and evasive witness, consistently repeated a question before answer-
ing it. The following is an entire page of the record (164) with his verbatim testimony:
Q. (By Mr. BUTLER.) Now, these names that were posted on the bulletin boards, did
any of these named union members and committeemen come and talk with you about
the union?
A. Come and talk to me about the union?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Well, these names were posted last summer, and since then, I have had some
conversation with a few of those people whose names were up on the board.
Q. Where did these conversations take place?
A. Where did they take place?
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 961
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Just from the notes that I do in the office, one of the innumerable things
I keep up with. -
Q. How did you happen to arrive at this figure of 145 or 150? You must have
made some list?
A. Well, I just jotted them together, and combined them, and came out with
the right figure.
Q. You threw them away?
A. Yes, at the turn of the year.
Q. You don't report the discharges to anybody.
A. No.....
Not only did Respondent not produce the records of discharges and quits which its
own manager of industrial relations testified that he had in his office, and which had
been subpened, but Burns did not even refer to them as a basis for his testimony. He
depended instead upon his recollection of certain jottings down made for his personal
edification and later destroyed; but not before he "came out with the right figures."
I find this testimony to have next to no probative value.
The testimony of the foreman in the three Republic plants, moreover, shows an
entirely different picture. In these plants 16 employees named in the complaint were
terminated. They were: Arthur Wright, Idolene Steele, Charles Knight, William
Aldridge, James Lee, Edward Varnadore, Ralph Harrison, Jack Simpson, James
Walden, Charles Capps, William Varnadore, Earl Roberts, Billy Presley, Virginia
Trotter, Basil Trotter, and William Sibley. Only in connection with Harrison is there
any evidence that any other employee was ever previously discharged for the same
reason; i.e., getting oil on cloth. As to Varnadore and Sibley, there is no evidence on
the point one way or the other. As to the remaining 13, the testimony of the wit-
nesses, for the past part the supervisors who discharged them or recommended them
for discharge;86 is that they could not recall any other employee having previously
been discharged for the same reason during the entire span of their supervision, or,
flatly, that no employee ever had been discharged for the same reason, or, still more
broadly, they could not recall any employee in their respective departments ever
having been discharged for any reason.
Of the same genre, and equally unconvincing, is Burns' testimony as to the number
of personnel action reports issued employees, which he testified on direct examination
were "a little over" 200 in 1962 and "just under" 300 in 1963. The witness sought to
attribute this increase , among other reasons, to the advent of the Union in 1963, and
Respondent's desire "to be sure that we were right, and knew everything was in order."
The General Counsel contends and the complaint alleges, that Respondent did issue
an increased number of writeups, and says that it did so to harass the union adherents.
Regardless at this point of the rival contentions as to the significance of the figures,
I do not find that number said to have been issued is based on any substantial evi-
dence. Burns admitted that copies of writeup given employees were placed in their
personnel folders,87 and yet, as in the case of discharges, he did not refer to this pre-
ferred, if not the "best," evidence, but contented himself with bits and pieces of
memorandums or "some tabulations" which he made and, later, like his jottings on
discharges, he threw away. I find Bums' testimony on this point as having next to
no probative value.
Q._ Yes, sir.
A.' In each case, each individual approached me, or either called me or wanted to
see me in the office, or the various other people in management.
Q. Where did the conversations take place?
A. Where did the conversations take place?
Q. Yes,' sir.
A. I don't recall any conversation with one of these people in any area unless it was
in one of the offices ; I never discussed the matter on the street , or just hearsay and
what-not. I didn't discuss that: I never approached anybody, any of them on it, they
always approached me.
Q. What was the conversation?
A. What was the conversation?
Q. Yes, sir.
Bankhead , Temple, Funderburke , Nunnery, and Carter.
87 These are kept in each plant instead of centrally in the office of Respondent's man-
ager of industrial relations , according to Odis Little.
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Of the same stature as the testimony of Manager Burns is the testimony of Boone
Tatham, weaveroom overseer in the Dunnean plant in the Greenville' area, where
Albert Sanders, a loom fixer, and Burrell Knight, a shuttle fixer, were discharged,
Asked on direct examination if there had been any other employees discharged in
the previous year for poor performance, he answered, "I would say-there has been
about 35 or 40-weavers and loom fixers" in the entire weaveroom,
It developed on cross-examination that the overall weaveroom is divided into four
smaller weaverooms and that Tatham supervised only one of them, which was No. 2.
He could not remember any employee discharged in his room, The cross-examination
proceeded as follows:
Q. How many, sir, in your weave room that you were general overseer over
all three shifts, how many were discharged in the last year?
