J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1967

163 N.L.R.B. 217 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

J.P. STEVENS 217
(5) By refusing to meet and to negotiate with
the Union upon request.
(6) By announcing and granting unilaterally
and without prior notice and negotiations with
the Union wage increases and grade changes to
our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related 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 International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, or
Local 2156 of said International Union, or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activity.
WE WILL make whole James Wetherington and
William Mitchell for any loss of pay which they may
have suffered as a result of our discrimination against
them in the manner provided in the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
WE WILL offer Mary Sherley the promotion for
which she was recommended before the strike of
May 24, 1965, and make her whole for any loss of pay
which she may have suffered from her suspension on
June 7, 1965, and from the denial of her said
promotion in the manner provided in the Trial
Examiner 's Decision.
The appropriate unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at
our Gainesville, Florida, plant, but excluding all
other employees, including office clerical
employees, professional employees, technical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the
above-named or any other labor organization.
GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY, BATTERY
PRODUCTS, CAPACITATOR
DEPARTMENT
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 706 Federal
Office Building, 500 Zack Street, Tampa, Florida 33602,
Telephone 228-7711, Ext. 257.
J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc. and Industrial
Union Department , AFL-CIO. Cases
11-CA-2435, 2464, 2484, 2485, 2487, 2496, 2501,
2503, 2525, 2450, 2518, 2519, 2531, 2532, 2534,
2539, 2675, 2549, 2550, 2552, 2564, 2584, 2506,
2720, 2725, and 2703.
March 6,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 13, 1966, Trial Examiner Horace A.
Ruckle issued his Decision in the above -entitled
163 NLRB No. 24
proceedings, finding that the Respondent' 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 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.2
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent
had unlawfully discharged 19 of the employees
named in the complaint, and further discriminated
against another employee in the assignment of
overtime work. He also found numerous instances of
interrogation by the Respondent of employees about
their union activities, threats by the Respondent
concerning unionization and employees' union
affiliation, and other conduct contravening Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. We adopt the Trial Examiner's
conclusions as to all but three of the alleged
discriminatees, and modify his Decision in the
respects hereinafter noted.
8(a)(1) Conduct
The Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to find
specifically that certain conduct of the Respondent,
which he described, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, although he did make general findings to this
effect in his "Conclusions of Law." In order to
clarify his Decision, we list all the incidents
mentioned in his Decision,3 which, in context, we
find violated Section 8(a)(1).4
' The Charging Party's request for oral argument is hereby
denied as the record, the exceptions, and the briefs adequately
present the issues and the positions of the parties.
2 [Certain inadvertent errors and omissions in the Trial
Examiner's Decision have been corrected by the addition, in
brackets, of the corrections immediately following the appropri-
ate words or phrases.]
;' Only those incidents specifically alleged in the complaint to
violate Section 8(a)(1) are discussed herein.
4 [The Board's page and line references to the Trial Examiner's
decision have been cnanged to section references in the printed
decision.]
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Threats of reprisals, promises of benefits, and
related acts of interference: TXD section 2, a,
Hawkins' statement to Page that the shift and
general overseers were "giving him [Hawkins] hell"
because of the union leaflet with Page's name on it,
Hawkins' reproach of Page and two other employees
for not waiting before they "came up with something
like that [the leaflet]," and Hawkins' reminder that
Page's name appeared on a union leaflet, made in
response to Page's query as to why his supervisors
were "mad at" Page; section 2, a, Hawkins' request
that Page speak to Hall to try to get Hall to quit the
Union, and to get himself out, made at the time
Hawkins remarked that he had "good things in mind
for" Page and Hall; section 2, a, Hawkins'
statement, in the context of a discussion of the
Union, that the Respondent could fire Page just
about any time it wanted, that Hulsey had "left
himself open" dozens of times to discharge, and now
it looked like Hawkins was going to have to run them
off; section 2, a, Hawkins' suggestion that Page's
son, Richard, who had left the Respondent's employ,
could get his job back if he would get out of the
Union; section 2, a, Hawkins' statement to Hulsey,
Page, and Hall that they had "messed [Hawkins]
up" by signing union cards, that they were the best
workers Hawkins had and he was "going to have to
do something about it"; section 2, a, Hawkins' query
of Page as to whether he, Hulsey, and Hall had made
up their minds about getting out of the Union, and
Hawkins' statement that he would not hit them
"below the belt" and that before he would fire them
he would "warn" them; section 2, a, Greer's query of
Epps as to whether he had seen Lollis about
withdrawing from the Union, and Greer's
suggestions that Epps do so, as well as Greer's
prognostication that "something was going to
happen" and a man of Epps' age "can't get a job just
anytime anywhere he wants it"; section 2, e, Jones'
statement to Spearman that if they did not keep the
Union out of the plant it would be a mess, made after
Jones asked Spearman if he was going to vote in the
election.
Interrogation: TXD section 2, a, Corbett's inquiry
as to Owen's whereabouts the previous day, a
Sunday, on which Owens had attended a union
meeting; section 2, e, Waldrop's query of Henderson
as to whether Union Organizer Stamps had been to
Henderson's home and whether Henderson had run
Stamps off; section 2, e, McCall's questioning of
Spearman as to whether union people had been to
see Spearman; and section 2, e, Jones' questioning
of Sherman about Sherman's companion at the
union meeting.
'The above-cited Stevens case is hereinafter referred to asJ P
Stevens I
Creating the impression of surveillance: TXD
section 2, e, Waldrop's revelation to Henderson that
Waldrop knew that union organizers had been to
Henderson's home, that an organizer had opened the
gate for Henderson's wife on one occasion, and that
the Respondent knew when organizers came to an
employee's home and "what kinds of cars they [the
organizers] drive."
Union insignia: TXD section 2, b, Carter's order
that Hubert Varnadore go home and take off his
"AFL-CIO" T-shirt.
Attempt at constructive discharge: TXD section 2,
c, Brinkley's or Elrod's request that Hill resign his
employment, made at the time Hill was shown a
writeup which related to protected union activity.
Discriminatory application of a no-solicitation
rule: TXD section 2, c, Brinkley's warning that Hill
would be discharged for "bothering" employees
about the Union on the job, while at the same time
permitting antiunion employees to harass Hill at
work by following Hill back and forth and asking him
if it was his name on the union leaflet and by
propounding other questions about the Union.
8(a)(3)
Of the 19 employees the Trial Examiner found
were discharged in violation of the Act, we affirm
him as to 17. We do not agree with the Trial
Examiner that the General Counsel has proved by
the preponderance of the evidence that Wylie Hill
and William Coker were unlawfully discharged. In
addition, contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that
Juanita Faulkenberry was discharged in violation of
Section 8(a)(4).
Wylie Hill: From 1952 until July 16,1964, when he
was laid off, Hill had worked for Respondent in the
yard of Republic plants 1, 2, and 3 as a laborer under
the supervision of Edward Locklair, outside
overseer, and Harold Cloud, yard leader.
Hill joined the Union in the summer of 1963 and
informed Locklair of this fact shortly after
Thanksgiving, 1963. Shortly thereafter, Supervisor
Locklair told Hill that he should not sign a union
card and that, if he did so, he would lose his job. Hill
testified as a General Counsel witness at a hearing
on March 31, 1964, in J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc., 157
NLRB 869.-5
Hill's principal duty was to pick up trash from
trash bins at the three plants by hand or pitchfork
and place the trash in a dump truck, by which it was
hauled to a trash pile. Working with Hill were Floyd
McCrorey, who drove the dump truck and assisted
in picking up trash, and Samuel Q. Mahoney, who
did the same work as Hill. From time to time Hill
also mowed the lawns, as did Mahoney and
J.P. STEVENS 219
McCrorey, and helped unload cotton from railroad
cars and store it in the warehouse, as did about six or
seven laborers.
In 1962, the Respondent began consideration of
methods for streamlining the collection of trash, and,
in October or November 1963, for the first time
began experimenting with a type of trailer which it
believed would expedite handling of trash. Under
this new method of collection, seven trailers are
placed in the areas around the warehouses where
the trash bins l had been, and trash is dumped
directly into these trailers. Periodically, a pickup
truck driven by one of the yard crew is attached in
turn to each trailer. After spending about 4 or 5
minutes cleaning up around the trailer, the driver
hauls the trailer to a trash pile, where he dumps the
trash using a winch attached to the trailer. He then
returns the trailer to its appointed spot. This method
of trash collection requires the employment of only
one man, the driver, as compared to the three men
needed under the old method.
At first, the Respondent used only two of the new
trailers. Then, on or about July 4, 1964, it employed
for the first time a full complement of seven trailers,
eliminating completely the dump truck method of
trash collection and with it, Hill's job.
Hill was discharged on July 16. Thereafter,
Mahoney was assigned the job of hauling the trailers
and McCrorey, with one helper, McClintock, was
assigned to hauling cotton and staple from the
warehouse to the mill and unloading it at the mill.
Subsequent to Hill's layoff the Respondent hired two
new employees, Price and Watson, for various
laborer jobs in the yards. Others in the yard with less
seniority than Hill were kept on after Hill was
discharged.
The Respondent's explanation for Hill's layoff and
the retention of others with less seniority, given to
Hill at the time of his discharge, was that all the
available laborer jobs required a knowledge of
reading and writing or an ability to operate complex
mechanical equipment. The Respondent asserted
that Hill was illiterate, and was unable to operate the
complex equipment, whereas all the other laborers
could read and write and could run such equipment.
According to Locklair, at the time of Hill's
discharge he had considered Hill for two or three
different jobs. One involved operating a forklift, in
which the driver moves levers controlling the blades
of the lift and manipulates a gear shift. Although,
according to Yard Leader Cloud, all laborers were
given the chance to learn to use such equipment,
Hill had never availed himself of this opportunity.
Furthermore, Locklair testified that, sometime
before Hill's discharge, the Respondent began using
a riding mower with three forward gears and one
reverse gear, which replaced the power mower Hill
previously had used. Hill was "put on" this more
complicated device, but could not operate it. From
this, Locklair concluded that Hill would be unable to
maneuver the even more difficult forklift.6
Another job open at the time Hill was discharged
involved bailing waste. Locklair explained that for
this job it was necessary to read the classification on
seven different bins in which the different types of
waste were placed, as well as weigh the waste and
log it in a book. Locklair rejected Hill for this job
because of his inability to read and write.
Locklair was unable to place Hill in McCrorey's or
Mahoney's job driving a truck as this required a
driver's license which Hill did not have. Nor could
Hill do McClintock's job, assisting Mahoney on the
dump truck transporting cotton and staple, as this
job involved reading the names of at least seven
grades of cotton, and writing down numbers for the
staple.
Hill's illiteracy had come to the Respondent's
attention much earlier when Hill was assigned to
transporting cotton bales by handtruck from railroad
cars to a weighing platform, prior to storage in the
warehouse. Each bale had a tag with a number
which the laborer transporting the bale was required
to call out to either Cloud or Locklair, who stood by
the scales and recorded the weight of the bale. Hill
was unable to call out the numbers.7 Thereafter, Hill
was assigned on one or two occasions to moving the
bales from the weighing platform to the warehouse, a
job which involved no reading or writing, but which,
the record shows, was not then a full-time job, and
one which is now accomplished primarily with
forklifts.
In concluding that the reason offered by the
Respondent for not placing Hill in another job -that
Hill was illiterate and all other jobs required reading
and writing- was a pretext, the Trial Examiner
emphasized that Mahoney, who was retained, "was
little if any more literate than Hill, and others of the
20-25 employees doing labor work must similarly
have been low in the educational scale." The record
evidence is to the contrary. Mahoney, who, unlike
Hill, had a driver's license, testified in detail as to
the reading and writing requirements of the above-
described job hauling cotton and staple. Nothing in
his testimony indicated that he was illiterate. Frank
Beaty, another laborer, testified that he filled out a
job application which asked what grade he had
completed in school and which had some elementary
mathematics problems he was required to solve.
Cloud testified that all the men hired after Hill was
laid off could drive a truck and a "tow motor," could
stencil cotton, which involves reading, and, indeed,
could do "any job" in the yard. Finally, Hill himself
fi According to the testimony of employee Mahoney, Hill had the numbers on the bales of cotton And, he did not otherwise
admitted to Mahoney that he could not operate a forklift or the contradict Locklair's and Cloud's testimony regarding this part of
riding mower his work As for Hill's writing ability, the record shows that
' Hill testified that he could not read papers or signs but that he although Hill was able to print his name, he usually signed his
could read numbers Hill admitted , however , that he had not read name with an "X "
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
admitted that all others with less seniority than he
who were retained could read and write.
The Trial Examiner also found that the jobs
performed by the laborers "required no ability to
read and write, and Hill had on occasions performed
most of them." The evidence as detailed above does
not justify this conclusion. Thus, the Respondent
submitted uncontroverted evidence that the jobs
open required some degree of literacy or an ability to
operate complicated machinery, and that all other
retained and newly hired employees could read and
write and operate such devices as a forklift and
riding mower. In these circumstances, and not-
withstanding the Respondent's earlier threat to
Hill that he would lose his job if he signed with the
Union, we are not convinced that Hill's discharge
was discriminatorily motivated. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the complaint as to Hill.
Juanita B. Faulkenberry: Faulkenberry worked as
a weaver in Republic plant 1 for 12 or 13 years until
her discharge on October 23, 1964. Her 30 years of
experience as a weaver also included jobs for 2 or 3
years at the Republic plants 2 and 3.
Faulkenberry's work record with the Respondent
was a good one until a time just prior to her dis-
charge. Thus, when she was working at plant 1
she was transferred on a trouble-shooting as-
signment to a set of looms at plant 2 to get the
looms "straightened out." She helped to reduce the
percentage of seconds on these looms. While at
plant 3, Faulkenberry was complimented by
Superintendent Burns for her "nice work" on a
difficult style of cloth. Soon after she came to
plant 1, she was the first weaver in 18 months who
had less than 5-percent seconds, and was com-
plimented by the general overseer of weaving,
Arthur Justus, for her good work.
On March 27, 1964, Faulkenberry testified at the
first hearing as a witness for the General Counsel.
Her testimony, as reported by the Trial Examiner,8
was that her loom fixer, Ralph Harrison, alleged to
have been discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3),
was "working very hard" on a job that had been left
"in real bad shape" and that although she had, on
occasion, complained to her immediate supervisor,
Simean Dawkins, about Harrison's slowness in
responding to flags, she did not do so "too much."
Faulkenberry's testimony, therefore, in part
contradicted that of Dawkins, which was that he had
"many" complaints from Faulkenberry about
Harrison. Her testimony concerning Harrison's hard
work was relied on by the Trial Examiner in
discrediting Dawkins' and Justus' explanation for
the discharge-that Harrison was a poor
worker-and in finding instead that the discharge
was discriminatorily motivated.
According to Faulkenberry and her then loom
fixer, Donald Carpenter, several weeks after
Si P Stevens and Co , Inc , 157 NLRB 869, 893-894
Faulkenberry testified, Justus watched her more
closely while she did her normal work. Carpenter
was discharged during the summer of 1964 and was
replaced by Billy Sneed, a learner fixer who had
never before fixed looms. In September, with Sneed
fixing on almost all her looms, Faulkenberry was
given a very difficult style of cloth to weave which
made it harder for her to "match filling" and to start
up her approximately 20 looms. About this time,
Peterson, the weaver in charge of Faulkenberry's
looms on the shift preceding Faulkenberry's,
complained that the job was too hard for her and was
transferred to another job. Darby was assigned to
replace Peterson. Unlike Peterson, Darby did not
leave the looms in good working order.
Faulkenberry's uncontradicted testimony on this
point is as follows:
... [S]he [Darby] would leave the warp in
such a mess it would take me two or three hours
to start them up ... we'd have to move ends
from the selvage over to the center, or to the
body of the cloth and when she would move
those ends she would break off the draw wires
and leave them in, the ends would run up in the
draw wires and mat up sometime. It would take
me ten or fifteen minutes to cut out the mat up
and get one loom started up.
The combination of a learner loom fixer, a difficult
style, and a weaver on the preceding shift who left
the looms in "a mess," a set of circumstances which
no other weaver was confronted with, resulted in a
decrease in Faulkenberry's production to between
75 and 80 percent.
On a number of occasions Faulkenberry
complained to her supervisors about Darby. She also
requested a better loom fixer and asked Justus to put
her on a particular better set of looms. Dawkins and
Justus took no action with respect to her requests,
other than promising to speak to Darby. Dawkins
told Faulkenberry that the Respondent could not
find experienced loom fixers, and Snead remained
on her job. Noe, a weaver with less seniority than
Faulkenberry, was transferred to the better looms
because, according to Justus, she was a "better
quality weaver" and the Respondent was having
trouble with the particular style on those looms. Noe
was assigned to the looms despite the fact that her
production, on one occasion, had been as low as 77
percent, and her seconds had been as high as 34
percent, much higher than Faulkenberry's and far
above what the Respondent considered
satisfactory.9 As indicated above, Peterson, the
second shift weaver, had also been transferred from
the difficult style at her request, but no action was
taken on Faulkenberry's request for a similar
transfer.
On the morning of October 16,1964, about a week
before her discharge, Faulkenberry told Dawkins
' Noe was not, however. given a personnel action report for
poor quality or low quantity on this occasion
J.P. STEVENS
that on three occasions she had flagged a loom that
had been standing idle several hours, but that it had
not been fixed. Later that same day, Dawkins gave
Faulkenberry a personnel action report for low
production. This was the first warning, oral or
written, Faulkenberry had ever received. When
Dawkins showed Faulkenberry the writeup, she
reminded him that she did not have an experienced
loom fixer , whereupon Dawkins admitted that he
knew this.
The last week Faulkenberry worked she was
assigned an experienced loom fixer, Marvin
Sheehane. Her production increased to an
acceptable 88 percent. Nevertheless, on October 23,
1964, she was discharged "for low production" and
"production changes" which, according to the
Respondent , necessitated a reduction in the number
of weavers from 63 to 60. Justus chose to eliminate
three weavers who were the lowest producers:
Flynn, Reufelt, and Faulkenberry. Justus admitted
that Flynn, whom he laid off, had been in and out of
the Veterans Hospital and was "a sick man."
Reufelt was not laid off, but instead was transferred
to a harness cleaning job which Justus admitted
Faulkenberry could do. He did not, however.
attempt to find out whether Reufelt had seniority
over Faulkenberry, and, indeed, recommended on
Faulkenberry 's termination slip that she not be
considered for another job in the plant, despite her
substantial seniority and apparently unblemished
record in jobs as a smash hand and harness cleaner.
Although admitting that job assignments and layoffs
are usually made on the basis of seniority , Justus
offered no explanation for his preference of Reufelt
for the harness cleaning job except that Reufelt was
a learner weaver who had previously done harness
cleaning. Neither did he explain his determination
that Faulkenberry was not suitable for another
nonweaving job. At the same time Justus discharged
Faulkenberry, who never had been laid off before, he
retained at least 10 other weavers with less seniority
than Faulkenberry and whose production, in at least
one instance , was, according to Justus , only "a little
better" than Faulkenberry's.
The Trial Examiner credited Justus' testimony
that he was not aware of the increase in
Faulkenberry's production during her last week until
after her discharge. However, the Trial Examiner
overlooked the fact that after her discharge
Faulkenberry had been to the personnel office
asking for work. During this time the Respondent's
force of weavers was further decreased to 57 and
then increased to 60. The increase of three was
made by hiring one weaver, Revis, from the outside,
by assigning a trainee , Wright, to a weaving job, and
by hiring back Otis Varnadore, who had less
seniority than Faulkenberry and who had previously
quit. Faulkenberry was not offered reemployment
despite the fact that Justus must have known by
then of the material increase in her production
during the last week she worked.
221
In sum, the record shows that: (1) Faulkenberry's
testimony at the first hearing was damaging to the
Respondent's case and contradicted that of her
supervisors who were later responsible for her
discharge; (2) until the summer of 1964
Faulkenberry had a good work record with the
Respondent, and had been complimented by her
supervisors: (3) Faulkenberry had seniority over
many other weavers; (4) after the first hearing she
was watched more closely by her supervisors;
(5) prior to her discharge Faulkenberry's request to
be transferred to another and easier set of looms was
denied, whereas the request of Peterson was
granted; (6) at the time of her discharge the
Respondent was aware that the special
cii cumstances of a learner fixer, a difficult style, and
a weaver on the preceding shift who left
Faulkenberry 's looms in "a mess ," adversely
affected her production; (7) the Respondent made no
attempt to determine whether Faulkenberry had
seniority over Reufelt for the harness cleaningjob or
to place Faulkenberry in other nonweaving work;
and (8) the Respondent did not offer Faulkenberry
reemployment when it later increased the number of
weavers, although it knew of the material increase in
her production during her last week and of her
desire to work, but instead hired weavers with less
seniority and experience than Faulkenberry. In
these circumstances we find that the Respondent's
assigned reasons for Faulkenberry's discharge were
pretexts and that the real reason was that she had
given testimony under the Act unfavorable to the
Respondent . Accordingly, we find that by
discharging Juanita Faulkenberry the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(4) of the Act.
William E. Coker: Coker was employed as a
weaver on the second shift at the Respondent's
Estes plant at the time of his discharge on May 25,
1965. The plant superintendent was V. T. Jenkins,
the general overseer of weaving was J. C. Blackston,
and the assistant overseer of weaving, Coker's
immediate supervisor , was Shannon McCall.
In the 13 years prior to his discharge Coker had
received 12 personnel action reports. Three of these
were for work of poor quality. Eight specifically
mentioned Coker's poor inspecting. Thus, on
May 21, 1956, long before he became active in the
present union campaign, Coker was written up
because he "ran a wrong draw on loom No. 437 [of]
36 yds. With closer inspecting this would have been
caught. Mr. Coker must inspect closer." Coker
received similar personnel action reports on
September 20, 1956, and June 11, 1958. On May 23,
1961, before his union affiliation and activity became
known to the Respondent, Coker received a writeup
because he "ran loom No. 274 with thread out (77
yards). With proper inspection this thread out would
have been caught." Thereafter, as more fully set
forth in the Trial Examiner ' s Decision , during the
summer and fall of 1964, Coker 's name was listed on
union leaflets as a member of the union organizing
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
committee, and a prounion letter he had written to
the Saluda Valley Record, that was rejected by the
newspaper, was printed in a leaflet distributed by
the Union in October 1964.10
In March 1965, after noting the high percentage of
seconds woven at the Estes plant, Jenkins spoke to
Blackston about better inspecting . Weavers had
been informed prior to this time, and were thereafter
again told, of the specific steps the Respondent
requires for inspecting cloth. Soon after a weaver
comes on a shift he is required thoroughly to inspect
each of his looms by using a light to examine the
cloth for defects. A weaver must: (1) stop the loom;
(2) bend over and inspect the face of the cloth;
(3) bend over and examine the ends of the roll of
cloth and the roll itself; (4) check the cutter; and
(5) if there are no defects or if the loom does not need
further attention, initial and date the cloth. If,
however, the loom is making a defect in the cloth,
the weaver must not initial the cloth, but instead
must stop or flag the loom, or take other appropriate
action.
