Linn Mills Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 96 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the recommendations
are coextensive with the threat contained in violations of the Act herein found. It
will therefore be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing
in any manner upon the employees ' rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Nylon Molded Products Corp., Garrettsville , Ohio, is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act in a manner which meets the jurisdictional standards
set up by the Board.
2. International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Leatrice
Joy Kane, Arlene Williams, and Kellan Martin , the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
4. By such discrimination and by interfering with , restraining , and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Linn Mills Company and United Textile Workers of America,
AFL-CIO.' Cases Nos. 11-CA-821 and 11-RC-690. July 11, 1956
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 17, 1955, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In-
termediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found,
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair
labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed
with respect thereto. He further recommended that the election
held on December 17, 1954, in Case No. 11-RC-690, be set aside.
Thereafter the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, and the Respondent filed a brief.
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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in these
cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, to the extent that they are consistent
herewith :
'As the AFL and CIO have merged , we are amending the designation of the Union's
affiliation accordingly.
116 NLRB No. 20.
LINN MILLS COMPANY
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that on September 10, 1954,
the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Corbett J. Tucker in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. In arriving at this
conclusion, however, we rely solely upon the following facts, as es-
tablished by the record and found by the Trial Examiner :
Beginning in August 1954, some of the Respondent's employees at
its Concord and Landis, North Carolina, cotton yarn manufacturing
plants became interested in organizing a union. Corbett Tucker, a
carding machine tender at the Concord plant, was actively engaged
in the union campaign. He obtained cards, literature, and buttons
from the Union and distributed them to a number of employees.
Over 70 of the 100 employees at Concord signed cards which were
returned to Tucker, who signed up a few employees himself and re-
turned all such cards to the union representative. Tucker joined the
Union, attended practically all its meetings, and wore his union but-
ton around the plant. That the Respondent had knowledge of
Tucker's union activity is clear from Plant Superintendent Taylor's
admission that he heard a rumor that there were certain people in the
plant working for the Union and Tucker was one of them, and the
testimony of Sectionman E. E. Starnes, Tucker's immediate super-
visor, that Tucker gave him a union card and he had seen Tucker
wear a union button.
In September 1954, Tucker was responsible for operating 211/2
carding machines. The chief function of each carding machine was
to convert a wide, flat mat of dirty cotton into a thin strand or "rov-
ing" or clean cotton which, as it was produced, fell as a continuous
rope into a can. When the cans of all the machines were full, it was
Tucker's job to break each roving, remove the full cans, and replace
them with empty cans-a process referred to as "doffing." He was
also required to strip each machine regularly, which involved breaking
the roving, shutting off the machine and removing the dirt which it
had accumulated in cleaning the cotton, and starting the machine up
again. The roving produced immediately after stripping was thin,
,and it was necessary for Tucker, as the card tender, to wait until it
reached "acceptable" thickness and then piece it together with the
roving in the can. If the card tender pieced up too soon, while the
new roving was still thin, or if the carding machine operated im-
perfectly, a defect, or "singling," was created in the roving. Al-
though the plant superintendent and sectionmen had cautioned the
card tenders, including Tucker, against creating singlings, no such
mistake had ever been attributed to Tucker. Indeed, during the 4
years he had worked at Concord, no fault had been found with his
work. On the contrary, the Respondent often used him, as one of its
most experienced card tenders, to instruct new employees. Never-
405448-57-vol 116-8
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
theless, on September 9, 1954, Sectionman Poe told Tucker that the
Respondent was seeking an excuse to discharge him.
The testimony of Tucker and Plant Superintendent Taylor is in
substantial agreement as to the events of the following morning,
September 10, with one crucial exception. They both testified that
on the morning of September 10, Tucker doffed the cans under all
the machines at 9 o'clock. He then began to strip the odd-numbered
machines, starting with card No. 1. He had stripped 4 or 5 of the
odd-numbered cards when Taylor approached, pulled the roving can
from under a card, and weighed a strip of roving from the can. The
roving weighed too light, indicating that a singling had been made.
Taylor thereupon discharged Tucker for allegedly piecing up the
roving too soon after the machine had been stripped.
The only substantial disagreement between the testimony of Taylor
and Tucker was whether Taylor pulled the can containing the sin-
gling from under card No. 3, as Taylor testified, or card No. 2, as
Tucker testified. If the can came from under card No. 3, the singling
was presumably caused by Tucker's piecing up too soon, because he
had just finished stripping that card. If, on the other hand, the can
came from under card No. 2, the singling could not have been caused
by Tucker, because he had not pieced up the roving of the No. 2 card,
or any of the even-numbered cards, since the cans had been doffed at
9 o'clock. The Trial Examiner credited Tucker's testimony on this
issue, and we perceive no basis in the record for overruling his credi-
bility finding. We therefore find, in agreement with the Trial Exam-
iner, that the singling for which Tucker was discharged appeared in
the roving from card No. 2 and therefore, as Taylor must have known,
could not have been caused by Tucker, but apparently was caused
by a mechanical defect in the No. 2 card, which had previously been
reported defective, but which the fixer had been unable to repair.
Tucker was nevertheless abruptly discharged for the first mistake
allegedly attributed to him, even though it was the Respondent's
custom to give several warnings and fines prior to discharge, which
custom was followed in the case of other employees discharged after
Tucker's departure.
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, and the Respondent's
manifest opposition to its employees' efforts to organize a union in
the plant, as shown by its violations of Section 8 (a) (1) set forth
below, we find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that Tucker's
discharge was motivated by his activities on behalf of the Union, and
not for the alleged reason that lie was responsible for defective work-
nianship.2
2In view of the basis for our conclusion that Tucker 's dischaige was discriminatory,
we deem it unnecessary to, and therefore do not , pass on the Respondent 's contention that
the following findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner were erroneous , as they are
LINN MILLS COMPANY 99
2. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that by the following
conduct, as more fully set forth in the Intermediate Report, the
Respondent independently violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act:
(a) Sectionman Robert Beaver's statement to employee Cannady
that "the mill company would shut down before they Would recognize
the Union." 9
(b) Plant Superintendent Taylor's statement to employee Creswell
that, if the Union got in, the Respondent would reduce the number
of doffers from 2 to 1 because that was union rules; and that Taylor
did not think the Union was good for the employees.
(c) Sectionman James Lynch's statement to employee Walters
that the workload would be harder and they would work the em-
ployees to death if the Union got in.
(d) Sectionman E. E. Starnes' statement to employee Whitley
that "I would like for you to vote against that union . . . because
you have a job now, but after the election if the union gets in here
you won't have one because ... Where the union has went ... the
people was out of work" and "this mill was small and it would shut
flown if the union got in there."
(e) Sectionman Blackwelder's interrogation of employee Whitley
and Sectionman Berryhill's interrogation of employee Atwell as to
how they were going to vote, in the context of the other unfair labor
practices found herein.4
(f) Superintendent Taylor's statement to employee Atwell that
"if the Union got in ... we might be out of a job," referring to an-
other plant which had laid off employees and partly shut down after
it had become unionized.
(g) Superintendent Taylor's statement to employee Creswell that,
if he acted as a union observer in the election, he would not be able
to buy'himself another job in the State of North Carolina for $6,729; s
and his statement to employee Linker that, if she acted as a union
observer, it would be the dearest money she ever made.
(h) The Respondent's sponsorship of the antiunion petitions,
which were circulated among its employees for their signatures and
then posted, with the signatures, on plant bulletin boards.
not material to the ultimate conclusion herein : That Superintendent Taylor admitted
aeemg Tucker wear a union button, that none of the supervisors were able to testify as
to the weight of an acceptable roving; that the Respondent was not engaged in a quality
drive , that Taylor's testimony of finding singlings "deeper in the cans " fits card No. 2 ;
that no supervisor ever instructed the card tenders to run the machines 2 to 21/ minutes
before piecing up ; that not even the supervisors claimed to have timed the piecing up
operation ; and that the Respondent had knowledge of Tucker ' s "leadership " in the Union.