A. There were none.
Q. And in the last 2 years?
A. I don't know.
The answers were the same for the previous 3, 4, and 5 years. The testimony
continues:
TRIAL EXAMINER: I am curious to know, in the weave room over which you
have jurisdiction, of which you have personal knowledge, no fixer or weaver has
been discharged within your memory, and yet you can tell us that in the weave
rooms where you do not have observation and jurisdiction personally, there were
35 or 40 discharges?
* * * * *
-where did these 35 or 40 discharges come from?
*
The WITNESS: I would say from the entire weave room-I didn't say anyone
in mine was discharged.
TRIAL EXAMINER: -no, that's right, you say to the contrary-your personal
observation-is zero; I don't know where you get your figures; I'd like to know,
Do you have them in writing somewhere?
The WITNESS: No, sir.
* * * * * * *
Q. You don't know of your own personal knowledge of anyone who was
discharged?
A. That's right. I don't know of anybody personally,
TRIAL EXAMINER' Of this 35?
A. This was just told in the weave room.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Just rumored?
A. That's right.
Following Tatham, James Hollis, superintendent of all weaving at the Dunnean
plant, was called. He had been present in the hearing room while Tatham testified,
He, too, testified over the Union's repeated objections:
Q. (By Mr. BLAKENEY.) Well, do you have any recollection as to whether
the people discharged last year were just one or two, or a good many? Or
approximately how many?
A. Well, I couldn't say just off how many. But there was between 30 and 40.
Asked to name some of the 30 or 40, he could name only Nix, Brookshire, Evans,
and Holiday, aside from Albert Sanders, named in the complaint, Questioned further
he stated that Evans was only a probationary employee and that the other three had
been employed only a few months. Sanders was the only regular employee who was
discharged.
Other plant superintendents in the Rock Hill area under Manager Burns , on cross-
examination, testified as to other employees discharged for the same reason as named
in the complaint. John Wood, superintendent of plant 2, where five union members
I have found were discriminatorily terminated, was as vague as his superior Burns
when it, came to naming other employees terminated from July 1962 to July 1963
for the same reasons. He stated that he could name none terminated because of
broken laps, failing to piece ends, mixing waste, tying doubles, not pulling fly waste,
bad warps, not doffing cloth, or having roving in the bobbin spinner, all shortcomings
advanced as reasons for the termination of the employees named in the complaint in
plant 2. As to blowing oil on cloth, he thought there had been one or two discharged
for this reason, but could not name them. Nor could he remember any other
employee who was given a personnel action report for any of these faults during the
same period.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 963
Melvin Smith, another of Burns' plant superintendents, in charge of Republic:
plant 3, was no more enlightening. Here, eight union members named in the com-
plaint were discharged, assertedly for a variety of reasons having to do with their-
work performance. Smith was asked the same questions as were asked Wood and he
gave the same negative answers, except that as to "not doffing cloth" he thought that
there was one other employee discharged for this reason sometime in 1963, but was-
not sure. Smith's answers were the same with respect to personnel action reports
given employees. He could not recall any given for the enumerated reasons.
W. N. Lefler, superintendent of plant 1, the third of the plants Burns testified about,
was similarly unenlightening on the subject of other discharges for the same offense
during the same 12-month period. He could remember no one, but thought there
had been one or two discharges for getting oil on cloth. He was then asked if he
could name any employee other than those named in the complaint who had been
discharged for any reason whatever during the previous year. His answer was that
he could not.
The employment picture at the Rock Hill group of plants is more systematically
documented in the record than it is at other plants perhaps because it was Burns,
general manager of this group, who testified affirmatively when called as Respondent's
witness that the discharges complained of amounted to only 10 percent of the total
discharges of 147 during 1963. I have found these figures to be without probative
value, being based not even on a capitulation of Respondent's records, admittedly in
Respondent's possession and which it refused to produce, but on haphazard jottings
of Burns for his person edification, and subsequently destroyed. They are largely
the product of his imagination. The detailed examination of Respondent's superin-
tendents at all three Republic plants, and the testimony of the overseers taken as a
whole, failed to produce evidence to contradict the essential truth of the testimony of
witness Henry Jones, in connection with the discharge of Jack Simpson in the slasher-
room at Republic plant 1, who, when asked by counsel for Respondent if he knew of
anyone (like Simpson), said to have been discharged for bad warps, answered that
he could not recall anyone else being discharged in the slasherroom in the last 14
years: "They've either died of old age or something happened to them; they've either
got another job or moved out, or something."