It is not disputed that Coker knew of this
procedure and had followed it at times in the past.
Nevertheless, on several occasions prior to
March 26, 1965, McCall warned Coker that he was
not inspecting properly. Then, on March 26, more
than 5 months after the distribution of Coker's letter,
McCall gave Coker a writeup for high seconds "due
to poor inspection." Again, on March 30, 1965,
Coker received a personnel action report, in part, for
"not inspecting cloth like he should." Thereafter,
Coker improved a little but then, according to
McCall's uncontroverted testimony, Coker
"dropped back" to a point where he was not
stopping each loom as required. Finally, on May 15,
1965, McCall wrote Coker up for poor inspection. At
this time, McCall specifically outlined to Coker the
steps for inspecting which Coker was supposed to
follow. McCall's testimony was that after May 15
Coker "got worse" at inspection.
On May 24, 1965, according to Coker's own
testimony, he began inspecting looms at the
beginning of his shift, after starting some looms.
Coker came to loom 46 that had a new warp tied on.
This warp had been running about 4 yards of cloth
(less than 1 hour's worth) from the previous shift.
Coker looked only at the face of the cloth and did not
notice anything wrong; he thereupon initialed it.
Coker stated that he did not stop the loom or follow
the other steps of the inspection procedure, but that,
as the loom had a new warp, he intended to come
back to it after he finished inspecting his 61 looms.
While Coker was attending to his other looms,
McCall came to loom 46 and noticed some torn
selvage on the loom. The torn portion of the cloth
was going around a separate roll which was causing
a "build-up," a situation that could result in
extensive damage to the loom. McCall cut off that
particular defective part of the cloth and instructed
the cloth doffer later to doff the cloth and bring
McCall the torn portion. Blackston was shown this
torn portion the next day, May 25, 1965. After noting
that Coker' s initials were on the cloth and that the
torn portion was running at the time Coker initialed
it, Blackston concluded that it was apparent that
Coker had not properly inspected the cloth, but had
initialed it anyway. He thereupon asked for, and
received, Jenkins' permission to discharge Coker,
whereupon Coker was called into Blackston's office
and terminated. Coker's termination slip lists the
"details" of his discharge as follows: "This
employee allowed a loom to run tearing up cloth. He
had initialed cloth as if he had inspected but had not.
He has got so he will not follow instructions and
warnings."
The Trial Examiner found that as "the end
purpose of a weaver's checking his cloth is to help
minimize the number of seconds he produces," and
as "Coker's seconds were average or fewer. than
average," he could not attach much importance to
Coker's failure to inspect properly. The Respondent
contends that it is important for its weavers to follow
the prescribed methods of job performance whether
or not their particular seconds are high or low.
Jenkins testified that if inspection procedures were
not followed the Respondent's "whole quality
program would go haywire." Jenkins stated what
impact the failure of one weaver to follow procedure
would have on the other weavers:
... [I] t would certainly have an effect on other
weavers, due to the fact that they would say,
well, we have so much time allotted for
inspection on our job; this fellow is going to
spend ten minutes, and I have to spend forty;
there's something wrong.
Similarly, Blackston emphasized the need for
uniform inspection procedures regardless of
whether unorthodox methods of inspection might
sometimes result in fewer seconds for a particular
individual:
... [I] f one is doing it [inspecting in
accordance with the procedures outlined] and
the other one is not, then you can see it all over
the weave room when a person is not inspecting
properly, if you let one go on and on and on that
way, before long you've got them all doing the
same thing; and that's what happened; McCall
complained to me that Mr. Coker was
inspecting looms, walking up the alley with a
light shining from one to the other, this way, not
even stopping the loom off; well, other weavers
could see what he was doing; their jobs connect
to his.
We are persuaded, in view of the above, that the
Respondent regards as important adherence to its
Coker was also a union observer at an NLRB representation election among the Respondent's employees at the Estes plant on
May 13, 1965
J.P. STEVENS
prescribed inspection methods. Further, the record
shows that the Respondent's concern for Coker's lax
inspection methods predated his union activity, and
that Coker continued his unorthodox inspection
methods after he joined the Union. In the 3 months
prior to his discharge he received three personnel
action reports for poor inspecting. At the time of the
last of these reports he was specifically told what he
must do to inspect properly. Coker disobeyed
instructions , and the result was a torn selvage that
could have seriously damaged a loom, which Coker
nevertheless initialed as free from defects. In view of
the above, we are not persuaded that the
Respondent's reason for discharging Coker-that he
failed to inspect properly-was a pretext.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint as to
Coker.
We also modify the Trial Examiner's Decision in
the following respects:' 1
With respect to the employment history of Ben
Suratt, the Trial Examiner did not mention two
personnel action reports received by Suratt. One, on
February 3, 1964, was for inefficiency, and the other,
on June 25, 1964, was for smoking outside the Mill. 12
The Trial Examiner also stated that Suratt, Hyatt,
and Hubert Varnadore began wearing union buttons
and T-shirts at work, and that "Carter sent them
home to take the insignia off." While all three
employees wore the insignia apparently on a number
of occasions, the record shows that Carter told only
Varnadore to go home and take the T-shirt off.
Neither Suratt nor Hyatt was wearing a union T-shirt
when Carter spoke to Varnadore. These
modifications. however, do not affect our judgment
that Suratt was discharged for his union activity.
Thus, it is still true, as the Trial Examiner found,
that Suratt never received a personnel action report
until his name had been posted as a union member
and that his discharge directly followed a
resumption of his union activity, evidenced by his
wearing of union insignia.
In section 2, a, of his Decision, in discussing the
discharge of John Fulbright, the Trial Examiner
states that, "there is no evidence that Fulbright
[distributed leaflets in the plant] ... except during
breaks and in the washroom." The testimony of
employee Hiot was that he told Supervisor Scruggs
that Fulbright had asked Hiot to pass leaflets "out
over job," but that Hiot did not do so. Employee
O'Bryant testified that he saw Fulbright put leaflets
in rolls of cloth, in the shuttle boards, and on work
benches, but that when Scruggs asked O'Bryant
" The Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to make specific
findings that the following employees were discharged in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act Oliver Durham, W 0 Epps, Frank
Wojeck, James Hill, Leroy Reeves, Rufus Finley, and Donald
Jones We hereby rind that these employees were discharged in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act We also find that James
Rosemond was denied overtime in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act Although the Trial Examiner's "Conclusions of Law"
include a finding that the Respondent discriminated against Ben
Suratt, Hubert Varnadore, John Fulbright, and Willis Young for
223
who had been distributing the leaflets O'Bryant
replied that he did not know. We correct these
omissions by the Trial Examiner, but find that they
do not have a significant impact on the Trial
Examiner's findings that the Respondent's 12-day
investigation to determine where the leaflets
originated was "barren of result." The only
information received by the Respondent came from
Godfrey and Hiot, neither of whom had actually
distributed any leaflets, and whose statements to the
Respondent hardly establish that Fulbright actually
distributed leaflets during working hours. We note,
furthermore, that although Scruggs purported to
conduct an "investigation" as to the origin of the
leaflets, he failed to question the alleged culprit,
Fulbright, although Fulbright was an employee of 13
years' service to the Respondent, and even refused
specifically to state to Fulbright at the time of his
discharge that he was responsible for distributing
the leaflets. Finally, we find it significant that it was
not uncommon for leaflets to be left around the
plant, but that the record does not show that the
Respondent had ever before conducted an
"investigation" as to the origin of such leaflets and,
indeed, had apparently tolerated the presence of
union literature in the plant . On all the evidence, we
agree with the Trial Examiner that Fulbright, who
was dismissed less than a month after he gave
testimony on behalf of the General Counsel at the
hearing in J. P. Stevens I, was discharged in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act.
In discussing the discharges of Willard Page and
Junior Hulsey, the Trial Examiner stated that
Cothran "saw Page and Hulsey leave the washroom
about 10 minutes before midnight and get on the
freight elevator, but that he did not know where they
went." The Respondent contends that the record
shows that Cothran told Hawkins that he had "seen
them [Page and Hulsey] leave." On cross-
examination , however, Cothran clarified this last
statement.
A. .... he [Hawkins] asked me had I seen
them; that is, he didn't ask me where they were.
Q. What'd you say?
A. I told him, yeah, I'd seen them leave.
Q. Leave where?
A. Leaving the picker room.
Q. You don't know where they went when
they left the picker room, do you?
A. Well, it is not up to me to find out where
they went.
giving testimony under the Act, the Trial Examiner failed to so
find in discussing the individual case of each of these employees
We correct this oversight and hereby find that the above four
employees were discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the
Act
't The Trial Examiner did note that Suratt received a personnel
action report on July 22, 1964, but incorrectly stated that this
report was issued by Brannon The report was actually written
and signed by Carter
224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER: Your answer is no, is that
it?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
Thus, the record confirms the Trial Examiner's
findings concerning Cothran's testimony, which we
find to be vague and of little value.
But even if the foregoing testimony may be read as
suggesting that Page and Hulsey may have left the
plant 10 minutes early, the record also shows that
others in Page's and Hulsey's crew had, on occasion,
left early without being reprimanded or discharged;
indeed, it affirmatively appears that Hawkins had
instructed the crew in the past to "ease out" 2 or 3 at
a time starting at 11:20, 40 minutes before the end of
the shift. In view of the above, we agree with the
Trial Examiner that the reason offered for the
discharges of Page and Hulsey was a pretext and
that the real reason was their union activity.[';
In finding that the discharge of Jake Owens was
discriminatorily motivated, the Trial Examiner
overlooked a final incident preceding the discharge.
On May 5, one day before Owens' discharge, he was
instructed by Thomas to clean up a warehouse
platform by picking up paper in the yard around the
platform, emptying the trash cans, and putting
certain tie bands in a scrap bin. When Thomas
checked to see if Owens had done the job, he found
that Owens' crew had picked up paper around the
platform but had not yet cleaned off the platform
itself. It was then that Thomas decided to terminate
Owens. This last incident appears to be trivial,
however, when considered in the context of Owens'
job history. Owens had worked for the Respondent
for 17 years, during most of which time his work
performance, the record shows, was good. For about
2-1/2 years preceding his discharge, Owens had
been a leadman directing a crew of about five
employees. . According to Thomas, beginning in
January 1965 Thomas spoke to Owens on at least
three occasions about specific jobs Owens' crew had
been directed to do but which had not been
accomplished quickly enough. On none of these
occasions, however, was Owens issued a personnel
action report, which indicates that the Respondent
did not consider these very important. Then, on
May 3, Corbett interrogated Owens about Owens'
attendance at a union meeting held the previous day,
an interrogation which we have found violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On May 5 Thomas
observed Owens' slowness in finishing the above-
described platform cleaning job. Although Owens
had completed a part of this work assignment,
Thomas, on May 6, summarily decided to discharge
Owens. Thus, Owens' discharge came only 4 days
after his appearance and speech at a union meeting.
Under all the circumstances, we do not believe that
the Respondent considered the platform cleaning
incident any more serious than those matters
Thomas previously had discussed with Owens.
Further, we find it significant that Owens had done
good work for the Respondent for almost 17 years
and that the Respondent was willing to tolerate
Owens' shortcomings for a period of 4 months
preceding his discharge, but not after he was seen at
the union meeting. Accordingly, we agree with the
Trial Examiner that the assigned reason for Owens'
discharge was a pretext and that the real reason was
his union activity.
The Trial Examiner found that the complaints
about Frank Wojeck received by Dempsey were
"vague and undefined" and that "Dempsey had no
personal knowledge" of Wojeck's solicitation on
working time. The record shows, however, that one
of Dempsey's own employees, John Bowles,
complained to Dempsey that Wojeck solicited
Bowles while Bowles was welding. We correct this
oversight by the Trial Examiner, but note that it does
not detract from the Trial Examiner's findings that:
(1) Wojeck had worked for the Respondent for 11
years; (2) the Respondent had never complained
about his work performance; and (3) Dempsey had
not attempted to obtain Wojeck's side of the story or
even to advise Wojeck as to the specific nature of
the complaints against him. Further, the record
shows that the Respondent had in the past permitted
solicitations on company time. Thus, Lions Club
" In ordering that Page be reinstated , the Trial Examiner did
not discuss an incident that occurred in the picker room office at
the time of Page's discharge According to Page , on the day of the
discharge Hawkins called Page into the office where Hawkins
questioned him as to where he had been at 11 50 the previous
night Page replied that he was on the job, whereupon Hawkins
said he had checked and Page was not there Then Page said,
"you're lying, you wasn ' t even out there " Later, after Page
and Hulsey were told they were being discharged for leaving
early, Page "flew mad" and "cussed him [Hawkins] out with
everything [lie] could think of," including calling Hawkins "a
son of a bitch and a bastard " Hawkins ' testimony was that Page
first called him "a damned liar ," or claimed that Hawkins "was
telling a damned lie," and later called him a "son of a bitch," and
told Hawkins that lie "was going to smash [his] head in or break
[his] legs "
While we do not condone this kind of employee misconduct,
considering all the circumstances of these cases, and particularly
the Respondent' s numerous and flagrant unfair labor practices,
we do not on balance find it sufficiently serious to warrant denial
of reinstatement and backpay Thus, there is no evidence that
prior to, or after, the incident in the office Page made intemperate
remarks or engaged in physical violence Just prior to the incident
in question Hawkins had accused Page of not being on the job (the
Trial Examiner found to the contrary) and had announced Page's
discharge , which was discriminatorily motivated With good
justification , therefore , Page believed he had been treated
unfairly The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 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 expression [R]efusal to
reinstate her would put a premium on the employer's
misconduct
N.L R B v M & B Headware Co , 349 F 2d 170 (C A 4), of
Local 833, UAW v N L R B (Kohler Co ), 300 F 2d 699 (C A D C )
Accordingly, we agree with the Trial Examiner that Willard Page
should be reinstated with backpay J P Stevens and Co , Inc , 157
NLRB 869, fn 10
J.P. STEVENS 225
members, including Dempsey, sold brooms
throughout the plant on working time, a tool
salesman set up a display inside the plant and sold
the employees tools during their working hours, and
money was solicited for Girl Scout cookies, needles
for the band-raising fund, and chocolate bars for
children graduating from school, all without
objection by the Respondent. Accordingly, we agree
that the assigned reason for Wojeck's
discharge-that he interfered with the work of other
employees-was a pretext, and that the real reason
was his union activity.
In section 2, c, the Trial Examiner related a
conversation involving James Hill and Supervisor
Trotter. According to the Trial Examiner, Hill was
asked by Trotter if he were a union man , and Hill
replied that he was, whereupon Trotter is quoted by
the Trial Examiner as saying, "You know you'll get
fired for that." The record shows, however, that the
query as to Hill' s union affiliation and the statement
about being fired were actually made by a
nonsupervisory employee, Eskew, although in the
presence of Trotter. We correct this error but note
that it does not detract from the Trial Examiner's
findings, with which we agree, that the Respondent
mounted a campaign to get rid of Hill as soon as his
name appeared on a union leaflet, and finally
discharged Hill on unsupportable grounds.
Accordingly, we agree with the Trial Examiner that
Hill was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
The complaint herein alleges that from
November 22, 1963, and continuing until
September 14, 1964, the Respondent reduced the
hours of work of James Hill, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act. The Trial Examiner did not discuss
this aspect of the case or make findings thereon. The
General Counsel's exceptions contend that for the
period in question Hill was given 1 hour less
overtime per week than all other employees in his
department, and was additionally deprived of work
on double shifts which he had done prior to
November 22, 1963.
The record shows that in or about September
1963, shortly after Hill joined the Union and
distributed a union leaflet with his name on it, Hill's
department went on a 6-day, 48-hour week, a change
from the normal 5-day, 40-hour week. The 6-day
week continued until the time Hill was discharged
on September 14,1964.
About the middle of October 1963, the above-
described conversation between Hill, Eskew, and
Trotter took place, during which Hill admitted that
he was a union member. Hill testified that the week
after this conversation he began to lose overtime.
Data submitted by the Respondent corroborate
Hill's claim. Thus, in the period November 18,1963,
to September 14, 1964, Hill worked 310.5 hours of
overtime, which amounts to an average of 7 hours
per week during that 44-week period. In contrast, all
other regular employees in Hill's department
averaged 8 hours' overtime per week. The
Respondent offered no explanation for this
discrepancy.
Hill also testified that prior to his conversation
with Eskew and Trotter, the Respondent had
frequently designated Hill and Dockery, another
employee, to work a double shift.'`' That is, these
two employees would stay on after the conclusion of
the second shift, on which they regularly worked,
and would work the third shift from midnight until
between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. for which they received
time-and-a-half pay.
After Hill told Trotter in mid-October 1963 that he
was a union member, Hill received no double-shift
work, although Dockery continued to get this
assignment . On one occasion, according to Hill,
Dockery complained to Hill that the Respondent
"was working him [Dockery] too much" and asked
Hill if he would work the overtime that night in
Dockery's place. Hill agreed and suggested that
Dockery speak to Johnson, their second hand.
Nevertheless, on this occasion Hill was not assigned
the double shift. Hill also stated that he had directly
requested his supervisors to assign him overtime
work, but to no avail . In these circumstances, we
find that Hill was denied overtime work because of
his union affiliation and activity, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and shall order that he be
made whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him.
In discussing the discharge of Willis Young, the
Trial Examiner did not mention that Young had
given testimony under the Act, although in his
"Conclusions of Law" he lists Young's discharge as
a violation of Section 8(a)(4). We note that Young
testified as a witness for the General Counsel at the
first hearing on June 24, 1964, and, accordingly,
make this addition to the Trial Examiner's findings.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Young was
discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of
the Act.
The Trial Examiner attributed to Willie Pulley,
who directed the work of John Little and Leslie
Hancock, certain damaging admissions and threats.
The Respondent contends that Willie Pulley is not a
supervisor. The record shows, however, that Pulley
is the only person directing the work of the 8-10
employees in the cloth room for most of his shift and
that Pulley gives employees time off for illness.
Accordingly, we find Willie Pulley to be a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
" This is substantiated by a document submitted by the Respondent was on a 5 - day week , Hill earned an average of 6.3
Respondent which shows that for the period from January 20, hours of overtime per week
1963, through November 17, 1963 , during almost all of which the
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE REMEDY
In J. P. Stevens I, decided last year, we found that
"the conventional reinstatement, backpay, and
posting of notice requirements for 8(a)(3) and (1)
violations are not completely adequate to undo the
effect of the massive and deliberate unfair labor
practices committed by Respondent in its successful
efforts to frustrate organization by its employees."
Accordingly, we ordered the Respondent, in addition
to our usual remedies, to: (1) convene during
working time meetings of employees in the various
departments of its North and South Carolina plants
and read to them a copy of the "Notice to All
Employees"; (2) mail copies of the notice, after it has
been signed by the Respondent's representative, to
each of its employees in its plants in the States of
North and South Carolina; and (3) give to the Union
and its representatives, upon request, reasonable
access to its bulletin boards and other places where
notices to employees are customarily posted for a
period of 1 year beginning with the issuance date of
that Decision.
The Charging Party has requested that, in
addition to the above three remedies, we also require
the Respondent to furnish the Union with a list of
names and addresses of its employees. We have
decided to give all four remedies and now proceed to
explicate more fully our reasons therefor.
The Trial Examiner here observed that:
The record of the 1965 hearing [ the instant
case] reflects the continued, systematic
determination of this employer as revealed by
the record of the 1964 hearing U. P. Stevens I],
to destroy the union root and branch by
discharging its most active members on any
pretext which might come to hand, or could be
invented, by threatening to discharge others
unless they came to management and
renounced the Union, and by provoking the
resignation of still others from Respondent's
employment. No other conclusion can be drawn
than that Respondent has largely succeeded in
its purpose.
i' Our records of past cases involving this Respondent show
that the above cases do not represent isolated instances where the
Respondent violated the Act, but are rather two more in a series
of cases which reflect the Respondent 's general policy of chilling
unionism by committing unfair labor practices or engaging in
objectionable conduct Thus, in Industrial Cotton Mills (Division
of J P Stevens Co), 102 NLRB 1265, the Board, in 1953 found
that the Respondent had violated Section 8 ( a)(3) and (1) of the Act
when it denied reinstatement to two strikers who were union
members This decision was affirmed , in part, by the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals in N L R B v Industrial Cotton Mills
(Division of J P Stevens Co), 208 F 2d 87 (C A 4) In 1955, in
Delta Ftntshing Company (Division of J P Stevens & Co,
Inc -Plant No 3), 111 NLRB 659, the Board held that the
Respondent had violated Section 8 ( a)(1) of the Act by
interrogating and threatening employees about their union
activity and by promulgating an illegal no -solicitation rule The
Respondent was found by the Board to have violated Section
8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act again in 1959 in J P Stevens & Co , Inc ,
125 NLRB 1354, when its supervisors discharged employees for
The total of unfair labor practices committed by
the Respondent in this case and in J. P. Stevens I,
involving more than 20 of the Respondent's plants,
supports the Trial Examiner's observation. In these
cases the Respondent unlawfully discharged a total
of 88 employees for their union activity and
discriminated against 4 employees because of their
union affiliation by not assigning overtime to them,
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. In addition,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(4) of the Act by
discharging seven employees for participating in
National Labor Relations Board proceedings. The
Respondent also otherwise interfered with, coerced,
and restrained its employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization and to engage in concerted
activities, a right guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
It did so in these two cases by making at least 30 ,
threats of reprisals and promises of benefits to
employees, by engaging in four acts of surveillance
and in two instances creating the impression of
surveillance of union activities, by demanding on
two occasions that employees remove union insignia,
by posting threatening notices on its bulletin boards,
and by discriminating against union adherents in the
application of a no-solicitation rule. t 5 The record
before us of extensive unfair labor practices and the
history of illegal conduct by the Respondent
persuade us that conventional remedies would not
be adequate to disabuse the employees of the effects
of the Respondent's flagrant conduct and to bring
home to the Respondent's employees the message
that the Respondent is being required to cease and
desist from interfering with their rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, to join or not to join a union.
