Judy Bond

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 99 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 99
WE WILL reimburse our employees for initiation fees, dues, or other moneys
paid or checked off as a condition of employment.
DISNEY ROOFING & MATERIAL CO.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(WILBER F. DISNEY, President)
CARLMONT ROOFING CO.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(WILBER F . DISNEY, President)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 830
Market Street, San Francisco 2, California, Telephone No. Yukon 6- 3500, Extension
3191, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Brewton Fashions , Inc., a Division of Judy Bond,' Respondent
and James T. Heron, Charging Party and United Garment
Workers of America , Party to the Contract
Brewton Fashions , Inc., a Division of Judy Bond , Respondent
and International Ladies ' Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO,
Charging Party and United Garment Workers of America
and United Garment Workers of America , Local Union No.
422, Parties to the Contract
United Garment Workers of America and United Garment Work-
ers of America , Local Union No. 422, Respondents and Inter-
national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, Charg-
ing Party and Brewton Fashions, Inc., a Division of Judy
Bond, Party to the Contract . Cases Nos. 15-CA-2119 (post 10-
CA-4970), 15-CA-0098 (post 10-CA-5024), and 15-CB-579 (post
10-CB-1333). November 20, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 17, 1963, Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent Employer had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of the Act, and that the Respond-
ent Local Union had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices in violation of the Act, and recommending that the
said Respondents cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. The Trial
Examiner also found that the Respondent International Union had
not engaged in any unfair practices, and that the Respondent Local
1 Corrected to accurately reflect the name of said Respondent as set forth in an amended
answer filed at the hearing
145 NLRB No. 1.
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union had not engaged in certain others, as to all of which he recom-
mended that the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Charging
Party, the General Counsel, the Respondent Employer, and the Re-
spondent Local Union filed exceptions and supporting briefs 2 The.
Respondent International Union joined in the brief of the Local.
In addition the Respondent Employer also filed an affidavit alleging
bias on the part of the Trial Examiner and a separate brief in support
thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with,
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning,
and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.' The-
2 In their exceptions , the General Counsel and the Charging Party referred to an in-
advertent error appearing in Appendix B attached to the Intermediate Report and Recom-
mended Order which, as modified , is the notice adopted by the Board . Accordingly, the
fourth paragraph of Appendix B, as modified , shall read as follows:
We WILL, jgintly and severally with Brewton Fashions, Inc, a Division of Judy
Bond , make whole Louise West , Kate Jones, Ruth Bell, Kathleen Chavers, Lynn Estes,
Fay Madden , Carolyn Grey Thompson , Orette McCall , Doris Odum , and Ruth Johnson,
for any loss of earnings they severally suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them.
3 The Respondent Company urges the Board to disregard the Intermediate Report en-
tirely and to decide the case on the basis of the pleadings and transcript alone. It con-
tends that the Trial Examiner unduly restricted cross -examination , asked argumentative
questions and intimidated witnesses by making abusive remarks and by demanding "yes"
or "no" answers , rejected proper evidence , distorted the facts in his findings , drew Im-
proper inferences from failure to call managerial personnel as witnesses, exhibited a
pro-Charging Party attitude , and In general assumed the role of prosecutor rather than an
impartial trier of the facts Because of these serious charges, we have carefully examined'
the record and are satisfied that the Trial Examiner was concerned only with his duty
under Section 102.35 of the Board's Rules and Regulations "to inquire fully Into the
facts . . . to regulate the course of the hearing . . . to call, examine , and cross-examine
witnesses and to introduce into the record documentary or other evidence . . . . " We see
nothing in this record to prove that his conduct of the hearing , his resolutions of
credibility , or the inferences he drew were based upon a bias and prejudice in favor of
the Charging Party and against the Respondent Company ; rather we think the record
shows an exhaustive effort to bring out the facts In a difficult case.
Although the hypothetical questions he put to Plant Manager Byrd at the end of the
latter's testimony might better have been left unsaid , this occurred at the close of a long
hearing, and we do not view it as an attempt by the Trial Examiner to associate himself
with the prosecution of the case . His finding that plant production was not "substantially"
affected by the considerable discussions in the plant concerning the International Ladles'
Garment Workers ' Union, which the Respondent Company urges as evidence of bias, we
find it unnecessary to pass upon , for we reach-on the record as a whole-the sane ulti-
mate conclusion that "the posting of the revised no -solicitation rule [on May 221, as well,
as prohibition against the wearing of union pins, was motivated by the desire of Respond-
ent Company to thwart the organizational efforts of the ILG adherents , and not because
it found it necessary to maintain production or discipline ." Immediately thereafter, the
Respondent Company showed an obvious disregard of both production and discipline by its
failure to make clear to its employees a decisive repudiation of the eviction incidents and
its failure to request the United Garment Workers as the exclusive bargaining agent to
do likewise. On the facts here the inference is Inescapable that the Respondent Company's
normal concern for production was outweighed by its interest in discouraging the ILG.
We note, for Instance , that on the morning of May 23, immediately after the first of the
incidents involving the altercations when ILG pins were torn from Madden 's dress and
she alone was disciplined , plus the warning to Estes not to wear the ILG pin again, the
Respondent Company stimulated disruption of discipline by Vice President Rothenberg'&
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 101
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications 4
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent Com-
pany violated Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) of the Act as set forth in
the Intermediate Report.
Concerning the 8(a) (1), the Respondent Company contends that
no threats were made by it to employees, that its conversations with
the various ILG adherents about their activities were mere statements
of opinion protected by Section 8 (c), and that the circumstances
rendered the amended no-solicitation rule nondiscriminatory.' In
our view these contentions do not accord proper significance to the
testimony, to wit : the threat to discharge West if she discussed the
ILG in the plant even on her own time, the threat to discharge Estes
if he wore his ILG pin in the plant, the threat to discharge Bell if
she solicited for the ILG on company property following an earlier
promise of benefit in interrogating Bell about the ILG activities of
others, the threat to McCall of plant closure or less work if the ILG
got in, and the threats to Estes by his supervisor that his work was be-
ing watched because of his ILG activity. Early in May, 9 of the 10
discriminatees signed ILG cards, followed in most instances by inter-
rogation by the Respondent Company concerning these activities, and
1 discriminatee was told that he might not even carry an ILG news-
paper in his pocket while in the plant. Then, on May 22, the Re-
spondent Company amended its 1961 rule prohibiting solicitation of
membership or organizational activities on company property "during
workinghours" by substituting the following rule :
At no time shall anyone be permitted to solicit membership or
engage in organizational activities or any other activities of any
organization on the Company's property.
No justification for the more restrictive rule was stated in it. In ad-
dition to these substantial violations of 8 (a) (1) at the Brewton plant,
there were flagrant violations of 8(a) (1) at the Birmingham ware-
talk Thus , in the context of approving the UGW and disapproving the ILG, Rothenberg
emphasized the lack of loyalty of a "few" employees With this approach on the part of
Respondent Company's management , it is not surprising that the bulk of the employees
were stirred to further violent activity.
4 The Respondent Company's request for oral argument is hereby denied inasmuch as the
record , exceptions , and briefs in our opinion adequately set forth the issues and the
positrons of the parties.
5 The Respondent Company considered union-pin wearing a form of solicitation Assum-
ing for the purpose of argument that it is , the circumstances in the plant when the
amended no-solicitation rule was posted-absent Respondent ' s desire to utilize the anti-ILG
sentiment to its own advantage-did not justify forbidding the wearing of pins at work.
Compare United Aircraft Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division , 134 NLRB 1632,
where 'the Board declined to find an 8 ( a) (1) violation based on a prohibition on wearing
certain pins, noting other acts by the employer indicative of a good -faith intent to achieve
harmonious plant conditions.
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
house, where employees, when newly hired in January 1962, were
given to understand that they were expected to join the United Gar-
ment Workers, and a specific threat was made to employee Wyne that,
he would not be kept if he did not sign a card for that Union.
Concerning the 8(a) (2), we see no merit in the contention of the
Respondent Unions that the Respondent Company was merely co-
operating with them as the recognized bargaining agent of the em-
ployees rather than furnishing illegal assistance to them by laying off
and discharging virtually all employees shown to be active in the ILG.
In addition, the posting and consistent implementation of a too broad
prohibition on solicitation, enforced only against adherents of the
ILG, clearly constituted a violation of 8(a) (2). Also, in agreement
with the Trial Examiner, we find that extension of recognition by the
Respondent Company to the United Garment Workers for the em-
ployees at the Birmingham warehouse, which was not an accretion to
the Brewton unit, and the coercion of the Birmingham employees by
the Respondent Company to accept the UGW as their representative,
constituted violations of 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
The Trial Examiner's 8 (a) (3) findings of discrimination in the lay-
offs of Estes, West, Jones, Bell, Chavers, Grey, McCall, Odum, and
Johnson, as well as the discharges of Estes and Madden," we find
amply supported by the record. Concerning the layoffs, the Respond-
ent Company urges in its brief that it had no duty under the Act to
continue to employ employees unpopular with their fellow employees,
citing various court opinions.' We consider these cases distinguish-
able. It is well settled that an employer who knowingly acquiesces
in the exclusion of employees from its plant by an antiunion or rival
union group will be regarded as having constructively discharged
such employees in violation of Section 8(a) (3)." The Act prohibits
discriminaion against persons on account of their membership in or
activities on behalf of unions, and it is an employer's duty to resist
violent domination of its "right and power" to employ without such
discrimination.' On this record there can be no question that the Re-
6 The Trial Examiner did not treat Madden as discriminatorily laid off on May 23,
possibly because Plant Manager Byrd told her that she would be paid for the morning
and could come back after lunch. She did not come back until May 25, when she was
discharged
7 N.L R.B. v. Edinburg Citrus Association, 147 F. 2d 353, 355 (C.A. 5), where the ele-
ment of cooperation between the employer and the militant employees was lacking;
N L R.B v. Wytheville Knitting Mills, 175 F. 2d 238 (C.A. 3), and N L.R.B. v. I. Spiewak
& Sons, 179 F. 2d 695 (C.A. 3), in both of which the employees alleged as discriminatees
had become persona non grata to their fellow employees by reason of their abusive conduct
during a strike ; N L R.B. v. P. R Mallory & Co., Inc., 237 F. 2d 437 (C.A. 7), where the
court found that the employer had no knowledge of the real reason for the demonstrations
against the discriminatee , and there was no proof of friction between the employer and
the plant union or "any other union."
8 See N L.R B. v Fred P. Weissman Co ., 170 F. 2d 952 , 954, 955 (C A. 6) ; D. W
Newton, an individual, d/b/a Newton Brothers Lumber Company, 103 NLRB 564, enfd.
on this point 214 F. 2d 472 (C.A. 5).
° See N.L.R B. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 129 F. 2d 661, 664 (C.A 5).
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 103
spondent Company did not resist domination of its employment power,
but, as found by the Trial Examiner, ratified and condoned the forcible
ejection of the named discriminatees.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent Local
Union violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act. The Trial
Examiner exonerated the Respondent International Union on the.
testimony of Mattie Jones that she, an International representative
who customarily serviced this Local, told the employees after each,
incident that they should not engage in such activities and might get
into trouble if they did. He found, however, that because the Re-
spondent Local knew of the plans of rank-and-file employees to evict
the discriminatees, it was under a duty to attempt to dissuade em-
ployees from carrying out such plans, and by failing to act Respondent
Local violated 8(b) (2) and (1) (A).
In agreeing with the Trial Examiner's finding we emphasize that
the Local was the recognized majority representative in an all--
employee unit, excluding maintenance and office employees; that pro-
duction employees were involved in all of the incidents, all but one of
which (July 11) was admittedly witnessed by Local President Mary
Lambeth; that a majority of the large sewing department was con-
spicuous for its activity during the afternoon of May 23 as was the
Local's shop steward selected by that department, Jessie Mae Wilson;
that steward Wilson was an admitted advocate of the violent approach
but no steps were taken by the Local to remove her as steward because,
of her approach or to disavow her conduct or to announce a policy
contrary to that conduct; 10 that the misconduct which occurred be-
ginning on May 23 was directed to strengthening the incumbent Local
and the benefits thereof were accepted by it. In all the circumstances
we find that the Local by its failure to announce a policy after May 23,.
by its failure to reprimand the known participants in any of the inci-
dents, and by the absence of any direct appeal to the employees, by it
as bargaining agent , to forestall violence , caused and attempted to
cause the Respondent Company to violate Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.n
11 Compare N.L R.B. v. P. R. Afallory & Co., Ino., 237 F. 2d 437 ( C.A. 7), where the
union president informed employees that further work stoppages to remove an unpopular
employee would be on their own responsibility, and assured the employee in question that
she would be protected in her employment.
11 Member Fanning would find an additional violation of Section 8 ('b) (1) (A) based upon
the following incident involving steward Wilson and discriminatee Madden, as urged by
the General Counsel . Following a conference in Plant Manager Byrd's office on May 21,
at which Madden was given a warning slip by Byrd for not making production and Wilson
was present as steward of Madden 's department , Wilson called Madden aside and told her
there "wouldn 't be any more trouble" for Madden and "they would take that pink slip,
back" if Madden would "come out of" the ILG. Steward Wilson did not testify. The
Trial Examiner recited this testimony of Madden but made no finding thereon. In the
circumstances of this case , including the close cooperation between Respondent Company
and Respondent Local Union in encouraging UGW membership and discouraging ILG
adherence and the reasonable presumption resulting therefrom that the Local would be
able to fulfill the promise to retract the warning slip, he would find that Wilson 's remark
to Madden was coercive. Compare Local 511, St. Louts Offset Printing Union, AFL-CIO,
at al. ( Mendle Press, Inc ), 130 NLRB 324, footnote 1.
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner.12
ii The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein, the following paragraph*
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders:
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The complaints issued herein pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), and which were consolidated
for hearing, were heard before Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman at Birmingham,
Alabama, on December 13, 1962, and at Brewton, Alabama, on December 17, 18,
and 19, 1962, and January 8, 9, and 10, 1963. In Case No. 15-CA-2119, the
complaint alleges that by certain conduct at Birmingham, Alabama, Respondent,
Brewton Fashions, Inc., a division of Judy Bondi (herein called Judy Bond or
Company), violated Section 8(a) (1) and (2) of the Act.2 In Cases Nos. 15-CA-
2098 and 15-CB-579, the consolidated complaint, as amended, alleges that by conduct
occurring at Brewton, Alabama, Judy Bond violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3)
of the Act, and that Respondents, United Garment Workers of America and United
Garment Workers of America, Local Union No. 422 (herein called International
and Local, respectively, and collectively referred to as United), violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.3 All parties were represented at the hearing
and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to argue orally on the record. Oral argument was waived. The
General Counsel, Respondent Company, and Respondent Unions filed briefs on
March 11, all which have been duly considered.4 The Charging Parties filed no briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
including their demeanor while testifying, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT5
1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INVOLVED
A. Background
For some years Judy Bond has been engaged in the manufacture and sale of
ladies' blouses on a national scale. Prior to 1962, its manufacturing operations,
at least to the extent here material, have been through so-called "contractors,"
located mainly in the New York area. Also in New York, the Company operated
a warehouse at which point it received the finished products from the contractors
and prepared shipments to its various customers. As a member of National Asso-
ciation of Blouse Manufacturers, a trade association, Judy Bond was bound by a
master contract negotiated between that Association and ILC and one or more of
1 Corrected to accurately reflect the name of said Respondent as set forth In an amended
answer filed at the hearing.
2 The charge and amended charges in this case were filed April 5 and May 3, 1962, re-
spectively A complaint issued on May 4, 1962, which was amended November 7, 1962.
All future references to dates will be to the calendar year 1962, unless otherwise noted.