Respondent having failed to respond to subpenas for its records pertaining to,
personnel action reports issued during 1963, and to requests made during the course
of the hearing, and Burns having failed to consult them, though they were immediately
at hand, instead testified as to a recollection based on scraps or notations made from
time to time and long since destroyed. He "came out with the right figure" as he did
in connection with the discharges during the same period, indicating that there were
more writeups in 1963 than in 1962. He then proceeds to draw the desired conclu-
sion, that the union employees "felt like-that they didn't have to follow rules-that
people were making it clear that they had rights, and we couldn't do this, and we
couldn't do that, and they were being obnoxious on the job, and there were violations
of rules, and there was some discontented talking, and that kind of thing."
This testimony reflects Burns' hostility toward the Union and its proponents more
than it illuminates the actual situation in Respondent's plants. It is clear that the
Union's organizational activities were the subject of interested discussion among the
employees, supervisory as well as rank-and-file. But there is no real evidence that
this interfered with the work performance of the employees. No one was discharged
specifically for soliciting union signatures or distributing union literature on company
time, although there was, as has been seen, a coordinated and successful campaign in
the Watts plant openly aided by Respondent with the use of its facilities, to obtain the
withdrawal of the 46 employees in the Watts plant who had joined the, Union.
Nor were there any personnel action reports issued specifically for union solicitation
on company time, in violation of a rule against it. Some employees were written up
and discharged allegedly for taking too many smoking breaks, or being away from
their work places too long, though it is not possible to make any meaningful compari-
son between the situation before and after the coming of the Union in the absence of
Respondent's records of personnel action reports.
2. The coming of the Union
This, then, was the situation at Respondent's plants, as revealed by this record.
When the Union began its organizing activities in the spring of 1963, employees, once
hired, enjoyed a large degree of job security. Discharge was not common. When an
employee, after he had passed the probationary stage, failed to make good at the job•
to which he was assigned, he was transferred when at all possible to a job com-
mensurate with his abilities. If an employee quit and later sought to return, he was
221-374-66-vol 157-62
'964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rehired when possible, in some instances three or four times. Respondent was tolerant
with respect to absences , particularly excused absences . Even in the case of absences
without prior notice when it was hard put to it to obtain replacements on that shift,
Respondent 's attitude was a lenient one and an employee might have several unex-
-cused absences without being discharged or even written up.
On the job , Respondent was permissive in the matter of breaks . In some plants,
and on some jobs, employees had regular breaks in the morning and afternoon, and
in other plants and on other jobs they took their breaks when they could. The timing
of the break was largely up to the individual. The requirements was that the loom or
other machine should not remain unattended. One weaver or loom fixer would
relieve another to go to the waterhouse , or to smoke or to patronize the vending
machines . Or the operator might drop into a nearby smoking area if it was within
sight of his looms, or into the nearest smoking chair if it was unoccupied. Though the
rule was that only one person at a time was permitted in the smoking area, it is
apparent that others came into the area and smoked and talked with persons already
there. In the waterhouses , or restrooms , there was no limitation on the number
gathered there; and it was here that the employees largely spent their free time, and
here that they talked about the Union and other topics of interest. Here, on their
own time, adherents of the Union sought to sign up others as they did also while they
were eating their lunches at work benches, or squatting on the floor. This was the
employees' own time and they were cognizant of the fact.
Prior to the coming of the Union , personnel action reports, or writeups , were only
less infrequent than discharges . Only where an employee 's act of commission or
omission was serious , or repeated , was he written up. In the great majority of cases
he was orally corrected or complained of. As has been seen , many, perhaps most, of
the employees whose names appear in the complaint had never before been written
up during the entire course of their employment.
As has been seen, Respondent met the threat of the organization of its employees
first by posting identical notices on the plant bulletin boards and mailing copies to
its employees, in which it made it crystal clear that it intended to oppose the Union
"by every proper means, and prevent its coming into" the plant. Nevertheless, the
Union , in spite of Respondent 's declared hostility , signed up a substantial number of
employees.- Many of them consented that the Union send their names by letter or
telegram to the Company as union members, or they did so themselves . These were,
of course , the bolder and more active spirits, and the term "committeemen ," as they
often declared themselves to be, was not a misnomer . Respondent posted the names
on the bulletin boards immediately upon their receipt , along with a copy of Respond-
ent's reply letter. This warned them that Respondent was "taking note" of their
having joined the Union. The General Counsel and the Union contend that the
posting of the names was itself coercive and in violation of the Act . I make no find-
ing on this point . Certainly it is, however , that not only were all employees thus
notified of the union activities of these individuals , but so also were all levels of
supervision , a fact of which management took full advantage.