Remedies other than the conventional ones are
clearly called for here.
We note that the Supreme Court has recognized
that Congress conferred upon the Board broad
discretion to create remedies to meet specific
situations where the normal modes of relief will not
suffice to right the outstanding wrong. In the leading
case of Phelps Dodge Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 313
U.S. 177, 194, Mr. Justice Frankfurter indicated the
Court's view of the Board's powers in this area:
their union activity , and made threats of firing and plant closings,
and predictions of violence in the event of unionization
During the period of time covered by the instant case,
representation elections were held at various plants of the
Respondent , where the Respondent continued its course of illegal
conduct In J P Stevens & Co , Inc (Duncan Plant), Case
11-RC-2136 ( not published in NLRB volumes ), an election which
the Union lost was set aside because the Respondent's
supervisors had unlawfully interrogated and threatened
employees, had ordered an employee to write "Vote No" on about
20-25 cards and distribute them to employees on working time,
and had permitted antiunion employees to distribute literature on
working time while publishing a no-solicitation rule prohibiting
similar union employee solicitation A representation election at
six of the Respondent 's plants in J P Stevens & Co , Inc ,
11-RC-2095 ( not published in NLRB volumes ), was also set aside
because prior to the election the Respondent had made thinly
veiled threats to employees of plant closing and discharge in the
event of unionization
i
J.P. STEVENS
... [I] n the nature of things Congress could not
catalogue all the devices and stratagems for
circumventing the policies of the Act. Nor could
it define the whole gamut of remedies to
effectuate these policies in an infinite variety of
specific situations. Congress met these
difficulties by leaving the adaptation of means
to end to the empiric process of administration.
The exercise of the process was committed to
the Board, subject to limited judicial review.''
Mindful of the proscription against remedies
which may unduly penalize a respondent17 as well as
of the necessity of being imaginative and meticulous
in fashioning our orders,'K we have herein
prescribed only such remedies as are warranted by
the record before us. This record and that of earlier
cases is replete with examples of unlawful attempts
by the Respondent's supervisors to wean individual
employees away from the Union or to prevent them
from joining it. These illegal attempts involved
interrogations, promises, and threats that were most
often followed by unlawful discharges of union
members, carried out by these same supervisors,
which reached massive proportions.
This individual, face-to-face approach by the
Respondent's supervisors towards its employees we
find to have a greater psychological impact upon the
employees than similar remarks made by an
employer in a letter to all employees or in a speech to
a large assembly of workers." We find, therefore,
that the posting of a notice, which is our usual
remedy, is insufficient to dissipate the effects of the
Respondent's unfair labor practices. In this case it is
essential that each employee be made individually
aware of his statutory rights."' Accordingly, we have
ordered the Respondent's supervisors, many of
whom were directly implicated in the unfair labor
practices described above, to read the attached
"Notice to All Employees" to the employees in their
departments, thereby directly placing the
imprimatur of recognizable supervisory authority on
the notice. We have also ordered that the
Respondent mail copies of the "Notice to All
Employees" to its employees to ensure that
employees who are sick, on vacation, or otherwise
absent when the notice is read will have an
opportunity to be adequately informed of the
"' See also May Department Stores v N.L R B , 326 U S. 376,
391-392 , where the Court recognized that "the Board has the
same power to determine the needed scope of cease and desist
orders under the National Labor Relations Act that courts have,
when authorized to issue injunctions , in other litigation " Accord
N L R B v Seven-Up Bottling Co , 344 U S 344, IAM, Tool and
Die Makers Lodge No 35 v NLRB , 311 U S 72, N.L.R B v
Globe Products Corp , 322 F 2d 694 (C A 4), Standard Generator
Service Company of Missouri, Inc v N L R B., 186 F 2d 606
(C.A 8), N L R B v Idaho Egg Producers, Inc., 229 F 2d 821
(C A 9), Eichleay Corp v NLRB , 206 F 2d 799 (C A 3) And
see 74th Cong , 1st Sess , H Rept 969, p 21, 2 Leg Hist 2931
(NLRA, 1935) See also 74th Cong , 1st Sess , H Rept 1147, pp
23-24, 2 Leg Hist 3074 (NLRA, 1935)
227
Respondent's intention to refrain from engaging in
unfair labor practices. The mailing of the notice to
everyone will also permit those who heard the
lengthy notice read in the plant to peruse it at their
leisure and fully absorb it."
The record also shows that the Respondent
carried on a long campaign of illegal intimidation
and unlawful discharge of those employees who
were actively soliciting for the Union. The
Respondent's efforts to eliminate those union
members who might recruit others to the union
banner were, as the Trial Examiner herein indicated,
largely successful: in some departments where there
once had been a number of union supporters, not
one was left. They had been discharged, or withdrew
from the Union because of fear of reprisals.
Meanwhile, antiunion employees were free to talk
about the Union during working hours.
In these circumstances, we believe that a simple
cease-and-desist order will not suffice, for it would
be unrealistic to believe that such an order could
retrieve the employees' thwarted rights of self-
organization or restore the Union to its previous
position where it was able to make known its views
and solicit memberships with the help of employee
members within the plant. Few, if any, union
,supporters are left, and those who might espouse the
union cause, such as reinstated employees who
previously had been discharged for their union
activity, would probably be afraid to promote the
Union for fear that they would be discharged again.
The atmosphere of fear generated by the illegal
threats, interrogations, and discharges in the plant
undoubtedly will hinder lawful propaganda activities
during nonworking time on company premises. We
note, furthermore, that union organizers ordinarily
have no right of access to the plant"' and that, so far
as the record shows, this Union now has no other
effective means of personally contacting all of the
Respondent's employees. Accordingly, we have
decided to grant the Charging Party's request that
the Respondent be required to supply the Union,
upon request made within 1 year, with the names
and addresses of all employees in its North and
South Carolina plants. This will enable the Union to
contact all employees outside the plant and make
known its views in an atmosphere relatively free of
17 Cf Virginia Electric and Power Company v N L R B , 319
U S 533
1N See Flannery, Dennis M., "The Need for Creative Orders
Under Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act," 112
U Pa L Rev 69, 79 (1963) See also Note , 59 Harv L Rev 747, 765
14 Baker , Ballantine , & True , Transmitting Information
Through Management and Union Channels ( 1949 ), p 125; Peters,
R W, Communication Within Industry (1950), p 178 , Note, 61
Yale L J 1066 ,1074-76, fns 33-39 (1952)
20 The Supreme Court early recognized that, "the employer
may be required to give appropriate notice of his compliance
with the Board 's order "Republic Steel Corp v N L R B , 311
U S. 7,12
21 H W Elson Bottling Company, 155 NLRB 714
11 N L R B v Babcock & Wilcox, 351 U S 105
295-269 0-69-16
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
restraint and coercion. As the Respondent was
responsible for the unfair labor practices in the
plants and for the attendant lack of organizational
opportunities, and as all the employees' names and
addresses are not available from sources other than
the Respondent, we think it reasonable to require it
to furnish the list.23
In J. P. Stevens I, we found that the Respondent
had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by posting on
its bulletin boards a notice which informed
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." These
bulletin boards were also used to post lists of
employees who, the Respondent had been informed,
had joined the Union. Some of these employees told
the Respondent they desired to leave the Union,
whereupon their names were "scratched" from the
list on the bulletin boards. This, the Trial Examiner
found, revealed "to all how the fortunes of the Union
ebbed and flowed." In view of this extensive use by
the Respondent of its bulletin boards, and
particularly in consideration of the Respondent's
flagrant unfair labor practices which denied and
deprived its employees of their rights under the Act,
we are also requiring the Respondent to give the
Union and its representatives reasonable access to
the Respondent's bulletin boards for a period of 1
year.
Because of the widespread and flagrant nature of
the Respondent's unfair labor practices, which have
occurred in the more than 20 plants involved in the
present and prior proceedings (see footnote 15,
above), we believe it necessary to make the above
remedies applicable to all the Respondent's plants in
North and South Carolina. This requirement will
help insure that all the Respondent's employees will
be informed of the Respondent's intention to refrain
from coercing them in the exercise of their protected
rights.
In its brief, the Charging Party urges that in cases
such as this, where, because of the Respondent's
massive unfair labor practices, the Union has been
prevented from obtaining a majority, the Board
should issue an order directing the Company to
recognize and bargain with the Union. The Charging
Party would make such an order applicable to the
Slater Plant and the Roanoke Rapids plants herein.
We are not persuaded, however, that such an order
is appropriate. Although there is a possibility that,
but for the Respondent's unfair labor practices, the
Union might ultimately have secured majority
status, it has not done so. In view of the majority
13 See H. W Elson Bottling Company , supra, S & H
Grossinger's Inc , 156 NLRB 233, enfd in relevant part 372 F 2d
26 (C A 2), Scott's, Inc , 159 NLRB 1795, James A Pearson,
Rufus S Pearson and Mrs. E W Pearson d/b/a Crystal Lake
Broom Works, 159 NLRB 429 This requirement of a list of names
and addresses supplied by the employer and furnished to the
union is now standard procedure in those cases where an NLRB
representation election has been scheduled. Cf Excelsior
principle in Section 9(a) of the Act, we have serious
doubts that the policies of the Act require or permit
the issuance of a bargaining order where majority
status has never been attained.24
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO,
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 or any term or condition of
employment of those employees whose names
appear in the attached Appendix, thereby
discouraging membership in the above-named
Union, the 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 employees because they gave
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 Wylie Hill, Bobby Spoon, Franklin
Moore, Joe Manley, Daniel Murray, and William
Coker.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
ORDER
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 regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment in order to discourage membership in
Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating
Underwear Inc and Saluda Knitting Inc, 156 NLRB 1236
Preliminary studies by the Board in the representation case area
have shown that the compilation of such a list does not place an
undue burden upon an employer, that in almost all cases
employers have readily supplied the list, and that this procedure
has generally worked to the satisfaction of the parties
=' H W Elson Bottling Company, supra, J P Stevens and Co ,
Inc , 157 NLRB 869
(
i
I
J.P. STEVENS
'against employees for giving testimony under the
Act.
(c) Engaging in surveillance of employees'
activity in respect to union organization or giving the
impression thereof.23
(d) Interrogating any employee concerning such
union activity by him or other employees in a
manner constituting a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
(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
organization 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) Intimidating, coercing, encouraging, and
assisting employees in withdrawing from the Union.
(i) Instructing employees to watch for and report
to the Respondent the union activities of other
employees.
6) Requiring its employees to remove and
prohibiting its employees from wearing union
insignia.26
(k) 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 representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid
or protection, and to refrain from any or all such
activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to the employees, whose names appear
in the attached Appendix, reinstatement to their
former positions or to substantially equivalent
positions, 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 James Rosemond and James Hill
overtime 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
z' The Trial Examiner inadvertently left these paragraphs out
of his proposed "Notice to All Employees" [not published
herein] We have corrected this omission
t" See fn. 25,supra.
229
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 those employees listed in the attached
Appendix if 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.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available 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 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"'' to each employee, and post copies at
all of its plants located in the States of North
Carolina and South Carolina. Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 11, shall be signed by a representative of the
Company. Thereafter, a copy shall be mailed by the
Company to each of its employees working in its
North Carolina and South Carolina plants, and
additional copies shall be posted by it and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable 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) Upon request of the Union, made within 1 year
of the issuance date of this Decision, immediately
give to the Union a list of the names and addresses of
all employees in its plants in North and South
Carolina.
(h) 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.
(i) 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.
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.
t' 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 "
230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board , and in order to effectuate
the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge , force the
termination of, refuse overtime work to, or
otherwise discriminate against employees in
order to discourage membership in or support of
the 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 reprisals 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 antiunion activity while prohibiting
employees from engaging in activity on behalf of
the Union.
WE WILL NOT encourage and assist
employees in withdrawing from the Union.
WE WILL NOT instruct employees to watch for
and report to the Company the union activities
of other employees.
WE WILL NOT prohibit employees from
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 collectively through representatives
of their own choosing , and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
and to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below
immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions,
without loss of seniority or other rights and
privileges , and WE WILL make them whole for
any pay they lost because of the discrimination
against them , with interest.
Ben Suratt
Hubert Varnadore
John Fulbright
Oliver Durham
Willard Page
Junior Hulsey
W. O. Epps
Jake Owens
Arthur Dean
Frank Wojeck
Wylie Hill
Leroy Reeves
Willis Young
Rufus Finley
Donald Jones
John Little
Leslie Hancock
Juanita Faulkenberry
WE WILL offer to James Rosemond and
James Hill overtime 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 overtime 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 America, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization.
J. P. STEVENS AND CO.,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
Note: We will notify the above-listed employees if
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.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 1624 Wachovia Building, 301 North Main
Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101,
Telephone 723-2911, Extension 371.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HORACE A. RUCKEL, Trial Examiner: Upon charges and
amended charges filed during a period beginning in June
1964 by Industrial Union Department , AFL-CIO, herein
called IUD, 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 October 29 , 1964, issued a
J.P. STEVENS
consolidated complaint and an order consolidating the
various cases for the purpose of hearing.
The consolidated complaint, as amended, alleges in
substance that Respondent among other things has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
their rights to self-organization as guaranteed by the
National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act, by
subjecting them to unusual and harassing surveillance
while working, issuing "warning slips" for acts not
theretofore a cause for warning, promulgating, changing,
and strictly enforcing rules pertaining to employees
talking together, for the purpose of interfering with their
union activities, and discharged 28 employees at various
plants because of their union activity,[ and, in the case of 9
of them, because they had previously appeared as
witnesses and testified on behalf of the Board at a previous
unfair labor practice hearing. These activities are alleged
to constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the
Act.
Respondent filed an answer denying that it had engaged
in any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, I conducted a hearing at Rock Hill
and Greenville, South Carolina, and Roanoke Rapids,
North Carolina, on various dates from May 24 to June 28,
1965, at which the parties were represented by counsel
and participated in the proceedings. At the conclusion of
the hearing the parties waived oral argument. Although I
granted a time within which to file briefs, none was filed.
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 plants in South Carolina and North Carolina,
among other States, where it is engaged in the
manufacture and distribution of textile products. This
hearing has to do with plants located in the vicinity of
Rock Hill, South Carolina, including Republic plants 1 and
3; plants located in the vicinity of Greenville, South
Carolina, including the Duncan plant, the Blackhawk
plant and warehouse, the Slater plant, and the White
Horse plant; the Estes plant at Piedmont, South Carolina;
and the Patterson plant at Roanoke Rapids, North
Carolina.
The consolidated complaint as amended alleges, and
Respondent's answer admits, that during the 12-month
period preceding the issuance of the consolidated
complaint Respondent manufactured finished products
valued in excess of $100,000 and sold and shipped finished
products valued in excess of that amount from its Rock
Hill, Greenville, and Roanoke Rapids plants to points
outside the States of North Carolina and South Carolina.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, is a labor organization admitting
employees of Respondent to membership.
The cases of three of these employees, Richard Page, Lanier
Hall, and Marvin Nichols, were dismissed at the hearing on
motion of the General Counsel
' Referred to by the initials TXD
One of these was not discharged, but is alleged to have been
discriminatorily denied overtime work
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
231
A. Background
The matters set forth herein are to be seen against the
backdrop of the Union's concerted drive to organize
Respondent's employees in its North Carolina and South
Carolina plants and Respondent's reaction to it. This
began in the spring of 1963 and continues. It has been
accompanied by the discharge of employees active in the
Union and by other disciplinary action by management,
alleged by the General Counsel to be the result of this
effort, but asserted by Respondent to be only incidental
thereto and for good cause.
Beginning in August 1963, the Union, acting through the
IUD, filed numerous charges of unfair labor practices. The
Regional Director for Region 11 subsequently issued a
complaint and I conducted a hearing thereon on 59 hearing
days from March 24 to September 8, 1964. That is referred
to in this record as the first hearing. On July 26, 1965, I
issued my Trial Examiner's Decision' finding that
Respondent had engaged in various unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action including the reinstatement
with backpay of 69 discharged employees.
During the course of the first hearing additional charges
of discrimination in employment and other alleged
violations of the Act were filed as to additional employees.
The complaint was amended as to some of them, and their
cases heard It was not amended as to nine others
discharged before the close of the first hearing, since the
charges pertaining to them were still under investigation
when the hearing closed. These 9 employees, together
with 19 others3 whose employment was terminated after
the close of the first hearing, constitute the principal
subject matter of the second, or instant, hearing.
Of these 28 employees 9 testified at the first hearing for
the General Counsel and the Union. Their subsequent
discharges are alleged to be violative of Section 8(a)(4)4 as
well as of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The individuals in
question, who appeared before me at the first hearing as
witnesses in the discharge cases of fellow employees, now
reappear in their own right as discharged employees
As I have found, when the Union's drive got under way,
Respondent posted in its various plants a notices
purporting to state its position with regard to the
organization of the employees. It declared among other
things its "positive intention" to oppose the Union and by
every "proper" means to prevent it from coming into its
plants. It professed belief that the Union would do the
employees only harm; stated that "no person will be
allowed to carry on union activities on the job"; and urged
employees opposed to the Union to let Respondent know if
anyone put them "under any sort of pressure" to join the
Union or caused them "any trouble at your work." In this
event Respondent would "undertake to see" that it was
stopped. Respondent, in addition to posting these notices,
mailed copies of them to the employees.
As the Union's drive progressed, the Union, with the
consent of the individual members, sent their names to
Respondent's various plant superintendents. In reply,
' Section 8(a)(4) makes it an unfair labor practice for an
employer "to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an
employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under
this Act "
See 157 NLRB 869.887
232 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent posted their names on its bulletin boards and
wrote them that it was "taking due note" of the
information. It warned them that their joining the Union
did not give them preference or immunity of any sort.
The publication of the union membership of many of its
employees had a twofold result: It effectively removed the
question of Respondent's knowledge of their union activity
as an issue in the discharge cases, and, as Respondent's
opposition to that activity mounted and assumed a
coercive character, including the discharge of employees
for their union activity, the coming of other employees to
management to announce that they were withdrawing
from the Union and to ask that their names be "scratched"
from the list on the bulletin board.6
B. The Discharges and Other Acts of Interference,
Restraint , and Coercion
1. Plants in the Rock Hill area
a. Republic plant 3
Ben Suratt: Suratt was employed as a warp service hand
on the third shift in the weave room. His overseers were
Bert Dixon and Clifford Brannon. The general overseer is
"Buck" Carter and the plant superintendent, Melvin
Smith. Suratt joined the Union on August 17 or 18, 1963,
and Respondent posted his name on the department
bulletin board along with those of James Walden, Charles
Capps, Cecil Hyatt, James Price, and others. As I have
found, Charles Capps' name was received from the Union
and posted on August 15, and he was discharged that night
at the end of his shift .7 A week later, on August 23,
Respondent discharged Walden.8 On the day following
Walden's discharge, Suratt, Hyatt, and Price called on
Superintendent Smith in his office where Leland Burns,
assistant manager of all plants in the Rock Hill area, was
also present, and told Smith and Burns that they wanted to
get out of the Union and asked that their names be
removed from the list on the bulletin board. Burns acted as
the chief spokesman for Respondent in the conversation
which followed. It was testified to on March 25, 1964, at
the first hearing, by Suratt, Hyatt, and Price. Their
versions were similar, they were not denied by either
Smith or Burns while testifying, and I found them to be in
accord with the facts. Subsequently, Hyatt and Price
voluntarily left Respondent's employ, and Respondent
discharged Suratt on July 23 [24], 1964. He filed a charge
on the following day while the first hearing was still in
progress. His case now comes before me as an employee
whose discharge is said to be not only in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) but also in violation of Section 8(b)(4)
[8(a)(4)] of the Act because he gave testimony under the
Act. Since this is so, it becomes necessary to review
briefly his testimony as to the conversation between him,
Hyatt, and Price on the one hand, and Smith and Burns on
the other as well as the testimony of Hyatt and Price as to
what was said in Superintendent Smith's office on
August 24,1963.9
As I found, Burns, supported by Smith, observed
preliminarily that they could not have known "the
Company (they) had been keeping." He proceeded to ask
them if they knew whether certain other employees were
members of the Union. He characterized Walden, whom
Respondent had just discharged, and which occasioned
the presence of the employees in his office, as a "damned
ring-leader." With respect to another, Foster Roberts, who
had previously come to Burns to renounce the Union, he
vowed that he could not understand why Foster should
want to join the Union in the first place since he had six
children and if he were to lose his job he could not get it
back.io Turning to the inquiry of Suratt, Hyatt, and Price
as to what they could do to be saved, Burns said that he
was going to take them at their word that they were
withdrawing from the Union, so he was not going to ask
them to put it in writing. On the other hand he could not
promise them anything. They would have to "prove"
themselves and watch the company they kept. If they ever
decided to go back into the Union they were first to come
to him and let him know.
In July 1964, during the progress of the first hearing,
Suratt and Hyatt, in a resurgence of their enthusiasm for
the Union, and Hubert Varnadore, another employee on
the third shift whose discharge is hereinafter discussed,
began wearing union buttons and T-shirts at work. They
did not report this "going back into the Union" to
Respondent, as Assistant Manager Burns had enjoined
them to do in such an event, and Carter sent them home to
take the insignia off.
Suratt and Hyatt were service men and worked together
as a team in the weave room on the third shift. On the
night of July 22 the two of them along with Plyler, another
service man, were repairing a breakout in a warp on a
sample loom when Brannon came over and withdrew
Hyatt and Plyler and assigned them to other work, leaving
Suratt to make the repair by himself. This took him about
2 hours, a time which Brannon testified was too long, and
he issued him a personnel action report. On the night of
July 24, Suratt was making another repair which took
about 2 hours. When he had finished he then performed
other work. Brannon, went to the loom and cut the warp to
count the thread ends and concluded, according to his
testimony, that 2 hours was too long to take on this repair
and recommended to Dixon that he discharge Suratt, and
Dixon did so without waiting until the end of the shift.
Although Brannon testified that 2 hours was too much
time for Suratt to spend repairing the warp, his account
lacked circumstantiality. He could not recall any previous
occasion on which he had cut off a piece of cloth to
ascertain whether an employee had taken too long to
repair a breakout. Moreover, Suratt had not been issued a
personnel action report prior to his name being posted as a
union member On July 22, immediately after the
resumption of his activity in the Union and his wearing his
union button to work, he was given a writeup. Two days
later he was discharged.