I In these cases the original and amended charges were filed on May 24 and September 24,
respectively. A consolidated complaint issued July 13, which was amended October 16
4 To call the document submitted by the General Counsel a brief is really a misnomer.
It would be more properly styled a rdsumd of the evidence The so-called brief did not
argue any theory of violation, nor did it cite a single case
6 No issue of commerce or labor organization is Involved The complaints allege and
the Company admits facts which clearly establish that the latter is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that International, Local 422,
as well as International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (herein called ILG), the Charg-
ing Union, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act I so
find.
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 105
its locals, which expired by its terms on December 31, 1961. This contract covered
at least the employees in the warehouse and shipping operations , and perhaps others.
In the fall of 1961, Judy Bond resigned from the Association and terminated the
latter's bargaining rights.6 Thereafter, a labor dispute existed between ILG and
Judy Bond.
In November or December 1961, Judy Bond began investigating the possibility
of acquiring manufacturing operations , as well as warehousing and shipping facilities
in Alabama. One of the facilities so considered was a plant at Brewton, Alabama,
which then operated under the name of Brewton Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
and was engaged principally in making men's shirts . In January 1957, International
had been certified by the Board as the representative of the employees of Brewton
Manufacturing Company, Inc., and shortly after the certification, the parties entered
into a contract which, by its terms, would expire April 1, 1962. On December 14,
1961, Judy Bond entered into a contract to purchase the plant equipment and skills
of the personnel and management of Brewton Manufacturing Company, Inc, con-
ditioned upon the landlord's approval of the transfer of the lease on the plant
building to Judy Bond.7 As the latter's purpose was to transfer its warehousing and
shipping operations from New York City to Brewton, but facilities therefor were
not then available at the Brewton plant, Judy Bond leased a building in Birmingham,
Alabama, which it proposed to use temporarily for its warehousing and shipping
operations until the desired facilities could be erected at Brewton. This lease was
for a term of 1 year from January 1 to December 31, 1962, and, except for a short.
period hereafter referred to, Judy Bond conducted the warehousing and shipping
operations from that location which had previously been conducted in New Yorks
In the meanwhile, Mattie Jones, a representative of Respondent International,
having learned of the proposed purchase of the Brewton plant by Judy Bond, wrote
the latter at its New York office on December 27, 1961, advising that Respondent
Local 422 (which apparently had been set up to service the employees for which
International had been certified), represented the employees in the Brewton plant,
and that a contract covering such employees was in effect which had until April 1
to run. The letter asked that Judy Bond assume the contract for the then unexpired
period, and that it fix a time for bargaining with respect to a new contract Judy
Bond advised Jones that in view of the short period which the then current contract
had to run, it saw no purpose in assuming it, but that the Company would bargain
with respect to a new contract. The parties met for that purpose in Birmingham
on January 10, and by January 1l a final agreement had been reached and reduced
to writing, subject to ratification by the employees covered thereby. This agree-
ment, which was shortly thereafter ratified by the employees at Brewton, but not
by the Birmingham employees, was between Judy Bond and International and
Local 422, and contained, among others, the following provision:
The Company recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of all employees in the plant in Brewton, Alabama, and in the temporary
warehouse at Birmingham, Alabama, except maintenance and office employees,
foremen, foreladies, and other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge or otherwise effect change in the status of other employees,
or to effectively recommend such action. [Emphasis supplied.]
This background of events culminated in conduct at Birmingham and Brewton
which constitute the basis for the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
The events at each of these locations will now be set forth separately.
B. Sequence of events at Birmingham
As stated above, the Birmingham warehouse began operating in the latter part of
December 1961.9 The manager of the warehouse was Sam Kalamus. During the
afternoon of January 3, Kalamus told the seven or eight employees then working in
$ See: Kreindler v Judy Bond, Inc., 51 LRRM 2222, 2223, 2263; and Judy Bond, Inc v
Kreindler, 51 LRRM 2264.
7 Prior to this contract , there had been no financial or other business relations between
Judy Bond and Brewton Manufacturing Company
$ However, the evidence shows that Judy Bond took possession of this warehouse and'
had a few employees working there late in December 1961.
B Employee Herron testified that he began work at the warehouse on December 27, 1961,
and that when he reported for work there were four other employees Wyne and Adams
testified they were hired December 27 or 28 ; and Richardson testified he began work the
"last part of December ." None of this testimony is controverted
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the warehouse to come to his office, and when the employees had gathered, he intro-
duced Jones as a representative of United who wished to talk to them about the
Union. Kalamus then left the room. Jones told the assembled employees, in
substance, that Judy Bond was covered by a contract with United,1° explained the
benefits under the contract, and distributed dues deduction authorization cards which
the employees were asked to sign." All employees expressed their willingness to
sign the cards except James Wyne, who left the room saying, "I [don't] want any-
thing to do with it." A few minutes later Manager Kalamus told Wyne, ". . . you
are doing a pretty good job here, and I would like to keep you, but if you don't
join the Union, we can't keep you." Wyne then returned to the room where Jones
was meeting with the employees and asked for a card, saying he would sign it.
Jones remarked, "I am glad to see you change your mind," to which Wyne replied,
"I didn't change my mind, Kalamus changed it for me." Wyne then signed the
card
After the meeting between the employees and Jones had concluded, Manager
Kalamus told employee Herron that he (Kalamus) would furnish Herron with the
names of new hires as they came to work, and that Herron should take care of
signing them up for United; that he wanted all the employees to be union and not
just part of them. Kalamus also told Herron that if any employees refused to
sign, or gave him any trouble, to let him know and he would straighten them out.
As new employees were hired Kalamus told at least some of them that the plant
was union, and asked if they were willing to belong to it. The new hires were then
sent to Herron who had them sign cards. Herron signed up about 14 new hires.
On January 24, ILG began picketing the Birmingham warehouse.12 The follow-
ing day all employees in the warehouse (approximately 22) went on strike and
joined the ILG picket line.13 Thereafter, presumably, the warehouse operated with
replacements.
The evidence is uncontradicted that Judy Bond operated the Birmingham ware-
house until December 14, at which time it was permanently closed; and that there
is no present intention of resuming that operation. It is also uncontradicted that
-between January 3, when Jones spoke to the employees, and January 25, when all
of the then employees at the warehouse went on strike, and notwithstanding that
Jones regarded United as the representative of the warehouse employees, the
Company made no dues deductions from the earnings of the employees, nor were the
'terms of any contract applied to those employees of the Birmingham warehouse who
'affiliated with ILG on or about January 25.
C. Sequence of events at Brewton
1. Preliminary question re supervisory status
Before detailing the events which occurred at the Brewton plant, it is necessary
to determine the supervisory status of certain actors in the play. The amended
complaint dealing with this aspect of the case (Cases Nos. 15-CA-2098 and
15-CB-579) alleges that Plant Manager Byrd, Cutting Room Foreman Eskridge,
Floorladies Johns, Gandy, Cain, and Smith, and Head Mechanic Wise are super-
visors within the meaning of the Act. Judy Bond admits the supervisory status of
the plant manager, but by answer denied that any of the other aforementioned
persons qualify as supervisors. On this issue the evidence shows that the plant,
which employs about 300 people, is divided into three major departments; the
10 It is to be noted that at the time of this meeting the contract with Judy Bond had
not yet been negotiated I assume that in referring to the terms of the contract she
'referred to the contract with Brewton Manufacuring Company, which Jones had asked
Judy Bond to assume.
11 At this meeting, some employees asked Jones whether they would be covered by the
Brewton contract, or have one which they themselves negotiated Jones replied that they
would be covered by the Brewton contract. Subsequently, the employees told Jones that
this would not be satisfactory and, thereafter, with the assistance of Jones, formulated
their own contract demands which she submitted to the Company. Later Jones notified
the employees that the Company had rejected their demands.
12 This picketing was continuing on the date of the hearing in Birmingham (Decem-
ber 13) Whether it thereafter ceased is not disclosed by the record.
13 The foregoing findings are based on the uncontradicted testimony of the witnesses
'called by the General Counsel. The only witness called by Respondent on the Birmingham
aspects of the case was its counsel, Mark Taliaferro, Esq , who testified with respect to the
closing of the Birmingham warehouse, as hereafter set forth.
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 107
cutting room, sewing room, and laundry room, each department headed by a fore-
man or forelady, as the case may be. The so-called "maintenance staff" is under the
.sewing department and has one person classified as "head mechanic."
0. f. Eskridge (referred to in the record and hereinafter as "Jack Eskridge"),
is foreman of the cutting room, where approximately 12 people worked at the time
,of the events here involved. There are no persons between Eskridge and the
rank-and-file employees in the cutting department. Like Aleen Turner, the fore-
lady in the laundry department,14 where about 55 employees work, Eskridge has the
authority to and does assign work, move employees from one operation to another
within his department, assigns overtime, grants time off to employees in his depart-
ment, and attends meetings of supervisory personnel. In fact Plant Manager Byrd
testified that in addition to himself, there are three supervisors in the plant, and that
Eskridge is one of them.15 I find and conclude, accordingly, that Eskridge is a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
The sewing department, where at the time of these events about 200 employees
worked, is under the supervision of Foreman Tommy Williams. This department
is broken down into sections, with a floorlady over each section. The number of
employees in a section varies from approximately 30 to as many as 50 or 60. It
,is not disputed that the floorladies participate in the training of new employees;
give out the work to the operators and assign them to specific machines in the
department; check to see that the garments are made according to specifications, and
for quality; and prepare production reports for each girl working in the section, and
if work is defective she sends it back to the operator for repair, or assigns a par-
ticular operator to perform repair work at an hourly rate.15 The floorladies are
authorized to see that operators devote their time and attention to working and
that they do not spend too much time in the restroom or in talking. The floorladies
do not normally operate machines and are paid an hourly rate calculated to give
them more compensation than the production workers generally earn; they attend
production meetings which are not attended by the operators working under them.
Although the Company contends that the floorladies do not have the authority to
effectively recommend the discharge of an operator, Foreman Williams, who is in
charge of the sewing department, admitted that the floorladies do report to him on
the ability of an operator to do the required work, and that he gives such recom-
mendations some weight. As Foreman Williams stated, "There wouldn't be any
point in having [the floorlady] if [I] didn't." While Williams denied that floorladies
had authority to grant employees time off without clearance from him, a number of
employees testified credibly, and I find, that their requests for time off were always
made to the floorlady of the section to which they were assigned, and that such re-
quests were always acted on immediately by the floorlady without any apparent con-
sulation with a superior.
Appropriate for consideration on this issue, as the Board has frequently held, is
the fact that if the floorladies in the sewing department do not possess supervisory
authority, then Williams is the only supervisor for 200 or more employees; plainly an
abnormally high ratio of employees to supervisors, and warrants the inference that
the floorladies involved possess the authority responsibly to direct the work of
employees under them. See Mid-South Manufacturing Company, Inc., 120 NLRB
230, 231, where the Board found a floorlady, whose duties were strikingly similar
to those of the floorladies in the instant case, to be a supervisor. See also Monarch
Rubber Company, Inc., 129 NLRB 482; Pearl Packing Company, 116 NLRB 1489.
This inference seems to be particularly warranted in the instant case in view of the
testimony given by Williams, to the effect that while he is responsible for the efficient
operation of the sewing department, he cannot "watch that many people. They
[the floorladies] help me watch them and see that they carry [out their duties,
reporting] any infractions to me." Accordingly, under all the circumstances, I find
and conclude that each person employed by Judy Bond in the classification of
"floorlady," is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
The mechanics department is responsible for plant maintenance. This depart-
ment consists of three men, with Ricio Wise. whose supervisory status is in issue.
being desienated as "head mechanic." The witnesses called by the General Counsel
did not testify in detail regarding the duties of Wise. For the most part they referred
to him as the "head mechanic," or as the person "in charge of the mechanics."
14 Bard admitted that Turner is a supervisory employee.
15 In addition to Turner and Eskridge , Byrd referred to Tommy Williams, foreman of
the sewing department
18 Normally the sewing operators work on a production basis.
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Foreman Williams testified that Wise works closely with him and Plant Manager
Byrd, and as head mechanic is "over the mechanics" and tells them what to do-
Plant Manager Byrd testified, in substance, that he supervises the mechanics depart-
ment; that each mechanic is assigned to a particular section of the plant which is his
primary responsibility; that Wise is a highly skilled and experienced mechanic, and
for that reason works in all sections of the plant to do work which the other me-
chanics cannot perform; Wise at times passes to the other mechanics instructions
which Byrd from time to time directs him to give them. Wise does not punch a
timecard, while the other two mechanics do. This is, in substance, all the evidence
adduced with respect to the supervisory status of Wise.
The burden is, of course, upon the General Counsel to establish that Wise possessed
the authority necessary to make him a supervisor. The evidence in that respect
is, I find, inadequate to satisfy that burden and I conclude, therefore, that Wise
is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
With these preliminary issues disposed of, a resume of the events occurring at
the Brewton plant follows.
2. The events of January 12-15
As above set forth, Jones, representing United, and representatives of Judy Bond
met at Birmingham, and on January 11 concluded negotiations for a contract, sub-
ject to ratification by the employees. To secure such, Jones left for Brewton and
was at the plant during the morning of January 12. Shortly before noon of that
day, Plant Manager Byrd assembled the employees and told them of the purchase
of the plant by Judy Bond. Jones told the employees that, in view of the change in
ownership, new cards authorizing dues deductions would have to be signed, and
such cards were distributed for signature by the employees. The employees were
also told of a union meeting scheduled for that evening at a local hotel at which
time the new contract would be discussed and voted on.17 During the lunch hour
that day, Jones met with the officers and shop stewards of Respondent Local 422
for a preliminary discussion of the contract. This meeting was held in the office
of Sewing Room Superintendent Williams. Permission to use this room was neither
sought nor obtained by Jones; she simply saw the room vacant and used it. Not
having finished their discussion during the lunch hour, they suspended until the end
of the workday, when the meeting was resumed in Williams' office, again without
permission from management. Williams was not present at either session and
there is no evidence that management was aware of such use of its premises. Be-
tween 1 and 4 p.m., Jones circulated about the plant talking to employees while
they were at work, urging them to sign the checkoff cards which had been distributed
among the employees. Many did sign, and others refused 18 During the evening of
January 12, the membership meeting of Respondent Local 422 was held as sched-
uled. The proposed contract was read, discussed, and submitted to a vote. While
some comments from members indicated possible dissatisfaction with some of the
contract provisions, it is not disputed that the vote for ratification was virtually if
not actually unanimous The following morning Jones returned to Birmingham,
and from there telephoned Company Vice President Rothenberg in New York inform-
ing him that the employees had ratified the contract. Rothenberg told Jones that
he would be in Brewton on January 15 to close for the purchase of the plant, and
suggested that she meet him at that time to sign the contract Jones stated that other
business would prevent her being in Brewton on January 15, but suggested that all
others sign on the 15th and that she (Jones) would sign at a later date.19 On
17 The foregoing findings are based on the credited testimony of West, Kate Jones, Bell,
Chavers, and Estes. Byrd denied that he spoke to the assembled employees on January 12,
claiming that his first definite information that the plant was sold was on January 15;
that on that day he told the employees of the change in ownership, and that Jones was
not then present. Jones denies that she spoke to assembled employees on January 12 or
that Byrd did so while she was in the plant However, Ann Wilson and Mary Alice
Braddick, both witnesses called by Respondent Company, testified that their first informa-
tion about the transfer of the plant was an announcement from Byrd Since both attended
the union meeting held the evening of January 12, when the contract with Judy Bond
was discussed and ratified, Byrd must have made his announcement before that meeting
The contrary testimony of Jones is not credited
"Jones denied that she talked to employees during working hours on January 12 Her
denials are not credited
10 It is undisputed that Jones signed the contract at her office in Birmingham orb
January 17
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BONDS 109
January 15, Rothenberg completed the transaction for the purchase of the plant,
.and signed the contract which had theretofore been approved by the Brewton em-
ployees. Officers of the Local also signed the contract that day.