3 On the basis of Cannady' s uncontradicted testimony , we find, contrary to the Re-
spondent ' s contention , that Beaver was a supervisor.
* Blue Flash Express , Inc., 109 NLRB 591.
6 We base this finding on the testimony of employees Creswell and Sechler, and on that
of J. P Lipe, president of the Respondent , who testified that Taylor admitted the state-
ment to him For the reasons stated by the Trial Examiner, we reject Taylor's conten-
tion that he was joking when he made these remarks to Creswell and Linker.
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(i) Sectionman Poe's statement to employee Myrtle Tucker that
the Respondent intended to keep the December 11, 1954, union meet-
ing under surveillance.
3. We further find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (1) by keeping the union meeting of November
20, 1954, under surveillance. In reaching this conclusion, however,
we rely only oii the wide publicity given by union handbills to the
fact that the Union's meetings were held at the union hall on Highway
29 on Saturday afternoons, and the fact that Sectionman Albert Free-
man and his wife sat in his car across the highway in front of the union
hall, where they had a clear view of the entrance to the hall, for 2
periods of time totaling at least 30 or 35 minutes immediately prior
to and during the time the union meeting took place on Saturday
afternoon, November 20, 1954. In view of these facts, we reject, as
did the Trial Examiner, the contention that the Freemans were en-
gaged solely in making a short grocery list and purchasing 5 or 6 items
at a nearby grocery store.'
4. In substantial agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that
by the unlawful conduct described in paragraphs numbered 2 (d),
(e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) above, all of which occurred during the
period between the execution of the election agreement and the elec-
tion, the Respondent interfered with the election in Case No. 11-RC-
690. We shall therefore set the election aside.
ORDER
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 that the Respondent, Linn Mills
Company, Concord and Landis, North Carolina, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging them or in any other manner discriminating in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of
employment.
(b) Polling or interrogating employees concerning their union
affiliations, sympathies, or activities; threatening employees with an
increased workload, loss of employment, or the closing down of the
plant if the Union should be voted into the plant; threatening to
We find it unnecessary to pass upon - the Trial Examiner's findings that the Respondent's
higher ranking supervisory officers' alleged instructions to lower rankm ,ng supervisors to
interrogate and threaten employees also violated Section 8 ( a) (1), as such additional
findings would be merely cumulative and would not enlarge the scope of the Order herein.
LINN' MILLS COMPANY 101
blacklist employees for acting as union ' observers at Board-conducted
elections; keeping or threatening to keep meetings of the Union under
surveillance.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, or to join or assist United Textile Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining
or mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Corbett J. Tucker immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole,
in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report en-
titled "The Remedy," for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him.
(b) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents upon
request, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social-se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of back pay
due and the right of employment under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post in conspicuous places at the Respondent's plants in Con-
cord and Landis, North Carolina, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said notice , to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, shall, after be-
ing duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by it,
as aforesaid , immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for
at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by other material.
(d) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director in writing, within
ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 11-CA-821
be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent
violated the Act except as found herein.
9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on December 17, 1954,
in Case No. 11-RC-690 be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that such
proceeding be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director
for the Eleventh Region for the purpose of conducting a new election
at such time as he deems that circumstances permit the free choice
of a bargaining representative.
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees
that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Textile Work-
ers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of
our employees, by discharging them or in any other manner dis-
criminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or
any other term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT poll or interrogate our employees concerning
their union affiliations, sympathies, or activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with an increased workload,
loss of employment, or the closing down of the plant if United
Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organizations, is voted into the plant.
WE WILL NOT threaten to blacklist employees for acting as
union observers at elections conducted by the National Labor
Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT keep or threaten to keep meetings or other
activities of United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, or to join or assist
United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing. and to engage in other concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
LINN MILLS COMPANY 1-03
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
WE WILL offer to Corbett J. Tucker immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
will make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
as a result of our discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union, or any
other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment because of membership in, or activities on behalf of, any such
labor organization.
LINN MILLS COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on December 23, 1954 , and thereafter amended, by
United Textile Workers of America , AFL, herein called the Union , the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein called the General Counsel'
and the Board , respectively, by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region
(Winston-Salem , North Carolina ), issued its complaint dated April 25, 1955, against
Linn Mills Company,2 herein called the Respondent , alleging in substance that the
Respondent : ( 1) By various enumerated acts and statements had interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees; and (2 ) discharged Corbett J. Tucker 3
because of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union , thereby engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3 ) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947,
61 Stat. 136 , herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint , the charge and
amended charge, and the notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent
and the Union.
The Respondent duly filed its answer wherein it admitted certain allegations of
the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held from July 19 to 22, 1955, inclusive, at
Salisbury, North Carolina, before the duly designated Trial Examiner . The General
Counsel and the Respondent were represented at the hearing by counsel and the
Union by a representative . Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded
all parties . The time for filing briefs was extended to September 12, 1955, when
briefs were received from both the General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
I This term specifically includes the counsel appearing for the General Counsel at the
hearing.
2 By order of the Board Cases Nos . 11-CA-821 and 11-RC-690 were consolidated
for hearing.
3 This name was misspelled in the complaint where it read " Corbitt."
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Linn Mills Company is now, and has been at all times material herein, a corpora-
tion existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of North Carolina with
its principal office and place of business located at Landis, North Carolina, and
maintaining plants in Landis and Concord, North Carolina, engaged in the manufac-
ture and processing of cotton yarn. The Respondent, in the course and conduct of
its business operations at its Landis and Concord plants, during the calendar year
1953, which period is representative of all times material herein, sold and shipped
finished products valued in excess of $150,000 directly to points located outside
the State of North Carolina.
The Respondent concedes, and the Trial Examiner finds, that the Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America, AFL, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Discharge of Corbett Tucker
1. The facts
During the spring of 1954 the Respondent reduced the wage rate of all its employees
by means of continual reductions to small individual groups of employees over a
considerable period of time. For instance, Corbett Tucker was suddenly told one
Monday morning that his rate had been cut from $1.25 to $1.125 per hour. In this
way the Respondent succeeded in effecting these pay reductions prior to the July
1954 vacation period at the Concord and Landis plants. Just prior to the vacation
period the Respondent also announced at both plants that, due to a business reces-
sion, it was reducing the employees' vacation pay from the customary 2 percent of
the individual employee's annual earnings to 1 percent thereof. This last was a
blanket announcement affecting all of Respondent's employees at Concord and at
Landis.
These unilateral wage reductions caused such unrest and dissatisfaction among
the employees that, upon the resumption of the plant operations after the vacation
period, there was considerable talk of striking among the employees. When he was
approached upon this possibility, Tucker refused to engage in a strike but suggested
the advisability of joining a union for protection. The group appointed Tucker to
approach the Union and to obtain the necessary membership authorization cards
and other organizing paraphernalia.
Tucker promptly secured a batch of union membership authorization cards from
Business Agent Joe Pedigo at the union hall which he distributed to a number
of fellow employees throughout the Concord plant. Tucker and his lieutenants then
solicited employees to join the Union so successfully that within a matter of a few
days 70 out of 100 employees had executed such cards. The signed application
cards were returned to Tucker who delivered them to Pedigo at the union hall as he
did with a few other such cards obtained subsequently. Likewise Tucker secured
from Pedigo and distributed to his fellow employees union buttons for the em-
ployees.
Soon thereafter Joe Pedigo began holding union meetings either separately in
rooms near either the Landis or Concord plants or at joint meetings held at the
union hall on Highway 29 just outside of the town of Landis. Tucker joined the
Union at its first meeting in August sand occasionally wore his union button around
the Concord plant, a fact noted by Overseer Frank Taylor and E. E. Starnes, the
sectionman over Tucker in the cardroom 4 There can be no question, and the
Trial Examiner so finds, but that Tucker was the leading spirit in the effort to
organize the employees at Concord.