I have previously found" that Melvin Smith,
superintendent of plant 3, was unable to recall while
testifying at the first hearing the name of any employee
discharged for any reason whatever at that plant prior to
the eight discharges alleged in the complaint, although he
" This process, as I found, was actively aided and abetted by
Respondent, sometimes in organized fashion as in the Watts plant
where antiunion employees used Respondent 's facilities, with
Respondent's acquiescence, to prepare and circulate
mimeographed withdrawal forms for signature of the employees,
which were then mailed to the Union (157 NLRB at 941)
r 157 NLRB at 897-899
8 157 NLRB at 895-897
" See my TXD, 157 NLRB 869, for a more detailed account of
this conversation
"' Respondent did not discharge Foster Roberts Instead, it
discharged his brother Earl, who remained loyal to the Union
" 157NLRBat963
J.P. STEVENS
thought that one had been discharged sometime in 1963
for "not doffing cloth." Nor is there any evidence here that
any employee had ever previously been discharged for
taking too long in repairing a breakout.
I have also found' 2 on the basis of uncontradicted
testimony in connection with the discriminatory discharge
of James Walden, in whose behalf Suratt testified along
with Cecil Hyatt, that Dixon told Walden that he could be
discharged for talking about the Union, and that
Respondent could find various ways of getting rid of him. I
am convinced that in Suratt's case the complaint that he
took too long to repair a breakout was one of these ways,
that it was a pretext only, and that the real reason was
Suratt's resumed activity in the Union which Burns and
Smith, Dixon's superiors, had warned Suratt against in
plain, unvarnished. terms
Wylie Hill: Hill had worked 12 years in the yard of
plants 1, 2, and 3 hauling trash and doing other common
labor under Edward Locklair, outside overseer for the
three plants. He joined the Union in the summer of 1963.
Sometime thereafter Locklair approached him while at
work and asked him who had solicited his union
membership and Hill said that Walden had done so."
Locklair then told him that he should not sign a union card
and that if he did he would lose his job. Hill gave his
testimony on this point on March 31, 1964, at the first
hearing, the same day that Hubert Varnadore, whose
discharge is hereinafter related, testified. Locklair did not
testify at that hearing and Hill's account of Locklair's
threat stands uncontradicted. I credit it.
Locklair discharged Hill the following July 16. During
the 13 years Hill worked as a laborer, one of his chores had
been to pick up trash from the waste bins at the three
plants in a dump truck, and to haul it to the trash pile and
dump it. He did this every morning along with two other
laborers, Mahoney and McCrory. They used pitch forks to
get the trash out of the bins, McCrory driving the trick. In
the spring of 1964 Respondent procured two trailers and
stationed one at plant 2 and one at plant 3, and trash from
the mills was thrown directly into the trailers and hauled to
the trash pile by a pickup truck. For several months
Respondent used these trailers along with the pickup
truck, as well as collecting trash with the dump truck.
Beginning sometime in July 1964, Respondent stopped
using the dump truck for hauling trash, and instead used it
to haul cotton from the warehouse. It continued to use the
pickup truck to haul the trailers with the trash. About this
time Respondent discharged Hill.
It is not disputed that Hill hauled trash as above-
described for 13 years until he was terminated, and
Locklair admitted that Hill had more seniority than
McCrory, whom Respondent retained. Mahoney testified
that he had worked in the yard with Hill only 5 years and
that Hill was there when he came. At the time Hill was
terminated, therefore, he had more seniority than either
McCrory or Mahoney. It is Respondent's contention
however that Hill had never driven a truck, as had
McCrory. Asked why Hill was not continued at work on
12 157 NLRB at 895
" Respondent discharged Walden on August 23, as has been
found, for his union activity
157 NLRB at 899-901
The gist of his testimony was that immediately upon the
advent of the Union, Respondent's supervisors kept close
surveillance of those whose names had been posted as union
233
the dump truck instead of Mahoney , when the pickup
truck took over , or why he was not kept on at unloading
boxcars or at other work which he had done along with
picking up trash , Locklair 's testimony was that Hill was
illiterate . Mahoney, however, was little if any more literate
than Hill , and others of the 20-25 employees doing labor
work must similarly have been low in the educational
scale. In any event , it is obvious that these jobs required
no ability to read or write, and Hill had on occasions
performed most of them.
I find that Respondent , when it decided to use trucks to
haul trash used this occasion as a pretext to get rid of Hill
as Locklair himself had said Respondent would do if he
signed a union card.
Hubert Varnadore : Varnadore had been employed as a
weaver on the third shift in plant 3 for 10 years up to his
discharge on March 22 [17], 1965. His brother William, a
loom fixer , and William's wife, Ollie, a weaver , worked on
the same shift . Clifford Brannon was shift foreman. The
names of the three Varnadores were sent by the Union to
Respondent as members of the Union, and posted by
Respondent on its bulletin board on the night of August 15,
1963. A few hours later " Buck" Carter, weaving room
foreman , issued William Varnadore the first writeup he
had received during his 11 -year employment. On
October 8 Respondent discharged him. I found in my
Decision " that Respondent ' s discharge of William
Varnadore , and its harassment of Ollie Varnadore were
occasioned by their union affiliation.
Up to August 1963, when Respondent posted Hubert
Varnadore 's name as a union member, he had not received
a writeup during his 10-year employment. On August 29, 2
weeks after his name was posted, Brannon sent him to
Carter's office where Carter wrote him up for mixing
filling. He was written up again for the same thing on
March 30, 1964, at the time he was subpenaed as a witness
at the first hearing. He took the stand on March 31.' S On
April 16, 1964, and on November 11 he received writeups
for "poor inspecting ." All these writeups Varnadore
refused to sign.
During the progress of the first hearing, at which
Varnadore testified, he came to the plant on at least two
occasions , as did Suratt , wearing a union button, and on
occasion a union T - shirt with "AFL-CIO" on the front.
Carter told him to go home and take it off and he did so.
The only reason Carter gave for these restrictions while
testifying was that "it would attract the attention of other
people." This was doubtless the purpose . In the absence
of any evidence that the button or the T-shirt created a
safety hazard , Carter's restriction was per se violative of
the Act. 16
The testimony of Brannon as to Varnadore ' s March 30
writeup is that filling was mixed in only one bobbin on his
looms, and that it could have been the fault of the
magazine filler or the service boy who brings the filling to
the filler's station . He admitted that he did not investigate
to find out who mixed the filling, stating that he did not
members, something which they had not done before The
complaint alleged that Respondent harassed them with personnel
action reports, or wnteups, in many instances the first they had
received since they started working I found these allegations
supported by credible evidence including the testimony of
employees who left the Union and advised Respondent that they
had done so (157 NLRB at 965 )
'' De Vilbiss Company, 102 NLRB 1317
234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
think it important because, whoever mixed it, Varnadore
should have caught it.
On the night of March 19 [16], 1965, Brannon called
Varnadore to Carter's office where he showed him a roll of
cloth and pointed out a running defect which, according to
Carter when testifying, had been run on one of
Varnadore's 300 looms the night before and noticed by
Smarr, a weaver on the first shift, who called it to the
attention of Carl Gregg, assistant overseer on that shift.
Gregg, still according to Carter, notified Carter and he
went to the loom and removed the cloth himself and
brought it to his office. He then notified Brannon who, as
stated, later called Varnadore to the office and showed
him the cloth. Still later Carter decided to discharge
Varnadore, had his time made out, and told Brannon to
send him home when he came to work the next night.
Varnadore's testimony is that humidity in the weave
room was high on the night of the 16th and 17th, in spite of
the presence of the employee in charge of humidity
control, as a result of which much of the cloth in the weave
room was damp and susceptible to defects of the nature
called to Varnadore's attention.
Carter's testimony on cross-examination is that Greene,
Varnadore's fixer, was responsible along with Varnadore
for the defect in the cloth because he should have seen it.
So, he testified, although he did not discharge Greene, he
did write him up:
Q. (By Mr. Butler) You didn't discharge Mr.
Greene, did you?
A. I did not.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Why did you reprimand him?
THE WITNESS: Well, the loom fixers, they're
responsible for seconds" also. They're supposed to
check sometimes on the cloth.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Was this the kind of defect he
could see in just passing by?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Without using a light?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. You could feel it on the
cloth.
When the Trial Examiner asked to see Greene's
personnel action report it was not forthcoming.
Subsequently, Brannon testified, counsel stipulated, and I
find, that Carter did not in fact issue Greene a report.
Hence, Respondent discharged Varnadore, the weaver,
and did not even reprimand Greene, the fixer, for a defect
for which, by Carter's own admission, the fixer was jointly
responsible.
In drawing my conclusions as to Respondent's
discharge of Varnadore, I am not persuaded in the first
place that the cloth which Carter showed both Varnadore
and Brannon in his office in fact came from one of
Varnadore's looms. Varnadore was not shown it before it
was removed from the loom, nor was Brannon. Neither
Smarr, who Carter stated discovered the defect while the
cloth was on the loom, or Gregg, the assistant shift
overseer to whom Smarr is said by Carter to have shown it
at the time, was called as a witness. Varnadore's testimony
is that when Carter showed him the cloth he did not see his
name on it.'"
I have heretofore found Carter to be a shifting, hostile,
and untruthful witness who, in connection with the
discharge of Walden, characterized by Assistant Plant
Manager Burns as "a damned ring-leader" in the Union,
twice attempted without success to get Walden's overseer,
Bogan, to state falsely that Walden had not reported to
him that his tying-in machine was out of order (the
asserted reason for his discharge), and attempted to entrap
Jarvis Capps into running or continuing to run seconds so
as to furnish a reason for his discharge. I have also
expressed my lack of conviction that a worn shuttle said to
be the reason for the discharge of Hubert Varnadore's
brother, William, in fact came from any of his looms."'
Similarly here I am not convinced, in the absence of direct
testimony corroborating that of Carter, that the cloth in
question came from any of Hubert Varnadore's looms.
If I were to credit Carter's testimony that Varnadore
was responsible for the defect in question, the question
remains why Greene, Varnadore's fixer, was not also
discharged, since by Carter's own admission, supported
by the entire record, the fixer is responsible along with the
weaver in such a situation. Carter attempted to blur this
conspicuous disparity in treatment by stating he gave
Greene a writeup. When I requested that this personnel
action report be produced it was testified by Brannon, and
stipulated by counsel, that Carter's statement was not in
accord with the fact on this point.
For reasons implicit in the foregoing, and in further view
of Carter's admission while testifying that he could not
recall any weaver whom he had ever previously
discharged, I conclude and find that Respondent did not
discharge Varnadore for the reasons it advanced, but for
his union activity.
b. Republic plant 1
Juanita Faulkenberry. Faulkenberry worked as a
weaver on the third shift in plant 1 for 12 years up to the
time of her discharge on October 23, 1964. Previous to
coming to plant 1 she had worked at plants 2 and 3 about 3
years. Altogether she had had approximately 30 years'
experience in weaving. Her name was not posted on the
bulletin board as a union member, and there is no
evidence in the record that she was. On March 27, 1964,
she testified at the first hearing as a witness called by the
General Counsel to the general effect that the work of her
loom fixer, Harrison, named in the complaint, was not as
bad nor her complaints as to his fixing as harsh as depicted
by certain Respondent witnesses. She had never been
issued a personnel action report complaining of her work
until on October 16, 1964, when she was written up by her
immediate supervisor, Dawkins, for a production of only
75 to 80 percent of the established norm. On October 23,
according to the testimony of Arthur Justus, general
overseer of weaving, Respondent introduced a production
change which resulted in doing away with a set of looms on
each of the three shifts. Accordingly Faulkenberry was
laid off and two weavers from the other shifts, Reufelt and
" As I have observed (157 NLRB at 895, In 13) Respondent
continuously wrestles with the problem of seconds, whether
resulting from careless weaving, careless slashing, careless loom
fixing , careless supervision , poor material , or sheer accident The
effort is directed toward keeping seconds "normal," and this is
nowhere defined
" The weaver customarily writes his number in the margin of
the cloth before it is removed from the loom
11 157 NLRB at 899-901
J.P. STEVENS
Darby, assigned to other work . Reufelt , who was only a
learner weaver , in contrast to Faulkenberry, was
transferred to harness cleaning. This was work which she
and Faulkenberry both had done on occasions . The result
to this production change was to reduce the number of
weavers from 63 to 60, where it remained.20
During the week previous to this change the three laid-
off weavers were the lowest in production on their shifts. It
is conceded , however, that Faulkenberry ' s production
increased materially during the current week when she
was given a better loom fixer than the learner-fixer she had
previously had. Justus ' credited testimony is that he was
not aware of the improvement in her production until after
her layoff when the weekly figures were published.
Since Faulkenberry was not associated with the Union
and since her testimony at the first hearing was relatively
innocuous , I do not find that the General Counsel has met
the burden of proof which rests upon him and I shall
recommend that the complaint be dismissed as to
Faulkenberry.
2. Plants in the Greenville area
a. The Dunean plant
John Fulbright: Fulbright worked for Respondent 13
years as a loom fixer . He was under the immediate
supervision of Allan Scruggs , assistant overseer in the
weaving department . He worked on the second shift along
with Albert Sanders who was discharged on August 29,
1963, I have found , because of his union membership.21
Fulbright testified on May 25, 1964, at the first hearing on
behalf of the General Counsel in connection with Sanders'
discharge . Respondent discharged Fulbright a month
later, on June 22, under the circumstances hereinafter
related.
On May 26, the day following Fulbright 's testimony
"for" Sanders , Willie Hazel , a weaver whose looms were
tended by Sanders and "Yo-Yo" Godfrey, was called by
Respondent and testified "against" Sanders , stating that
certain cloth , which Respondent claimed was classified as
seconds because of poor loom fixing , came from one of
Sanders' looms. Asked on cross-examination how he knew
this he stated , "Well I just know-I got brains."
Both Hazel and Godfrey were antiunion employees. On
June 11 McIver , an organizer for the Union , gave Fulbright
160-170 copies of a leaflet in the form of a cartoon which
pounced upon the highlight in Hazel's testimony and in a
balloon depicted him as saying, "I've got brains," and
Godfrey as strumming a yo-yo and stating "No ! I am not
an informer for Boone Tatum ," weave room overseer.
Fulbright gave a number of these leaflets to employee
O'Brien outside the plant about a half-hour before the start
of the second shift. When he came on duty he put the
remaining pamphlets in a locker . By this time there were
numerous leaflets throughout the plant , brought in on both
the first and second shifts by employees who had been
handed them at the gate, some on the looms, some on the
floor, and others in trash containers . The record shows
that this was generally the result when the Union made a
distribution of union literature at the gate , and certainly it
is one to be expected . There is evidence that Fulbright had
a leaflet in the washroom which was passed from
employee to employee , and that he helped post one on a
bulletin board where employees posted various
235
announcements of interest , and he gave 10 or 15 from
those in his locker to Ronald Boling, an employee, at his
request, Fulbright cautioning him not to pass them out
during working hours. There is no evidence that the
employee did so and there is no evidence that Fulbright
did so except during breaks and in the washroom.
Two days later, on June 12, Fulbright saw Boling and
"Yo-Yo" Godfrey come out of the office of C.J. Pride,
general superintendent of the Duncan plant , and he later
asked Godfrey what he had done with the leaflets he had
given him the previous Wednesday and if he was sure he
had not given them to Godfrey, and why he and Godfrey
had been in Pride's office . As to the last, Godfrey said he
went to have $5 taken from his paycheck and had gotten in
the wrong office. Fulbright told Boling he did not believe
him and, according to his credited testimony, that
concluded the conversation . Boling was not called as a
witness.
The next development came on June 22 when Scruggs
called Fulbright to the office shortly after he had started
work and in the presence of Snyder , a supervisor, told
Fulbright that he had been neglecting his job , and had
used abusive language to other employees . He added that
Fulbright "knew more about them pamphlets you passed
out in here than we do ," and told him he was discharged.
When Fulbright asked to whom he had used abusive
language, stating that he could not recall having done so to
anyone, Snyder , instead of telling him, asked him,
"Haven ' t you cursed someone?" and terminated the
interview. Scruggs testified that he discharged Fulbright
for "neglecting his job , interfering with other employees,
using abusive language to employees-and for the
knowledge of circulars that were brought into the mill and
distributed" although he did not testify as to what reason
he gave Fulbright . He admitted that all he knew "for
certain" about the leaflets came from Godfrey who had
come to him and volunteered that he had been given some
leaflets by Fulbright , but that instead of passing them out
he had stored them in the basement with the old harness.
Scruggs, although he stated that he had discharged
Fulbright for this reason among others , admitted that even
at the time of the first hearing he had not learned who was
responsible for the presence of the leaflets inside the
plant . It should have been obvious that it was the
individual employees who had accepted them at the gate
and carried them inside.
To discharge an employee for distributing union
literature outside a plant , which Fulbright did do, is
violative of the Act. As to "neglecting his job" or
"interfering with other employees ," Scruggs did not
elaborate and no evidence was offered in support of these
assertions . Scruggs himself, on cross-examination,
admitted that Fulbright 's work was satisfactory both as to
quantity and quality . As for using "abusive language to
employees," Scruggs testified that Boling told him that
Fulbright , when he found out that he had gone to Pride
with the leaflets which Fulbright had given him, called him
a "dirty son -of-a-bitch " and threatened to get even with
him. Fulbright denied that he did so. Respondent did not
call Boling as a witness and no showing was made that he
was unavailable . In any event , Respondent is not the
censor of the language employed by one employee in
addressing another, or the custodian of their ethics.
After Scruggs , at his terminal interview , refused to tell
Fulbright in what respect he had neglected his work and to
"' Certain individual weavers, however, have been let go and -'' 157 NLRB at 916-917
replaced by others
236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
whom he had used abusive language, he suggested that he
see Snyder or Vickery, general overseer of the weave
room. Fulbright did so, but both Snyder and Vickery said
they knew of no reason for his discharge. Fulbright
continued on up the ladder of supervision and arrived at
Lollis, superintendent of weaving. When Lollis told him
that he, too, knew nothing, he went to Tidwell, general
manager of all Respondent's plants in the Greenville area,
who also professed ignorance. Lastly, he went to Pride,
general plant superintendent of the Dunean plant whom he
had missed, and Pride said that he had been discharged
for the reasons Scruggs had given him, but that he did not
know the particulars. He promised to investigate and to
get in touch with Fulbright the following day. He did not do
so then or later.
It is clear that Respondent discharged Fulbright
because of his activity on behalf of the Union and because
he testified in support of his working partner, Sanders,
whom I have previously found Respondent discharged for
his union activity. Fulbright's competence as a worker was
conceded. He had never been written up during his entire
13 years of employment. Scruggs testified that the Union
periodically distributed circulars at the plant entrance to
employees coming to work, and that these were commonly
carried into the plant by the employees where they were
thrown on the floor and on workbenches to be gathered up
by supervisors and thrown on the trash cans. Pride's
testimony on this point was as follows:
TRIAL EXAMINER: Where did you see it [a leaflet] ?
A. Well, when they give these out at the gate, they
are generally distributed and actually the union
fellows given them to everybody around-and they
see them all around, a lot of them throw down-
Q. [By Mr. Butler] Did you make any investigation
to find out-who threw them around?
A. Well, it's a common thing, Mr. Butler.
According to Scruggs the only difference between the
distribution on June 11, 1964, for which Respondent
discharged Fulbright, and previous distributions, was that
the employees carried more into the plant on June 11.
Scruggs admitted that he was not able to find out if anyone
distributed the leaflets inside the plant. Certainly there is
no evidence that Fulbright did so, but it is to the contrary
that, while he put a number in his locker, he told Boling,
who asked him for a few, not to distribute them during
working time. Boling did not do so and told Scruggs that he
did not do so.
The inability of Scruggs or any other supervisor to find
that Fulbright, or anyone else, had distributed leaflets
inside the plant, and Respondent's knowledge that the
distribution of union literature to employees outside the
plant was a permissible collective activity, proscribed
neither by law nor by Respondent's plant rules, accounts
in my opinion for its blank refusal to tell Fulbright in what
way he had neglected his job, interfered with other
employees, or to whom he had used abusive language.
Scrugg's further asserted reason-that Fulbright knew
more about the leaflets than Scruggs did-is nearer the
truth. When Respondent's extensive investigations to
ascertain who, if anyone, had distributed union leaflets in
the plant was barren of result, Respondent nevertheless,
12 days after the event, decided to discharge Fulbright. In
doing so, it violated the Act.
Oliver Durham: Durham had worked for Respondent
for several years prior to his discharge on September 11,
1964. At this time he was a cloth doffer in the weave room
on the third shift. His immediate supervisors were John
Gero and D.D. Cheek. Durham joined the Union in July
1964 and his name appeared on union leaflets as a member
of the organizing committee.
Up to this time Durham had never been given a writeup.
On August 20, Gero wrote him up for not doffing a roll of
cloth properly. When a roll of cloth is ready to be cut off, or
doffed, the weaver raises a flag on the loom to summon the
cloth doffer. It is supposed to be raised at such a time that
the doffer can cut the cloth at a heavy line woven into the
cloth, the appearance of which is foreshadowed by two
lighter lines. The three lines cover a length of about 2
yards. On the night in question Durham doffed a roll of
cloth on one of the approximately 340 looms he tended at
one of the lighter lines instead of at the heavy line. The
result was that one reel of cloth would turn out to be a
little too long and the adjourning reel a little too short. On
the same writeup it was recorded that he failed to take a
swatch of cloth. A doffer takes a dozen or so swatches
each shift, on the average, and it is not infrequent,
according to Gero, that a doffer will fail to take one when
he should. When Gero pointed out to Durham that he had
neglected to take a swatch, he did so. So far as Gero knew
he did not thereafter fail to take one when he should, or to
doff the cloth at the heavy line, and there is no other
evidence that he failed in this.
On September 9 the Union distributed another leaflet at
the plant gate with the names of the organizing committee
on it, including Durham's. On the same day Cheek took
Durham to the bulletin board where Respondent had
previously posted the names of the members of the
organizing committee and pointed to a copy of the
following letter which Superintendent C. J. Pride sent
them in reply:
There has recently come to our attention a union
leaflet in which you are named as a member of a union
"organizing committee" at this plant. In the union
leaflet, it is stated that you are going to exert your
efforts "to get the union in" at Duncan.
We want to emphasize that your activity as a member
of the union's organizing committee must not take
place here in the plant on working time. And since the
leaflet listing your name has been distributed
generally to the employees, we also want all
employees to understand the restriction which we are
now bringing to your attention.