For no sooner did Respondent receive and post the names of these, the staunchest
of the Union 's adherents , than all down the line of supervision Respondent 's long-
standing . attitude of permissiveness in its relationship to its employees and in the
observance of its rules, changed over night into one of strict construction . Acts of
commission or omission in the performance of work which had called for nothing
more than an instruction or cautioning before were made the subject of personnel
action reports . Whereas, previously , employees who had gathered in the restrooms
during break periods to smoke or talk, at the most to be told to "break it up" when
present in too great numbers, or for too long a time , or too frequently , were now
written up , or discharged , if their names were posted . Whereas formerly employees
were permitted to eat lunch almost anywhere in their department they wished, were
now relegated to certain areas, so that only a few , sometimes only two , or even one,
-would be in the same area at a time . Employees who came on shift early and
casually talked with others while waiting for the bell to ring, were warned they must
not do so. Two were discharged for doing so. It is clear that this regimentation was
intended to prevent discussion of the Union by the employees even on their own time,
and to emphasize Respondent's hostility to it. That this sudden tightening up, this
splurge of writeups, had little if anything to do with their work performance, as
possibly affected by their interest in the Union, as Respondent seems to infer (though
it offered no evidence of it , and has not so argued ) is demonstrated by the fact, among
others, that as a rule there was simply no time for any such effect to be shown. The
normal pattern was a union meeting, generally on a weekend , at which a number of
employees joined , the Company advised the same day by letter or telegram , the names
received the next working day, if by letter, and the names posted , and a personnel
J. P. STEVENS AND CO., INC. 965
action report , or even discharge , the same day or the next. In the instance of the
discriminatory discharges which I have found , the triggering act was clearly the
employee 's advising Respondent that he had joined the Union . The writeup or dis-
charge, or both , followed as quickly as a pretext could be found . Frequently, it was
found the same day. In many instances the writeups would be the first ever received
by the employee during a long course of employment , or the first received for many
years, or the first for the same alleged dereliction.
This record bears no other interpretation than that the writeups given to these
employees were not given them because of their work performance , but to threaten
and coerce them , and to build up a case against them on which their subsequent dis-
charge for union activity might be defended.
The issuance of personnel action reports and discharges , of course , were not the
only means upon which Respondent relied in its campaign to break the Union. Just
as effective was a much closer supervision of the employees in the plant , both while
actually performing their work and when on their own time even to the extent fol-
lowing some of them into the restrooms and making a point to sit next to them at
lunch . While I have discounted the testimony of some employees on this point,
believing that they may have been oversensitive , cannot disregard the testimony of
many others , including some who had abandoned the Union and were still employed,
that they were supervised more closely than they had ever been , but that when they
left the Union , and so notified management , this pervasive scrutiny of their move-
ments stopped.
Outside the plant , Respondent had under surveillance meetings of the Union and
observed the comings and goings of union organizers in the community . Following
union meetings , supervisors on frequent occasions asked what had taken place and
who was present , at the same time implying that Respondent already knew. With
monotonous regularity employees were written up or discharged on the next working
day following a meeting , or within a few days thereafter.
Respondent interrogated employees not only as to their own union affiliations but
as to those of other 'employees, and were asked to keep management posted. This
was particularly true as to the large number of employees who, fearing for' their
jobs, went to management to announce their intention to leave the Union . Not con-
tent with this result of its coercion , Assistant Group Manager Burns , for example,
further exploited the situation . Far from assuring these employees that it was their
privilege to join or not to join a union, or that they need not fear for their jobs if
they performed their work well, Burns made it known to the group who called on
him and Smith, superintendent of Republic plant 3 , in the latter 's office , to seek
assurance against discharge by announcing their withdrawal from the Union, that
although Respondent was "going to take [them] at [their] word ," nevertheless it could
not promise them anything . They were not wholly to be trusted , and they would
have to "prove" themselves and watch the company they kept . If they ever decided
to go back into the Union they were to come to him or Smith first and let them know.
Of the seven employees whose interest in the Union Burns asked the group about, all
but one were discharged discriminatorily . The single exception took an extended
leave of absence with a nervous condition.
It was in the Watts plant , however , that Respondent 's efforts to drive employees
out of the Union, or out of Respondent 's employ, perhaps reached its finest fruition.
Here Respondent furnished antiunion employees the services of its typewriters and
Mimeograph machine , and the services of an employee to reproduce withdrawal
announcements which were then distributed , among the employees for signing and
mailing to the Union . By this means, Respondent procured the resignation from the
Union of all but 2 of the 46 employees currently working, whose names had been
sent Respondent as union members . These two employees Respondent then dis-
charged . The Union in the Watts plant was wiped out.