At this time Tucker was a carding machine tender, or card hand, as he had been
throughout his whole 4 years of employment with Respondent which included the
whole period Respondent had operated the Concord plant. During this 4-year pe-
riod of employment the Respondent had never criticized Tucker's work but, on the
6 This finding is based upon an admission to that effect made by Taylor and not denied
by him or by any of the other persons present at the time the admission was made.
LINN MILLS COMPANY 105
contrary, had made use of his admitted competence by having him instruct new
and inexperienced card hands. Among those whom Tucker had instructed was
employee Sechler who at this time was the other card hand on Tucker's shift.
Although the Respondent changed the duties of the card hands from time to time
both before and after September 10, 1954, the date of the discharge of Tucker, for
the 6-month period prior to September 10, Tucker and Sechler together had tended
the 43 carding machines on the day shift doing everything in regard to these machines
except fixing them. In other words their duties were both to doff and to strip 211/2
cards each.
The carding operation is the first mechanical operation in converting a mass of
relatively dirty cotton into a thread of cotton. The cotton enters the carding machine
in the form of a relatively flat mat or "lap" of cotton still containing some foreign
matter and emerges from this machine in the form of one continuous "roving" or
"sliver" of clean white cotton which looks like a long rope without strands about as
thick as one's thumb as it falls from the machine into large cans or receptacles. "Doff-
ing" is that operation performed at Respondent's plant every 11/2 hours whereby the
card tenders remove the full cans of roving by pulling the full can from under the
machine, thereby breaking the roving, and inserting an empty can or receptacle
into which the roving thereafter falls. "Stripping" is that operation performed at the
Respondent's plant every 2 hours whereby the card tender stops the operation of the
carding machine, prevents the lap from entering the machine, and then, after the cotton
fibre has practically been removed from the card, removes the foreign matter from
the machine by use of a suction pump operation. In addition stripping also includes
putting the machine back into operation after the cleaning by starting the lap feeding
into the machine again. After the lap has started feeding into the machine, it takes a
short period of time for the roving emerging from the other side of the machine to
attain the same weight and size it had been prior to the stripping. When this
roving achieves an "acceptable" size and weight, the operator attaches the end of
the roving coming from the machine with the end of the roving already deposited
in the can by gently rolling the two ends together between his hands so as to
join the ends together. This last operation is known as "tying up the ends" or
"piecing up."
Once the carding machine gets into full operation after having been stripped
it mechanically regulates both the weight and the size of the roving produced. How-
ever immediately after a machine has been stripped, the roving first emerges almost as
a film of cotton, very small and very light in weight. It takes a period of operation
before the roving coming from the machine attains full size and weight. Although
it would seem that this period would already be known with certainty, or could easily
and definitely be ascertained, the testimony in regard thereto was both uncertain
and indefinite , as well as conflicting, even though it all was produced by the Respond-
ent. The Respondent's witnesses variously estimated the machine's running time
from its commencement after stripping to the time the roving attained full size and
weight to be 5 or 6 minutes depending upon which of the Respondent's supervisors one
chose to believe. Nor could these supervisors do more than guess or "estimate" how
light in weight the roving would be at certain periods during this buildup.
All witnesses, both those for the General Counsel and those for the Respondent,
agreed that the Respondent did not require the card tender to wait after stripping until
the new roving had attained full size and weight before joining up the ends. In other
words sometime prior to the time the roving attained its full size and weight, there is a
point where the new roving has become what the Respondent calls an "acceptable size
and weight" so that it may then be tied to the old roving. Obviously, as the roving
has not obtained its full size and weight even when this "acceptable" point is reached,
there is bound to be a difference in the size and the weight of the roving where the
new is joined to the old, i. e., where the full weight roving produced prior to the strip-
ping is joined to the new roving of lesser but "acceptable" size and weight.5
As this case will be intimately connected with what is called in the trade a
"singling," it will be well at this point to define what that term signifies . A singling
was defined at the hearing as "any stock which is on the light side of the correct
weight." Everytime then the Respondent permitted its card hands to tie up the full
weight roving made prior to the stripping with "acceptable" roving made after the
stripping but before the latter had attained its full weight, technically a singling was
made. Singlings are important because they create lightweight yarn and, therefore,
"seconds." Singlings can be created both by mechanical defects in the carding
machines and by human errors in piecing up too soon during the carding operation
5 None of the supervisors were able to testify as to the weight of the roving at the
time it had reached this "acceptable" stage.
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as well as during numerous of the operations subsequent to carding but before the
cotton finally reaches its final merchantable form which in this case was spooled
thread.
Following the annual July plant vacation Respondent commenced what was de-
scribed in the testimony as a strict and stringent "quality drive," i. e., an effort to
improve the quality of its merchandise, as a result of a letter dated August 2, 1954,
received from L. P. Muller & Co., Respondent' s sales agent, in which Muller made the
following comments:
Of course during the war the quality standards were debased. What wor-
ries me now is that the Linn yarn having deteriorated at that time, particularly with
respect to cleanliness and uniformity of spinning, has not come back to its former
prestige quality, but continues to show the effects of careless and indifferent
workmanship that results in poor winding, mixed yarn and uneven spinning, which
indicates a lack of pride in workmanship.
We do not claim to be an expert on spinning and there must be some seasons
when you cannot get the full bodied, creamy cotton that makes the best results
for yarn to be knitted into underwear. However, the complaints have not been
on this score, but chiefly on uneven, slubby spinning and careless winding.
We know you have plenty of troubles these days and we do not want to add to
them, but presume to suggest you and Mr. Dry might start a program in a quiet
way of investigating the shortcomings in your plant... .
According to Assistant Superintendent Lane C. Drye, President Frank Lipe showed
Muller's letter to him about August 6 with the threat that unless the conditions men-
tioned improved, Drye, had better seek another position. Promptly thereafter this
admonition and threat were repeated through appropriate supervisory channels from
Drye to the overseers to the sectionmen and finally to every hand employed by the
Respondent including the card tenders among the rest. These were group meetings at
-which the higher supervisors sought improvement in the quality of the Respondent's
product. Despite the contention of the Respondent in its, brief that Tucker was
"repeatedly and specifically warned and instructed" during these meetings of the
card tender groups that he should wait 2-21/z minutes before tying up the ends after
stripping, it is clear, and the Trial Examiner finds, that Tucker was not specifically,
personally, or individually warned or criticized during these meetings or at any other
time by the Respondent or its supervisors. At these group meetings the supervisors
did warn the group against tying up the ends too soon. The Trial Examiner finds
in accordance with Overseer Taylor's admission that Tucker had "never given the
Company any trouble" prior to September 10, 1954.
Furthermore, the Trial Examiner finds in accord with Assistant Superintendent
Drye's testimony that there was little, if any, difference between this so-called "quality
drive" of August 1954 and the Respondent's continual daily struggle to improve the
quality of its product.
At this time the Respondent was holding meetings of its supervisors at both the
Concord and Landis plants. Weekly meetings of the supervisors were held separately
at Landis and at Concord over which the plant overseers presided. Monthly meet-
ings were held for supervisors from both plants at the Concord school at which Presi-
dent Lipe and Superintendent Drye presided and spoke. It is undenied that, while
these meetings were for the general purpose of discussing plant production problems,
at the time the union drive commenced the speakers began talking to the supervisors
regarding the Union and instructed them to talk to the hands to get them to vote
against the Union, by telling them that if a union came into the plant, the workload
would be doubled. They were also instructed to report any union talk to the over-
seers In fact Drye instructed Sectionman Poe to find out all those who belonged to
the Union and to find out how they felt about the Union. As will be noted hereinafter
these instructions were followed by the sectionmen.