We want to make it clear that-although you may be a
member of a union committee-you will be subject,
like everybody else, to the following
requirement.-that anybody who engages in union
organizing effort at this plant • and who thereby
neglects his work or interferes with the work of others
will be subject to discharge from our employment.
On September 10 [11] Respondent discharged Durham
under the following circumstances. John Cobb is a cloth
doffer who worked with Durham up to the time the latter
was discharged. He and Durham are both Negroes and
they were the only two Negro employees on the third shift.
Cobb was still employed at the time of the hearing. His
name, unlike that of Durham, did not appear on union
leaflets.
The male employees in the weave room in general used
a washroom just off the weave room floor. Hence their
comings and goings, according to Cheek, are not only
easily observed by supervisors, but they take only a
J.P. STEVENS 237
minute or less to get there and a similar time to return to
their place of work.
But Durham and Cobb were required to use a washroom
set aside22 for them in the entrance to the warehouse. To
reach this it was necessary to go through the preparation
room , down a flight of stairs and through another room,
before reaching the warehouse door. According to both
Durham and Cheek it takes about 3 minutes each way by
this route . There is another route through the warehouse
basement which takes about 5 minutes each way, but
Cheek instructed them to use the shorter route to save
time. There is no evidence whatever that they thereafter
used the longer route , nor is it so contended.
On the morning of September 10 Cobb made a trip to
this washroom and had been there for 15 to 20 minutes
according to his own uncontradicted testimony when
Durham appeared, sat down, and lit a cigarette. Cheek
observed that a piece of cloth reeling from one of Cobb's
looms was on the floor, and started looking for him. At the
same time he observed that Durham was absent. Arriving
at the washroom Cheek asked Durham where he had been
and Durham told him only in the washroom and that Cobb
was there when he got there. According to the testimony of
both Durham and Cheek, Durham told Cheek that he
came in after Cobb did, and Cobb testified credibly that he
was in the washroom some 15 or 20 minutes before
Durham arrived . Cheek admitted on cross-examination
that Cobb told him that he had been in the washroom
longer than Durham.
At the hearing Cheek testified that he had missed
Durham for about 25 minutes before he started looking for
him, and that he thought he had been sleeping somewhere.
I do not credit this, for Cheek admitted that when he told
Cobb about the cloth reeling on the floor, and to get back
on his job and attend to it, he not only did not tell Durham
to get back to his own job but on the contrary permitted
him to stay and finish the cigarette he had just lit:
Q. You left Durham in the water house?
A. Yeah.
Q. To finish his break?
A. Well, he'd just lit a cigarette-He'd just lit a
cigarette, just when I walked in....
Q. You left him to finish his cigarette?
A. Yes.
This is incredible behavior for a supervisor who believes
that an employee has already been gone too long from his
work location, so long, in fact, as to serve as the reason for
discharging him.
When Durham returned to his job his work was still
caught up and he helped Cobb doff two rolls of cloth.
[Durham worked his regular shift the morning of
September 11, during which he was shown a personnel
action report written by Cheek for "staying in waterhouse
too long."] The following night, when he reported for
work, Cheek called him to the office and discharged him,
giving as the reason that he had left his job unattended too
long the night before. Cheek's testimony is that the
discharge was decided upon by Lollis after conferences
with the superintendent of weaving, with Ralph Compton,
overseer of the first shift, and with Plant Superintendent
Pride. Asked if he gave Cobb a writeup for letting cloth
run onto the floor, or for being in the water house, Cheek
conceded that he did not . Cobb' s uncontradicted
testimony is that toward the end of the shift Cheek came to
him and told him that he was not going to write him up, but
cautioned him against staying in the washroom more than
15 minutes.
Respondent discharged Durham on his first shift [after
his second shift] following the September 9 distribution of
a union leaflet with his name on it as a member of the
Union 's organizing committee . On the previous occasion
when his name was so published , Respondent gave him a
personnel action report , the first he received since his
employment. At that time Cheek took pains to escort
Durham to the bulletin board to have him read the posted
form letter which Superintendent Pride addressed to all
members of the organizing committee . The letter warned
those employees that they would be subject to discharge if,
in effect , they neglected their work . It is my opinion, and I
find , that Respondent , in pursuit of what I have previously
found to be a pattern and policy to defeat the union
movement with scant regard for the means employed,
other than their effectiveness , and to that end terminated
numerous employees for their union activity , so here
discharged Durham for his union activity. Specifically,
according to the termination sheet , the discharge was "for
staying in the water house too long." While testifying,
Cheek equated staying in the water house too long with
staying away from his place of work too long. This, he said,
was about 25 minutes . Durham said it was no more than it
took him to get to the washroom and light a cigarette.
Cobb's testimony corroborates this. Cheek's own further
testimony is that Durham had just lit a cigarette as Cheek
came in, so Cheek told him to finish it. It is hardly
conceivable that Cheek would let him stay in the
washroom to finish a newly lit cigarette rather than tell
him to go back to the weave room if he then believed, as he
professed to believe when he testified,23 that Durham had
already been away from his job for 25 minutes.
The only criticism that Cheek had, according to his
testimony on direct examination , was that he took too long
to go to the washroom and return . It was not a matter of
going too often , since his testimony is that the employees
are not held to any particular number of breaks. When it
was suggested by counsel that the only requirement was
that the employee's work be caught up, he volunteered
that even that is not necessary . 24 It is nowhere asserted
zl That this was and is a requirement , and not , as counsel
contends , simply a custom or practice , and that Durham and
Cobb "if they wish to use another [restroom ] are at liberty to do
so," is shown by the testimony of Durham
Q Is there another water house close by your job than that
one9
A There is one on the weave floor, but we colored are not
supposed to use that one, we are never allowed to use the
water house on the weave room floor
And by Cheek's own testimony:
Q Why was Oliver supposed to use that water house?
A Well, that's the one they assigned to him
23 No evidence was offered that Durham loitered on the way to
the washroom Cheek testified that the warehouse was a place
where employees could loaf out of sight of supervision, but no
evidence was offered that Durham did On the occasion in
question Cheek went directly to the washroom without going
through the warehouse He assumed that Durham was in the
washroom.
en This was his testimony.
Q. How many breaks is he entitled to?
A. We don' t have no set rule-
Q And the doffers took their breaks when they got caught
up isn 't that right2
A Normally, yes
Q But, the practice is for the doffer, when he gets his
work caught up , that's when he can take a break , is that
right 9
A they don' t have to get caught up to take a break
They can take a break without being caught up
238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Durham's work was not caught up. In fact it was, so
that when he returned to the weave room floor he helped
Cobb doff two rolls of cloth.
There are other considerations which persuade me that
Respondent could not have attached to the time which it
took Durham to go back and forth to the washroom the
importance which it now professes. This time was within
its own control. If Respondent had genuinely been
concerned, instead of instructing Durham and Cobb to use
a route to a washroom at the door to the warehouse which
took them 3 minutes each way, instead of 5 minutes by the
route through the warehouse itself, a saving of 2 minutes,
it would have instructed them to use the washroom just off
the weave room which the other weave room employees
used, and thus save nearly all the time of getting back and
forth as well as the supervisors' time in going for them
This way, too, Respondent would have had them under
observation as it did the other employees and would have
also been relieved of the fear which it professes to
entertain, but the grounds for which it did not essay to
establish, that Durham and Cobb might loaf along the way.
I would find this consideration conclusive were it not for
the fact that Durham and Cobb are Negroes. The other
weave room employees are white Irrelevant as this might
seem to the generality of American industry, it might
appear relevant to this employer. I do not accept counsel's
statement that Durham and Cobb could use the washroom
off the weave room to be in accord with the fact; it is only
in accord with the conventions to say so. It is not merely
time which is of the essence; it is also color. The one must
be balanced against the other. As counsel for Respondent
puts it, it is only a certain amount of time which is to be
saved-
MR. BLAKENEY: -The man is not discharged for
taking the time that would normally be required to go
to the basement toilet; that would be, as you have
pointed out, and the witness stated, roughly three
minutes each way; there could have been no fault
found with him for taking that time; it is the taking of
what he says was 25 minutes to half an hour. -they
are not quarreling with his taking six minutes.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Well, then, your contention is, I
suppose the Company would have had no objection to
the white workers using the toilet that takes them
three to five minutes to get to, even though it takes
them just one minute to get to the one they do use;
that would have been all right, is that it?
MR. BLAKENEY: I am sure it would have sir.25
It is necessary to sort out discriminations. Both Durham
and Cobb were the only two Negro employees in the weave
room. This they had in common. Both were discriminated
against in the use of segregated washroom facilities. What
they did not have in common was an interest in the Union.
Durham was a member of the Union and his name was
publicized throughout the plant as a member of its
organizing committee. Cobb was not. It is this fact which
distinguished Durham from Cobb and determined
Respondent to discharge the former (thus discriminating
against him doubly), and not even to reprimand the latter.
This, in spite of the fact that it was Cobb whose presence
at his work station was needed because his cloth was
running over the floor, and the fact that it was Cobb who
was in the washroom longer, as Cheek knew. And it was
Durham whom Cheek, with this knowledge, told to stay in
the washroom to finish his cigarette, only to discharge him
the next shift after consulting with the supervisory
hierarchy.
Willard Page and Junior Hulsey: Page had worked for
Respondent about 1-1/2 years and Hulsey 10 years when
they were discharged on October 1, 1964 Both worked in
the picker room under the supervision of Dwight Hawkins,
second hand. Page's work consisted of feeding pickers and
blenders, running the elevator, and sweeping: that of
Hulsey cleaning pickers and picking up waste. Page,
Hulsey, and Hall were friends and drove to and from work
together. They joined the Union and their names appeared
as members of the organizing committee on leaflets which
were distributed periodically at the plant gate, and
Respondent posted their names on the bulletin boards.
Their names were the only ones posted among the nine
employees in the picker room.
Page testified that a day or so after the Union's leaflet of
September 9 Hawkins came in the washroom to clean up
and, turning to him, exclaimed that Jack Tatham, a shift
overseer, and Claude Vaughn, general overseer, had been
"giving him hell" because of the union leaflet with Page's
name on it, and that they were trying to get rid of him,
Hawkins. He reproached Page and the other two men for
not waiting a while before they "came up with something
like that " Page said Tatham and Vaughn were mad at him
too. When Hawkins said that Page must know why this
was, and Page disclaimed knowledge, Hawkins asked him
if he "had to spell it out" for him. When Page said he
would have to spell it out Hawkins reminded Page that his
name had appeared on the union leaflet the day before. On
this, or another occasion, Hawkins asked Page to speak to
Hall and try to get him to quit the Union, and to get out
himself, saying that he had "good things in mind for
them." Page replied that he was contented with his job. At
another time Hawkins asked Page what he really knew
about the Union, saying that he had belonged to a union
when he worked at Guylard Box plant, and that when he
was an overseer at another place where a union was
organizing he had to go to work with a gun in his pocket.
On one occasion, while discussing the Union, Hawkins
told him that Respondent could fire Page just about
anytime it wanted, and that Hulsey had "left himself
open" dozens of times to discharge, and now it looked like
he was going to have to run all three of them off. As to
Page's son, Richard, who had quit a short time previously,
Hawkins told Page that he could get his job back if he
would get out of the Union. Hulsey's testimony is that the
day following the Union's circulation of a leaflet on
September 24, describing Hulsey as a member of the
organizing committee, Hawkins told him that he, Page,
and Hall had "messed (him) up" by signing union cards,
that they were the best workers he had and he was "going
to have to do something about it "
A day or so before his discharge on October 1, still
according to Page, Hawkins approached Page and asked
him if he, Hulsey, and Hall had made up their minds about
getting out of the Union. When Page said that they had
not, Hawkins said, "Well, I won't hit you below the belt;
before I fire you-I'll warn you " Later that night Hawkins
2' If management is as profligate in its expenditure of time as difficult to see why it should have concerned itself with the 2
its counsel indicates, and would have no objection to all the minutes' difference in time between Durham's taking the short
employees in the weave room (except obviously Durham and route to his workroom and the longer route through the
Cobb) journeying to the toilet in the warehouse basement, it is warehouse
J.P. STEVENS
spoke to him again, this time at the elevator to the lap
room, about his and Hulsey's getting out of the Union, but
broke off the conversation when another employee
approached.
Hawkins, although denying asking Page how many
employees were in the Union, or any other questions about
the Union, said only, with respect to many of the
affirmative declarations attributed to him by Page, that he
did not remember making them. Specifically he did not
"recall" saying that it looked like he was going to have to
run the three employees off, or that he would warn Page
before firing him As to similar testimony by Hulsey,
Hawkins said only that he did not remember saying either
that he had "messed him up," or that the three men in
question were the best workers he had. He did not deny
telling Page that his son could come back to work if he quit
the Union
Hawkins was not a forthright witness and I do not credit
his qualified denials (if indeed they amounted to that) of
the statements and interrogatories attributed to him by
Page and Hulsey.
The second shift on which Page, Hulsey, and Hall
worked ended at midnight. Hawkins' testimony is that on
the night of September 29, about 15 minutes before
quitting time, he looked for the three picker tenders and
could not find them, and that when they came to work the
following afternoon he spoke to them individually about
this, and each denied he had left early. Hawkins cautioned
them not to leave early thereafter. He did not write them
up. When he spoke to Vaughn, general overseer, about it,
'aughn told him to discharge them if it happened again.
On the following night, according to Hawkins, he again
missed Page and Hulsey about 15 minutes before quitting
time, Hall, he said, was still cleaning up. The next day
when Page and Hulsey reported to work, Page denied,
when spoken to by Hawkins, that he had left early the
night before, stating that he could prove it, and left the
office. He returned with Hulsey and Hall who told
Hawkins that they and Page had left the plant together at 5
minutes past midnight. Hawkins told Hulsey that he,
Hulsey, was not there when he looked for him and told him
that he was also discharged, as well as Page. After Page
and Hall [Hulsey] had left to go to get their pay, Hawkins
told Hall to get back on his job. Hall told him, instead, that
he was getting out of there, and asked for his time, which
Hawkins gave him.
The testimony of Pressley, a card grinder on the third
shift who was due to come to work at midnight, called by
Respondent as a witness, was that when he came to work
on September 30 he saw Page and Hulsey sitting on a
bench just outside the mill as he entered the plant 5 or 10
minutes before midnight On cross-examination he stated
that it was September 30, "whenever it was, whatever it
was." He thought it was the last night they worked. He
then stated, when asked on redirect examination, when
the day he saw them was with reference to the day they
were terminated, that he did not know. Finally, he said it
was the day a payment on his car was due, and that it
"couid have been" the first day of September that he
bought the car. When asked what year it was he was
speaking of, he said, "I guess it was '64, wasn't it?"
I do not find Pressley's testimony of much value. Joe
Cothran, a fixer who was also a straw boss in the picker
room, and whose duties he stated included seeing that
26 "In fact, I think we had all got that report, that people was
leaving their jobs early "
239
produ: _ion was maintained, testified that he saw Page and
Hulsey leave the washroom about 10 minutes before
midnight and get on the freight elevator, but that he did
not know where they went. Luther Mitchell, assistant
overseer in the carding room on the incoming third shift,
testified that a few minutes before midnight Hawkins
came into his department and told him that "some
employees" were leaving their jobs early, which I
conclude from his testimony was not uncommon or
confined to the picker room.26 So Hawkins and Mitchell
went down to the loading dock but did not see Page or
Huisey.
I am convinced that Hawkins' professed belief that Page
and Hulsey had left work early was unfounded in fact, and
that it was advanced only as a pretext for their discharge,
which Hawkins himself had threatened to effectuate
because of their union activity.
W. 0. Epps: Epps worked for Respondent, with several
breaks, for 42 years until September 15, 1964, when he
was terminated. At this time he was working as a helper on
a back end tie-in machine under Wallace Greer, assistant
overseer on the second shift, and Earl Lollis,
superintendent of weaving. The crew consisted of Epps,
Massingdale and Miller, helpers, and Bond, the operator.
Epps admittedly had greater seniority than Massingdale
and Miller.
Epps was a member of the Union's organizing commit-
tee. As such, his name appeared on the leaflets which the
Union distributed at the plant, and his name was posted
on the bulletin board. On an occasion about the middle
of August, at Greer's home, Epps, Greer, and Bobby
King, Greer's son-in-law, discussed the Union. Greer,
according to Epps, expressed surprise at seeing his name
on a union leaflet, and advised him to go to Lollis and see
about getting out of the Union, saying that he was "too old
to get messed up in it" and lose his job. Greer, though
admitting having this conversation at his home about the
Union, denied the substance of the statements attributed
to him. Milton, according to Epps, joined in the
conversation and commented on the Union. He was not
called as a witness.
On September 11, the Friday before his discharge on
September 15, Epps testified that Greer came up to him in
the plant and asked him if he had seen Lollis about
withdrawing from the Union. When Epps said that he had
not, Greer repeated his suggestion that Epps see Lollis,
advising him to do so the following Monday because,
"speaking as a friend," he "knew something was going to
happen" and a man of his and Greer's age "can't get a job
just anytime anywhere he wants it."
Epps did not go to Lollis and on the following Tuesday
Louis told him that Respondent was not tying as many
spun warps as it had when he had first been put on that
job, so that it was going to have to lay a man off, "and I
figure it's you."
The testimony of Lollis is that Respondent was reducing
the number of looms weaving spun rayon yarns, "and we
was putting in filaments-" which required being tied less
often by the tie-in machine operators and helpers.
Accordingly Respondent decided to lay off Epps on the
second shift and Johnson, a helper, on the first shift. Lollis
conceded that there were at least two helpers out of a total
of eight on the three shifts who had less seniority than
Epps, and who were kept on, but asserted that they were
more efficient than Epps When Epps was terminated
Johnson was transferred to the work of leasing warps on
240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the third shift. Johnson had been employed about a year in
contrast with Epps' 42 years.
Epps' testimony is that at the time of his termination the
loom he worked on was turning out all kinds of warps,
including filament warps, and that filament warps were
not increasing in proportion to other warps, contrary to
Lollis' testimony that they were. Lollis stated that
production records on the point were available to him, but
the only record produced was dated August 31 and
showed, according to Lollis' own analysis, that of 13 warps
leased that day only 2 were filament, and the remainder
spun rayon.
I am not convinced that there was any substantial
change in the kind of warps being leased. Nor am I
convinced that Epps was not capable of working on
filament.27 In fact he had done so for sometime previous to
his discharge Moreover, I have difficulty understanding
why he was not transferred to the leasing job on the third
shift instead of Johnson if a layoff was necessary. Epps
had done this and other types of leasing and various other
jobs during his employment. Even on those occasions in
the past when he had quit his job Respondent had
unfailingly rehired him upon his application, at some job.
I believe the reason for his termination, which I find to
have been a discharge, was his activity as a member of the
Union's organizing committee. When he failed to adopt
Greer's suggestion that he go to Lollis and tell him he was
quitting the Union, a suggestion repeated the evening
before his discharge, Respondent decided to terminate
him. Greer urged Epps to see Lollis on Monday, saying
that something was "going to happen." This was
prophetic .2s Respondent discharged him on Tuesday.
Jake Owens: Owens had been employed for 17 years in
Duncan warehouse 1 when Respondent discharged him on
May 6, 1965. At this time he was a leadman directing the
work of six others. His immediate supervisor was C. H.
Thomas. J. W. Corbett was office manager in general
charge of the warehouse.
Owens Joined the Union and attended and spoke at a
union meeting on Sunday, May 2, at Piedmont, 8 to 10
miles from Greenville. On the following day Corbett
approached Owens and asked him if he did not have a
good job. When Owens said he had, Corbett asked him
what he had done the previous day and whether he had
stayed home and taken care of his knee, which had been
slightly injured. Owens said he had attended church, and
Corbett asked him what church. This conversation took
place about 7.30 a.m. According to Owens, it was unusual
for Corbett to be in the warehouse that early, and it was
the first time during his long employment that he had been
asked about his activities on Sunday.
On the following Wednesday, May 5, just before 5
o'clock quitting time, Thomas asked him for the book in
which he kept the time of the employees whose work he
led. When Owens handed it to him he asked Owens if he
remembered that sometime back he had asked Owens to
do some work which he had not done, and told him,
according to Owens, that although he had been employed
a good while and done a good job Respondent was
discharging him. Thomas' testimony is that he told Owens
that he had not "filled the qualifications as a leadman."
With respect to the union meeting in Piedmont the
previous Sunday, which Owens had attended, Ralph
Compton, overseer of the weave room in plant 2, testified
that he was driving around with some friends that Sunday
when someone in the car "mentioned ice cream," so they
went over to Piedmont looking for a drugstore and when
they got there they saw a crowd in front of the town theater
where the union meeting was in progress. They did not
find a drugstore. Compton testified that he did not know
Owens by sight, although he had worked at the Dunean
mill for 28 years and Owens for 17, in and around the
warehouse. I do not credit Compton's testimony in this
respect. The facts do not warrant a finding of surveillance,
but I am convinced that Compton saw Owens and other
employees whom he recognized in front of the theater in
Piedmont, and that he knew the occasion to be a meeting
of the Union. The latter fact he did not deny. I do not credit
his denial that he did not report to anyone else at the mill
that he had seen Owens at the meeting. I believe that
Thomas' [Corbett's] interrogations of Owens the next day
pertained to Owens' presence there.
The job which Thomas asked Owens if he had
remembered being asked to do for him concerned the
placement of about 150 cans of sliver in one section of the
warehouse where they had been put waiting to be used in
the carding room. They were sitting on their own bottoms
as they had been unloaded, and the object was to stack
them so that Owens would have more room to store yarn.
By the following Wednesday, Owens had not yet stacked
them, telling Thomas that he had been attending to the
yarn and had not got around to the sliver cans. On the
following Monday, May 3, although Owens had
straightened up and rearranged this section of the
warehouse in other respects, he had not restacked the
cans. Thomas told him to get his crew together right away
and stack the cans, and Owens did so.