3. Events between January 15 and May 23
It is not disputed that ILG regarded the Brewton and Birmingham operations of
Judy Bond as a "runaway shop" and took certain action designed to compel Judy
Bond to agree to its demand.20 Such activity began at the Brewton plant the latter
part of January or early February, with the distribution of leaflets at the plant
entrances, and the mailing of copies of "Justice," the official organ of ILG, to
employees of that plant. The copies of "Justice" and the aforesaid leaflets made
reference to Judy Bond as a "runaway shop." 21 This activity by ILG gave rise to
considerable discussion among the employees. Thus, there was extensive discussion
among the employees about the claim that Judy Bond was a runaway shop which
would be required to move its operations back to New York, or to staff the Brewton
-plant with displaced employees from New York; that ILG would picket the Brewton
plant; 22 and that the Company would not install air-conditioning or build the lunch-
room as it had promised when it announced the purchase of the plant. This dis-
-cussion continued to a greater or lesser extent during the entire period relevant in
this proceeding (January to August 1962). Plant Manager Byrd admitted that
during this period he was fully aware of the aforementioned discussions among the
,iemployees.
To gain adherents from among the employees in the Brewton plant. ILG main-
tained a group of organizers in the area during the entire relevant period.23 United,
which had theretofore sent a representative into Brewton about once a month,
thereafter kept one or more representatives in the area at all times to counter the
activities by ILG. Respondent Company also engaged in certain activity during this
period, designed to thwart the organizational efforts of ILG, which activities will
now be detailed.
Threats, Restraint, and Coercion
(1) In the early part of February, employee Louise West, who was then an
officer of Local 422, while having lunch in the cutting room, discussed, with a group
of fellow employees, both United and ILG. Shortly after the end of the lunch
period, West was called to Byrd's office. Byrd told West that he had information
that she had talked about the unions at lunchtime, and while he was not threatening
her job, he "would not have [any] discussion about the Union in the plant at any-
-a For example, ILG asked some firms making garments for Judy Bond not to do so ;
distributed leaflets asking consumers not to buy Judy Bond products ; appealed to re-
tailers not to handle such products; and picketed various operations of Judy Bond, in-
cluding the Birmingham warehouse, where the picketing began on January 25, with signs
referring to Judy Bond as a "runaway" employer,
21 Respondent Judy Bond contends and urges me to find that ILG began its activities at
Brewton before Judy Bond took over the plant on January 15 To support its contention
the Company refers to the testimony of Mary Alice Braddick to the effect that Lynn Estes,
an employee at the plant, who, Respondent contends and urges me to find, was a paid
organizer for ILG, told her that ILG considered this a runaway shop, and that he was
going to talk to ILG representatives and would like her and her husband (also employed
at the plant) to talk to them. The contention that Estes was a paid organizer for ILG
is predicated on (1) alleged admission by Estes that before May 23, when he was ejected
from the plant, as hereafter detailed, he received an undisclosed sum of money from ILG ;
(2) the testimony of Mary Alice Braddick to the effect that before ILG came on the
scene Estes was always broke and heavily in debt but thereafter began flashing money,
bragging about how much he could spend, and that his bills were "all paid up"; and
(3) the testimony of Byrd that Estes admitted to him that he [Estes] was a paid
.organizer for ILG. I decline to so find for the following reasons: As to (1) above, the
record does not support Respondent's contention. Estes testified very clearly that the
first money he received from ILG was after he had been put out of the plant on May 23.
The testimony of Mary Alice Braddick and Byrd I do not credit for reasons hereafter
stated On the contrary I credit the testimony of Estes that he never told Byrd that
he [Estes] was a paid organizer for ILG.
z2 Such picketing never in fact occurred.
23
The organizational activities of ILG apparently did not bear fruit for some time Of
the 10 employees who testified on the subject, 9 signed ILG cards between May 7 and 21
;and the remaining 1 on July 29.
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time." 24 Later that afternoon Mrs. Johnson, an International representative of
United, went about the plant during working hours and told all officers of Local 422,
including West, to meet with her in the office of Sewing Room Superintendent
Williams after the workday ended. When the officers assembled in Williams' office,
Johnson told them that there was a small group in the plant that were trying to talk
up ILG and overthrow United. She referred to this group as "a bunch of double
crossers," and stated that she would "be ashamed to work with them." West then
told Johnson that the discussion at lunch that day was no attempt to overthrow
either union, and that she (West) wanted to resign from United. The following
day Johnson brought West a document, which the latter signed, requesting that her
card authorizing the Company to check off dues in favor of United be returned to^
her. On February 22, West's card was returned.
On May 7, West signed an ILG card. Several days later Floorlady Jewel Johns.
and West were called to Byrd's office. In the conversation which followed, Byrd
accused West of passing out ILG literature in the plant. West denied this, saying
she had not seen such literature. Byrd then asked West if she did not know that
she was not supposed to discuss the Union in the plant, and stated: "I don't want to
have to talk to you about this any more. I'm just not going to have it .
if I catch you or hear you talking about this any more in this plant, you will be
terminated." 25
(2) During the latter part of January or early part of February, employee Kate
Jones was called to Byrd's office. Cutting Room Foreman Eskridge, in whose de-
partment Kate Jones worked, was also present. Byrd told employee Jones that
while he was making no accusation, he had heard rumors that she was working with
ILG. Jones denied this, but told Byrd that ILG representatives had been to see her,
that she refused to help them, and added that if ILG did get into the plant she "was
for it." It was after this that employee Jones signed the request to have her check-
off card returned to her, and on February 22 it was so returned. Employee Jones
signed an ILG card May 15. The following day Cutting Room Foreman Eskridge
asked employee Jones if she had "company last night." Jones replied that she
did and named a number of ILG representatives that had been to see her. About
an hour later employee Jones was summoned to Byrd's office and in the presence
of Eskridge, Byrd again told Jones that it was rumored that she (Jones) was working
24 Byrd became manager of the Brewton plant in September 1961. On October 11, 1961,
he posted on the plant bulletin board a list of plant rules and the discipline to be imposed
for violation of each rule. This list of rules which remained posted during the entire
period relevant here, set forth, inter alia, the following:
Notice is given to each employee of the adoption by the Company of the following
plant rules. The Company requests compliance with these rules and gives notice to
each employee that they will be strictly and justly enforced
Prohibition Discipline
Rule No.
1. Employees shall not solicit membership or Three slip system shall apply.
engage in organizational activities or any other
activities of any organization on the Company's
time during working hours.
3 Assault of fellow employees, brawling or Minimum of 2 weeks ' layoff to
fighting on company property, or any act or discharge for employees involved.
threat thereof All parties entering into these
acts shall receive the same punishment.
14 Loafing or unnecessary slowing down of Three slip system shall apply.
work by any employee while on the job.
15. Wilfully discouraging new employees with Discharge.
the intent and purpose of having them leave the
employ of the Company.
The above rules, so long as they are in effect, will be enforced by the Company,,
and any employee violating any of the rules will be subject to the penalties as stated
above.
25 The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of Louise West.
Neither Johnson nor Johns testified. Byrd admitted that he talked to West on May 18
about soliciting. He claimed that the discussion related to soliciting on company time,
and that he read West paragraph 1 of the rules posted on October 11, 1961. He described,
this as a "second warning" to West, and testified that the first warning was "back when
she was helping out [United]," but he could not recall whether it was before or after
January 15. To the extent that Byrd's testimony is in conflict with that of West, I do.
not, for reasons hereafter stated , credit him.
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 111
for ILG. Jones denied that she was assisting ILG in any way, but told Byrd "if it
ever came in, I would be for it." 26
(3) In mid-April employee Ruth Bell 27 asked for a conference with Plant
Manager Byrd. At this time Bell told Byrd that she had heard rumors that the
women in the plant were going to put her (Bell) out because she did not belong
to United. Byrd told Bell not to worry that he could operate the plant without any
union, and asked Bell if she knew anyone that had been talking with ILG repre-
sentatives and specifically whether employees Louise West and Kate Jones had
done so. Bell stated she had no information about that. Byrd then told Bell that
she was a good worker, that he was planning to train her for a supervisor, and that
he had referred to ILG because he hoped she would not get involved; it would only
mean trouble. On May 15, Bell signed an ILG card. The following morning
Floorlady Gandy asked Bell if ILG representatives had been to see Bell the preced-
ing night, saying that Byrd suspected this and wanted her (Gandy) to find out "for
sure." Gandy added that she hoped Bell was not involved because Byrd was watch-
ing her (Bell) real close, and asked Bell if she had signed a union card. Bell stated
she had not joined the Union, but she would be glad to see it come in. Gandy then
asked Bell if she knew whether Cutting Room Foreman Eskridge was "mixed up"
with ILG, and Bell replied that she did not know. On May 19, Byrd called Bell into
his office and told her that he had information she was soliciting during working
hours. Bell denied this, stating that she had not even solicited on company property.
Byrd stated that if he caught her soliciting on company time or property he would
terminate her. Byrd then referred to ILG and asked Bell why she wanted "to get
mixed up in it, that they were just a bunch of thugs and weren't any good." 28
(4) Employee Kathleen Chavers signed an ILG card "around the first or second
week of May." 29 About the middle of May, Byrd summoned Chavers to his office
and asked her if she was working with ILG. Chavers said she was not. Byrd then
asked how she felt about ILG, and Chavers replied she would be glad when it got
into the plant. Byrd asked why she felt that way and whether he had treated her
unfairly. Chavers replied that she had nothing against him, that it was Jones, and
she did not wish to talk further about it.30
(5) Lynn Estes worked as a cutter under the supervision of Cutting Room Fore-
man Eskridge. He was one of the employees that requested the return of his dues
checkoff authorization, and on February 22 his card authorizing such deductions was
returned to him. Later that day Eskridge, in a conversation with Estes, stated that
he (Eskridge) hoped the employees getting out of United were doing so "just to be
out of it and not to help the other union " Thereafter (the time not being fixed
by the testimony), Eskridge had a further conversation with Estes at the latter's
work station, stating that he (Estes) and Frank Braddick were being blamed for
all the union trouble in the plant , and asked whether Estes was helping the other
union. Estes told Eskridge that he was not helping the other union , and that
Frank Braddick had nothing to do with it. Eskridge reiterated that Estes was being
blamed for the union trouble in the plant and advised Estes to be careful about his
work. Early in May, Plant Manager Byrd came to Estes in the cutting room and
asked Estes whether he had brought a copy of "Justice" (the official newspaper of
26 The findings in this paragraph are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Rate.
Jones, which I credit. As I have pointed out, Eskridge did not testify , and Bvrd did not
deny having made the statements attributed to him by Jones Moreover , Bvrd admitted
talking with Jones (although he placed the conversation on May 21) concerning her
union activities and claims that he read her paragraph 1 of the plant rules posted on
October 11, 1961, which prohibits solicitation or other organizational activities during
working hours
27 Bell had been a member of United , but in February requested the Company to cease
checking off dues from her wages, and the checkoff card she had signed was returned,
to her
28 The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of Bell which is
for the most part uncontradicted. Gandy did not testify. Byrd did not deny the state-
ments attributed to him by Bell. In this respect Byrd admitted that he talked with Bell
on May 19; that ILG was discussed; that he asked her if she was soliciting on company
time, which she denied ; and that he then read her the "no solicitation " rule, namely,
paragraph 1 of the plant rules posted on October 11, 1961. To the extent that Byrd's
testimony may be regarded as contradicting Bell, I credit Bell
21 Chavers also had signed a request for the return of her checkoff authorization and
this was returned to her on February 22
8O The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of Chavers Byrd,
did not deny the statements attributed to him by Chavers.
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ILG) into the plant the preceding day. Estes admitted that he had. Byrd then
stated that he regarded this as a form of solicitation on behalf of ILG and that
Estes could not bring the paper into the plant. Estes asked if this meant he could
not have it in his pocket. Byrd replied that he could not. Estes signed an ILG
card on May 12, and on the following workday (May 14) told Eskridge that he
(Estes) had decided to help ILG organize, and that he would do so during his off
time and during the lunch period 31
(6) Employee Orette McCall signed an ILG card on May 21 and about that
time was called into Byrd's office. Byrd asked McCall if she did not like it better
working 5 days a week rather than 3 or 4. McCall said she did because she needed
the work. Byrd then said, in substance, that if the new union came in the Company
would have to take the work back to New York; that they had promised work to
a factory there and could not keep two factories going. McCall replied that in her
view the new union would be "better than the one we had." 32
(7) Employee Ruth Johnson signed an ILG card on May 21. The following
morning Floorlady Clara Smith came to Johnson's work station and asked her
whether the ILG people had been to see her, and Johnson answered in the affirma-
tive. Smith then asked Johnson what the ILG people had said , and Johnson re-
plied that there had been no more than the usual discussion.33
(8) Fay Madden began working for Respondent Company on March 29. Al-
though she failed the aptitude test usually given employment applicants, Madden
was hired as a "temporary" employee and assigned as a "presser " She was com-
pensated on a piecework basis, but to meet the requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, was guaranteed that her earnings would equal $1.15 per hour. Plant
Manager Byrd hired Madden mainly on the recommendation of his friend, Philip
May, the mayor of Brewton. When she reported for work, Madden was asked by
Byrd's secretary whether she (Madden) wanted to join United34 On April 5, after
Madden had worked 1 week, she was given a warning notice which was checked by
the word "efficiency." 35 On May 15 Madden signed a card for United, and on
May 17, a card for ILG. A day or two later, after Madden had been to Byrd's
office,36 Floorlady Cain came to Madden's work station and asked the latter if she
did not "have enough sense not to join another union," and stated that "if that other
union came in," it would only mean no work in this plant and "a lot of youngsters
would go hungry." The following Monday, May 21, Madden was called to Byrd's
office. During the discussion which followed, Jessie Mae Wilson, Local 422's shop
steward for the department in which Madden worked, was present. Byrd told
Madden that he had given her a warning notice 7 days after she started work; that
he was giving her another that day because she was not making production; that
a third slip would mean termination; and that unless her production improved by
the close of business on May 23, she would be terminated.37 Shortly before noon
a The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of Estes As
previously mentioned, Eskridge did not testify and Byrd did not refer to this conversation
at all The only conversation with Estes prior to May 23 that Byrd mentioned was the
one on May 18 when Estes allegedly told Byrd that he was a paid organizer for ILG.
I have heretofore stated that I do not credit that portion of Byrd's testimony
32 The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of McCall which,
as to these facts, is uncontradicted
33 The findings in this paragraph are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Johnson.
Floorlady Smith did not testify
31 No action seems to have been taken on this inquiry because Madden did not join any
union until about 7 weeks later, as hereafter set forth.
25 Respondent uses the so-called "three slip system" in its plant. A slip is a warning to
an employee that his or her work is deficient in a specified particular A third slip results
in automatic discharge.
" Madden had been called to Byrd's office to talk with Mayor May. At this time May
told Madden that he had gotten her the job and thought she owed him enough loyalty not
to join ILG, and asked Madden to withdraw from it Plant Manager Byrd was not in
the office during the interview, but was in the plant. This testimony was received upon
the assurance by counsel for the General Counsel that he would connect this incident up
with Respondent Company. No such connecting evidence was offered . Accordingly, I do
not rely upon this testimony.
37 Byrd told Madden that the warning slip that he was giving her had not yet been pre-
pared, but that it would be delivered to her during that morning . This was done. The
presence of shop steward during this discussion seems to have been in accord with a'
practice of having the shop steward of the department in which an employee works present
when such action is taken.
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 113
that same day, Jessie Mae Wilson showed Madden a copy of the warning slip that
Byrd had issued that morning and stated that the Company would take the slip
back, and that she (Madden) would have no more trouble, if she would get out
of ILG. That afternoon Floorlady Cain asked Madden if she was still in the
Union. Madden replied that it was her understanding that she was not supposed
to talk about that on company time. Cain then stated that she thought Madden
had to work, but perhaps she did not 38
(9) In addition to the various conversations with employees during the period
from January 15 to May 23, as above set forth, Respondent Judy Bond also en-
gaged in other activity which will now be detailed. On May 21 Byrd posted on
the plant bulletin board, as a separate document, its rule against solicitation of
membership, or engaging in other organizational activities during working hours.