On September 9 Sectionman Poe, whose wife was active in the Union, reported to
Tucker that he, Poe, had heard a conversation between Overseer Taylor and Sec-
tionman E. E. Starnes during the course of which Taylor stated, "We had better let
Tucker go," and "we will get something to let him go for." Tucker answered: "I
have been watching out because I have been watched for some time."
On September 10, Tucker and Sechler began their work as usual with the 7 a. in.
shift. At 7 Sechler stripped his odd-numbered carding machines and then signaled,
as was the practice, to Tucker who proceeded to strip his odd-numbered cards. At
7:30 they were scheduled to, and did, doff after which Sechler stripped his even-
numbered cards, and signaled again to Tucker who then completed the operation
LINN MILLS COMPANY 107
by stripping his even-numbered machines. The approved method of performing
this stripping operation requires the card tender to be working on six cards at one
time. First, two cards are taken out of operation and cleaned by means of a vacuum
pump. After cleaning, these 2 cards are started back into operation at which time
the card tender starts the next 2 cards stripping. After the second pair of cards
have been taken out of operation and the cleaning process begun, the card tender
starts the new pair of cards to stripping and returns to the first pair which had
previously been started back into operation where he ties up the ends when ready.
As scheduled, at 9 a. m. Sechler and Tucker doffed out their cans and then, after
Sechler had stripped his odd-numbered cards, Tucker began stripping his odd-
numbered cards. He was in the midst of tying up the ends of either card 5 or 7
when Taylor came up, stopped a machine, pulled some roving out of the can, and
then called Sectionman E. E. Starnes and employee Sechler along with Tucker.
Employee Lambert and 1 or 2 other employees also came up. In the presence of
the above-named employees Taylor pulled a can out saying, "Let's go weigh this
one" and then proceeded to a nearby weighing machine where he weighed the so-
called "singling" as well as another piece of roving. After Taylor wrote some
numbers on a piece of paper, he announced to Tucker, "That is all for you." 6
It was about 9:30 a. in. at the time of the discharge.
Taylor turned and went to the office and returned in a few minutes with a layoff
slip marked for payment up to 10 a. in. In response to Tucker's question Taylor
told him that his discharge slip would be marked "work unsatisfactory." As Tucker
'turned to leave, Taylor said: "Tucker, I think as much of you as I ever did, I am
not mad at you but . . . there is a lot more of them around here that I got to let
go I got my job to look out for, you know that." Tucker has never since
worked for the Respondent.
There seems to be little, if any, disagreement among the witnesses as to the
above facts.
2. Conclusions
Although all the witnesses seem in general agreement with the facts found above,
Taylor and Tucker were in complete disagreement as to whether Taylor pulled
the can containing the alleged singling in question from under card number 2 as
Tucker testified, or from under card number 3 as Taylor testified. For reasons
which will be explained hereinafter the Trial Examiner believes the testimony of
'Tucker that the singling came from the can under card number 2. However, under
the facts existing here the Trial Examiner does not believe it makes much, if any,
difference to the ultimate decision in this case from which can the alleged singling came.
Taylor's testimony as to his actions on September 10 are important. He testified
that he came into Tucker's row of cards at "approximately card no. 4 or 5, right
in that neighborhood, I don't remember exactly the number but it was right in
that neighborhood." Taylor testified that as he walked back towards the number
1 card, Tucker was piecing up the ends, that he, Taylor, saw two singlings in the
cans before he reached the can from which the roving was taken for weighing and
before he called Tucker to him. At the time Taylor called Tucker, Taylor testified
that he "imagined" that Tucker was "3 or 4 cards" down from the number 3 card
at which Taylor was then standing and further that "I could see that no. 9 was
stripping from where I was standing but I could not say absolutely positively, if he
was following the schedule which I presume he was he had no. 11 on too."
On this point Tucker was positive that he had previously tied up the ends on
numbers 1 and 3 and was then engaged in tying up the ends of either number 5 or
number 7 when Taylor called to him.
Taylor's own description of his activities during his direct examination was as
follows:
... so I went over to the line where Mr. Tucker's stripping was and I seen
one singling on a bad 7 card. I walked down the cards and a little further
down I seen another one, and I looked down the line to see who was doing the
stripping and where the operator was, and I observed Mr. Tucker there, so I
called him to me and we walked down and took the can from under the card,
0 A] though Taylor testified that he still had the paper with the figures on it as well as
the so-called "singling," neither article was produced at the hearing. Taylor did testify
that the singling weighed "just a fraction over half" as much as it should have weighed.
None of the other witnesses testified as to the singling's weight as, with a possible excep-
tion of Starnes, none of them understood the weighing machine
This would seem to be an error in transcription.
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and I showed him it was a singling, and I set that one back and went down
the line further to 'another one , and from card no. 3, and I said , "let's go weigh
this one," and I called Mr. Starnes and Mr. Sechler who was working at that
particular time, and we went over and weighed this particular card sliver, and
I found it to be just about half the weight it should be, and I told Mr. Tucker
due to the previous warning this would have to be all.
In addition Taylor testified further on direct:
Q. Now did you witness the removal of any singling from any cans other
than the can under no. 3?
A. Yes, we found about 4 more after that, and we let a few of them get away
because they were too deep in the cans, we looked and I imagine we could
have found more than 4 but I will say 4, I am not positive how many Mr.
Hunnicut [who relieved Tucker after Tucker's discharge] 8 did but I was there
when we did find 4 other singlings that were on the light side and we took
them out of the work.
Q. I believe he [Tucker] testified that he stripped out on no. 1 and 3, and 5
and 7, do you recall which cards you examined?
A. It was possibly 5 and 3, I don't remember whether I went down to I or not.
Thus, according to his own direct testimony, Taylor personally spotted either
2 or 3 singlings in his walk from card number 5 to card number 2-Taylor was
uncertain that he even got to card number 1-and thereafter located at least 4 addi-
tional singlings which , of course , may have included singlings found among any
of the 213h cards which Tucker tended. In addition to these 6 or 7 singlings which
Taylor personally found there were an indeterminate number of other singlings
allegedly found by Hunnicut "deeper in the cans."
Obviously if Taylor is to be believed, Tucker's work was so bad that he should
have been immediately severed from employment-despite his record of 4 years'
employment with Respondent without criticism and without "giving the Respondent
any trouble."
The trouble is that Taylor's testimony not only sounds exaggerated but is demon-
strably erroneous. The last time the machines had been stripped prior to the 9 a. m.
stripping was at 7:30 a. in. The cans had been doffed at 9 a . m. so that all the
roving in the cans except those under cards numbers 1, 3, 5, and possibly 7, was
roving whose size and weight had been exclusively mechanically controlled at all
times for over an hour prior to the last doffing at 9 a. in. Thus any singlings found
"deeper in the cans" must have been mechanically caused by mechanical defects of
the machines because with the exception of the four cards enumerated above, Tucker
had not touched them and so could not have caused a singling. Although Taylor
purported to spot 6 or 7 singlings at the time of the discharge, Tucker had only
stripped and tied up the ends at 4 machines at the most : numbers 1, 3, 5, and 7.
Furthermore Taylor had not looked at the roving from card number 1-and prob-
ably not from card number 7. Hence Taylor purported to find 6 or 7 singlings
when, as a matter of fact, Tucker could at the most have created only 3, assuming
the worst possible workmanship.
As so succinctly phrased in the General Counsel's brief, Taylor had "goofed."
Taylor had either forgotten that the cans were doffed at 9 a. m. or he erroneously
believed that Tucker had completed the stripping of all his odd cards and was then
engaged on the even-numbered cards.