According to Thomas' calculations, it was 2 days later
that Respondent discharged him, mentioning the above
incident. Owens, however, places the can incident as
occurring a week or so previously. Since Respondent did
not deem the matter of sufficient importance to give him a
personnel action report, there is no written record of the
date. Accepting Thomas' dates as correct, the fact
remains that the cans had been stacked as Thomas wanted
them stacked for 2 days when Respondent discharged
him. The whole incident impresses me as trivial and as
merely a pretext for the discharge of an employee whose
work had been good and in whom, as a leadman,
Respondent had imposed confidence up to the time he
became active in the Union, and to whom it had never
given a personnel action report. Moreover, there were
various other jobs which Owens had done in the past,
including that of a fork-lift operator which he was at the
time he was promoted to leadman. While testifying as to
the terminal interview with Owens, Thomas stated that he
told Owens that "as far as your conduct and your attitude,
it [is] good," and that he had done an "excellent" job as
fork-lift operator. I am not able to accept as true Thomas'
explanation that he did not offer to put Owens back on this
job, or at other work he had performed, because he did not
think he, Owens, would be satisfied. I find that Owens was
discharged because of his activity in the Union.
n I have previously foui.d in my Decision of July 26, 1965, that
Lolhs discrimmatordy discharged Burrell Knight, also on the
second shift, and a member of the organizing committee with long
seniority As in Epps' case, the reason was said to be the necessity
of laying off a man "due to style changes and looms changes "
" Greer had no knowledge of any impending reduction in the
number of looms or any need for it He testified that Lollis had
never discussed this with him
J.P. STEVENS
Bobby Spoon: Spoon had several periods of employment
with Respondent, the last beginning in September 1961
and continuing until his discharge on August 6, 1964, for
staying out without notice. He was discharged for the same
reason earlier in 1961 and in 1957, but rehired. His work
was that of a doffer in the spinning room on the third shift.
His second hand was Alvin Hooker and his general
overseer Stoudemeire.
Spoon joined _the Union in May 1963 and his name
appeared on the leaflets which the Union circulated. On
the night of Thursday, July 16, 1964, Spoon did not show
up for the midnight shift and Spoon's wife, who worked in
the plant, reported that he was in jail , a statement in
accord with the fact. He reported for work the following
Sunday, July 21, at midnight, and Hooker sent him home
and told him to come back to see Stoudemeire. Spoon's
testimony is that when he was arrested he had "a little old
sawed-off shotgun" with him in his car. However, the
charges against him were reduced to reckless driving and
disorderly conduct, and Respondent took him back on the
following Sunday night, July 21, Stoudemeire telling him
that he was being given "another chance." He worked
without significant incident for about 2 weeks until the
night of August 4 when he stayed out again without notice.
When Hooker inquired of his wife she told him he was
home drunk. Spoon admitted while testifying that this was
the case. The next day when he reported for work Hooker
discharged him.
The General Counsel attempted to show that Spoon,
before the advent of the Union, had been absent without
notice on several occasions, as had other employees, and
at other times had been rounded up along with others and
transported to the mill in press gang fashion, and this
appears to be true. But it also is the fact that his arrest and
absence from work for 2 or 3 days were subsequent to his
joining the Union, but Respondent rehired him. Spoon
testified at the first hearing as a witness for the General
Counsel that both Hooker and Pride, plant
superintendent, had questioned him about the Union and
that Pride had asked him to let him know if any union
people came to his house, and that when Spoc'' told
Hooker he had joined the Union back in May 1965, Hooker
refused to believe it until Spoon showed him a batch of
membership application cards. This fact, taken together
with the record as a whole which shows a highly
permissive attitude toward the employees prior to the
appearance of the Union, of quitting and being rehired,
and staying out without reporting, raises a suspicion that
Spoon might not have been discharged after staying out
the night of August 5 without notice had it not been for his
union activity.29 I think it must be concluded, however,
that Spoon's absence surpassed the bounds of the
permissive, even as drawn by this employer. The General
Counsel in my opinion has not met his burden of
establishing the allegations of the complaint as to Spoon,
and I shall recommend that it be dismissed as to him.
Franklin Moore: Moore came to work the last time for
Respondent in July 1963, having quit on four or five
occasions, according to his own testimony. At the time of
his discharge on September 14, 1964, he was working as a
weaver under the immediate supervision of Wallace Greer
on the second shift. His general overseer was Ralph
Compton. Moore was a member of the Union and his name
appeared on leaflets which it distributed. Prior to the
2" If Respondent, as was the case in the discharge of other
union men, was looking for a pretext to discharge him, his
241
Union's appearance he had received one writeup. He was
written up a second time about August 20, 1964.
During the first week in September Moore asked Greer
for leave to take off the following Saturday and Monday
from work to go fishing and Greer told him he would see
what he could do. On the following Friday according to
Moore, Greer told him that he could not let him go on that
Saturday and the following Monday, but suggested that he
take off the Friday and Saturday after that, September 11
and 12. Greer's credited testimony is that he did not
initially promise Moore those particular days off. In any
event, on the coming Thursday, September 10, Greer told
him that he could not spare him Friday and Saturday
because he could not get a weaver in his place. Moore,
however, did not report for work on Friday, and sending
word by another employee that he would not be there
because he had a sty in his eye. Instead, he went with his
family to their cottage on a nearby lake, returning to the
plant on Monday, September 14, for his usual shift. As he
was waiting to go to work Greer, who had had a report on
Friday that Moore had gone fishing, approached him and
asked him how the fishing had been. He replied that he
had not fished but only rested up, because of a sty in his
eye. Greer discharged him for staying out without
permission.
As I have previously found, Respondent was highly
permissive in the matter of employees staying away from
work, so long as they sent word in, and sometimes even
overlooked absence without notice. There is no evidence,
however, that it tolerated an employee's taking off where
permission to do so had been specifically asked and
refused. Moore's claimed eye trouble I consider a
subterferge. Although the matter is not free from
suspicion, I conclude that Respondent discharged Moore
for legitimate business reasons and not because of his
union activity. I shall recommend that his case be
dismissed.
Joe Manley: Manley had worked off and on for 15 years
up to his discharge on April 29, 1965, when he was working
as filling hauler on the first shift. On three previous
occasions he had quit his employment. Dewey Gilreath
was his second hand and Earl Lollis the general overseer.
Manley's name appeared in the union leaflets and was
posted on the bulletin board. On one occasion, in the yarn
room, Gilreath told him that he should get out of the Union,
because he had a good job and a large family to support.
As a filling hauler his principal duties were to bring
filling from the basement to the spinning floor in a hand
truck, and lay it alongside the 650 looms he supplied. On
October 10, 1964, Gilreath wrote up Manley for laying the
wrong filling alongside a loom As the result of this filling
different colors became mixed. After this he mixed no
more yarn, according to Gilreath, but he did permit looms
to run out of filling and second hands on the shift
complained to Gilreath on various occasions. When he
spoke to Manley about [these complaints] he complained
that the job was too hard and that he could not keep it up
without more help.
On the morning of April 29, 1965, when Manley took
over from the third shift, one of the looms he serviced was
out of filling. During the morning five more went down and
Gilreath assigned another employee to help him. When
Manley returned from lunch, however, the situation had
worsened and four looms were stopped off and about 150
imprisonment and absence from work 2 weeks previously should
have been a plausible one
242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were down.30 Gilreath took him to the office where he gave
him a termination slip and assigned two men to the looms
he had supplied who caught the job up in an hour or two.
Thereafter one employee resumed the job Manley had
been on.
I am of the opinion that the General Counsel has not met
the burden imposed on him of establishing by a
preponderence of the credible testimony that Respondent
discharged Manley because of his union activity. I shall
recommend that the complaint be dismissed with respect
to him.
b. The Blackhawk warehouse
Arthur Dean Dean had been employed for 3 years in the
warehouse up to July 31, 1964, when Respondent
discharged him. At this time he was working as an
extractor driver, or trucker, under the supervision of
Griffin, warehouse superintendent, Roy Hinton, assistant
superintendent, and McKee, his immediate supervisor.
Victor Kitties was manager of the warehouse. Dean's
name was sent to Respondent as a member of the Union
and posted on the bulletin board. In June 1964, Dean, one
Cooley, and James Rosemond, whose alleged
discriminatory reduction in overtime work is hereinafter
considered, started wearing their union buttons in the mill
Other employees subsequently followed suit.
On July 31 Dean was trucking cotton in room 7 along
with other employees, under the direction of Adams, a
supervisor. According to Adams, as he was "dust
finishing" work in room 7, he dispatched to room 8, to start
work there, the crew on which Dean worked, consisting of
an extractor truck and operator, a hooker, whose duties
were to extract bales of cotton from a pile, and Dean
himself, whose job was to push the bales on a hand truck
from place to place after they had been extracted.
Although Adams' testimony is that he told the crew to go
to room 8 about a half hour before he himself went there,
he did not see the crew leave No. 7. When Adams arrived
in room 8 he saw the other two members of Dean's crew,
but not Dean, and observed about 30 bales of cotton in the
aisles which had been extracted from the piles and were
waiting for Dean to truck them to a platform a few feet
away. Adams testified that the presence of the cotton
bales in the aisles did not interfere with the work of the
crew. Adams had been in room 8 possibly a minute when
he saw Dean approaching.
Q. (By Mr. Butler) Lets go back Mr. Witness, you
came into compartment 8, you didn't see Dean?
A. No, sir.
Q. You walked outside compartment 8, and you
saw Mr. Griffin the first person you saw, is that right?
A. Right.
Q. And as you spoke to Griffin, you looked up and
you saw Dean coming, is that right?
A. In a matter of seconds-possibly one minute.
TRIAL EXAMINER: How long were you in the
compartment, then, before you spoke to Mr. Griffin?
* * * * *
THE WITNESS: Possibly one minute.
(By Mr. Butler) So no more than a minute and a few
seconds had elapsed from the time you walked into
No. 8, did not see Dean, walked back out of 8, spoke
to Griffin, and looked up and saw Dean, is that
correct?
Adams' estimate, while testifying that Dean had been
off his job about 30 minutes is based on his calculation that
about 30 bales were standing on their ends in the aisles,
and that it takes about a minute to extract a bale from a
stack. The calculations did not allow for the time it took to
move the trucks from No. 7 to No. 8 and place them for
work, nor do I find them otherwise reliable.
It is conceded that Dean had absented himself to go to
the toilet off compartment 5, about a half city block from
where he was working, and that he was returning from
there when Adams saw him. The relevant question is
whether it took him too long a time to go and return.
Adams did not know when the crew actually left room 7 for
No. 8. Neither the extractor operator nor the hooker, the
other two members of Dean's crew, was called as a
witness. Dean's own testimony is that he took only 2 or 3
minutes in the washroom, plus the time going and coming.
There is no convincing evidence he was gone longer and I
find that he was not. It is also conceded that employees do
not have to seek permission to go to the toilet.
According to Adams' account, as Dean approached him
and Griffin talking together outside room 8, Griffin asked
him where he had been and Dean said he had been to the
toilet. Without saying more Griffin told Dean to go to the
office where Griffin paid him off and discharged him.
McKee, one of Dean's second hands, testified to a
previous incident which occurred on July 17, 1964, which
Respondent now advances as a contributing reason for
discharging Dean On this occasion McKee was directing a
crew including Dean loading cotton at Commerce
warehouse. This was approximately a 15-minute ride from
Blackhawk warehouse by road On the day in question
according to McKee, about 4:45 p.m., a half hour before
quitting time at Blackhawk, as the employees were getting
in the truck to return to Blackhawk, McKee saw Dean
cutting across the fields in the direction of Blackhawk,
which lie had frequently done before, instead of riding
back in the truck. When McKee arrived back at
Blackhawk he told Dean not to do this again. [Later,
Griffin spoke to Dean about this incident and told Dean not
to do it again.] According to McKee [Dean]. he did not.
Dean's testimony is that he went across the fields to save
time because lie wanted to stop at Blackhawk tufting
plant, across from Blackhawk warehouse, to get a ride
home with another employee with whom he frequently
rode, and who, like Dean, quit at 5 p m It is not contended
that Dean lost any production time in doing as he did. I
find the incident trivial and like the event on the day of his
discharge to constitute only a pretext for the discharge
I have previously found," that Griffin discharged James
Goodwin, another employee in the warehouse shop
because of his union activity, and that Griffin told a group
of employees that if they would come to him and admit
that they had done wrong in joining the Union Goodwin
would have a better chance of being reemployed. This was
in August 1963. 1 further found that as the result of
Goodwin's discriminatory discharge and that of James
Robinson, and the acceptance by employee Gamble of
Griffin's invitation to withdraw from the Union, the Union
was for the time being wiped out in the warehouse shop. I
am convinced that here, also. Respondent discharged
Dean because of his union activity, and in continuation of
"' A loom is down when the filling is low and no more is at hand
at the loom, and it is stopped olf when it is entirely out of filling
and is standing idle
" 157 NLR Bat 913-915
J.P. STEVENS 243
its attempt to wipe out the Union in the warehouse proper.
James Rosemond Rosemond worked as a Perry hook
operator in the warehouse. He joined the Union and
Respondent posted his name as a union member along
with the names of others in the warehouse including James
Goodwin, Harold Robinson, and Garvis Powers. I have
previously found that Respondent discharged Goodwin on
August 26, and Robinson on August 30, for union
activity,32 following the posting of their names on
August 25, 1963, and that it discriminatorily discharged
Garvis Powers on May 13, 1964, the date after he testified
as a witness for the Union in support of Goodwin's case,
and later discriminatorily discharged Arthur Dean in its
continuing determination to eliminate the Union in the
warehouse.
On the day after Respondent discharged Powers, while
the first hearing was still in progress, it reduced the hours
of overtime work performed by Rosemond who also
testified in Goodwin's behalf. Unlike Powers, however, the
complaint was not amended at the hearing to include
Rosemond, but an additional charge and complaint were
filed after it concluded So Rosemond, like Powers,
appeared before me first as a witness for a discharged
employee, and now in his own right.
Rosemond's testimony at the first hearing was similar to
that given by Garvis Powers, and it was that following
Goodwin's discharge and when he was applying for
reinstatement, Griffin told a group of employees while they
were at work in room 10 that if those who had joined the
Union would come to him and "confess" that they were
wrong in doing so, Goodwin would have a better chance of
being employed. The testimony of neither Powers nor
Rosemond to this effect was denied by Griffin.
Rosemond's further credited, undenied testimony at the
first hearing was that Griffin said it was "against the
Company's rules" to join the Union, that the Union could
not protect the employees, citing Goodwin's discharge in
spite of his 6 or 7 years' seniority. Rosemond also testified
at the first hearing without contradiction, and I find, that
his two immediate supervisors, Hunter and Mansell, a few
days after Goodwin's discharge, endeavored to have
Rosemond go to Kitties, plant manager and Griffin's
superior, to get his own name off the list on the bulletin
board and help Goodwin get his job back. The following
was Rosemond's testimony:
Q. -Tell us about this conversation
A. He [Hunter] told me I ought to go up there and
talk to Mr. Kitties-and get my name off the list.
* * * *
TRIAL EXAMINER: What else?
THE WITNESS: Well, he said it wasn't worth, you
know, fooling with.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Yes.
THE WITNESS: And about that time, the other
fellow (Mansell) came in.
* * * * *
TRIAL EXAMINER: What does he do?
THE WITNESS: He's the same as Hunter. He says,
"I'll tell you what's the best to do," he said, "The man
to see is Mr. Kitties," he says, "You go up there and
tell Mr. Kitties you want your name off and that's all
there is to it."
Q. [By Mr. Jolly] Was anything said about James
Goodwin?
11 157 NLRB at 915-916
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 "
Neither Hunter nor Mansell was called as a witness and
the statements which Rosemond attributed to'them stand
uncontradicted.
In spite of the urging and the implied threats of
supervision, Rosemond did not go to Griffin or Kitties to
renounce his union membership. Immediately following
his appearance on the witness stand Respondent reduced
the hours of overtime work which it had previously
afforded him. Over a period of time he had been coming to
work regularly an hour or so before 8 o'clock in the
morning when the other warehouse employees reported, in
order to set up the work for them. In doing this he used a
Perry hook. When three scales were weighing, Garvis
Powers and Haskell Cooley, two other Perry hook
operators, would be scheduled. When only two Perry
hooks were being used, Powers would come in early along
with Rosemond. When only one was needed it was
Rosemond who came in early. The foregoing is the
testimony of Rosemond himself and of Harold Robinson, a
mechanic's helper in the shop who opened up the
warehouse in the mornings until he was discharged.
Respondent introduced in evidence a compilation which it
is conceded shows that from May 14, 1964, when
Rosemond testified, to May 14, 1965, he worked
approximately 1 hour less overtime a week than he had
during the 12 months preceding his appearance as a
witness. No explanation of this reduction was made.
While 1 hour a week is perhaps not substantial when
averaged throughout the year, this does not completely
reflect the situation. Rosemond stated that as of the time
he testified in the present hearing, he was getting more
overtime than he had previously. For sometime following
his discharge [appearance at the hearing] his overtime
was reduced materially, and later increased.
c. The Slater plant
Background
The complaint alleges that in this plant Respondent
discharged four employees, James Hill, Frank Wojeck,
Leroy Reeves, and Willis Young, for their activity in the
Union, and Daniel Murray because he testified at the first
hearing. Hill, Wojeck, Reeves, and Young attended a
meeting of the Union on August 30, 1964, where they
consented that their names appear on union leaflets as
members of the organizing committee. At the plant gate
the following day' the Union distributed copies of their
leaflets to the employees listing the economic gains which
it hoped to achieve through organization. The leaflet
continued in the following vein:
It is strictly against the law for anyone in
management, second-hand or anyone else, to question
anyone about their union activities, and if they do, it
should be reported to the union at once, and we will
file charges against the Company.
We respect the Company's right to oppose the
Union by lawful means. It is quite obvious why they
would want to. If the union was not going to benefit
us, the Company would not be fighting the union. We
295-269 0-69-17
244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would like to make it clear that we are going to use
every lawful and proper means to get the union in.33
James R. Hill
Harold L. Bell
Randall J Edwards
Aaron Curtis Adams
Joseph Laughter
Tom Bishop
Cornell Laughter
William F. Looper
David Collins
Frank E. Wojeck
Mrs Linda Edwards
Leroy W. Reeves
Tom Edens
Willis Earl Young
James Cantrell
Carl Richmond
Theodore Adams
Richard Bell
Cedric Drake
Of the 19 names appearing on this circular, 11 were of
employees whom Respondent had previously discharged,
namely Joseph Laughter, Tom Bishop, Tom Edens,
Cornell Laughter, William Looper, David Collins, James
Cantrell, Carl Richmond, Theodore Adams, Richard Bell,
and Cedric Drake. Of these 11 I have found34 that all but
Tom Bishop were discharged because of their union
activity Subsequent to the circulation of the leaflet
Respondent discharged four others within a month of one
another, beginning on September 3, or 3 days after the
leaflet distribution, namely James Hill, Frank Wojeck,
Leroy Reeves, and Earl Young. Their cases are now before
me. Bell, as is hereinafter found, on the day of Hill's
discharge. went to Respondent to announce his
withdrawal from the Union. The present status of Randall
Edwards, Aaron Adams, and Linda Edwards is not
revealed by the record.
The continued union activity of Respondent's
discharged employees in the community, even though
unemployed, and whether from choice or inability to find
jobs elsewhere in the textile industry, is illustrated by
union literature like the above circular and other evidence
in the record.35 The inside agitators, when Respondent
discharged them, became outside agitators.
Frank Wojeck. Wojeck was the first of the four
employees to be discharged. He had been employed 11
years at the time, and he was then head air-conditioning
mechanic, a job which took him throughout the plant. His
supervisor was Andrew Dempsey, plant engineer.
Wojeck had never received a personnel action report or
writeup during his 11 years' employment. However,
Dempsey was able to recall a day 6 to 8 weeks before the
circulation of the union leaflet on August 31, when he
came across Wojeck, Carl McPherson, and J.L. Kirby, two
other of his employees, talking with several others near a
machine on range 9 in the finishing department. He told
the three men to move on, and they did so. No one was
written up or otherwise reprimanded. Dempsey testified
that this was the first time he had ever "complained" to
Wojeck about his "work performance." It is difficult to
believe that Dempsey attached any importance to this
instance at the time.36 He threw it in for good measure
while describing complaints which were brought to him on
Thursday, September 3, the day Respondent discharged
Wojeck. During that morning, William Lybrand,
superintendent of finishing, told him that several of his
employees, including Wojeck were congregating in the
area behind range 9 and asked him to "do something about
it."
Dempsey testified that this was the first complaint he
had ever had of any kind from any other supervisor
concerning Wojeck, though Wojeck for 7 years had moved
throughout the plant in the performance of his
maintenance duties, greeting friends as he progressed.
Later in the day Dempsey encountered Wayne Garrett,
overseer in the roving-weaving department, who told him
that Wojeck had been in his department "bothering" his
people, but without giving Dempsey any particulars. After
lunch Finley, general overseer of the cloth room, told him,
also without particulars, that Wojeck was "interfering"
with his employees. Still later Bramlette, a supervisor in
the weave room, according to Dempsey's testimony on
direct examination, told him that Wojeck was "bothering"
his people and keeping them from doing their work. On
cross-examination he amended this to say that Bramlette
said that Wojeck was interfering with "one" of his people.
Then Dempsey sat down and collected his thoughts, a
process he described as follows.
Q. What did you do next?
A. Well, I sat there and tried to put everything
together.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Sat where, sir? In your office?
A. In my office, yes, sir. As a supervisor, I sat there
and tried to decide the problem.
Q. (By Mr. Butler) What did you decide sir?
A. Then I decided to take my action.
Q. And what action did you decide to take, sir?
A. I told Mr. Sheriff to go out and find Mr. Frank
Wojeck.
Q. And send him to the personnel office?
A. When you get him, bring him to the personnel
office.
Q. Yes, you had decided to discharge hint?
A. -Yes, sir.
Q. Yes, without even speaking to Frank Wojeck, to
get his side of the story-?
A. Yes, sir.
On direct examination the witness testified as follows to
the later terminal interview:
Q. What, if anything, did you say to Mr Wojeck?
A. I said, Frank, I'm sorry, but due to numerous
complaints from supervisors in the plant, you are
interfering with their people doing their work, and
neglecting your own, I'm going to have to let you go;
that was my total statement.
Wojeck, who had arrived in the office under the
impression that something was wrong with the air-
conditioning, asked Dempsey what the complaints were
" This last sentence is reminiscent of Respondent's notice,
previously adverted to, which it maintained on the plant bulletin
boards
It is our positive intention to oppose this Union and prevent it
by every proper means from coming in here
" 157 NLRB at 924-934
's Such as the continued union activity among the employees of
Donald Cudd after his discharge from the Whitmire plant, causing
Respondent to pressure Jess Cudd, his father, an employee of 50
years' service, into running his son out of the community, fading
in which Respondent discharged the father
'b Nor did he testify that this was a factor which he considered
in making his decision to discharge Wojeck
J.P. STEVENS
for which he was being discharged, and Dempsey refused
to tell him. The further examination of Dempsey continued
as follows:
Q. And did you then and there give him his time?
A. Yes, sir-He turned and asked me to explain
[why] and I told him Frank, I have nothing further to
say, and I proceeded over to the paymaster-and Mr.