The rule so posted on May 21 is verbatim the same as rule No. 1 of the plant rules
posted on October 11, 1961. The following day, May 22, Byrd posted a revised
"no solicitation" rule on the plant bulletin board, which read as follows:
At no time shall anyone be permitted to solicit membership or engage in or-
ganizational activities or any other activities of any organization on the Com-
pany's property.
4. The events of May 23 to August 6
a. The General Counsel's case
(1) May 23 to 25
On May 23, employee Fay Madden wore an ILG button on the front of her
dress when she reported for work just prior to 7 a.m. Byrd saw Madden come
in with the button on, laughed, and walked off. After Madden punched the time-
clock employee Ann Wilson told Madden that she was not "wearing that damn pin
in here." Madden replied that she would wear anything she pleased. Other women
employed in the plant gathered about Madden and held her while employee Ann
Wilson removed the ILG pin and threw it away. Madden went to employee Lynn
Estes, obtained another pin which she put on her dress, and went to her work station.
Employee Ann Wilson came to Madden and again remonstrated about the ILG pin,
saying, "I told you you weren't going to wear that button." Madden protested that
she would wear anything she pleased. A group of women including employees
Gladys Bodiford, Mary Alice Braddick, and Mary Taylor, then gathered about
Madden, held her, and Ann Wilson took the ILG pin off, tearing Madden's dress
to some extent. In the struggle Madden succeeded in freeing an arm at times
and on one or more occasions struck at Ann Wilson 39 While this was happening
Floorlady Gandy ran into the office of Sewing Room Superintendent Williams
hollering , "They got the pin off her," that she "would stomp [Madden] in the
floor," and that she hoped "they would run her butt out." Cutting Room Foreman
Eskridge observed this incident but neither said nor did anything to stop it Some-
one suggested that Madden be thrown out the window, but Byrd arrived on the
scene and directed Madden to go to his office, saying he would be there as soon
as he got the women back to work 40 Arriving at his office Byrd told Madden
that she "didn't have any right to wear that button in [the plant]." and that the
women in the plant "were upset." Madden asked him "how in the hell he thought
I felt." 41 Byrd finally told Madden that he could not let her resume work in the
plant , because the women were too upset, and that it would be best for her to go
home. Madden was told that she could return to work that afternoon if she wished,
and that she would be paid for the morning hours. Madden at first refused, but
Byrd insisted and Madden left the plant.
38 The foregoing findings are based on the credited testimony of Madden. Neither Cain
nor Jessie Mae Wilson testified. Byrd admitted that he made statements to Madden sub-
stantially as set forth above.
39Madden's employment application gives her height as 5 feet 51/2 Inches and her
weight as 129 pounds From my observation of Ann Wilson I would judge her to be
about the same height ; she testified that she weighed "about" 200 pounds. The variance,
if any, would be on the heavier side.
41 This incident occurred shortly after the 7 a.m. starting time
41 The record leaves no room for doubt that in talking with her fellow employees earlier
that morning, as well as in her subsequent conversations with Byrd , Madden used vile
and indecent language which I find it unnecessary to refer to, because it has no bearing
on merits of this case.
734-070-64-vol 145-9
114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Also on the morning of May 23, employee Lynn Estes wore an ILG pin on each
of his shirt pockets when he reported for work. On his way to his work station,
Estes passed Cutting Room Foreman Eskridge, and the latter looked at the shirt
pockets and remarked that he had heard Estes' name mentioned that morning, and
new he could see why. Turning to employee Kate Jones, Eskridge said, "Some
people just won't let well enough alone, will they." Approximately a half hour
later, Estes was called to Byrd's office. Byrd told Estes that wearing the ILG pins
was a form of solicitation; that it could cause trouble; and asked that Estes remove
them. Estes removed the pins, as Byrd had requested, but stated that he would
consider the matter further and might wear them again the following day. Byrd
replied that if Estes did so, it would mean his job. Estes did not wear the pins
again that day.
At approximately 10 a.m. on May 23, and after the pin incidents above referred
to, Vice President Rothenberg addressed the employees over the public address
system, being first introduced by Byrd. Rothenberg stated, inter alia, that the Com-
pany had a 3-year contract with United which it would comply with; that under
no circumstances would he accept ILG in the plant; and that he was proud of the
loyalty shown the Company by all employees "except for a few." 42
Shortly after 1 p in. on May 23,43 just after he had resumed work, Estes was
approached by Frank Braddick, then employed as a spreader in the cutting room.
Braddick asked Estes why he (Estes) had worn the ILG pins that morning. Estes
replied that he had done nothing unlawful. Braddick then picked up an iron bar 44
and told Estes, "You are going to get hell out of here and you won't come back if
you know what's good for you." At the same time four other male employees came
toward Estes from opposite sides of the cutting table, and when they reached Estes
said, "Let's go." 45 The five walked behind Estes through the sewing department,
out the front door, and Estes left the plant. While the men were putting Estes out
of the plant, some of the women in the plant took the same action with respect to
Louise West, Kate Jones, Ruth Bell, and Kathleen Chavers. Thus a group of
women (the precise number is not shown), surrounded Kate Jones. Employee Eula
Frazier grabbed Jones by the arm and said, "Get out." Frank Braddick passed
Jones and said, "Kate, this means you too." Mary Alice Braddick, Frank
Braddick's wife, said, "Frank, you leave her alone, we'll take care of her." The
group then took Jones through the door leading into the lobby of the plant. Another
group surrounded Louise West. Someone grabbed West by the arm, swung her chair
around, told her to get up, that she was "next." This group included Ann Wilson
and Bessie West, among others. Louise West asked Ann Wilson what she meant
by "next," and Wilson replied, "Just get on up there; you'll find out." The group
marched Louise West toward the lobby door, and on reaching that door Louise
West said, "Well, I'm here. What do you want?" Frank Braddick, who was
standing nearby, still with the iron bar in his hands, stated, "Louise, there is a front
door out there, hit it and you had better not come back if you know what's good
for you." Another group went to Ruth Bell, and still another to Kathleen Chavers,
and marched the two of them to the lobby door. When Bell and Chavers arrived
at the lobby door Louise West and Kate Jones were there, and the four of them
went into the lobby together. Among those who were in the groups that brought
out Bell and Chavers were Jessie Mae Wilson, sewing room shop steward for
Respondent Local 422,46 Ann Wilson, Mary Alice Braddick, and Grace Morrison.
42 Rothenberg denied using the quoted words. He identified and there was received in
evidence, a copy of the speech which he says he had written out the evening before and
read to the employees that morning. This document shows on its face that Rothenberg
stated that he was "gratified by the loyalty most of you have shown to the Company" ;
that he had no intention of permitting ILG to interfere with the 3-year contract the
Company had with United : that ILG "does not belong here" and that the Company would
"not tolerate any action which might create dissension and disturbances in this plant "
Although there is some slight difference in the words used, I regard the testimony of the
witnesses called by the General Counsel, as set forth above, and that given by Rothenberg,
as having substantially the same meaning, and that no credibility issue is presented
as The lunch hour at the plant is from 12 noon to 1 p in. The events now related began
a few minutes after the bell ending the lunch period sounded
44 The bar was approximately 3 feet long, 3 inches wide, and three-eighths of an inch
thick It is used in the cutting room to hold marking papers in place.
+e These were Howard, who worked in the cutting room, and Wise, Arnett, and Sasser
from the mechanics department Of the five men participating in this incident Arnett was
the only one called as a witness.
" Shop stewards are not appointed by the Local, but are selected by the employees in
the various departments from among those who work in the particular department
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 115
Also observed in the group which congregated at the door was Mary Lambeth , presi-
dent of Respondent Local 422. The process of putting Estes, Jones, West, Chavers,
and Bell out of the plant took approximately 5 minutes. Just before the activity
started , Floorlady Gandy said to Floorladies Jewel Johns and Clara Smith , "Let's
go." The three then went into the office of Sewing Room Superintendent Tommy
Williams, who is also assistant plant manager, and closed the door. While the
women were being put out of the plant Floorlady Gandy opened the door , peeked
out, and giggled.47
After being put out of the plant as above set forth , employees Bell, Chavers, West,
and Jones waited in the lobby of the plant for Byrd to arrive 48 Upon his return to
the plant, the four ejected employees told Byrd that they had been forced off the
job and threatened with bodily harm if they returned ; that Frank Braddick had
brandished the iron bar; and that Ann Wilson and Jessie Mae Wilson were among
those who had put them out of the plant and told them not to come back . Louise
West asked Byrd if he could not make the people in the plant behave so that the
four could go back to work. Byrd replied , "No, I can 't handle them . that's
what you call a mob ..." West then asked , "Aren't you the boss," to which
Byrd replied, "Yes , but I can't handle a mob." Bell asked if she could return to
work the following day, and Byrd said , "You can come back if you want to, but
it will be at your own risk because I'm not going to give you any kind of protection
in the plant; I can't." Byrd told the group that they still had their jobs, but for
their own protection he would advise them to stay at home ; that they should call
him from time to time and he would advise them when to return to work. The
four women thereupon left the plant and reported the incident to the local sheriff.
The following day, May 24, Louise West , as spokesman for the group , called
Byrd and asked if they could return to work . Byrd said he would advise laying off
a few more days because the women "still were upset ." West then asked about
their checks , and Byrd said that the group could get them at the plant the next day.
The following morning, May 25, the entire group 49 went to Byrd 's office. Estes,
as spokesman for the group ,50 told Byrd that they were ready and willing to go to
work. Byrd stated that they should lay off a few days longer ; that the women
were still upset and he could offer them "no protection unless there is violence in
the mill . . Byrd then stated that he wished to talk to Estes privately, that
Madden should wait outside so he could talk to her later, and that the others could
get their checks and leave, assuring them , however, that their jobs were still there.
After the others had left , Byrd told Estes that he had worn an ILG pin back to work
on the afternoon of May 23, which constituted a form of solicitation for that union,
and that he was being terminated as of 1 : 30 p.m., May 23 . Byrd admitted that
the sole reason for discharging Estes was that the latter had disobeyed his (Byrd's)
order by wearing an ILG pin in the plant on the afternoon of May 23.51 Byrd
then spoke with Fay Madden 52 and told her that she had failed to make her pro-
duction quota , and was being terminated for that reason . Byrd admitted that at
this time he gave Madden the third and final warning notice, which , under the
"three slip system," amounted to a discharge 53
49 As I have pointed out, none of the floorladies testified, and the testimony regarding
their activity stands undenied
48 Byrd had shortly before gone to the parking lot in the rear of the building to Investi-
gate what had been reported to him as a "suspicious" car.
49 This Included Estes, Chavers, Bell, Jones, West, and Madden.
co Before going to Byrd's office the group went to the county sheriff and asked for pro-
tection They were told that the authorities could not intervene unless there was violence.
However, the county attorney who had been called in, telephone Byrd and the latter gave
assurance that the group would not be harmed ; that the door between his office and the
plant would be locked while the group involved was present.
u As I have set forth above, Estes admitted wearing such pins during the morning of
May 23, but testified that he promptly removed them when Byrd asked him to do so, and
that he did not thereafter wear them in the plant Some employee witnesses called by
Respondent Company gave testimony from which it could be inferred that Estes wore
such pins in the plant during the afternoon of May 23 and Byrd testified that he had
such information from employees in the plant and acted on that basis. The credibility
issues thus raised will be disposed of later in this report.
67 This conversation took place in the presence of Betty Burkett and Lillian Griggers,
both clerical employees in Byrd's office Neither testified in this proceeding.
67 Respondent contends that Madden was discharged solely because she failed to meet
her production quota The merits of this defense will be hereafter discussed.
116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) May 30 to 31
As above stated , Byrd had told employees West, Bell, Chavers , and Jones on
May 25 that they had a job at the plant, but that he regarded it unsafe for them
to work because the women in the plant were upset. The four employees above
mentioned each called Byrd on the morning of May 30 and asked whether they
might return to work. Byrd stated that he wished to discuss the matter with counsel,
and that they should call him that evening. In the evening Byrd asked that they
call him back about 8.30 the following morning to give him an opportunity to talk
to the "Union officials and to the supervisors of the plant ." The following morning
Byrd told the four to report to his office at 9 a in., if they wanted to work. They
reported as directed . In the meanwhile, earlier on the morning of May 30, Byrd
posted on the bulletin board a further notice reading as follows:
TO ALL EMPLOYEES:
This is to refresh your memory of a previous notice posted on the bulletin
board and to advise you that under no conditions are we to have any violence
in the plant on the company property.
When the four employees met with Byrd in the latter 's office, Byrd stated , in sub-
stance, that in accordance with the advice of his counsel he would put Jones and
Chavers back to work at their old jobs, but West and Bell would be assigned to
operate sewing machines , instead of to their former jobs as service girls, because
this would reduce their contact with other employees ; that West and Bell would be
given a training period and paid at their old rates during the training period. Byrd
also stated that he wanted no discussion of unions in the plant , and that he had
talked with the officials of United and posted the notice that morning so that the
women would not bother them and there would be no trouble in the plant. West
and Bell protested being assigned to sewing machines . Byrd maintained that this
was the only job he had for them , and if they refused it , they would be terminating
themselves . While West and Bell were considering the ultimatum given them, Byrd
called in Cutting Room Foreman Eskridge and directed the latter to put Jones and
Chavers to work. As Eskridge , Jones, and Chavers entered the sewing department
from Byrd's office , some of the employees left their work and began surrounding
Jones and Chavers. Eskridge started back to Byrd's office , and Jones and Chavers
tried to follow him, but the women forced them through the door leading into the
lobby. Approximately 25 women participated in this conduct ; specifically, Mary
Alice Braddick , Ester Fauqua , Ann Wilson , and Ester Cramer. Mary Alice Braddick
told Jones and Chavers that they were not going to work in the plant and shoved
Chavers through the door, while Ester Cramer pushed Jones into the lobby. At
the lobby door Mary Alice Braddick stated, "We told you to get out and stay out
the other day and we meant it and we don't want to see you get hurt." 54 In the
meantime Eskridge opened the door to Byrd's office and exclaimed , "Byrd, they
are running Kate [Jones ] and Kathleen [ Chavers] out again and Mary Alice
Braddick started every darn bit of it." Byrd replied , "Jack, I want to talk to you."
At this point West and Bell , who had remained in Byrd's office to discuss their
assignment to sewing machines , prepared to leave, but the women who had forced
Jones and Chavers from the plant were milling about in the lobby. West asked
Byrd if he could not get the women back in the plant so that she and Bell could
leave. Byrd went into the lobby and spoke to the group who then returned to their
work. West , Bell, Jones, and Chavers then left the plant . The incident took about
5 minutes or less.
(3) The events during June
Under date of June 4, West and Bell wrote virtually identical letters to Byrd,
telling him that they were still interested in returning to work as service girls; that
the sewing machine jobs Byrd had offered them on May 31 were not the jobs they
had on May 23, when they were initially forced out of the plant ; and that the
operation of a sewing machine was work which they had never done and would not
know how to do. The letters then asked that Byrd advise when they might come
back to their job and if he will offer them protection on that job. The same day
Jones and Chavers also wrote Byrd. They stated that they had returned to work
on May 31 as Byrd had directed , but that he stood by and permitted the employees
to force them out; that they wished to return to work ; and asked that Byrd advise
61 At the time of the May 23 and 31 incidents , Mary Alice Braddick was an operator in
the sewing room. In June she was promoted to a floorlady . Her husband , Frank Braddick,
who participated in the events of May 23 , was then employed as a spreader and was by
July 10 promoted to cutter.