The same result was substantially achieved in other plants and departments. The
two Cudds, father and son , were the sole known union members in Respondent's
Whitmire plant . Respondent discharged the son and then sought to persuade the
father , who had spent close to 50 years in Respondent 's employ, to resign and cooper-
ate with Respondent in running the son out of the community . When Respondent
failed to induce the father 's resignation , it discharged him. The Union was elimi-
nated in the Whitmore plant.
It is not necessary to summarize further Respondent 's campaign against the Union
and its results. It has been set forth in some detail above . Suffice to say that as the
Union's efforts to organize the employees continued , Respondent's determination to
prevent it mounted until , reaching full orchestration , it far exceeded those "proper
means" of opposition which it spoke of in its notice , "To All Employees ." Respond-
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent, through its plant superintendents, acting in collaboration, initiated and pursued
a pattern of conduct the purpose of which was to crush the union movement. With
scant regard for the means employed other than their effectiveness, it interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act,
flagrantly, cynically, and unlawfully.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I shall recommend that Respondent offer those employees whose names appear
in Appendix A, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent position , without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges,
and make them whole ' for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of
the discrimination against them, by payment to them of a sum of money equal to
that which they would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination
against them to the date of offer of reinstatement , less interim earnings , and in a
manner consistent with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, and Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440, to which shall be added interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum as prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, and offer to Marshall Phillips and Jerry King overtime
work in accordance with the practice of offering said employees overtime work prior
to the date overtime work was first discriminatorily withheld from each of them, and
make them whole for loss of overtime pay during the period of time overtime was
discriminatorily withheld from each of them , with interest at 6 percent per annum.
I shall also recommend that Respondent preserve and, upon request , make avail-
able to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all payroll records,
social security payment records , timecards , personnel records and reports, and all
other records and reports necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due and the
right to reinstatement under the terms of the Recommended Order . In order to make
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, I shall recommend
that the Respondent cease and desist from , in any manner, infringing upon the rights
guaranteed in that section . N.L.R.B . v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426;
N.L.R.B . v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F . 2d 532 (C.A. 4).
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of those
employees whose names appear in Appendix A, and Marshall Phillips and Jerry King,
thereby discouraging membership in the above Union , Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and
(4) of the Act.
4. By engaging in interference , restraint, and coercion , the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. Respondent did not violate the Act by discriminating with respect to the hire
and tenure of employment of Shirley Bowers, Leroy Sims , Ollie Varnadore, Basil
Trotter, Johnny Gambrell , Thomas Bishop , James Dyer , Herman .Burgess, Robert
Carsey, and Gordon Ray.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
SOUTHWEST GREASE AND OIL COMPANY, INC.
APPENDIX A
967
William Sibley Idolene Steele Thomas Connor
Edward Varnadore James Walden William Butler
Charles Capps William Aldridge Jarvis Capps
Arthur Wright Jack Simpson Virginia Trotter
Charles Knight Ralph Harrison Doris Hicklin
Donald Cudd Randall Ross John C. Carter
Jesse Cudd Jack Ross Grady O'Neal Fields
Billy Pressley Eugene Evans Burrell Knight
James Lee John Eller Carl Richmond
Earl Roberts James Goodwin Cornell Laughter
William H. Varnadore Harold Robinson Theodore R. Adams
Clarence J. Poole Garvis Powers Richard Bell
M. C. Richardson Richard Dean Wike James Cantrell
Lillian Hux Albert Sanders David Collins
Rochella Hux Horace Anderson Sedric Drake
Guy S. Jordan Walter Rackley Joseph Laughter
Shirley Hobbs Alvin Baker William Looper
Jarman Hobbs Charles Plemmons Thomas O. Edens
Jimmy Wood Charles Coley Adolphus A. Bell
Dale Payne Charlie D. Jenkins Artes E. Smith
Leroy D. Casey Reginald Nicholson Loyd R. Edwards
Virginia Ray Charles L. Haithcock Horace Lee Spence, Jr.
Rosa Rogers Lawrence M. Haithcock Alex Faison
Southwest Grease and Oil Company, Inc. and Oil , Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union . Cases Nos. 17-CA-2614
and 17-CA-2639. March 22,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 27, 1965, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that
these allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the
Respondent, the Union, and the General Counsel filed exceptions and
supporting briefs and the Respondent filed a brief in support of the
Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the ,rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, briefs, and the entire record in
157 NLRB No. 75.