Frank Wojeck and myself and Mr. Paul Sheriff
proceeded down the steps. Frank asked me some
other question-and I says, Frank, I have nothing
further to say.
Thus was escorted from the plant an employee who had
worked 11 years for J. P. Stevens & Co., as to whose work
performance his employer had never before complained,
so far as this record reveals, discharged on reports vague
and undefined of which Dempsey had no personal
knowledge, which he did not investigate, and the
particulars of which and their source he refused to divulge
to the employee when he asked the reason why."
Respondent's failure to accord Wojeck this elemental
right of information, granted as a matter of course by the
generality of American employers when terminating
employees for legitimate business reasons, is hardly
explicable on any other ground than that Wojeck was
active in the organization of Respondent's employees and
had, 2 days previously as a member of the Union's
organizing committee, distributed the August 30 leaflets at
the plant gate.
James Hill: After Respondent discharged Wojeck it
next discharged Hill. Hill had worked as a middleman on
range 4 on the second shift from the date of his
employment in 1961 to his discharge on September 14,
1964. His immediate overseer was Ed Elrod and the
general shift overseer Ed Brinkley. He joined the Union in
the summer of 1963. Subsequently, while he was working
over onto the third shift, J. C. Trotter, general overseer on
the third shift, asked him, according to Hill's
uncontradicted testimony, if it were true that he was a
union man. When Hill said he was, Trotter said, "You
know you'll get fired for that," to which Hill replied,
"You're not going to fire a good man just for joining the
Union, are you?" Trotter, smiling, said, "No.""'
Hill himself joined in the distribution of the leaflet when
he finished his work at midnight on August 31. His
credited testimony is that during his next shift, and
thereafter, he was watched more closely by Elrod and
Brinkley than previously, both while working and during
rest periods."' On September 2 Hill was in the smoking
area talking with another employee when Elrod entered
and told Hill that only one person was supposed to be in
the area at a time. Why Elrod should address Hill and not
the other employee does not appear, since there is no
evidence as to which was first in the area. However, Hill,
according to Elrod, left. On the following day or the next
Elrod came across Hill in the smoking area talking to
Cook, an antiunion employee. According to Elrod when
10 Neither Lybrand, nor Garrett, nor Finley, nor Bramlette gave
Dempsey the name of any whom Wojeck was said to have spoken
to Actually the complaints originated with antiunion employees
who almost without excepted [exception] testified that Wojeck
spoke to them when they were in a smoking area or elsewhere
during their breaks One, Stroud, testified that Woleck spoke to
him while they were together in the smoking area and once or
twice when they encountered one another while they were moving
throughout the plant.
" There is no specific allegation in the complaint that Trotter's
remarks to Hill are violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and this
testimony is considered solely as evidence of Respondent's early
245
Hill saw him he left the area and returned to his job. Later,
according to Elrod, Cook came to him and told him that if
Hill "didn't quit-bothering him about the Union" he was
"going to drive him under that machine." Elrod reported
this incident to Lybrand who said he would look into it,
and to Brinkley who the following day asked Cook about it.
According to Brinkley, Cook said that Hill had "bothered"
him on various occasions in the plan t40 about joining the
Union, and volunteered the information that he had also
"bothered" Hadyn Parris, another employee. Parris had
not complained about this, but Brinkley nevertheless
asked him if someone was "bothering him on the job," and
Parris told him merely that Hill had on several occasions
asked him to join the Union. Brinkley did not testify that
Parris said this was while he was working, or define his
own use of the term "on the job."
Brinkley also related that he asked Joe Edwards if Hill
had ever spoken to him about the Union and Edwards said
that Hill had spoken to him about it "over on the back of
his job," referring to a smoking area there. According to
Brinkley, Cook, Parris, and Edwards were the only
employees from whom he derived any information that Hill
had spoken to them any time, any place, about the Union;
of these, Cook was the only one who complained. It does
not appear from Cook's own testimony that any incident of
solicitation took place on company time.
Nevertheless, on September 4 Brinkley admittedly
wrote Hill up for "bothering [employees] on the job and
interfering with their work." The writeups added that "any
further complaints of this nature [and] you will be subject
to discharge." Hill was summoned to the office where
Brinkley, Lybrand, and Elrod were all present and the
writeup was read to him. Hill denied he had bothered
anyone on the job and asked who the employees were who
had complained. Brinkley refused to tell him. According to
Hill, either Brinkley or Elrod asked him why he did not
resign his employment and he answered that he was going
to stay and help organize the employees into the Union.
Brinkley denied suggesting he resign. Elrod did not testify.
I credit Hill's testimony.
The fact that Hill had been given a personnel action
report, the only one he had received during his 3 years'
employment, became common knowledge in the plant.
Cook, as well as Dwight McKinney and Dan Hart, who
constituted the crew on range 5 which adjoined Hill's
range 4-all of them, according to Brinkley, known to be
hostile to the Union-inauguarated a hazing campaign
with Hill as its victim. Hill's credited testimony is that
immediately following his being written up and told that
his further "bothering" employees would render him
subject to discharge, these employees called out to him as
he passed up and down the aisles-McKinney, for
example, following him back and forth in the dyehouse
asking if it was his name on the union leaflet, and
propounding other questions about the Union, and Hart
whistling at him and, when Hill spoke to Hawkins, the
knowledge of Hill's union membership and for its prophetic
quality as it pertains to his later discharge
'" It was in the Slater plant, as I have found (157 NLRB at 924),
that Gentry Reese, third-shift supervisor in the finishing
department, boasted that he had two employees who were
attending union meetings to let him know how things were going,
and that Respondent could always find reasons for discharging
union employees, and had in fact been terminating some of them
because of the Union
40 But not so far as the record shows, nor is it so contended, at
any time other than during break periods
246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
back man on range 4 in connection with his job, calling out
to Hawkins that he should not talk to Hill because Hill had
been warned not to take [talk to] anyone After a day or so
of this Hill went to Brinkley and asked him if he could stop
it, naming Cook, McKinney, and Hart. He reminded
Brinkley that he had been given a personnel action report
for talking with other employees and pointed out that he
was trying to abide by the rules. Brinkley said he would
look into it but said nothing more to Hill about it until 2
weeks later when Respondent discharged Hill for
complaining about other employees.
A day or so after Hill's complaint to Respondent as to
Cook, McKinney, and Hart, Hill arrived at the plant and,
as he approached range 5 where Cook, McKinney, and
Hart worked, he saw a cup hanging there with a card
attached to it reading, as he later discovered:
Money for James Hill to Hunt a Job With
Hill said nothing at the time, since he was on his way to
sew a seam on a piece of cloth, and as he passed Hart on 5,
Hart asked if he had read the card. Hill said he had not yet
had time. When he returned to his own range the cup and
card were gone. Brinkley called him to his office and
showed the cup and card to Hill which he then read for the
first time, and asked him if he knew anything about it. Hill
said he did not. Brinkley testified that he made some
inquiries about the cup and card, but could not find out
anything about it. He did not, however, disclaim
responsibility for its origin on behalf of management, or
reassure Hill in any respect when talking to him.
Respondent thus obtained the benefit of the intimidation.
Hill's termination was imminent. Shortly after coming to
work on September 14, the day of his discharge, and with
Elrod looking on, Harold Bell, whose name was on the
Union's leaflet of August 31, in passing Hill on the floor
exclaimed to him, "James, I can't go on like this, I'm going
to get my name off that leaflet-I'm not going to stick my
neck out any more... " Hill interrupted Bell to say that
he could not talk to him, since he had received a writeup
for talking to employees. As Bell left, Hill went over to
Elrod and said in explanation: "Elrod, I just told the boy I
couldn't talk with him." Elrod suggested that he explain
this to Brinkley and Hill immediately did so, telling
Brinkley that Elrod had suggested that he inform him.
Brinkley, however, said that he was getting "fed up," and
that it looked as if Hill could not "get along with the boys
out there." He testified:
I told James at that time, I said Mr. Hill, I'm tired of
your coming to me with these complaints about
employees bothering you,4' and I said, as far as I am
concerned, you're through.
To be sure that Hill was through, and without waiting until
the end of the shift, Brinkley escorted him personally to
the gate. As his continued testimony described it:
Q. Did you at that point write out his time?
A At the time I told him to get his lunch box, and
I'd show him where the gate was.
Q. He knew where the gate was didn't he?
A. Yes, sir.
* * *
Q. And what did you do there, Mr. Brinkley?
A. He and I walked to the middle No. 4 range, he
41 It will be noted that Hill in no sense complained of Bell's
bothering him Bell was a fellow member of the Union's
organizing committee, as Brinkley well knew He also knew that
picked up his lunch box, and we walked to the gate,
and he left
Hill's discharge was the culmination of a 2-week
campaign by Respondent to get rid of him, beginning with
the appearance of his name on, and his circulation of, the
union booklet of Agust 31. The antiunion employees, with
Respondent's acquiescence, contributed to this end by
their virtual hazing of Hill while working. Respondent
ignored Hill's complaint as to this at the same time it
complained that Hill was "bothering" others. In
Respondent's lexicon this meant only that Hill, like
Wojeck, was proclaiming the merits of the Union on his
free time in the washroom and other permissible areas.
There is no contention that it occurred elsewhere. But
when Hill complained to Respondent that other employees
were interfering with him while actively performing his
work, to the extent of soliciting money in anticipation of
his discharge, instead of admonishing them it discharged
Hill.
Leroy Reeves: Reeves had worked for 9 years during his
last period of employment, as a smash hand in weave
room 1 under the immediate supervision of Harold Smith.
Walter Looper was superintendent of weaving. Reeves'
name appeared on the leaflet of August 31 as a member of
the Union's organizing committee. Immediately upon the
circulation of this leaflet, according to the testimony of
Reeves, Respondent's supervisors watched him more
closely than before. I have previously found that increased
supervision, amounting in some circumstances to
surveillance, was commonplace when employees joined
the Union, and that increased restrictions were placed
upon their movements in the plant and their conversations
with fellow employees, even during breaks. On
September 8, 1964, the Union filed a charge on behalf of
Reeves alleging a discriminatory change in working
conditions. His testimony is that thereafter he was not
observed so closely although he continued to be given
unusual work assignments.
A close relative of Reeves died, and he was scheduled to
be a pallbearer at the funeral on Sunday, October 4. He
drove his car pool to the plant on Saturday with the
expectation of working until noon and then asking
permission to leave so as to buy a suit and other articles of
clothing. Instead of assigning him work in his own
section 3, that morning Smith assigned him and two other
smash hands to looms in section 2. It is uncontroverted
that the looms in section 2 were in bad shape. According to
Reeves' undisputed testimony it would have taken him the
entire 8-hour shift to straighten out the job on the loom he
was assigned to. Accordingly he told Smith that he did not
want to start work on that loom because he wanted to leave
at noon Smith told him he could not be spared. Reeves'
testimony is that Smith suggested he take the matter up
with Looper. Smith meanwhile told Looper that Reeves
wanted to leave the plant since there was no work to be
done on his own section Reeves told Looper he would like
to be off that day since there was no work on his own job,
and Looper told him that there was plenty of other work.
According to Looper he then asked Reeves if he was going
to work and Reeves said that he was not. Looper's
testimony on this point is corroborated by that of Smith.
Reeves' testimony is that when Looper came to him
Looper asked him if he was going to do the job and he
replied that he had "taken the circumstances up with
Hill was coming to him only in his own protection lest his brief
exchange with Bell should have been seen by other supervisors
misinterpreted
J.P. STEVENS 247
Harold, (Smith) to be off, if my job was caught up,"
whereupon Looper turned to Smith and told him to
discharge Reeves.
I credit the testimony of Reeves and find that although
he was reluctant to work on the job in section 2, he did not
finally refuse to do so. He did not, in fact, leave the job I
am, moreover, of the opinion that Respondent refused
Reeves' permission to be off because of his activity in the
Union. As I have found, Respondent was tolerant with
respect to taking time off. I am of the opinion that it took
advantage of Reeves' reluctance to work the remainder of
Saturday to get rid of him, as it already had gotten rid of
Wojeck and Hill a few days after they distributed the
leaflet of August 31.
Willis Young- Young, the last to be discharged of the
four employees whose names appeared as members of the
Union' s organizing committee on the leaflet circulated on
August 31, had been working as a laborer in the warehouse
for 4 years when he was discharged on October 11, 1964.
On Saturday, October 11, Young was working overtime,
beginning at 8 o'clock in the morning, as a helper on a
fork-lift truck driven by Carl Anderson. Anderson would
drive the truck into one of the side aisles in the warehouse,
running off from one of the main aisles, where Young
would pull cases out of a stack and pile them on the truck.
Anderson would then back the truck from the side aisle
into the main aisle , turn it about, and proceed to the
loading platform where Young and others would unload
the cases. Anderson and Young had been doing this since
starting to work until 11 o'clock when Richard Payne,
their immediate supervisor, came up to the truck, stopped
it, and spoke to Young. At this moment, according to
Payne himself, the truck had just backed into the main
aisle and was about to go forward toward the loading
platform. Payne's further testimony is that when he spoke
to Young the latter was sitting on the truck with his head
resting on a case in front of him. Payne accused him of
being asleep and discharged him, telling him to report to
Snow Kirby, personnel supervisor, on the following day.42
There is no evidence in the record that Young had ever
before been written up or otherwise reprimanded for
sleeping on the job. Moreover, the evidence here does not
establish that Young was asleep. He had just finished
placing the last case on the truck, had sat down, and the
truck had just backed into the main aisle for its journey to
the loading platform, when Payne came upon him. It is
scarcely credible that he could have fallen asleep so
quickly under the circumstances. Furthermore it is
conceded that from the moment Young placed the last
case on the truck until the time a few minutes later when it
arrived at the platform, he had nothing whatever to do
except to ride. I consider the reason advanced by
Respondent for Young's discharge to be merely a pretext
and that the real reason was his activity on behalf of the
Union.
The discharge of Wojeck, Hill, Reeves, and Young
added them to the ranks of the 10 other members of the
Union's organizing committee, previously discharged at
the Slater plant, and whose names were affixed to the
Union's leaflet of August 31.
d. The White Horse plant
Rufus Finley and Donald Jones- Finley and Jones were
slabber tenders in the card room of the White Horse plant
on the swing shift, under the immediate supervision of
Frank Cannon, their section hand, and Bennie Waldrop,
assistant overseer of the carding department. They Joined
the Union and later became employee members of its
organizing committee On September 9, 1964, and again 2
or 3 days later, the Union distributed at the plant gate
leaflets listing a number of demands upon Respondent for
improved working conditions. The names of Finley and
Jones appeared thereon43 as members of the organizing
committee along with the names of 11 others, 2 of whom
were former employees whom I have previously found44
were discharged by Respondent for their union activity.
On Monday, September 15, following the leaflet
distribution the previous Saturday, a number of employees
were talking together in the canteen area at the vending
machines, concededly during their free time. Their
presence was observed by Coleman Strange, section hand
in the carding room who had no supervision over any of
them. Nevertheless, he sent Reese Banks, one of his
pickers, over to the group and Banks returned about 15
minutes later and reported to Strange that the employees
were discussing the Union, and that Finley had asked him
to Join. The following was Banks' testimony:
Q And what was the conversation between you
and Finley there?
A. Finley said, Reese, what about letting me sign
you up for the Union?
Q. (By Mr. Blakeney) All right, what did you say?
A. I said, I don't want anything to do with the
Union, Finley
Q. All right, what further, if anything was said
between you?
A. That was all that Finley said to me right then.
Jones walked up and says, if they ever get in here,
you'll wish you had joined the Union, and f told Jones,
I said, well, you let me worry about that.
There is nothing in this account by Banks to show that
the conversation with Banks differed in any way from the
typical discussions of the Union which had gone on in
Respondent's washrooms, canteen, and smoking areas
ever since the Union had started organizing a year or more
previously 45 It is not controverted that Banks ' solicitation
by Finley and Jones was on the free time of all the
employees concerned Respondent in retrospect, however,
attempted at the hearing to suggest that Banks became
demoralized as an employee, and that when he reported to
talk to Strange he had tears in his eyes. Strange averred
that he was "shaking and crying ," although all that Finley
and Jones said to him was as related above. Banks, while
testifying, failed to mention the tears, but conceded after
he had heard Strange and Waldrop testify that he had
been "shook up"
Q. And when you went back to your machine, can
you say whether this conversation had any effect on
you?
Kirby's role was to make a record of his discharge and to Finley 's on the first leaflet and his and Jones ' on the second
arrange for his final pay He is not a production supervisor and 157 NLRB at 921-923
does not have authority to reverse a decision of a foreman to 45 157 NLRB at 964
discharge This rests in the plant superintendent
248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
you?
A.
Yes, sir, it had me shook up.
In what way?
*
If the Union got in , I'd wished I had joined.
Now, can you say how and why this bothered
No, he didn't tell me (sic).
* * * * *
Q. But as you started doing your work , can you say
whether it had any effect on you?
A. Well, I wasn 't exactly the way I usually am, I
wasn't as exact on it as 1 usually am.
Innocuous as Banks ' account of the union discussion in
the canteen area appears to have been on direct
examination , it became even more bland on cross:
Q. You got a cup of coffee?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Finley said , "Reese, what about letting me
put your name on the union committee?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you said , I don't want anything to do with
it, is that correct?
A. That's right.
Q. James then spoke up, and he says , if they ever
get in here, you ' ll want something to do with it.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You drank your coffee and went back to your
job?
* *
A. Yes sir.
* * *
In an attempt , belatedly made , to establish that perhaps
Banks was coerced or restrained in such a way as might
bring his solicitation out of the area of permissible
collective activity and into the realm of the impermissible,
counsel for Respondent recalled Strange to the stand for
further examination . When it developed that Banks had
been away from his job for 15 minutes , Strange advanced
the thought in explanation that Banks could not get away
because he would have to push his way through the other
employees . This was solely an afterthought and turned out
to be an abortive one:
TRIAL EXAMINER : Did he say he couldn't walk
away from them?
A. No, he didn ' t say that. But I could see the door
where they were standing,46 he couldn 't come out
without pushing them around.
* * * * *
It developed that there were no doors after all, but only
an iron railing around the area with a space to enter or
leave and room to duck under:
Q. An iron rail-and has a two foot opening in it?
A. That' s right.
Q. No door on it?
A. No.
* * * * *
Q. No obstruction to it at all?
A. No, sir.
* * * * *
TRIAL EXAMINER : Reese never told you that they
wouldn ' t let him get away from the coke machine?
THE WITNESS: No.
After getting Banks' account of the union discussion it,
the canteen, Strange reported it to Waldrop who came
down and got it verbatim from Banks. Waldrop then went
to Finley at his machine and asked him if he had asked
Banks to serve on the Union ' s organizing committee,
without specifying whether the request was made while he
was working , or even in the plant. Finley told him he had
not. Waldrop returned later and told him that he had
evidence that he had done so, and told him and Jones to
shut off their machines , go home, and to see C. J. Allen,
general overseer of the card room , in the morning. Wal-
drop testified that this was the first time in his 2 years as a
supervisor that he had sent home or discharged an
employee.
Next morning Allen saw Finley and Jones in his office
said to them , according to his own testimony , that he had
heard they had "created quite a disturbance " in the plant.
Finley said that they had not created any disturbance but
that Waldrop had sent them home for union activities, and
Jones asked him what he meant by a "disturbance."
Finley said that Allen was going to fire them and asked if
they could not get their money then . Finley's
uncontroverted testimony is that Allen also said when he
discharged them that they had been "good workers and
good hands" but that he was going to have to let them go
"to protect the other employees in the plant ." Allen called
up the personnel department to arrange for their time, and
Finley and Jones left.
Asked while testifying what he meant by a disturbance,
which by that time in Allen 's characterization had become
a "bad disturbance created among other employees," his
testimony was:
Q. And what did they say, or either of them?
A. -Mr. Jones spoke up and said, what is creating
a disturbance ? Then I tried as best I could to
explain-what a disturbance was; that they were
disturbing other people , and interfering with other
people, or drinking , or gambling, or any type of [sic]
where it involved disturbing other people, in my
opinion that was a disturbance.
TRIAL EXAMINER : Well, what was the disturbance
in this case.
THE WITNESS : Other people , they had disturbed
other employees.
TRIAL EXAMINER : By what?
THE WITNESS : They had disturbed other
employees.
TRIAL EXAMINER : By doing what?
* * * * *
THE WITNESS : Stopping other people.
TRIAL EXAMINER : You mean talking to them?
THE WITNESS: Talking to them, yes.
TRIAL EXAMINER : These people at the coke
machine they were at the coke machine-what I'm
trying to find out; what were they stopped from?
THE WITNESS: They were disturbed-everyone
has a perfect right to go to the vending area-, and
they have a right to drink it without being disturbed.
It is obvious from this testimony and from the record as
a whole, that when in one of Respondent's plants, even in
a rest area and on their own time, a prounion employee
asks a nonunion employee to join the Union , without more,
in Respondent 's lexicon he creates a disturbance.
After they had been discharged , although nothing
remained to be done so far as Finley and Jones were
concerned, Allen nevertheless interrogated the four other
employees whom he had said he intended to see,
^" Strange testified that the soft drink machine was 65 yards
from where Strange was
J.P. STEVENS 249
concerning the union discussion in the canteen, but whom
he had not gotten around to before the discharges.47
e. The Estes plant
William Coker: Coker had worked 23 years for
Respondent as a weaver until his discharge on May 25,
1965. He had always worked on the first shift, as a
permanent first -shift employee until November 1964,
when Respondent transferred him to the second shift, with
hours from 4 p.m. to midnight. At this time he came under
the supervision of Shannon McCall, second-shift overseer,
and J. C. Blackston, general overseer of weaving.
Coker became active in the Union and his name
appeared periodically on union leaflets distributed at the
plant, as a member of its organizing committee. The first
such leaflet appeared on July 22, 1964, presenting the case
for the Union and asking employees to sign the cards
attached to the leaflet. The names of Coker and four other
employees were attached as members of the Union's
organizing committee48 for the Estes mill . Respondent's
reaction here as elsewhere was immediate. On July 24 it
addressed a letter to the members of the committee,
including Coker, making clear, as it had done at other
plants, that it was determined to oppose the Union.