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 117
them when they might do so and whether he would give them protection on their'
jobs. Byrd replied to these letters under date of June 25, writing identical letters
to West and Bell, and a somewhat different, but identical, letter to Jones and
Chavers.55 To West and Bell, Byrd wrote that the Company was chiefly concerned
with the safety and protection of its employees and the maintenance of production,
and for that reason it had promulgated rules designed to maintain harmonious
relationship in the plant; that they (Bell and West) had "intentionally and wilfully
[sic] provoked" the demonstrations which had been directed against them, and that
if they wished to work in the plant, they would have "to avoid the inciting of any
further demonstrations," and otheriwse conform to the rules promulgated by the
Company "to insure protection and safety, that with this in mind West and Bell had
been reassigned to a position which the Company believed to be "less likely to result
in serious injury to you and our other employees." 56 The letters concluded with the
statements that if West and Bell desired to return to work, they should contact Byrd
so that the necessary arrangements could be made. Byrd's letters to Jones and
Chavers were to the same effect as those to West and Bell, except that no reference
was made to their reassignment to other jobs.
On June 28, West, Bell, Jones, and Chavers went in a group to Byrd's office.
Each handed Byrd a substantially identical letter, and Byrd read aloud to the group,
the one from West. These letters stated, in substance, that pursuant to Byrd's letter
of June 25, the author was accepting Byrd's offer to permit her to return to work,
but that in doing so she did not agree that she had broken any company rule or
engaged in any conduct that would warrant her being forced off her job by the other
employees and supervisors; and that in returning to work she was not giving up her
right to engage in legitimate union activity on behalf of ILG on company property.57
After reading West's letter, Byrd inquired of the group what they meant by "legiti-
mate" union activity One of the women replied that this did not mean during
working hours, and Byrd said that he would not have them talking about ILG at
anytime on company property,58 and again accused them of inciting their eviction
from the plant. Byrd also told the group that he had talked with the officers of
United and the plant supervisors, had posted notices in the plant that violence would
not be tolerated, and that if they wished to return to work they could do so, but
that he would suggest that they not talk about it as that would only give the employees
in the plant time to plan some action against them. It was then agreed that in view
of the impending closing of the plant for vacation during the first week of July, that
the four women would return for work on July 9.59
(4) July 9 to 11
On the morning of July 9, employees West, Bell, Jones, and Chavers reported for
work, pursuant to the arrangements made with Byrd during their discussion on
June 28. Byrd again told the group that their jobs were there for them, but that
they must not talk about the Union; that he had talked to the officers of United and
to the supervisors in the plant, and had also posted the notices on the bulletin board;
that he had told the floorladies these women were coming back to work, and that
he wanted them to see that there was no trouble; and that in his view, if the
four women would tend to their business and ignore the others, nothing would
happen. Byrd then took the women into the plant and directed that they be put
to work. Chavers and Jones were assigned to work in the cutting room under the
supervision of Eskridge; West was assigned to operate a sewing machine in the
section headed by Floorlady Clara Smith; and Bell was assigned to operate a button-
hole machine in the section headed by Mary Alice Braddick who had by then been
promoted to floorlady. No incidents occurred during the remainder of the day,
July 9, or on July 10. The following day, July 11, shortly before 10 a.m., employee
Evidelle Turner, who is vice president of Respondent Local 422, was observed
talking to employee Louise Lundi. About 10 minutes later Louise West overheard
ea Why Byrd took so long to reply to the letters of June 4 is not explained
51 The letters also advised that West and Bell would be retrained for their new assign-
ment and would suffer no loss of pay by reason thereof
57 The letters from West and Bell stated, in addition to the above, that they were accept-
ing the reassignment to a sewing machine job , but that in doing so they were not giving
up their rights to their old jobs as service girls
e5 The women protested that Jones , International representative of United , solicited
membership on behalf of her union during working hours. Byrd said he had no knowledge
of this, and that if she was doing it she would be caught.
59 None of the testimony given by the four women above referred to, with respect to the
discussion on June 28 , was denied by Byrd.
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee Linda Henry tell Floorlady Clara Smith and Service Girl Jane Snead
that plans were in progress to force the four women out of the plant again . Floor-
lady Smith then said , "Come on Jane, let's ." but Louise West did not hear the
remainder of the statement . Shortly thereafter, while Louise West was bent over
her machine working, someone pulled her shoulders back and said , "All right Louise,
let's go." West looked up and saw some 15 to 20 women around her, including
employee Louise Lundi. West took her personal belongings and left the plant 60
At a later date, apparently several weeks, West talked to Byrd about unemployment
compensation . Byrd assured West that she still had her job, but said that she
should lay off for awhile and he would call her. She has heard nothing further from
Byrd.
After getting Louise West to leave the plant, the group headed by employee Lundi
went to where Ruth Bell was working, turned her chair around, and Lundi said,
"Come on Ruth." Bell started for the door, but Lundi told her to go to the cutting
room where Kate Jones and Kathleen Chavers were working. Bell went to the
cutting room as directed, with Lundi and her group following behind Bell. When
the group reached the area where Jones and Chavers were working, Lundi told
Bell, Jones, and Chavers, "We told you the last time to get out and stay out and
we mean it this time." Floorladies Clara Smith and Mary Alice Braddick observed
this incident but took no action to stop it. After Lundi had directed the three
women to leave the plant, Cutting Room Foreman Eskridge approached and in-
quired, "What's going on." After being told that Lundi and her group had di-
rected the three women to leave the plant, Eskridge told Bell, Jones, and Chavers
to come to Byrd's office with him. In the office Eskridge told Byrd that Bell,
Jones, and Chavers were at work and had not "done anything to cause the dif-
ficulty." Byrd replied, "I know they weren't causing any trouble," and asked for
some names of those who were in the group that asked the three women to leave the
plant. He was given and made a note of the names of Louise Lundi, Mary Ethel
Bridges, Eva Mae Simmons, Eula Frazier, Ollie Cooper, and Kathleen Palmer.
The women then asked Byrd what he wanted them to do, and were told to go home,
that he would call them when he thought it advisable for them to return to work.
They then left the plant. Thereafter, Kate Jones called Byrd several times and
asked when she might return to work. Byrd assured Jones she still had her job,
but that it was best that she not come back to work right then. Jones finally gave
up and stopped calling . Neither Bell nor Chavers have heard further from Byrd.
(5) July 27 to August 6
On Friday, July 27, employee Carolyn Grey, was told by a fellow employee that
she was wanted in the restroom . Going there Grey found employees Bessie West,
Ann Wilson , Betty Jo Hammac , Louise Lundi, and Helen Taylor 81 Lundi, as
spokesman for the group, told Grey they had information that she, Grey, had signed
an ILG card, and that Grey could not come to work Monday unless she turned that
card in to the group so they could give it to Byrd. Lundi added, "We've run six
out and we'll run you out too" and "we've going to get rid of all of you." Grey
reported for work the following Monday, July 30, and was promptly asked by
Lundi and her fellow employee, Ann Wilson, if he had brought her ILG card in.
Grey said she had not. Lundi then said, "You are not going to work here unless
you bring the card back," and asked Grey if she would leave voluntarily, or did she
wish to be put out. Grey refused to leave. Lundi then told Wilson to stay with Grey
while she (Lundi) went to get some more of the girls, but then changed her mind,
saying, "Let us give her a little while and then if she does not leave, we will put
her out." A short time later Grey reported to Floorlady Johns what Lundi and
Wilson had said to her, and asked Johns if she was going to let the girls run her
(Grey) out of the plant. Johns replied that she had nothing to do with it. Later
that morning Byrd came to Grey's work area and told her that Floorlady Johns
had reported to him what Grey had told Johns about being put out of the plant.
Grey told Byrd that Lundi and Ann Wilson were the ones who threatened to put
her out. Byrd assured Grey that she would not be put out, that he had warned the
employees about such conduct, and if any employees attempted it, he or she would
be discharged 62
60 West made no effort to see Byrd at this time because she thought the other three
women were still working and did not want to cause any commotion which might interfere
with them.
61 Helen Taylor was at the time a trustee of Respondent Local 422.
62 Johns was not called as a witness and Byrd did not deny the aforementioned state-
ments attributed to him by Grey.
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 119
On Friday morning, August 3, employees Carolyn Grey, Orette McCall, Doris
Odum, and Ruth Johnson reported for work wearing ILG pins 63 Between 9 and 10
a.m. these women were called to Byrd's office. In addition to Byrd and these
women , the Company's counsel , C. Y. Stelzenmueller, Esq., was present. A tape
recorder was, with the full knowledge of the women, in operation to record the
conversation which followed.64 In substance, Byrd referred to the pins the women
were wearing, and stated that on prior occasions the wearing of such pins "has re-
sulted in violence" [emphasis supplied]; that while ordinarily employees have the
right to wear a union pin in the plant, when doing so "would result in violence,
trouble, disruption of production and possible injury to people," the wearing of such
pins can properly be prohibited; that he had received reports that morning that these
employees would be thrown out of the plant if they continued to wear the ILG
pins, adding that "we have no means of preventing or controlling [such conduct]."
Byrd then stated that if these women wished to return to work, they would have
to take the pins off, and if they would not do that, they would be on layoff until
such time as they were willing to work without the pins, or the sentiment in the
plant had subsided to the point where the pins could be worn without danger of
violence or disruption of work; and, if they removed the pins and returned to work,
and put them back on while at work, they would be discharged. Following this
statement by Byrd there was considerable discussion between the women, on the one
hand, and Byrd and his counsel, on the other. In the main the women expressed the
desire to wear the pins and contended they should have the right to do so if they
wished. Byrd contended that wearing of the pins might lead to difficulties to the
extent of affecting the safety of these employees. During the discussion there was
at times reference to the other occasions when employees were evicted from the plant.
At one point Byrd was asked if he was going to give these women the same kind
of protection he gave Estes and the other women when they were thrown out of
the plant. Byrd maintained this was mass action by some 250 people and that
he could not fire that many people to protect 4 or 5. He admitted that he knew of
the threat to evict Carolyn Grey from the plant, and that he "stopped that immedi-
ately." The women disputed Byrd's statement that the whole plant was behind the
evictions; one of them saying there were just a few that were causing the trouble and
if the Company would fire them the problem would be solved, reminding Byrd that
he had stated that he would fire those who threw out any employee. Company
counsel replied to this by stating that when the Company needed advice from her
on how to run the plant, they would ask her for it; but that she should not anticipate
being asked, and that the Company could not fire 250 people. One of the women
asked if they went back to work without the pins, as Byrd asked, would the Com-
pany see that nothing happened to them. The answer was, "We can't guarantee
you anything. All we can do is do what is reasonable to try to keep people calmed
down and keep any trouble from happening " Finally the women asked for an
opportunity to discuss the matter among themselves, and were permitted to do so.
Following this they informed Byrd that they would not remove the pins that day
and would go home, but that they might return to work the following Monday if
they decided to work without wearing the ILG pins. The women then left the
plant.
The following Monday, August 6, Carolyn Grey, Orette McCall, Doris Odum,
and Ruth Johnson went in a group to Byrd's office and told him they wished to go
to work. Byrd said they could do so if they didn't wear the ILG pins. Each of
the women assured Byrd that she was not wearing the pin, and did not have such
a pin in her possession . Byrd cautioned them that if they wore such a pin in the
plant they would be terminated. Byrd also said that he would talk to the floor-
ladies and that they would do all they could to protect the women. Each one
then reported to her work station . None of them wore an ILG pin in the plant
during the remainder of that day. Shortly after 1 p.m., when the lunch hour ended,
a group of employees cut off their machines and went to the laundry section of
63 A fifth employee, Sally Cain, also wore such a pin to work that day, and was present
during the discussion hereafter referred to. However, she had previously given notice
that August 3 would be her last day of work and was not present during the events of
August 6, hereafter related. Sally Cain did not testify. Accordingly, no findings will be
made with respect to her
e4 The employees testified that a typewritten transcript from the tape, which is in evi-
dence, was a substantially accurate rfsum6 of what was said in Byrd's office on the morn-
ing of August 3.
120 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the plant. After being in the laundry for a few minutes they divided up into groups,
one group going to the place where Grey, McCall, Odum, and Johnson, severally,
were working Grey, McCall, Odum, and Johnson were told, "Let's go," and were
marched toward the door where the several groups met. When the four women
attempted to go through the door leading into Byrd's office, someone in the group
behind them said, "Not in there, out the front door." Among those participating in
this activity were: Louise Lundi, Eunice Weaver, Ann Wilson, Mary Ethel Bridges,
and Bessie West. As the four women were being marched out of the plant Floor-
ladies LaVerne Gandy, Clara Smith, and Gladys Bodiford were observed standing
near an office door "snickering." None of the floorladies made any effort to stop
the activity then in progress
Reaching Byrd's office, and after his return from lunch, the four women told Byrd
of their eviction from the plant McCall in particular stated that Louise Lundi was
one who had "run her out " Byrd told the four women that their presence in the
plant is what was causing the disturbance; and that the other women were upset
and had lost 15 minutes of work and would spend the rest of the day talking about it,
all of which was costing the Company money. The women protested that they
had not worn union pins, and asked Byrd if he couldn't do something to require the
other employees to let them work. Byrd replied ". . . when 300 people get together,
there [isn't] anything [I can] do about it," that he could not fire 300 people for
them, and that for their own protection they should stay home until the situation in
the plant would permit their return to work, and that he would notify them when to
come back. Ruth Johnson called Byrd early in November and asked when she
might return to work. Byrd said he had no idea. The others did not call nor have
they heard anything from Byrd.
b. The Company's case re events of May 23 to August 6
The Company's version of these events is presented by the testimony of seven
employees 65 who, to a greater or lesser degree, admit their participation in the
four incidents when employees were ejected from the plant, and the -testimony of Byrd.
(1) Employees' testimony
Aside from Mary Bridges and Mary Lambeth, whose testimony will be hereafter
discussed, the employee witnesses testified substantially to the same effect. In
substance, they said that the constant rumors about the plant that Judy Bond was a
"run away shop" and would have to move back to New York or give displaced
New York employees the jobs in the Brewton plant, gave them great concern about
the stability of their jobs; that this affected their ability to work and their earnings
because they were paid on a production basis; that anyone working in the Brewton
plant who joined ILG or displayed ILG insignia was in effect working to take their
jobs away; and for that reason they participated in one or more of the incidents
related above. They testified further that none of these incidents were in any way
planned but happened spontaneously; that there was no leader; just mass action in
which the "entire plant" participated. When asked whether the "entire plant" meant
that the floorladies and the officers of Respondent Local (all of whom are employed
at the Judy Bond plant), participated in the conduct involved, these witnesses denied
that such was the case and said that no floorlady, union officer, or shop steward was
anywhere in sight, or in any way participated in ejecting employees from the plant.
They admitted, however, that the supervisors must have known what was going on;
as Ann Wilson put it "they were in the plant working with us." They denied that
any representative of Respondent International knew of, counseled or advised, or
was present when these incidents occurred.66 While all these employees admitted
their participation in the conduct involved to some extent, Ann Wilson admitted
not only that she actively participated in each of the four incidents when employees
were evicted from the plant, but also that after each incident she reported to Byrd
65 The seven employees were Grace Boozer, Ann Wilson, Mary Alice Braddick, Louise
Lundi, Rav Arnett, Mary Bridges, and Mary Lambeth. The last mentioned is president
of Respondent Local 422
CO These witnesses testified, as did International Representative Jones, that at union
meetings after the event, someone would refer to the fact that employees had been ejected
from the plant, and that Jones would reprimand them for such conduct ; tell them that it
was unlawful and that they must not do it; and that the Union would not protect them if
they got into trouble as a result of it.
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 121
that she had done S0.67 All of the employee witnesses, except Ann Wilson, testified
that neither Byrd, Eskridge, Williams, or any floorlady asked them what they knew
about the incidents when employees were ejected from the plant, nor were they
reprimanded in any way for leaving their work stations to take part in the incidents
referred to.