Assuming the worst possible workmanship by Tucker, it is possible that he created
four singlings by tying up the ends too soon at cards numbered 1, 3, 5, and possibly 7,
if he had in fact tied up the ends at this last numbered machine. But, it is clear
from Taylor's own testimony that he never reached card number 1 and that he did
not go past the cards Tucker was then working on, i. e. 5 and 7. That, of course,
means that Taylor found his initial 2 or 3 singlings at machines numbered 2, 3,
and 4, but of these, the only one where Tucker had pieced up since the 9 a. in. doff
was number 3. Yet Taylor purported to find either 2 or 3 singlings among these
machines.
It is, of course, conceivable that a workman who had never before made a single
singling during his 4 years of employment as a card hand and who , in that same
period of employment, had never "given Respondent any trouble," could suddenly
begin to tie up too soon and create singlings , but in this instance the facts conclusively
g Respondent failed to call Hunnicut as a witness although he was not shown to be
unavailable although no longer employed by the Respondent.
LINN MILLS COMPANY 109
show that he could physically have only made 4 singlings at the most-not the 6 or 7
Taylor purported to find-nor could he have been responsible for the uncounted
number of other singlings supposedly found "deeper in the cans" as Taylor inferred
for any such had to be exclusively due to defective machines because of the doff
at 9 a. m.
Obviously the testimony of Taylor cannot be credited.
If Tucker's testimony is correct that the so-called singling came from number 2,
then that singling had to be mechanically caused because the ends had not been tied
up on that machine since the 7:30 stripping so that every bit of roving in the number 2
can which Taylor saw was mechanically controlled. Furthermore it is undenied
that both Tucker and Wagner, the card tender on the previous shift who was relieved
by Tucker, had reported card number 2 to be mechanically defective to their in-
dividual sectionmen over a period of 2 weeks or more. When Tucker reported this
mechanical defect, it is also undemed that fixer and Sectionman E. E. Starnes had
replied: "I can't fix the damn thing and you know it." Wagner testified without
contradiction that card number 2 was still mechanically defective during the shift
just preceding Tucker's on September 10. The Respondent itself produced testimony
that between 11 a. in. and 1 p. in. on September 10 a card among those which Tucker
tended was in fact shut down. This testimony was given by a witness who testified
that the down card was number 3-but his testimony further revealed that shortly
prior to the hearing he had been reminded that the down card was card number 3
by both Taylor and E. E. Starnes. This witness impressed the Trial Examiner as
being more anxious to satisfy his supervisors with his testimony than restrict himself
to telling nothing but the truth. Taylor also testified that the number 3 machine
was shut down for testing for mechanical defects immediately after the discharge
but was proved to be mechanically perfect.
But Taylor's testimony shows that he was walking away from where Tucker had
been working on cards numbers 5 and 7 when he was locating these numerous
singlings . His testimony shows that the singling actually weighed came from the last
can he inspected in that direction. But Taylor did not believe that he ever reached
card number 1. His description , therefore , fits the can under card number 2.
Furthermore Taylor's testimony of finding singlings "deeper in the cans" also fits
card number 2 for it was never denied that card number 2 was mechanically defec-
tive and had been so reported . As noted due to the doff at 9 a. m. singlings could
have gotten "deeper in the cans" only through mechanical defects.
Therefore the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that the singling involved
here came from the can under card number 2 as Tucker testified. It is, of course,
possible that, contrary to Taylor's testimony, card number 3 was actually found to
be defective also.
Respondent's brief argues "Tucker was subject to discharge for failing to follow
instructions on proper procedure ," instructions which purported to include orders
that card tenders must allow the cards to "run from 2-2i minutes" before piecing
up the ends after stripping . The evidence is clear that no supervisor ever instructed
the card tenders to allow the machines to run from 2-2i minutes after stripping
before piecing up the ends . Not only were watches not standard equipment for
card tenders but also the Respondent 's supervisory staff itself was undecided as to
the length of time a machine had to run before the roving reached what it chose
to call an "acceptable weight." The time lapse necessary for a machine to reach
"acceptable weight" was variously estimated by Respondent 's own supervisors as
being from 2 to 3 minutes. E. E. Starnes , the supervisor over Tucker , estimated the
required operating time to be from 2ifi to 3 minutes, an estimation allegedly based
on the timing of such operations made subsequent to the discharge of Tucker. The
supervisors themselves were so unsure of the time required as to make it clear that
no time certain was, or could have been, specified in their instructions to the card
hands. However it is also clear that the card hands were instructed to permit
the machines to operate until the roving coming from the recently stripped machine
was judged by the eyesight of the card tender to be of sufficient size and weight to
piece up.
It should also be noted here that not even the supervisors claimed to have timed the
period necessary prior to the discharge of Tucker. But during the course of the hear-
ing the Respondent's attorney experimented with timing the operation when the time
lapse was variously timed, albeit with the same timepiece, at 2 minutes 4 seconds or 2
minutes 14 seconds, depending upon which timekeeper one chose to believe.
In addition to the above it was also clear from the testimony of the Respond-
ent's overseer and superintendent that the time lag necessary for the roving to
reach the "acceptable weight " varied in accordance with a number of variables, such
as how long the machine had been permitted to strip ,- which would either lengthen
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or shorten the time period necessary . Hence the only possible solution was to
teach the card tenders to judge "acceptable weight" by eyesight . In the absence
of watches this would seem to be mandatory.
Obviously with this discrepancy existing between the Respondent 's own super-
visory staff and with their being no testimony of any time experiments having been
made prior to the discharge of Tucker , it seems quite clear that no definite time
length could have been ordered by the Respondent 's supervisors . Hence the Trial
Examiner must credit the testimony of those card hands who tesitfied that the
first time they ever heard of this 2-, 2i/z-, or 3-minute required wait was during the
hearing and that they had always determined when the roving had reached an
"acceptable weight" by eyesight . Thus it is clear that Tucker did not disobey this
alleged, but unproved, 2-, 2i/z-, or 3-minute "rule."
Many of the General Counsel's witnesses who were or had been card tenders for
the Respondent testified that they estimated that they allowed a machine to operate
40 seconds before tying up the ends. These were admittedly estimates and, from
the descriptions of the duties these men performed during that estimated 40-
second period , probably were pretty poor estimates . It is a well -known phenom-
enon that among the very worst of the abilities of human beings is that of estimating
the passage of time. Hence, if the Trial Examiner may be permitted a personal
word here, it would be that, while the estimates of the supervisors of 2-3 minutes
and the estimates of the card hands of from 40 seconds on up sound very far apart,
there would be little, if any , real difference between the 2 groups in the time allowed
to elapse in the actual performance of the operation . Hence this whole controversy
over the time period would appear much more theoretical than real.
Next the Respondent argues in its brief that Tucker was discharged as an integral
part of its so-called "quality program" which Respondent instituted immediately
upon the receipt of the August 2 letter from L. P. Muller & Co., quoted above. That
this claim is unfounded is clear from the fact that the only 3 or 4 other employees
whom the Respondent claimed to have fired as a part of this program were not
discharged until December 1954 or January or February 1955 which also indicates
that this "quality program" was not as strict or stringent as the Respondent claimed
at the hearing.
Finally Respondent 's brief claims : "There was no evidence whatsoever that
Respondent 's supervisors actually knew that Tucker was a union member." On
direct examination Taylor testified as follows:
Q. In order that the record may be clear , did the union membership activ-
ities if any of Mr. Tucker play any part whatsover in your decision to termi-
nate him?
A. No, I can't say that it did because I did not even know that Mr. Tucker
was active in the union membership until he said so on the stand here day
before yesterday or yesterday , I did not even know that.
But on cross -examination Taylor testified as follows:
Q. You say that you did not know that Tucker was active at the time you dis-
charged him? Is that what you testified to?