During the latter part of October 1964, Coker wrote a
lengthy letter to the "Saluda Valley Record" detailing the
merits of the Union and describing its history with relation
to the history of the textile industry in the South. The letter
was in reply to an antiunion letter which had appeared in
the same newspaper. The "Saluda Valley Record" refused
publication, so the Union published the letter over Coker's
signature on the leaflet dated October 22, 1964, and
distributed it at the plant gate. It was 2 weeks later that
Respondent transferred him to the second shift. About this
time McCall told Coker, while the latter was tending his
looms, that the Union was only interested in his money and
that most of its members would like to get out of it.
On November 23, 1964, Respondent wrote Coker up for
reporting early for work on the second shift, and talking
with other employees, something he had been doing over a
long period of time. It was the first personnel action report
Respondent had given him since March 1961. Blackston
testified:
Our gate opens thirty minutes before shift change;
any employee is free to come in if they like. Mr. Coker
down at the old mill would come in and would sit in
the canteen almost until time to turn the clock pick,
and then go to his job. Well I noticed one particular
day, this particular day I had the report made out, that
he was there just about at three-thirty, and I saw him
talking to six different weavers; so up close to change
time, I went to him and asked if he'd mind waiting
until ten minutes before four to come into the weave
room-and he said he would be glad to, and he didn't
do it any more, as far as I know.
In view of Blackston's own testimony that this was the
first time Coker had been asked not to come so early into
the weave room, and that he did not do so thereafter, I
would be at a loss to know why he should have taken
disciplinary action against him were it not for his further
testimony:
Q. [By Mr. Butler]-You told him to stop?
A. Yes.
Q. And he said he would?
A. That's right , and he did.
Q. [By Mr. Butler] So you made up these, after
November of 1964, when you knew he was really
pushing the union, you started making up these write-
ups on him ; isn't that correct?
A. That' s right.
The next writeups were on March 26 and March 30, for
making seconds and "not inspecting his cloth like he
should." Blackston said he was making too many seconds.
Coker's undisputed testimony is that his seconds at that
time were 12.49 or 12 . 47, which was average . His last
writeup on May 15 was for not inspecting properly. This
was 2 days after the Union lost the election at the Estes
plant.
The election was preceded by various interrogations by
Waldrop, Jones, and McCall of union adherents. John
Henderson , a doffer still employed, testified that about
March 15 Waldrop called him to his office and, after
asking him if he liked his job inquired if anybody had been
"putting pressure " on him, said if they had been there
were "ways to get it off you." Getting to the point , Waldrop
asked him if Stamps , a union organizer , had been to his
home, and when Henderson told him he had, Waldrop said
that Henderson could run him off if he wanted to, and if he
needed help in that respect to send for him, Waldrop. A
few days later Waldrop came to Henderson 's place of work
and, referring to their previous conversation , asked him if
he had run Stamps off as he said he was going to do, and
Henderson said Stamps had not been to his home. Later in
the day , Henderson , disturbed by this conversation, went
to Waldrop and asked him the meaning of his remarks.
Waldrop replied that he "happened to know" that union
organizers had been to his home, and that the Company
"knew when they came to your house and when they came
to anybody else's house ," and "what kinds of cars they
drive." When Henderson protested that union
representatives had not been to his house, Waldrop
repeated that the Company knew that they had been, and
charged Henderson with lying about it. As a bill of
particulars , Waldrop declared that he "happened to
know" that a union organizer had been to his home and
"opened the gate for your wife on Saturday, with the
groceries , when she come in the house."
Waldrop's testimony was a plea in confession and
avoidance:
I said, well, John , I says,-there 's a lot of pressure
being put on my people, but I says it's not necessary
to yield to it-
-He didn't want to hurt anybody' s feelings, that
anybody was welcome in his house-Several days
after that-I said by the way, John, I says, had any
more company? No. So I walked off.
* * * * *
TRIAL EXAMINER: This is John who, now?
THE WITNESS: Henderson .. . I said what's on
your mind, John?-He says, what were you talking
about? Well, I said, well, somebody said you had
some more company-I said, yes, John, I hear about
it-I acknowledged the fact that I knew there was
"t This interrogation was wholly irrelevant since their discharge " Of these five only Edward Davis, a filling duffer was still
had already been effectuated and was not affected by information employed at the time of the hearing. Respondent 's efforts to
received subsequently These employees testified only that they persuade him to leave the Union are hereinafter related
had been asked at one time or another by Finley and Jones, on
their own time , to join the Union
250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visitors going around to different homes in our
town-that's common knowledge all over town. I
don't have any particular way of having information
fed back to me; it's lust common knowledge,
everybody knows; so-everybody knows what's going
on about the Union-I says, anything you want to tell
me, all right; I says, I understand. I'm not asking you
any questions.
Edward Davis, a filling doffer, the only one still
employed of the employees whose name appeared on the
union leaflets along with that of Coker, testified without
contradiction that Waldrop watched him constantly after
his name was publicized, and that Waldrop called him to
the office about the time of the election and asked him
what he had against Respondent, saying that "all this stuff
that these people was putting in my head was a bunch of
bull." Waldrop embraced the occasion to give him a
writeup for being out the day before, the only writeup he
had been given in recent years, and the second in his 9
years' employment.
Jack Spearman, also still employed at the time he took
the stand, testified without contradiction that during the
first part of April 1965, McCall, his and Coker's
supervisor, asked him if any of the union people had been
to see him and advised him to have nothing to do with the
Union.
The undisputed testimony of Earl Sherman, still
employed, is that in April, after he had attended a union
meeting one morning, his second hand, Harold Jones,
asked him who the other fellow was with him, and
Sherman told him it was Jack Spearman. In a later
conversation Jones asked him if he was going to vote in the
election a few days away, stating that if they did not keep
the Union out of the plant it would be a mess. Jones denied
while testifying having the first conversation and said he
did not recall the second. I find he made in substance the
statements and questions attributed to him on both
occasions.
About a half hour after Coker came to work on May 24,
1965, on the second shift, and while he was inspecting his
61 looms, he noticed that some salvage was torn from the
cloth being woven on loom 46. He initialed the cloth and
passed on the other looms intending to return to 46 later.
McCall, however, when making his results [rounds]
shortly afterwards, saw the torn place and cut it out. The
cloth doffer cut off the cloth at this point, marked it as
having been run on the first shift and gave it to McCall. It
was some 3 or 4 feet in length. Coker's testimony is that
only about a yard and a half had been run on his own shift
during the half hour or so since coming on duty. That most
of this cloth was woven on the previous shift is not
controverted, and in fact Coker was not, as Blackston
eventually testified, discharged because of this fault or for
making seconds, but for failing to inspect his cloth
correctly McCall's testimony is that the fault in the cloth
was underneath the loom, and that Coker would have had
to stoop down and look under the loom to see it and that he
should have done so. Coker's statement is that he was
coming back to the loom.
Coker worked the remaining hours of his shift without
being spoken to by management concerning the torn
salvage, but when he arrived at work the following
afternoon, Blackston called him to his office where he
showed Coker the cloth, told him he had been spoken to
before about making seconds, and discharged him
At the hearing, however, he contended on cross-
examination that Coker had not been discharged for
making seconds but for failing to inspect correctly.
Q. You know, of course, that Mr. Coker's seconds,
the last week he worked, were much lower than other
weavers in the weave room, weren't they?
A. I haven't said anything about Mr. Coker's
seconds, the week he was discharged 9
Q. And even the week prior to that?
A. I didn't say anything about his seconds then.
TRIAL EXAMINER. What do you mean, sir, you
didn't say anything about it9
THE WITNESS: He wasn't terminated because his
seconds were so high; he was terminated because he
wasn't properly inspecting
TRIAL EXAMINER: And the result of better
inspection is [fewer] seconds, is that it?
THE WITNESS: Well, in a general sense, yes....
Coker's credited testimony is that the method of
inspection he followed on May 24 was the same he had
been following ever since he was employed I have
previously observed that seconds are continually being
made in all Respondent's plants, and that weekly records
of seconds are regularly posted. It is not denied that
Coker's seconds were fewer than average during the last 2
weeks of his employment, and it is not contended that they
were more than average at any time. Since the end
purpose of a weaver's checking his cloth is to help
minimize the number of seconds he produces, I cannot
attach to Coker's alleged failure to inspect his cloth in the
prescribed manner the importance which Respondent
purports to ascribe to it. I am persuaded that Respondent
emphasized Coker's alleged shortcomings in inspecting
when it became apparent during the hearing that it could
not plausibly advance his percentage of seconds as the
reason for discharge, and that its real reason was his
membership in the Union, particularly his activity as a
member of its organizing committee and his attempted
advocacy of its cause in the newspapers.
3. The Roanoke Rapids area
a The Patterson plant
John Little and Leslie Hancock. Little and Hancock
were stitchers on the second shift in the cloth room. Their
immediate supervisor was Willie Pulley, brother of
Charles Pulley, general overseer of the cloth department.
The latter worked regularly on the first shift and
occasionally on the second. Kenneth Young and Robert
Haskins were stitchers on the first shift, and Little had
trained both of them in their jobs. As the rolls of cloth
come off a loom the duty of the stitcher is to sew four to six
of them together, end to end. The rolls then go to the
inspecting table where the inspector examines them, and
then to the loop-breaking machine and the warehouse.
When Little and Hancock arrived at the plant on the
afternoon of August 5, 1964, the Union was passing out
leaflets on the road in front of the plant. They accepted
some and talked with one of the organizers for a while
before entering the plant. Around 6 p.m., their usual time,
Little and Hancock went to the washroom to eat supper.
While they were getting a drink at the snack bar Frank
Armstead, an overseer on the second shift, asked Little if
he had been "handing out union papers" on the road in
front of the gate that morning. Little said he had not. The
two then went into the adjoining room and ate supper[.]
[They then went to the waterhouse for a smoke] and
Hancock took from his pocket the leaflet he had been
handed and the two of them were reading it when Willie
Pulley came in. Little said jokingly, "Willie, you've got to
J.P. STEVENS 251
write us up, we're reading papers." Pulley told them that
was their privilege during their break. Pulley denied
having this conversation. He was a hesitant, evasive
witness and I do not credit his denial.
Supper finished, Hancock hung the leaflet on the towel
rack and they returned to work. They came back to the
washroom just before the end of the shift at midnight, and
Hancock took the leaflet from the towel rack and it was
passed around and commented on, and Hancock
attempted to procure the signature of one of the employees
on the union application card attached to it. While this was
taking place, Sidney Matthews, assistant overseer in
weaving, entered and was present part of the time.
Two days later, on August 7, during the second shift,
Crumpler came to the stitching machine and after
examining a roll of cloth which Finley, and another which
Hancock, had sewn, summoned Bobbit, assistant
superintendent, and Robert Pulley, and told them to look
at the two rolls on which he said the seams were poorly
sewed, and "take whatever steps" were necessary to
correct the situation. Bobbit and Pulley measured some of
the seams with a ruler, found that some were crooked and
cut them out and brought them to Crumpler's office. The
two stitchers were then called to the office and discharged.
It is uncontroverted that Bobbit and Pulley had never
before measured seams to see just how crooked they were,
and the record shows that the machines on which the
stitchers worked could not sew perfectly straight seams.
The question was always just how crooked they were. If
the fabricating plant deemed them too crooked,
supervision there called it to the attention of supervision in
the Patterson plant. Charles Pulley's testimony is that the
fabricating plant had been complaining about crooked
seams constantly since at least the previous April, and that
all stitchers were constantly being cautioned about it, and
that the situation would improve for awhile and then
become worse again. It is apparent that crooked seams,
like seconds, were always a problem. Robert Pulley
admitted, however, that he had never before known a
stitcher to be discharged for this reason.
On redirect examination he stated that he had never
before been able to attribute crooked seams to any
particular stitcher. On recross it developed that this was
because never previously had he stood alongside a
stitcher' s machine to examiner the stitching in the manner
of Crumpler at Finley's [Little's] and Hancock's
machines , for the express purpose of catching a stitcher in
the act of sewing crooked seams. The redirect and recross
were as follows:
Q. [By Mr. Butler] Mr. Pulley, you've never
discharged a stitcher before, have you, sir,-for
sewing crooked seams?
A. Not for crooked ones, no sir.
* * * * *
Q. [By Mr. Blakeney] Have you ever been able to
ascertain , to identify, crooked seams with any
particular stitcher before?
A. No sir, not any particular machine I wouldn't-
TRIAL EXAMINER: Well, do you mean that on none
of these occasions when complaints were being made
about sewing crooked seams-that you at any time
were never able to say that such-and-such a stitcher
had sewn a crooked seam on such-and-such a roll?
THE WITNESS: That's right-we couldn't identify
one from another at that time, unless they was caught
sewing them that way.
TRIAL EXAMINER: What was it that enabled you to
identify them on the occasion in question?
A. That was when Mr. Crumpler went out there
and caught them himself-and then pulled the seams
out.
The record seems clear. Crumpler, knowing that
crooked seams were continually being sewn by all
stitchers and that the only way to ascertain which stitchers
were sewing which seams was to stand for a time at the
machines and observe the cloth; on August 7, 1964, for the
first time, went to the stitching machines while Little and
Hancock, were operating them and ascertained that some
of the seams they sewed were crooked, a discovery which
he was certain to make if he stayed there any length of
time, and which he would certainly have made if he had
watched the machines while they were being operated by
Young and Haskins .49
If there were any question in my mind that Respondent
watched the seams sewn by these two employees in order
to find a pretext for their discharge, it would be dispelled
by the testimony of Haskins, still employed by
Respondent, who testified that shortly after he took over
from Little on the second shift after his discharge, he
asked Willie Pulley why Little and Hancock were
terminated and Pulley said that he did not exactly know
but that he thought it was because of the Union, and that
he had told them several times that if they were for the
Union they should keep their mouths shut, adding, "If you
are, keep your mouth shut and don't tell everybody your
business unless you want to get fired." Pulley also told
Haskins that Little was a good worker and that he could
sew seams as well as any stitcher, or better.
Morris Moseley, a loop breaker still employed by
Respondent, testified to helping Robert Pulley and Bobbit
when they measured the seams sewn by Little and
Hancock, and that he had never witnessed such a
proceeding before. To him, the seams looked as good as
any other seams. On the day Little and Hancock were
discharged Moseley asked Willie Pulley the reason and
Pulley said he did not know but he thought it was because
of the Union.
Pulley denied making these statements to Haskins and
Moseley. I found Pulley to be a hesitant and reluctant
witness. I do not credit his denial. I find that Respondent
discharged Little and Hancock for their interest in the
Union.
Daniel Murray Murray had worked for Respondent
about a year as a laborer whose job it was to clean 12
toilets, when he was discharged on September 12, 1964, by
Foreman Walls, allegedly for failing to keep them clean.
The General Counsel's case rests upon the fact that
Murray testified under subpena at the first hearing, and he
contends that his eventual discharge was for this reason,
and hence in violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act.
Murray's testimony in this hearing was that when he
was hired Snow Kirby, personnel director, said that
Respondent did not want a union and that he replied that
he knew that, and that he did not want one either. In fact,
Murray did not join the Union, so far as the record reveals,
and there is no showing that Respondent believed he did.
"' As previously stated Little had trained both Young and
Haskins
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There was a great deal of testimony pro and con as to how
clean Murray kept the toilets. I do not find it necessary to
resolve the question, since, in my opinion, the General
Counsel did not establish a prima facie case. I shall
recommend that the complaint be dismissed as to Daniel
Murray.
IV. SUMMARY
The record in the instant hearing demonstrates that
Respondent has continued to pursue its plan and pattern
of conduct as revealed in the 1964 hearing, and described
in my Trial Examiner's Decision of July 26, 1965, to crush
the union movement in its plants with small regard for the
means employed. In further pursuing this end it
discharged, I find, 19i° of the 28 employees named in the
complaint, and discriminated against one other, James
Rosemond, in the allocation of overtime work.
This discrimination against its employees in the
exercise of their right of self-organization was preceded
and accompanied by various threats to discharge,
extensive and repeated interrogation of employees as to
their own interest in the Union and that of their fellow
employees and their presence at union meetings, by giving
employees the impression that their union activities were
under surveillance both while in attendance at union
meetings and at their homes, altering its working
conditions so as to reduce contacts between employees,
encouraging and assisting employees in withdrawing from
the Union and threatening to discharge them if they did
not, at the same time encouraging and permitting
employees to engage in antiunion activity during working
hours while prohibiting other employees from engaging in
activity on behalf of the Union even on their own time.
The conditioned reflex nature of Respondent's reaction
to their union activities, even on their own time, is
illustrated among numerous other incidents by the
discharge of Finley and Jones at the White Horse plant,
and Frank Wojeck and James Hill at the Slater plant.
When Banks' foreman, Strange, sent him over to the coke
machine to see what a group of employees including
Finley and Jones were discussing during a break period
and Banks returned to report that they were talking about
the Union and that Finley and Jones had solicited his
membership, Respondent discharged both of them for
"disturbing" employees, which General Overseer Allen
defined repetitiously while testifying as "talking" with
them about the Union, a thing which he equated with
"drinking or gambling, or any type of where it involved
disturbing other people." "That," he said, was a
"disturbance." So he discharged them for their union
activity, by definition violative of the Act.
Wojeck, at the Slater plant, was discharged after
complaints by supervisors made on the day of his
discharge that he was "interfering" with other employees,
a charge like that of "disturbing" without particularity as
to time, place, and circumstances, concerning which his
foreman, Dempsey, admittedly had no knowledge, which
he did not investigate, and information as to which he
refused Wojeck when he asked the reason why. Instead,
Dempsey discharged him and he and another supervisor
ejected him physically from the plant.
Similarly, when James Hill solicited the union
membership of Cook, Parris and Edwards on his and their
own time in a rest area, and Cook had reported this to
Foreman Brinkley, Hill was issued a personnel action
The record of the 1965 hearing reflects the continued,
systematic determination of this employer as revealed by
the record of the 1964 hearing, to destroy the Union root
and branch by discharging its most active members on any
pretext which might come to hand, or could be invented,
by threatening to discharge others unless they come to
management and renounce the Union, and by provoking
the resignation of still others from Respondent's
report for "bothering" other employees. When Hill asked
in what way he had bothered other employees and who
they were, he was refused this information. At the same
time, he was told that if there were any further complaints
of the same nature he would be subject to discharge. Since
he was not appraised of what the complaints were so that
he might avoid them, and since in fact they were that he
had been discussing the Union, it was inevitable that
similar complaints would not be long forthcoming and
Hill's discharge "automatically" effectuated. In fact, there
were no further complaints within the 10 days intervening
before his termination. But the activities of the antiunion
employees assumed the form of hazing, culminating in
hanging at his work place a cup with a sign attached
requesting money for him to use in looking for another job.
Hill reported several of these instances to Brinkley who
said he would look into them. As to the cup and sign,
Brinkley called Hill to his office to ask him about it without
reassuring him as to his employment, or disassociating the
Respondent from this act of coercion.
When Hill went to Brinkley, on the advice of his
foreman, to tell him that he had refused to talk to an
employee who had approached him, a precaution
occasioned by Brinkley's warning 10 days before that any
further complaint of this talking would result in his
discharge, Brinkley discharged Hill on the spot for
reporting the incident.
In Respondent's connotation of the term, the union
employees were not "bothered" by the above related
instances, but nonunion employees were "bothered" when
the others spoke to them about the Union on their own
time. This was the upshot of Respondent's posted notice
that "no person will be allowed to carry on union activities
on the job" which not only failed to define what "on the job
meant," permitting supervision to interpret it as
synonymous with "at the plant," and of Respondent's
pointedly refraining from enjoining antiunion activities.
So with the union employees' activities as contrasted
witu the open antiunion activities of Respondent's
foremen. In spite of its best efforts, Respondent was hard
put to discover any instance of solicitation of union
membership on company time. The union employees
sedulously complied with what they knew to be the true
rule, that working time was company time, and that
activities on their own behalf and on behalf of the Union
should be confined to their own time. Respondent
flagrantly violated its own rule, whether correctly or
incorrectly stated. Its supervisors, seemingly as a matter
of course and of right, widely interrogated employees as to
their union activities, and expressed open hostility to the
Union during work periods, threatened its employees
explicitly and implicitly with discharge if they joined it,
and encouraged and aided antiunion employees to drive
the Union from the plant by activities conducted on
company time.
'"These employees are Ben Suratt , Wylie Hill, Hubert James Hill, Leroy Reeves, Willis Young , Rufus Finley, Donald
Varnadore, John Fulbright, Oliver Durham, Willard Page, Junior Jones, William Coker, John Little, and Leslie Hancock
Hulsey, W 0 Epps, Jake Owens, Arthur Dean, Frank Wojeck,
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 253
employment. No other conclusion can be drawn than that
Respondent has largely succeeded in its purpose.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
V. 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,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
VI. 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.
It will be recommended that Respondent offer those
employees whose names appear in Appendix A [Board
Appendix substituted for Trial Examiner's Appendix]
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, 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 James Rosemond
overtime work in accordance with the practice of offering
overtime work prior to the date overtime work was first
discriminatorily withheld from him and make him whole
for loss of overtime pay during the period of time overtime
was discriminatorily withheld from him, with interest at
6 percent.
I shall also recommend that Respondent preserve and
make available to the Board or its agents, upon request,
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 these recommendations.
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 Co., 312 U.S. 426; N.L.R.B.
v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4).
In view of my findings that Respondent's antiunion
activities as described above constitute a practice and a
pattern of conduct designed to thwart, and which had
thwarted, the attempts of its employees to organize and my
finding that Respondent has pursued this practice and
pattern with a calculated disregard for the proscriptions of
the Act and of my belief that the conventional
recommendations which I hereinafter make do not fit the
situation here revealed, and will not adequately restore the
status quo, I recommend to the Board that it consider such
other and further remedies which it may deem appropriate
in order better to effectuate the policies of the Act.
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 these employees whose names appear in
Appendix A [Board Appendix substituted for Trial
Examiner's Appendix], 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) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Ben Suratt, Wylie Hill, Hubert Varnadore,
John Fulbright, and Willis Young, Respondent has also
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
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
Franklin Moore, Bobby Spoon, Joe Manley, Juanita
Faulkenberry, and Daniel Murray.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
General Electric Company and Local 761,
International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case
9-CA-3570.
March 6,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
On May 5, 1966, Trial Examiner Sidney D.
Goldberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief;'
the Charging Party filed an answering brief.
' The Respondent filed a motion for receipt of evidence of
relevant events that occurred after the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the Charging Party filed an opposition thereto The motion is
denied
The Respondent also filed a motion for oral argument The
request is hereby denied, as the record, including the exceptions
and briefs, adequately reflects the issues and the positions of the
parties.
163 NLRB No. 31