The testimony of Mary Lambeth is treated separately because, as president of
Respondent Local 422, her conduct has considerable bearing on the responsibility
of Local 422 for the conduct involved. She testified that shortly after lunch on
May 23, she heard a commotion in the cutting department and stood up to see what
was happening; that being unable to see, she walked to the edge of the crowd, which
she estimated at 200 to 300 people, that someone said, "Here is another one-let her
through," and that Kathleen Chavers went by and out the door; and that she
(Lambeth) said nothing. With respect to the incident of May 31, Lambeth testified
that it happened while she was on her morning break; but that she saw a group
escorting employees out; that she did not know who was in the group. Lambeth
testified that she was on vacation during the week of July 9, and hence did not
observe that incident.68 As to the August 6 incident, Lambeth testified that when
she reported for work the morning of August 3, Floorlady Gandy told her, in
substance, that some employees were going to wear pins in the plant that morning,
that trouble was brewing, and that if she had any influence over the women, this was
the time to use it; that there was such turmoil and confusion in the plant that she
was afraid there would be a riot; that she, Evidelle Turner, and Jessie Mae Wilson 69
met with Byrd and told the latter that she was concerned about the safety of the
girls that wore pins in the plant, and asked that he do somehing to calm the people
down; that Byrd asked if the people would calm down if the girls did not have
pins on , and that she (Lambeth) said she hoped they would; that the group wear-
ing the pins were then called to Byrd's office, did not return to work that day, but
did return on August 6, when they were ejected from the plant. Lambeth further
testified that she had no part in ejecting the employees from the plant on that
occasion , but remained at her machine until the group had gathered in front of
Byrd's office, when she walked to the edge of the crowd to see what was happening,
and remained until Byrd came out and asked everyone to resume work. Lambeth
testified that neither Byrd, Eskridge, Williams, or any floorlady ever reprimanded
her for being away from her work station, or asked her what she knew about any
of the incidents when employees were put out of the plant. Lambeth admitted that
neither she nor any of the officers of the Local made any effort to ascertain who
was responsible for, or participated in, the aforementioned incidents, or to see that
members of the Local did not participate in such conduct. In fact, when asked
if any officers of the Local were in the group that put the employees out, Lambeth
answered, "I really don't know. I don't guess they were. They weren't supposed
to be."
The testimony of Mary Bridges is treated separately because it throws considerable
light on the contention that the evictions from the plant were spontaneous. Bridges
testified that during the morning of May 23, the employees were going to the rest-
room in large numbers and staying longer than usual, and that she also went "to
see what it was all about"; in the restroom she found at least 30 employees, includ-
ing among others Ollie Cooper, Ester Cramer, Kathleen Palmer, Ann Wilson,
Louise Lundi, Bessie West, and Mary Taylor; 70 the discussion in the restroom was
that Estes had worn an ILG pin into the plant that morning, and had been called
to Byrd's office, but permitted to return to work, and "why not get rid of him and
get rid of all that had anything to do with it"; that she left the plant at noon for
lunch, reurning about 12.45, and observed groups of 15 to 20 employees about
the plant: she joined 1 group asking, "What's going on?" and was told, "We are
tired of the way things are going" and "we are ready to pitch them out on their
ears, how about you," and that she replied, "I'm ready"; and that just after resum-
ing work at 1 p.m., they put Estes and the four women out of the plant. With
61 According to Ann Wilson she thought it necessary to report this to Byrd because he
had told her from time to time that she would be terminated if she engaged in such con-
duct. She felt, however, that she had no greater responsibility for the conduct than the
rest of the employees , and that Byrd could not discharge her without discharging the
entire work force.
°° Lambeth's seniority entitles her to 2 weeks' vacation ; the week of July 2, when the
plant closed down, and also the week of July 9.
0 Turner is vice president and Wilson is shop steward of Respondent Local 422.
70 It will be recalled that these are the names principally mentioned by the evicted
employees as the persons who participated in that conduct.
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respect to the August 6 incident,71 Bridges testified that on that morning the rest-
room was again a busy place, with employees going there in larger numbers, and
more often than usual, and the floorladies went there frequently to urge employees
not to spend so much time away from their work; that when she went to the
restroom there were 25 to 30 employees present and they discussed the fact that the
four women who had worn pins the preceding Friday were back at work, that they
did not know why they were permitted to come back, that "we didn't want them
back in there"; and that later "we just put them out." Bridges further testified
that (1) during each of the four incidents when employees were put out of the plant,
she left her work and participated in that conduct, but that she was never reprimanded
by Byrd or any other supervisor for leaving her work or for participating in putting
employees out; (2) she was never asked by Byrd, Eskridge, Williams, or any
floorlady what part she played in evicting the employees from the plant or what
information she had on that subject; and (3) no officer of United ever discussed
those events with her.
(2) Testimony of Plant Manager Byrd re ejections from the plant
Byrd testified that just prior to the events of May 23, the rumors and gossip in
the plant reached their height and production fell to about 40 percent of normal.
He regarded the situation as so desperate that on May 18 he called Vice President
Rothenberg and asked him to come to Brewton and give the matter his personal
attention; 72 that as a part of his efforts to maintain discipline and production, and
to prevent possible injury to employees, he posted the May 22 notice, prohibiting
organizational activity of any kind or at any time on company property. Byrd
attributed the several incidents when employees were ejected from the plant on the
alleged fact that the majority of the employees look upon ILG as an organization
which was trying to take their work away, and that by the wearing of pins and other
activities the employees who were ejected from the plant provoked the remainder
of the employees into the spontaneous action which they took. Byrd testified that
he made a thorough investigation of each of the four incidents,73 and was never
able to fix responsibility for the conduct of any individual or group of individuals,
and for that reason took no disciplinary action against any employee, other than
a group reprimand to the plant as a whole.74
71 Regarding the May 31 incident Bridges testified that when Eskridge was called to the
office and attempted to return to the work area with Jones and Chavers, the employees
forced them to follow Eskridge back into Byrd's office, and that on July 11 the employees
congregated in the laundry and then went through the plant rounding up the four em-
ployees they wanted to, and did put out of the plant. She also testified that after forcing
the employees toward the door on July 11, Eskridge approached her and asked, "What do
you want" ; and that she replied, "Nothing "
72 Rothenberg testified that pursuant to this call he went to Brewton, arriving on May 19,
and that he conferred with Byrd from time to time until the afternoon of May 21, when he
left Brewton, returning late on May 22 ; made the speech to the employees during the morn-
ing of May 23 ; and then left for New York. Rothenberg further testified that during his
conferences with Byrd, the latter explained to him all the problems in the plant. Byrd's
testimony that production in the plant was substantially reduced is, of course, in conflict
with Rothenberg's own statement made to the employees In his speech on May 23, that he
was "pleased . . . with the progress you have made. Both your production and quality
levels have shown steady increases " [Emphasis supplied ] Moreover , during the course
of the hearing I called to the attention of counsel for the Respondent Company that if he
was relying on the fact of low production, the production records, which admittedly were
in the Company's possession, were most relevant to that issue, and that certain inferences
adverse to the Company might be drawn from the failure to produce them Counsel re-
plied that he was well aware of risks involved The records were not produced.
73 Byrd testified that his investigation included interrogation of a number of employees,
including specifically Mary Alice Braddick, Louise Lundi, Ray Arnett, Mary Bridges, and
Mary Lambeth, in an effort to ascertain what part they played, and what information
they had, with regard to these incidents. As I have pointed out supra, each of these
employees testified that neither Byrd nor any other supervisor ever spoke to them on
that subject.
74 According to Byrd, the reprimand took the form of telling the employees that they
should not put people out of the plant; that they were simply hurting the Company by
inviting the filing of additional charges.
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 123
c. Credibility resolutions and factual conclusions
My careful review of the testimony given by Byrd and the employee witnesses
called by Respondent Company, considered in the light of their demeanor while
testifying, and particularly the fact that Byrd on several occasions shifted from one
position to another when he apparently felt to do so would promote the end result
he desired to achieve, compel me to conclude that I should not credit their testimony
except in those instances where (1) the particular fact is not in dispute; (2) their
testimony is in the nature of an admission against interest; or (3) they are cor-
roborated by evidence which I find credible. Indeed the demeanor of these witnesses
while testifying convinces me not only that their testimony is untrue but that in
many respects the true facts are the opposite of the testimony they gave 75 The
testimony of the employee witnesses called by Respondent Company to the effect
that the "entire plant" consisting of some 250 to 300 employees, without any prior
plan or understanding, "spontaneously" selected and put out of the plant only
those people who had affiliated themselves with ILG, is simply incredible.76 And
when, on cross-examination, it was pointed out to some of these witnesses that their
phrase "entire plant" would include the floorladies and officers of the Local, the
speed with which they hastened to add that the floorladies and union officers were
not present and did not participate, was most illuminating. What became of the
floorladies and union officers, while the employees were being put out of the plant,
was never satisfactorily explained by these witnesses. It is, of course, explained by
the testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel that at least some floorladies
purposely absented themselves and watched the events from Williams' office.
Byrd's testimony and his performance on the witness stand is even more incredible
than that of the employee witnesses above referred to. Just a few examples will
suffice to demonstrate.
1. Byrd maintained that after each of the incidents he made a thorough investi-
gation , but was never able to fix responsibility for the conduct of any employee
group of employees. A portion of the cross-examination on this point was as
follows:
Q. (By GENERAL COUNSEL.) After May 31st, did Ann Wilson ever tell you
she was involved in these instances?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you are positive of that?
A. Yes, sir.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Mr. Byrd, Ann Wilson testified here that she participated
in all four of these instances of ejecting employees from the plant and that in
each instance, she told you she had done so. Do you deny that?
A. I don't recall.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Do you recall that it happened?
A. I talked to Ann Wilson on several occasions, Mr. Examiner , but I don't
recall Ann Wilson telling me-volunteering the information that she had par-
ticipated in them.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Do you deny that she told you that?
A. I don't deny it. It is possible that she did.
75 Judge Learned Hand, speaking for the Second Circuit In Dyer v. MacDougall, 201
F 2d 265, 269, in commenting on the right of a trier of fact to believe the opposite of
what an uncredited witness has testified to, stated :
It is true that the carriage, behavior, bearing, manner and appearance of a wit-
ness-in short his "demeanor"-Is a part of the evidence. The words used are by no
means all that we rely on in making up our minds about the truth of a question that
arises in our ordinary affairs, and it is abundantly settled that a jury is as little con-
fined to them as we are They may, and indeed they should, take into consideration
the whole nexus of sense impressions which they get from a witness This we have
again and again declared . . . Moreover, such evidence may satisfy the tribunal,
not only that the witness ' testimony is not true, but that the truth is the opposite
of his story; for the denial of one, who has a motive to deny, may be uttered with
such hesitation, discomfort, arrogance or defiance, as to give assurance that he Is
fabricating, and that, if he is, there Is no alternative but to assume the truth of what
he denies [Emphasis supplied 1
To the same effect see: N.L R B. v. Dinion Coil Company, Inc., 201 F. 2d 484 (C A 2) ;
N.LR.B. v. Howell Chevrolet Company, 204 F. 2d 79 (CA. 9), affd on other grounds
346 U.S. 482.
PO Mary Bridges, of course, admitted that at least the May 23 and August 6 Incidents
were discussed and planned in the restroom . To that extent I credit her testimony.
124 DECISIONS OF NAIIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At a later point in his cross-examination, Byrd answered:
TRIAL EXAMINER: Did you find any-during the course of your investigation,
did you find or ascertain any one individual who participated in this?
A. I said earlier that Frank Braddick and Ann Wilson.
TRIAL. EXAMINER. Admitted their participation?
A. That they were in on it.
2. After admitting that at least some employees had told him of their participation
in putting employees out of the plant, Byrd took the position that it still required
investigation on his part to determine whether there had in fact been such participation
by that employee, because some people like to make martyrs of themselves and
disciplinary action would be warranted only if he could prove such conduct.
Presumably, he meant that he wanted proof independent of the employee's admission.
3. Regarding the May 31 incident, Byid sought to avoid the impact of the state-
ment by Cutting Room Foreman Jack Eskridge, to the effect that Mary Alice
Braddick was responsible for that incident, by saying that he had investigated the
incident "and found out from some other people that there was a possibility that
Jack had made an error " To ascertain to whom Byrd had talked in the course of
the investigation which led him to believe that "there was a possibility that Jack
had made an error," the cross-examination went thus:
Q. You didn't believe what he [Eskridge] told you'
A. I didn't say what I believed. I said I investigated it.
Q. Who did you ask about it'
A. Several people.
Q. Who?
A. I don't recall the names. When you have 2-300 people, it's hard to
remember.
Q. You don't recall anybody you talked to specifically?
A. I talked to LaVerne Gandy, a floorlady that was in that particular area.
Q. What did she tell you?
A. She told me that I believe she was out of the plant taking some peas home
or something.
Q. She didn't even see it then?
A. That's right. So I asked some of the operators.
Q. You asked some of the operators. Did you ask any more floorladies?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did you ask?
A. I asked Clara Smith, Jewel Johns.
Q. What did they tell you?
A. They said it happened so quick, that they didn't know anything was
going on.
Q. They told you they didn't see it; is that right?
A. They didn't see it.77
r' In this regard I find it particularly significant that the Respondent Company did not
call Eskridge as a witness nor explain its failure to do so. Under these circumstances it
is a permissible inference, and I so infer, that had Eskridge been called as a witness his
testimony would not have supported the testimony of Byrd or the position of Respondent
Company. Halliday v United States, 315 U.S. 94, 99 ; Interstate Circuit v United States,
306 U.S. 208, 225-226; NLRB. v. Reed & Prince Manufacturing Company, 130 P. 2d
765, 768 (C.A 1). Apparently to avoid the impact of this rule, Respondent Company
asserts In its brief that Eskridge was not in its employ at the time of the bearing. I find
no support in the record for this statement But assuming that statement to be a fact,
there is nothing to show that Eskridge's attendance could not have been secured through
a subpena. The same inference I draw with respect to the failure of Respondent Company
to call Eskridge, I also draw with respect to its failure to call as witnesses Floorladies
Gandy, Johns, Smith, and Cain, and its 'failure to examine Foreman Williams, who was
called as a witness, regarding the ejection of employees from the plant. The record shows
that Williams is rarely away from the plant for any appreciable time, and that the in-
cidents of July 11 and August 6 took place, at least in part, In the sewing department over
which he has supervision Moreover, as about two-thirds of the employees work in the
sewing department, and if as Respondent Company contends virtually the entire plant
took part in the several incidents, those events, some of which lasted as long as 15 minutes,
could hardly have escaped Williams' knowledge Under the circumstances, the burden
was on Respondent Company to examine Williams with respect to these incidents, or at
least to establish that he had no information on the subject.