A. I did not know it, I heard rumors but I did not know it personally.
Q. When did you find out?
A. Find out?
Q. That he was active in the Union?
A. After I let him go.
Q. How long after?
A. I don ' t know, a week or 10 days.
And subsequently during that cross-examination Taylor testified:
Q. When did you hear the rumors with respect to when he [Tucker] was
discharged9
A. I don't know , some 4 or 6 weeks before I would say , maybe not that
long, I would not make or set an actual date . I had heard a rumor or two
and I did not pay any attention to it.
TRIAL EXAMINER : If you are going to change the subject I would like to
ask a few questions here. What were those rumors about Mr. Tucker's union
activity?
A. Well, it was just mentioned that there were certain people in there work-
ing for the Union and his name was one, that is about all I ever did hear.
Furthermore in view of the instructions given to the sectionmen in the super-
visors' meeting to find out how the hands felt about the Union and in view of the
LINN MILLS COMPANY 11
undenied fact that early in August Tucker solicited Sectionman E. E. Starnes on
behalf of the Union, the Trial Examiner must find in line with Taylor's final ad-
mission that as early as some 4-6 weeks prior to September 10, 1954, the Re-
spondent and Taylor knew that Tucker was one of the most, if not the most , active
employee on behalf of the Union at the Respondent 's Concord plant.
The General Counsel argues that the precipitous discharge of Tucker on Sep-
tember 10 is added proof that the discharge was for discriminatory reasons and not
because of the finding of any alleged singling. The evidence is clear that it was the
practice of the Respondent to warn an employee for bad work at least once or twice
prior to the time he was actually discharged for bad work . Taylor acknowledged
these warnings were not afforded Tucker. But he claimed that the institution of a
"quality program" eliminated the prior warning custom . The facts are again to
the contrary of Taylor's testimony . The facts show that , as late as December
1954 and January and February 1955, the Respondent was still warning employees
or fining them for the commission of bad work despite Taylor 's testimony. One
man whose discharge Respondent claimed to have resulted from this program was
admittedly fired early in 1955 over an argument over the number and size of
the fines which were being levied against him for poor workmanship . The quality
program did not eliminate the Respondent 's custom of individual warnings prior
to discharge-except in the case of Tucker.
In view of all the facts proved here : Respondent's knowledge of Tucker 's leader-
ship in the union campaign ; the Respondent's antipathy to the union organizational
campaign of which there will be more infra ; the warning given Tucker on September
9 prior to any possible commission of bad work on his part on September 10
that Overseer Taylor was seeking some palpable excuse for which to discharge
him; the exaggerated , if not fabricated , account of Tucker's alleged poor work-
manship as well as the many other unsupportable claims made by the Respond-
ent in regard thereto, together with the unprecedented , and precipitous , nature of
the discharge following so immediately upon the warning as to the Respondent's
intention , the Trial Examiner is convinced , and therefore, finds that the Respondent
discharged Corbett J. Tucker on September 10, 1954, because of his activities
for and on behalf of the Union and in order to discourage membership in that
Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
i B. Interference , restraint, and coercion
As a result of a consent -election agreement executed by the Union and the Re-
spondent on December 2, 1954, the Board conducted an election among the em-
ployees of the Respondent in the appropriate unit at Concord and Landis plants on
December 17, 1954, to determine whether the Union was to be the bargaining agent
for such employees . A majority of the employees voted against such representa-
tion by the Union . Thereafter the Union duly filed objections to the election which,
by order of the Board , have been consolidated herewith for hearing.
In objections to election cases the present Board rule is that the Board will set
aside elections and order the holding of a new election only for conduct occurring
between the date of the execution of the consent -election agreement and the date
of the election which would prevent employees from freely expressing their will at
the secret election , the theory being that by executing a consent -election agreement
the Union thereby has waived objection to any and all such conduct which oc-
curred prior to the execution of the consent-election agreement.
This section of the report will be divided as of December 2, 1954, and only
those actions occurring after that date will be considered in determining the ob-
jections to election phase of this case.
1. Prior to December 2, 1954
a. Supervisor meetings
As found heretofore about the time the Union began its organizational campaign
at Concord and Landis and thereafter , the superintendent and the overseers began
talking to the sectionmen about the Union and advising them "to go around and
talk to the hands to try to get them not to join the Union " by telling the employees
that, if they did join the Union , the workload would be doubled up, and "to talk
to the hands to see which way they were voting and how they felt about it."
On several occasions Taylor requested Sectionman Poe personally to find out how
the employees felt about the Union and to report back to him . On another oc-
casion Taylor told Poe to talk to Mrs . Poe, who was supposedly interested in the
Union, and get her not to sign for the Union. On another occasion Assistant
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Superintendent Lane Drye asked Poe to find out "who belonged to the Union and
see how they felt about it." 9 Although these meetings occurred both prior and
subsequent to December 2, the above findings will be considered here in relation
to the objections to the election part of the present case only on the question of
the Respondent's responsibility for the actual statements of its supervisory staff
found infra. However such instructions to supervisors amount to coercion and sur-
veillance and, therefore, are found to violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. It is so
found in Case No. 11-CA-821.
b. Statements by supervisors
Thus about a month before the election Sectionman Robert Beaver at the Landis
plant informed employee Cannady that "the mill company would shut down be-
fore they would recognize the Union." Cannady's answer was that he "had heard
that story before" and "did not believe it "
About 7 weeks before the election Overseer Taylor at Concord told employee
Creswell, a doffer and known union adherent, that, "if the Union got in there,"
the Respondent would reduce the number of doff ers from 2 to 1, "that was union
rules" and that "[Creswell] did not want nothing like that, so the best thing
[Creswell] can do is go home and think it over."
On other occasions Taylor would tell Creswell that Creswell would not want
the Union because Taylor "did not think it was good for" the employees.
At another time 10 Sectionman James Lynch of Landis asked employee Hazel
Walters how she liked the Union. After Walters answered that she liked it fine,
Lynch informed her that, if the Union got in, the workload would be much harder
and they would work the employees to death.
These expressions containing threats to the employees ' tenure of employment
are not protected by Section 8 (c) of the Act and amount to violations of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act. It is so found.
c. Surveillance
On or about November 20, 1954, the Union was holding its weekly Saturday
afternoon meeting at union headquarters located about 11/a miles from the town of
Landis on U. S. Highway No. 29. Some of the employees gathered at the union
hall about 2:15 p. in. for the 3 p. m. meeting and noted Sectionman Albert Free-
man with his wife parked in an automobile in front of the Plaza Curb Market
located almost directly across the four-lane Highway 29 from the union hall.ii
The Plaza Curb Market has a regular parking space for customers along the side
of the building which is perpendicular to the direction of the highway. On this
occasion Freeman's car was parked between the front of the market and the
curb of the highway where there is sufficient space for only two cars to park parallel
to the highway. The car was parked parallel to the highway in such position that
the driver of the car by turning his head to his left while sitting in the driver's seat
would have a clear view of the union hall. Freeman was sitting in the driver's seat
with Mrs. Freeman in the other front seat closer to the market. She was admittedly
occupied with a pencil and a pad of paper.
After watching Freeman sitting in that position for some time without any ap-
preciable movement in the automobile , employee Cannady crossed the highway
to the market for the purpose of purchasing a cigar. As he passed the Freeman
car, he spoke to Freeman. Cannady then entered the store, purchased his cigar,
talked for a few minutes to the clerk, and then went' out the front door where he
discovered Freeman just leaving his car by the front door. Cannady invited Free-
man to come across the street and attend the union meeting but Freeman refused.
Freeman then entered the store , emerged a few minutes later, and again sat in his
automobile until about 2:50 p. m. when the Freemans' car was driven away.
While the meeting was still in progress , one of the members attending looked out
a window facing the market and discovered that the Freemans were again parked
at the same location in front of the Plaza Curb Market. On this occasion a number
g These findings are based upon the undenied testimony of the then Sectiouinan
James Poe.
TO The witness Walters was uncertain whether this was after December 2 or around
Thanksgiving so that this testimony will not be considered as having occulted after
December 2.
11 Freeman estimated that they arrived at the market about 2 • 25 p. in so that there
is only about a 10-minute differential in time between the various versions on this matter.
LINN MILLS COMPANY 113
of the employees at the meeting went to the front door of the union hall and yelled
at Freeman to come over and join the meeting . About this time Mrs. Freeman
emerged from the store and the Freemans drove off. They did not return thereafter.
It is on the basis of this evidence that the General Counsel contended that the
Respondent was guilty of keeping a union meeting under surveillance.
On the other hand , the Freemans testified that they were just shopping at the
Plaza Curb Market for their weekend supplies after returning from a more extended
shopping trip at nearby Kannapolis and that they had no idea that there was to
be a union meeting across the street . Mrs. Freeman acknowledged that she had
spent the time while the car was parked prior to Freeman 's entry into the store
with a pad and pencil but testified that she was just making out a shopping list of
groceries for her husband to purchase in the store . She testified that they "always
kept" a pad of paper in the car-which is possible . Further the Freemans testified
that they departed about 10 minutes to 3 because Mrs. Freeman had heard a siren
and noted a crowd gathering on Highway 29A which is located about I V2 blocks
away from where the Freemans were parked. They testified that they went to
Highway 29A where they viewed the accident which had occurred there and then
visited friends in the neighborhood. According to their testimony , after leaving
their friends' home, they returned to the market an hour or so later because Mrs.
Freeman discovered that she had forgotten to have her husband buy any onions.
On this,occasion Mrs. Freeman entered the store leaving her husband sitting in
the front seat of the automobile and on her return heard the men shouting to her
husband from the front door of the union hall . The Freemans testified Mrs. Free-
man asked her husband what they were yelling and motioning at him for but that
all that Freeman answered was that it could not concern them. He thereupon
drove off.
This parking in a rather unusual place at the Plaza Curb Market, where an
unobstructed view could be had of the union hall with Freeman sitting on the side
with a view of the hall and Mrs. Freeman busy with a pad and pencil in the other
seat, could have been either as a means of keeping the union meeting under sur-
veillance, as the General Counsel's witnesses contended , or it could have been purely
an innocent shopping trip as the Freemans contended . The Freemans were stra-
tegically located and properly equipped for either venture-or both. However,
the testimony ,convinces the Trial Examiner and he, therefore , finds that the Free-
mans were parked in front of the Plaza Curb Market on November 20, 1954,
from 2:15 p. in. to approximately 2:50 p. in. and again for 15 or 20 minutes less
than an hour later for the purpose of keeping the union meeting under surveillance
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. '
As a witness Mrs. Freeman proved herself much too competent a person to
have had to spend as long a time as the Freemans admitted having sat in front
of the market while she worked with a pad and pencil in completing her shopping
list which she testified consisted of 4 or 5 items. A shopping list of that length
does not take as sharp and concise a person as Mrs. Freeman any 15-20 minutes
(which the Freemans admitted having sat in front of the store ) to compile-or,
after spending that length of time to compile the list, to have then forgotten onions.
In fact, with only 4 or 5 items to purchase of which at least 2 were common
staples, it is doubtful that a shopping list was necessary for either of the Freemans.
Hence that pad and pencil apparently were being used for that length of time
on a different project than an unnecessary shopping list. A list of the names of
employees coming and going from a union hall in plain sight is a much more
difficult thing to remember than a list of 4 grocery items and it takes much more
nearly the length of time actually consumed to compile than would a list of 4 or 5
grocery items.
Both Freemans denied that they had any knowledge that a union meeting was
scheduled to be held that day. In the case of Albert Freeman this denial is hardly
believable in a plant as small as that at Landis for these meetings had been regu-
larly held among the Landis employees over a long period of time. Union leaflets,
apparently not referring to the November 20 meeting , introduced into evidence
contained notices of union meetings to be held "next Saturday, 3 p. m. on Highway
29 across the highway from Plaza Curb Market." The Freeman denial is par-
ticularly unbelievable because of the request for information made by Respondent
at supervisors ' meetings throughout this whole period. Furthermore, Freeman's
presence across from the union hall at or about the time for the scheduled union
meeting would coincide exactly with Taylor 's many admitted and allegedly "joking"
remarks that he had "somebody to go to the union meeting." The Trial Examiner
cannot 'credit Albert Freeman 's denial nor his testimony that he and Mrs. Freeman
405448-57-vol 116-9
114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had parked so long at the Plaza Curb Market solely for the purpose of buying 4
or 5 grocery items.
This testimony, plus Taylor's admission that it was common practice among
the supervisors during this period of time to refer among themselves to, the Re-
spondent's sending "stooges" to the union meetings, convinces, the Trial Examiner
and he, therefore, finds that the Freemans were parked at the Plaza Curb Market
for the purpose of keeping the union meeting of November 20, 1954, under sur-
veillance for the Respondent in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
2. After December 2, 1954
Only the following incidents will be considered in determining the objections to
election phase of the instant case.
a. Statements by supervisors
About a week before the election Sectionman E, E. Starnes of Concord spoke
to employee Lucille Whitley saying: "I would like for you to vote against that
union ... because you have a job now, but after the election if the union gets in
here, you won't have one because ... where the union has went in ... the people
was out of work" and "this mill was small and it would shut down if the union
got in there."
The day before the election Sectionman Blackwelder came to Whitley's ma-
chine and inquired: "Lucille, how are you going to vote?" He was informed that
"that is none of your damn business."
On the Wednesday before the election on Friday, December 17, Sectionman
Berryhill inquired of employee Willie Ruth Atwell if she had decided how she was
going to vote in the election. The following day Berryhill, accompanied by Taylor,
returned to Atwell where Taylor told her that, "If we got the Union ... we might
be out of a job." Taylor then continued by saying that he wished that he could
have taken the Linn Mills employees through the neighboring Corriher' Mills both
before they got the Union at that plant and then, after the Corriher employees
had voted for the Union, have taken the Linn employees back so that they could
have seen "what the union has done because their hands were laid off" and "some
of the mill had been shut down."
b. The petition
After one of the supervisors' meetings about 2 or 3 weeks before the election,
E. E. Starnes suggested to Lipe, Taylor, and Poe the circulation of a petition against
the Union among the employees for their signatures. Taylor instructed that the
sectionmen were to have nothing to do with this petition nor to sign it but to "Yet
one of the hands take it around and let them sign it." A few days thereafter such
a petition headed "No Layoffs, No Stretch outs, No Dues" began being circulated
around the plant for signatures by the employees by the plant concessionaire and
some rank-and-file employees. On 1 occasion about 2 or 3 weeks before the
election Sectionman Albert Freeman and the fixer operated employee Corriter's
machine for about 30 minutes while Corriter, a rank-and-file employee, circulated
this petition in the spinning room. After the signatures had been obtained on
this petition, it was posted on the Respondent's bulletin boards in the Concord
plant where it remained until removed the day before the election on the orders
of Taylor. In addition to the petition there were also posted on these bulletin
boards pictures of a number of strike-bound plants throughout the country. One
of the witnesses for the General Counsel described the pictures on the bulletin
board as being "about strikes at different parts of the country about places where
they had a union and it was not, after the union came in, it was not any good
any more, that is the impression I got."