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 125
4. Also on cross-examination, Byrd's attention was called to the rules he had
posted which prohibited violence, and he was asked whether he regarded the incident
when the pins were removed from Fay Madden's dress, and the four instances when
employees were ejected from the plant, as constituting violence, or in any way
violative of the aforesaid rules. Byrd at first answered, in substance, that as he had
no proof that bodily injury was inflicted, he did not regard those incidents as involv-
ing violence, and that there was, therefore, no violation of his rules against such
conduct. When it was pointed out to Byrd that in his discussion with the four
employees on August 3,711 he had stated that on prior occasions the meaning of the
ILG pins "has resulted in violence," his explanation was that he had perhaps "used
the wrong word or English," and that while there had been disturbances, there had
been no violence. Sometime later in the cross-examination, Byrd informed me that
he had improperly answered some questions and asked for permission to make a
correction, which permission was granted. Byrd then stated that he had not
thoroughly understood the questions regarding violence; that he thought the instances
when employees were put out of the plant did constitute violence, but that those who
were ejected intentionally instigated the violence and were responsible for it. This
position is, of course, inconsistent with his position at the time of the events. Byrd
does not claim that in his conversation with employees West, Bell, Jones, and
Chavers on May 23, 25, and 31, that he accused these employees of instigating or
having any responsibility for the events referred to. He took no action against
Bell, West, Chavers, and Jones, and discharged Estes and Madden on May 25, not
because they instigated violence in the plant but, according to Byrd, solely because,
in the case of Madden, she failed to make production, and, in the case of Estes,
because he had violated the "no-solicitation" rule by wearing an ILG pin back into
the plant. Moreover, after the incident of July 11, when Eskridge brought Bell,
Jones, and Chavers to Byrd's office and stated that those employees had not "done
anything to cause the difficulty," Byrd replied, "I know they weren't causing any
trouble." Byrd did not deny the statement so attributed to him.79
The credibility resolutions as above set forth lead me to the following factual
conclusions, and I so find:
1. While there was, beyond doubt, considerable discussion among the employees
in the plant concerning the appearance of ILG on the scene, and the probable effect
thereof on their future employment, I conclude on the basis of (1) Rothenberg's
speech; (2) the failure-indeed the refusal-of Respondent Company to produce
its production records after being told that an adverse inference might be drawn
therefrom; and (3) my views with respect to credibility of Byrd and the employee
witnesses called by Respondent Company, that the discussion among the employees
had no substantial effect on production.
2. That the amended "no-solicitation" vile posted by Byrd on May 22, which
prohibited all union activity on the Company's property at any time, was not
promulgated to maintaining production and good order in the plant, but with the
intent and purpose of interfering with the rights of the employees who had elected
to do so, to engage in organizational activity on behalf of ILG. A substantial por-
tion of the interrogation by Byrd and other supervisors of Respondent Company, set
forth above, occurred shortly before this notice was posted, and 9 of the 10 employees
involved signed ILG cards between May 7 and 21. It would appear to be more
than a coincidence that most of those employees were interrogated very shortly after
they signed an ILG card.
3. Byrd made no adequate effort to ascertain the identity of the participants in
the events of May 23 and 31, July 11, and August 6, or to impose disciplinary
measures reasonably calculated to preclude the recurrence of such conduct. Even
when Byrd saw Fay Madden and Ann Wilson, as he put it, "squared off for a fight,"
all his action was directed solely to Madden and not against Ann Wilson, notwith-
standing his posted rule that both participants would be punished for such conduct 80
Also, notwithstanding Eskridge's immediate and spontaneous report to Byrd that
Mary Alice Braddick was responsible for the incident of May 31, he (Byrd) took no
78 This discussion was tape recorded and a transcript thereof was received as an exhibit
76 Byrd's letters of June 25 to West, Bell, Jones, and Chavers, written in response to
their letters to him, dated June 4, do charge that "the demonstrations in the plant against
you were intentionally and wilfully [sic] provoked by you . . . ." The nearly 3 weeks
which Byrd took to reply to the employees' letters of June 4, and a comparison of Byrd's
letters with the notices which he prepared for posting in the plant, lead me to suspect that
he did not draft the self-serving letters of June 25.
80 See footnote 24, supra, rule 3
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
action against her.81 Byrd's explanation for his failure to take disciplinary action
against Mary Alice Braddick was, as demonstrated by his testimony quoted above,
that he had ascertained that Eskridge had probably made a mistake, was based on
information he secured from people who he admitted, told him they saw nothing and
knew nothing about what had happened. Even his claim that he talked to certain
employees in an effort to ascertain the identity of those who participated in putting
employees out of the plant is denied by the employees who testified on that subject.
From this I can only conclude that if Byrd did make such an investigation, it must
have been made in a manner that he could be certain that he would "hear no evil"
and "see no evil."
4. The four incidents when employees were put out of the plant, took part in
the presence of one or more of Respondents' supervisors, namely Eskridge, Williams,
Turner, and Floorladies Johns, Gandy, Cain, Smith, and Braddick,82 and that none
of them took reasonable steps to prevent such activity, or to see that discipline was
imposed upon those who participated in it . Particularly with respect to the incident
of August 6, when the women were going to the restroom in greater numbers and
more frequently than usual, and staying for longer periods of time, this action must,
of necessity, have come to the attention of the Company's supervisors above referred
to, and particularly the floorladies, who were admittedly going to the restroom fre-
quently to "chase out" the women gathered there. In view of the prior incidents,
and the fact that the four women who had worn ILG pins in the plant on August 3
were back at work on August 6, the Company should have anticipated the pos-
sibility of a repetition of the prior incidents, and should have taken some reasonable
steps to guard against it. Admittedly, no such steps were taken.
5. The appearance of ILG on the scene brought an immediate reaction from both
Respondent International and Respondent Local 422, as has heretofore been noted,
and that both meant to prevent ILG from gaining a foothold in the plant is self-
evident. The statement by International Representative Johnson to the officers and
stewards of the Local 422, as heretofore noted, that those employees who were
giving adherence to ILG were "a bunch of double crossers" and she would "be
ashamed to work with," admits of no other conclusion.
6. The testimony of Mary Bridges concerning the discussions in the restroom with
respect to ejecting the ILG adherents from the plant, I credit. I do not credit her
testimony that whenever an official of Local 422 approached, these discussions
ceased. I also discredit her testimony, as well as that of her fellow employees, to
the effect that responsible officials of Local 422 were nowhere to be seen when the
ILG adherents were ejected from the plant. The expression on their faces when
it was pointed out to them that their statements that the "entire plant" participated in
ejecting the ILG adherents would include all supervisors and officials of the Local,
and the speed with which they hastened to explain that they did not mean to include
supervisors and officials of the Local, convinces me that their testimony in that regard
is not true. Moreover, considering the size of the work force in the plant and of
the community in which it is located,83 as well as the fact that entire membership
of Local 422 consisted of Judy Bond employees, it is inconceivable that the respon-
sible representatives of Local 422 did not know of the discussions and plans to eject
the ILG adherents from the plant as above set forth. Accordingly, I find as a fact
that the responsible representatives of Respondent Local 422 did have knowledge of
the plans for ejecting the ILG adherents from the plant, and that one or more of
such representatives was present and observed the execution of such plans.
7. Although responsible officials of Respondent Local 422 were aware of the
plans to eject employees from the plant, and one or more of such officials observed
the several incidents thereof when they occurred, as I have found, no official of
Respondent Local 422 told the employees that such conduct did not have the ap-
proval of said Respondent; that they would not be supported by said Respondent if
they engaged in such conduct; or that any disciplinary action would be taken against
them by reason thereof. While there is some testimony to the contrary, I do not
credit it.
si On the contrary, the following month Mary Alice Braddick was made a floorlady, and
her husband, Frank Braddick, who participated in ejecting Estes from the plant on May 23,
had by July 9 been promoted to cutter
62 As Braddick did not become a floorlady until June, her participation in or observance
of the incidents of May 23 or May 31 could not be attributable to Respondent Company
solely on the basis of her supervisory status.
a3 Brewton and the adjoining town of East Brewton have a combined population of
approximately 8,500 See U S. Census, 1960
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 127
U. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS
On the basis of the above findings which are derived from the credited evidence,
including the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, I find and conclude that
Respondent Brewton Fashions, Inc., a Division of Judy Bond:
1. Violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by extending recognition to
Respondent Local 422, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
at the Birmingham warehouse, at a time when Local 422 did not represent a majority
of said warehouse employees, and by coercing said employees to accept Local 422
as their bargaining representative. In view of the approximately 200-mile distance
between the two plants, and the total lack of interchange of employees between the
plants, I find that Birmingham warehouse was not an accretion to the unit certified
by the Board for the Brewton plant.
2. Violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by:
(a) Posting the notice prohibiting all organizational activity on the Company's
property at any time, and by threatening to discharge employees for talking about or
soliciting on behalf of ILG. As the notice and discharge threats were not limited
to the working area of the plant or to working hours, the notice as well as the threats
were unlawful. Reeves Broadcasting & Development Corporation (WHTN-TV),
140 NLRB 466; 1. R. Simplot Company Food Processing Division, 137 NLRB 1552;
Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc., 137 NLRB 1484; Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing
Co., 138 NLRB 615; General Industries Electronics Company, 138 NLRB 1371.
Equally violative of the Act and for the reasons just stated, were Byrd's request of
Estes, made on May 23, that Estes remove his union pin, and the threat to discharge
Estes if he wore the pin in the plant, as well as Byrd's statement to Grey, McCall,
Odum, and Johnson on August 3 that they could not work in the plant if they wore
union pins, and the threat made on August 6 to discharge them if they wore such
pins in the plant.
(b) The conversations that Byrd and Eskridge had with employee Kate Jones,
which were in effect interrogation of Jones regarding her activities on behalf of ILG.
(c) Byrd's (1) interrogation of employee Bell with respect to her activity and the
activity and the activity of West and Jones on behalf of ILG; and (2) statement
to Bell that he was training her to be a supervisor, and hoped she would not get
involved, which was in effect an implied promise of benefit if Bell would cease her
activities on behalf of ILG.
(d) Byrd's interrogation of Chavers with respect to her views about, and activities
on behalf of, ILG.
(e) Eskridge's interrogation of Estes as to the latter's activity on behalf of ILG,
as well as Byrd's statement to Estes that the latter could not bring a copy of "Justice"
into the plant or even have it in his pocket. As Byrd's statement just referred went
beyond the distribution of union literature in the work areas of the plant, or during
working time, and as no justification for such prohibition was claimed or shown,
this prohibition interfered with the exercise of rights reserved to employees by Section
7 of the Act. See Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., supra.
(f) Byrd's interrogation of McCall, and his statement to her to the effect that if
ILG got in the Brewton plant would close or its volume of work would be sub-
stantially reduced.
(g) The interrogation of Ruth Johnson regarding her activities on behalf of
ILG by Floorlady Smith.
(h) The interrogation of Fay Madden by Floorlady Cain regarding Madden's
membership in ILG.
3. Violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, by failing, as I have heretofore
found, to take reasonable measures to prevent the employees from forcing employees,
Estes, Kate Jones, Bell, Chavers, Louise West, McCall, Grey, Odum, and Johnson,
adherents of ILG, out of the plant. The Act imposes an affirmative duty upon an
employer to insure that his obligation to maintain discipline in the plant and to
provide his employees with the opportunity to work without interference from their
coworkers, is not delegated or surrendered to any union or antiunion group, and an
employer who acquiesces in the exclusion of employees from his plant by such a
group will be regarded as having discriminated against the excluded employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(3). Fred P. Weissman Company, 69 NLRB 1002, enfd.
170 F. 2d 952 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 336 U.S. 972; D. W. Newton, an individual,
d/b/a Newton Brothers Lumber Company, 103 NLRB 564, enfd. 214 F. 2d 472
(CA. 5); N.L.R.B. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 129 F. 2d 661, 664
(C.A. 5); N.L.R.B. v. Hudson Motor Car Company, 128 F. 2d 528, 532 (C.A. 6);
Altamont Shirt Corporation, 131 NLRB 112, 120. Whether or not Respondent
Company had any responsibility for the rumors, confusion, and feeling among the
employees that the advent of ILG on the scene was a threat to their job security,
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is beside the point, for difficult as such circumstances may make an employer's
position, it is his legal duty to resist every effort at domination of his managerial
prerogative, whether such efforts are manifested by or against a union faction. As
I have heretofore set forth, no such resistance was shown here. On the contrary,
as I have found, the action directed against the adherents of ILG was condoned
and ratified by Respondent Company. Accordingly, it is found and concluded that
Respondent Company laid off each of the aforementioned employees and thereby
discriminated against each of them. That such discrimination was to discourage
membership in ILG and to encourage membership in United is too plain for argu-
ment. Not only does Byrd's conduct warrant such a conclusion, but in his speech
on May 23 Rothenberg made crystal clear his intention to deal only with United,
and that he would brook no interference from ILG or its adherents. It is further
found and concluded that such layoffs took place on May 23 in the case of Estes,84
Kate Jones, Chavers, Bell, and Louise West, and on August 6 in the case of McCall,
Grey, Odum, and Ruth Johnson.85
4 Violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily discharging
Estes on May 25. Byrd admitted that his sole reason for discharging Estes was that
the latter, after having been directed by Byrd during the morning of May 23 to
remove an ILG pin he was wearing and not to wear it again in the plant, had dis-
obeyed that order and wore an ILG pin into the plant on the afternoon of May 23,
conduct which Byrd regarded as a form of solicitation which violated his rule posted
on May 22, prohibiting all union activity on the Company's premises. As I have
discredited the testimony on behalf of Respondent Company in that regard and
found that Estes did not wear such pin into the plant during the afternoon of May 23,
there was no violation of Byrd's rule or order, and obviously that furnished no
legitimate reason for the discharge. Moreover, the wearing of union insignia is a
right protected by Section 7 of the Act, and which an employer may not abridge,
absent a showing that such is necessary to maintain production or discipline
Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L R.B., 324 U S. 793.86
5. Violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by the discriminatory discharge
of Fay Madden on May 25. I find and conclude that Madden was not discharged
for failure to meet her production quotas, as Byrd testified, but because she, like
Estes, wore an ILG pin into the plant on the morning of May 23. Although Madden
was a new employee hired on March 29, that had been given a "warning notice"
on April 5 on which appeared a check mark after the word "efficiency," Byrd waited
until May 21 before he gave her the second "warning notice," with the third and
final one following the second by only 4 days It is inconceivable to me, if Madden's
production record was in fact bad, that Byrd would have waited nearly 7 weeks to
give a second "warning notice" to an inefficient probationary employee whom he had
hired in spite of the fact that she failed to pass the usual aptitude test. It is also
reasonable to assume that if low production was the true reason for Madden's
discharge, her production records would have been produced; but they were not.
It is, therefore, proper to infer, as I do, that had Madden's production records been
produced they would not have supported the Company's position. Rather the timing
of the second, as well as of the third and final "warning notice," coming as they
did while the ILG activity among the employees in the plant was at its height,87
and when Byrd and his supervisors engaged in much of the activity which I have
found violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, leads me to the conclusion that the
motivating cause of Madden's discharge on May 25 was Byrd's desire to rid himself
of an employee who had openly demonstrated her adherence to ILG by wearing its
insignia in the plant.
6. By the acts and conduct set forth in the preceding paragraphs numbered 3, 4,
8s Although it will make little, if any, practical difference in the end result, I shall
also find, as hereafter set forth, and for the reasons there stated, that Estes was dis-
criminatorily discharged on May 25.
se As Byrd told all of the laid-off employees (except Estes) that they would be called
when he deemed it safe for them to return to work, but has not as yet done so. it would
appear that said employees are still in layoff status. Undoubtedly there is some point at
which the layoffs ripened into discharges , but I deem it unnecessary to determine that
question, for in either event the remedy will be the same
861 have heretofore found that the posting of the revised "no-solicitation " rule, as well
as the prohibition against the wearing of union pins, was motivated by the desire of
Respondent Company to thwart the organizational efforts of the ILG adherents, and not
because it found such rules necessary to maintain production or discipline
sr Nine of the ten ILG adherents involved in this proceeding signed ILG cards between
May 7 and 21.
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 129
and 5, as well as by enforcing its unlawful "no-solicitation" rule, as above found,
Respondent Company also violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, because such acts
and conduct constituted the contribution of support by Respondent Company to
United in the latter's efforts to prevent ILG from organizing the employees of the
Brewton plant S8
7 I also find and conclude on the basis of the credited evidence, including the
demeanor of the witnesses, that Respondent, United Garment Workers of America,
Local Union No 422, violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) by failing to take
reasonable steps to dissuade its membership from evicting the ILG adherents from
the Brewton plant. As I have found, responsible representatives of Respondent
Local 422 knew of the plans to evict the employees from the plant and witnessed
the execution of the plans, not only once, but on four separate occasions Under
these circumstances I find and conclude that a duty rested upon the responsible
representatives of Respondent Local 422 to disavow such conduct by at the very
least letting the members know that their conduct was not in accordance with the
Union's policy, and that the Union would not protect them if they engaged in such
conduct. Far from disavowing the conduct, the responsible representatives of
Local 422, including specifically Mary Lambeth, its president, stood silently by and
without one word or act of disapproval, observed the eviction from the plant of a
number of employees whom Local 422, as the collective-bargaining representative
of all the employees, was duty bound to represent fully, fairly, and impartially
This failure to act, I find and conclude, constituted causing or attempting to cause
Respondent Company to discriminate against its employees (discrimination which
I have heretofore found to be violative of Section 8(a)(3)), and restrained and
coerced the ILG adherents in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7
of the Act 89
III. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Company and Respondent Local 422 have engaged
in unfair labor practices as above set forth, it will be recommended that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action. set forth below, designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act The touch-stone of the Act is that employees
should be free, without coercion or restraint from an employer or from a labor
organization, to exercise the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. As
it has been found that said Respondents interfered with this right, and at the
Birmingham warehouse attempted to force upon employees a bargaining agent they
88 The amended complaint alleges and the General Counsel urges that Respondent Com-
pany also violated Section 8(a) (2) of the Act by (1) permitting Respondent United to use
the Company's property and other facilities for the conduct of union meetings, and
(2) permitting officials and agents of United to use company time and property to solicit
authorization cards for and conduct activities on behalf of United I find that Respondent
Company did not violate Section 8(a) (2) of the Act as the General Counsel alleges As to
(I) there is no evidence that Respondent Company knew that United was using company
premises to conduct union meetings. As to (2), although I have found that Respondent
Company did permit Jones and others to distribute authorization cards and urge em-
ployees to sign them, all during working hours, I nonetheless conclude that such conduct
did not violate Section 8(a) (2). Respondent United is certified as the representative of
the Company's employees, and the evidence leaves no room for doubt that United does in
fact represent a majority of said employees It is likewise clear from the evidence that
ILG represents only a minute fraction of said employees; it has made no demands of any
kind on the Company ; and the only change wrought by the cards which United obtained
as above indicated, was that the cards authorized the deduction of dues by Brewton
Fashions, instead of by Brewton Manufacturing Company, the former owner of the plant.
Judy Bond could, of course, have elected to rely upon the dues deduction authorizations
which It took over from Brewton Manufacturing Company, but it elected to obtain said
authorizations addressed to It. Under these circumstances, there was no more than the
cooperation to be expected between an employer and the representative of its employees
See B. if. Reeves Company, Inc., 128 NLRB 320.
01 have not found International responsible for this conduct because I regard the evi-
dence against it insufficient to show such responsibility There is no showing that any
representative of International was present in the plant when the plans were made to evict
the employees, or when such plans were care ied into execution ; and the testimony of Inter-
national Representative Jones, which I credit to that extent, shows that after each incident
she told employees that they should not engage in such conduct and might get into trouble
if they did
734-0 70-64-v of 145-10
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
did not choose and did not wish, an order commensurate with the violations found,
and designed to eradicate the effect of such unfair labor practice, and to assure to
the employees an opportunity to fully and freely exercise the rights conferred upon
them by Section 7 of the Act, is appropriate. Although a portion of the unfair
labor practices found occurred at the Birmingham warehouse, which Respondent
Company is not now operating and has no present intention of resuming, I shall
recommend that the notice which said Respondent be required to post at its Brewton
plant, include the appropriate provisions with respect to the violations at Birmingham.
I so recommend because (1) the employees at Brewton were necessarily aware of
what occurred at Birmingham; and (2) Respondent Company rendered unlawful
assistance and support to United at the Brewton plant, as I have found.
Having found that Respondent Company discriminated against Louise West, Kate
Jones, Ruth Bell, Kathleen Chavers, Lynn Estes, Fay Madden, Carolyn Grey
Thompson, Orette McCall, Doris Odum, and Ruth Johnson in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, it will be recommended that said Respondent cease and desist
therefrom and offer to each of the aforementioned persons full and unconditional
reinstatement to his or her former or substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his or her seniority and other rights or privileges. Having found that
Respondent Company and Respondent Local 422 are both responsible for the
discrimination suffered by the aforementioned employees, it will be recommended
that they jointly and severally make whole each of the aforesaid employees for any
loss of pay they may have severally suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them, by paying to them, severally, 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 the offer of reinstatement, less interim earnings, both to be computed in a manner
consistent with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
with interest thereon to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It will also be recommended that Respondent Com-
pany preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, all
personnel and payroll records that will facilitate the computation of backpay, as
herein provided.
It will be further recommended, in view of the character and extent of the unfair
labor practices found to have been engaged in by Respondent Company, that it cease
and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed to employees
by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Brewton Fashions, Inc., a Division of Judy Bond, is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. United Garment Workers of America, United Garment Workers of America,
Local Union No. 422, and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO,
respectively, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the conduct set forth in section II, paragraphs 1 through 6, above, Respond-
ent Brewton Fashions, Inc., a Division of Judy Bond, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7
of the Act; contributed assistance and support to United Garment Workers of
America and its Local Union No. 422; and discriminated against its employees in
regard to their tenure of employment, and the terms and conditions therefor, to
encourage membership in United Garment Workers of America, and to discourage
membership in International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, and
thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) , (2), and (3) of the Act.
4. By the conduct set forth in section II, paragraph 7, above, Respondent United
Garment Workers of America, Local Union No. 422, caused or attempted to cause
Respondent Brewton Fashions, Inc., a Division of Judy Bond, to discriminate against
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and restrained and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Except to the extent that the violations of the Act have been specifically found,
as above set forth, the evidence is insufficient to establish by a preponderance of
the evidence the remaining allegations of the complaints in Cases Nos. 15-CA-2098
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 131
and 15-CB-579, it will be recommended that said complaints , to that extent, be
dismissed.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is
recommended that:
A. Respondent Brewton Fashions , Inc., a Division of Judy Bond , its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Giving effect to its rule promulgated on or about May 22, 1962 , or promul-
gating, maintaining, enforcing or applying any rule or regulation prohibiting union
activity by employees on its premises during nonworking time.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge if they engage in union activity on
the Company 's premises during nonworking time.
(c) Prohibiting employees from wearing union pins or other union insignia in its
plant.
(d) Coercively interrogating employees as to their membership in, views about,
or activities on behalf of , International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization , or directly or by implication promising
benefits to any employee if he or she will cease assisting or supporting the aforesaid
Union , or any other labor organization , or threaten reprisal against any employee
if he or she does not cease giving assistance and support to the aforesaid Union,
or any other labor organization.
(e) Threatening employees with closing the plant, or reducing the volume of
available work if the employees select, join , or give assistance to International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, or any other labor organization.
(f) Prohibiting employees from having union literature in their possession while
on the Company 's premises ; but nothing herein shall be construed as depriving the
Company of its right to prohibit the distribution of union literature in the work
areas of the plant or during working hours.
(g) Giving effect to its contract with United Garment Workers of America, Local
Union No. 422 , effective January 15, 1962, to the extent that said agreement grants
recognition to said Local Union No. 422 as the bargaining representative of em-
ployees at the Birmingham warehouse , unless and until said Local 422 has been
certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the bargaining representative of
said employees.
(h) Assisting or supporting United Garment Workers of America, Local Union
No. 422, or any other labor organization , by conditioning the hire or tenure of
employment at its Birmingham warehouse , or any term or condition of such em-
ployment , upon membership in, affiliation with , or dues payments to such labor
organization.
(i) Assisting or contributing support to United Garment Workers of America,
Local Union No. 422, by failing to take all reasonable and appropriate measures
necessary to prevent supporters of Local Union No. 422 from evicting employees
from its Brewton plant because of their membership in, or support and assistance to,
a labor organization other than Local Union No. 422, or by promulgating for its
benefit an unlawful no-solicitation rule.
(j) Encouraging membership in United Garment Workers of America, or its
Local Union No. 422, or discouraging membership in International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees,
by discriminatorily discharging, laying off, failing to recall or reinstate any employee,
or in any other manner discriminating against any employee in regard to hire, tenure,
or any term or condition of employment.
(k) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or
assist International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO , or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection,
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Rescind its rule promulgated on or about May 22, 1962 , to the extent that it
prohibits employees from engaging in union activity on its premises during non-
working time.
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Respondent United Garment
Workers of America, Local Union No. 422, as the bargaining representative of the
employees at its Birmingham warehouse , unless and until said Local Union No. 422
has been duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
bargaining representative of such employees.
(c) Recall and/or offer to Louise West, Kate Jones, Ruth Bell , Kathleen Chavers,
Lynn Estes , Fay Madden , Carolyn Grey Thompson , Orette McCall , Doris Odum,
and Ruth Johnson, immediate , full, and unconditional reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges.
(d) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the National Labor Relations
Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all payroll records , social security
records, timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
determine the amount of backpay due, provided for by this order.
(e) Post at its plant at Brewton, Alabama, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A." 90 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director
of the Fifteenth Region, shall , after being duly signed by an authorized representative
of Respondent Company, be posted by said Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, within 20 days from
receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order what steps Respond-
ent Company has taken to comply herewith.91
B. Respondent United Garment Workers of America, Local Union No. 422, its
officers, agents , representatives , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Ejecting , or attempting to eject , employees of Brewton Fashions , Inc., a
Division of Judy Bond , from their place of work at the Brewton , Alabama, plant of
said Employer , or in any manner threatening employees of said Employer with
physical harm, injury , or reprisals if they work or attempt to work at the premises
of said Employer.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Brewton Fashions , Inc., a Division of Judy
Bond, its officers , agents, successors , or assigns , to discharge , layoff, or otherwise
discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) In any manner restraining or coercing employees of Brewton Fashions, Inc ,
a Division of Judy Bond , in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form,
join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing , and to engage in the other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining , or other mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from
any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at its business office in Brewton , Alabama, in-
cluding all places where notices or communications to members are customarily
posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 92 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Fifteenth Region , shall, after being
duly signed by an authorized representative of Local 422, be posted by Local 422
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive
days thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Local 422 to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by other material . In the event said
Local 422 does not maintain a business office in Brewton , Alabama, where notices
or communications to members are customarily posted, it shall mail a copy of said
notice to the last known address of every person in the employ of Brewton Fashions,
91 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" In the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Circuit Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"A Decision and Order "
ei In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent Company
has taken to comply herewith
92 See footnote 90.
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND 133
Inc , at its Brewton , Alabama, plant at any time between February 1, 1962, and the
date of such mailing , accoiding to a list of such employees which Local 422 shall
request from Brewton Fashions, inc. In the event Brewton Fashions, Inc., should
fail or refuse to supply such list of names and addresses, Local 422 shall publish
a copy of Appendix B in some newspaper having general circulation in Brewton,
Alabama, once each week for 2 successive weeks.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writing , within 20
days from receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps
Respondent Local 422 has taken to comply herewith 93
C. Respondent Brewton Fashions, Inc., a Division of Judy Bond, its successors
and assigns , and United Garment Workers of America, Local Union No 422, its
successors and assigns , shall jointly and severally make whole Louise West, Kate
Jones, Ruth Bell, Kathleen Chavers, Lynn Estes, Fay Madden, Carolyn Grey
Thompson, Orette McCall, Doris Odum, and Ruth Johnson for any loss of earnings
they may have severally suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, in
the manner set forth above in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
"In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read* "Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, In
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent Local 422
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, you are notified that:
WE WILL NOT enforce or give effect to the rule which we promulgated on or
about May 22, 1962, nor will we promulgate, maintain, enforce, or apply any
rule or regulation prohibiting our employees from engaging in activities on
behalf of a union during nonworking time. Any such rule or regulation pres-
ently in effect, is now revoked.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge if they engage in union
activity on our premises during nonworking time.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge or other disciplinary
action for wearing in our plant the pins, buttons , or other insignia of Inter-
national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close or reduce the volume of work available at
this plant, if our employees join or give assistance to International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from having union literature in their
possession while on our premises, but we reserve the right to prohibit the
distribution of union literature in the work areas of our plant, or during work-
ing hours.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees as to their membership
in, views about, or activities on behalf of International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, directly or by implication
promise benefits to any employee for withholding assistance and support from
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization , or threaten reprisal against any employee for giving assistance or
support to International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective -bargaining agreement with United
Garment Workers of America, Local Union No. 422, effective January 15, 1962,
to the extent that said agreement grants recognition to said Local 422 as the
collective-bargaining representative of employees of our Birmingham warehouse,
and we will withhold all recognition from said Local 422 as the collective-
bargaining representative of said employees , unless and until said Local 422
has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of said employees.
WE WILL NOT assist or support United Garment Workers of America, Local
Union No. 422, or any other labor organization , by conditioning the hire or
tenure of employment at our Birmingham warehouse , or any term or condition
of such employment , upon membership in, affiliation with , or dues payment
to such labor organization.
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to United Garment Workers of
America, Local Union No. 422, by failing to use all reasonable and appropriate
measures necessary to prevent supporters of said Local 422 from evicting
employees from our Brewton plant because of their membership in, or support
or assistance to, a labor organization other than said Local 422, or by promul-
gating or enforcing a rule or regulation prohibiting union activity among our
employees to aid one labor organization to defeat or impede the organizational
efforts of another.
WE WILL NOT discharge, lay off, fail to recall or reinstate any employee, or
in any other manner discriminate against any employee in regard to the hire,
tenure, or any term or condition of employment, to encourage membership in
United Garment Workers of America, or to discourage membership in Inter-
national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT in any 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 Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Louise West, Kate Jones, Ruth Bell, Kathleen Chavers,
Lynn Estes, Fay Madden, Carolyn Grey Thompson. Orette McCall, Doris
Odum, and Ruth Johnson, immediate, full, and unconditional reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and jointly and severally with United
Garment Workers of America, Local Union No. 422, make each of them whole
for any loss of earnings they suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them.
All of our employees are free to become or remain members of, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
BREWTON FASHIONS , INC., A
DIVISION OF JUDY BOND.
Employer
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon appli-
cation in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola) 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans 12, Louisiana, Tele-
phone No. 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To ALL OUR MEMBERS AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF BREWTON
FASHIONS, INC., A DIVISION OF JUDY BOND
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby give notice that:
WE WILL NOT participate in, or knowingly permit our members to participate
in ejecting or attempting to eject employees of Brewton Fashions, Inc., a Divi-
sion of Judy Bond, from their places of work at the Brewton plant of said Em-
ployer, or in any manner threaten the employees of said Employer with
physical harm, injury, or reprisal if they work or attempt to work at the premises
of said Employer.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Brewton Fashions, Inc., a Division
of Judy Bond, to discharge, lay off, refuse to recall, or otherwise discriminate
KENTILE, INC. 135
against its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce the employees of Brewton
Fashions, Inc., a Division of Judy Bond, in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, 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 protec-
tion, and to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with United Garment Workers of America,
Local Union No. 422, make whole Louise West, Kate Jones, Ruth Bell, Kathleen
Chavers, Lynn Estes, Fay Madden, Carolyn Grey Thompson, Orette McCall,
Doris Odum, and Ruth Johnson for any loss of earnings they severally suffered
by reason of the discrimination against them.
UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL UNION No. 422,
Labor Organization.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola) 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans 12, Louisiana, Tele-
phone No. 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Gentile , Inc. and International Union of United Rubber, Cork,
Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local No.
640. Case No. 921-CA-5198. November 20, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 1, 1963, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. There-
after, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a supporting brief and the Respondent filed a reply brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations only to the extent consistent herewith.
As described more fully in the Intermediate Report, the Union
was the bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees at
its Torrance, California, plant. On January 11, 1963, a majority of
the Respondent's employees, in violation of the then-current contract
145 NLRB No. 12.