With the Respondent covertly sponsoring and assisting in the circulation of this
antiunion petition and thereafter publicizing it upon its own bulletin board, there
can be no doubt but that this petition was an integral part of the antiunion cam-
paign which the Respondent waged throughout this whole period. The circulation
and publication of this petition by Respondent tended to coerce and interfere with
the employees in the exercise of their freedom of choice in view of the threats
made by the Respondent that, if the Union was voted into the plant, the plant
might close down and that union adherents had their jobs before the election but
would not have them afterwards if the Union was successful. By refusing to
sign this antiunion petition an employee publicly labeled himself as being prounion
and, therefore, subject to the threatened loss of employment. By signing the
petition in an effort to prevent this threat from falling upon his own head, the
LINN MILLS COMPANY 115
employee publicly renounced his support of the Union, thereby discouraging the
remaining adherents of the Union and encouraging those against union representa-
tion. In effect, this petition was nothing more nor less than a public poll of the
employees taken prior to the secret Board election. Numerous Board and court
decisions have held such public polls ' of employees taken by companies prior to
scheduled Board elections to be coercive and in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act. Accordingly, both on theory and on precedent, the Trial Examiner finds
- that by covertly sponsoring, circulating, and publicizing this antiunion petition, the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
c. The alleged no-solicitation rule
The General Counsel's complaint alleges that, following the execution of the
consent-election agreement, the Respondent promulgated a discriminatory no-solicita-
tion rule.
In support of this allegation the General Counsel produced evidence that one
employee who was active in soliciting for the Union, Harvey Cannady, was ordered
to stay on his job although other employees were permitted to pass freely around
the plant while they circulated the aforementioned antiunion petition and while
supervisors took care of the employees' usual work.
However, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, the testimony does not sustain
the allegations of the complaint on this point and consequently the Trial Examiner
will'recommend that this portion of the complaint be dismissed.
d. Surveillance
The Union had scheduled its last meeting of the employees prior to the election
of December 17 on the Saturday preceding.
Prior to that scheduled meeting Sectionman E. E. Starnes asked Overseer Taylor
in the presence of James Poe if he, Taylor, had someone to go to the union meet-
ing. Taylor answered that he did "have somebody to go." iz
About an hour after hearing this conversation Sectionman Poe saw Myrtle Tucker,
wife of Corbett Tucker and an employee working under the supervision of Poe,
inquired if she was going to the union meeting, and then informed her that the
Respondent was going, to have somebody observing that meeting.
The Respondent admitted the accuracy of this testimony by Poe but chose to defend
the action on the grounds that Taylor and Starnes were "joking." Taylor and
Starnes both testified that it had been a long-standing "joke" among the super-
visors all throughout this period to talk about the "stooges" whom. tney were send-
ing to keep union meetings under surveillance.
The phraseology of a number of recent Board cases indicates that some, other-
wise coercive statements may be excused when the speaker is "smiling" or "joking"
apparently on the theory that the speaker's manner removes the coercive effect of
his terminology. These cases are inapposite here for the simple reason that Mrs.
Tucker, to whom the threat of company surveillance was made by Supervisor Poe,
did not have the opportunity to see or hear Taylor or Starnes and hence had no idea
that this reported threat was anything but serious and real. • She only saw Poe
who obviously believed Taylors threat, was serious. Board and court decisions
have always held that the announced threat by companies of maintaining surveil-
lance over union meetings or activities is just as much illegal coercion, restraint,
and interference, even in the absence of actual surveillance thereafter, if not more
so, than when there is actual but secret surveillance. In accordance with these
decisions, the Trial Examiner must find that by the making of the threat by a re-
sponsible supervisor to an employee that the Respondent intended, to keep the last
union meeting, held before the election of December 17, under company surveil-
lance,, the Respondent engaged in coercion, restraint, and interference in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and further interfered with the employees' freedom
to vote as they desired in the election of December 17.i3
^ The Trial Examiner makes this finding based upon the admissions contained in the
testimony of Taylor and E E. Starnes
13 Witness James Poe testified to having heard Taylor's -iemark about sending someone
to observe the union meeting and also that he thereafter passed that mformatiwn on to
employee Afvrtle Taylor.
The Respondent successfully impeached Poe when Poe acknowledged that, during the
Regional Director's investigation of the objections to the election, he, Poe, had denied
having passed the information as to Taylor's statement on to an employee, testimony
116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
e. The Creswell-Linker episode
On Thursday, December 16, 1954, the day prior to the election at the Landis and
Concord plants, Overseer Taylor was notihed by Business Agent Pedigo that em-
ployees Ray Creswell, Goodman, and Sadie Linker were to act as the union ob-
servers at the election the following day. Taylor then set out to notify these em-
ployees.
Taylor located Creswell in the company of employee Sechler in the men's room
of the plant. Taylor told Creswell that he would be off work the following day
without pay so that he could act as an observer for the Union at the election.
Taylor then added that he did not know what to think of a man who would sell
his good name for the $25 he would earn for acting as the union observer at the
election. He continued by saying that, after the election was over, Creswell would
not be able to buy himself another job in a cotton mill in the State of North Caro-
lina for $6,729.14 With that parting shot Taylor departed.
Taylor then sought out Sadie Linker at her working place in the plant and said
that he had heard that she was to be a union observer at the election. After Linker
had said that she was not sure, Taylor stated that if she "did observe for the Union,
it would be the dearest money that [she] ever made."
A short time after the first conversation Creswell decided to try to clarify their
first conversation and sought out Taylor. When he located Taylor, Creswell said:
"Frank, this is supposed to be a free country and can't I do what I want to?" To
which Taylor answered: "If it was free, how come we have to work you?" As
Creswell remarked that the Respondent did not "have to work" him, Taylor turned
on his heel and walked off.
Both Creswell and Linker acted as observers for the Union the following day.
On the morning of Sunday , December 18, President Lipe and Superintendent Drye
drove up to Creswell's home and asked him about Taylor's conversation with him
on the day prior to the election. Creswell explained what had occurred and Lipe
expressed interest as to where the numerical figure used had come from. On the
following Friday, Lipe called Creswell and Sechler into the plant office at the
Concord plant where, in the presence of Taylor, Creswell repeated the conversation
between Taylor and himself on the previous Friday. When Lipe asked Sechler
what the conversation was, Sechler sat quiet without answering . Lipe then said:
"Well, your job is not involved now. I just want to get this thing cleared up." That
statement ended the conversation and the episode.
Some months later Creswell terminated his employment under circumstances not
involved-here.
Except for his allegedly telling Creswell that, if this were a free country "how
come we have to work you" and referring to the "dearest money" she ever earned
to Sadie Linker, which portions of the conversation Taylor denied, Taylor acknowl-
edged that he held conversations with both Creswell and Linker substantially as
found above. Taylor claimed, however, that he was just "kidding" and "joking"
in his conversations with both Creswell and Linker. In fact, Taylor contended that
his conversation with Creswell ended with Taylor telling Creswell: "Well, I have
got to go , forget it, just forget what I said because it was just in fun, you 'll be off
tomorrow to be an observer." He acknowledged that at the time of allegedly
making this last remark , he recognized the fact that Creswell was mad. Despite
which the Regional Director at that time credited. Poe admitted that his testimony
before the Regional Director had been false as he had conveyed the information, in fact,
to an employee. a
Poe admitted frankly that he had testified falsely on that occasion in an effort to save
his job with the Respondent which he did not expect to retain if he had testified truth-
fully. Although the Trial Examiner does not condone Poe's action, the facts herein
indicate that Poe's fear was not unreasonable. Poe was discharged on June 7, 1955, for
reasons not disclosed in this record.
From Poe's demeanor as a witness, and his way of testifying, the Trial Examiner is of
the opinion that Poe was testifying truthfully at the present hearing After carefully
scrutinizing Poe's testimony, the Trial Examiner has credited it throughout the findings
in this report where it was either undenied, corroborated, or expressly confirmed (as here)
by the Respondent 's witnesses.
14 Taylor explained that this numerical figure was probably the telephone number he
had written on the same piece of paper on which he had the names of the union observers
as given him by Pedigo. Taylor was carrying this paper at the time of his conversation
with Creswell.
LINN MILLS COMPANY' 117
the recognition of this fact, Taylor claims that he then went and "kidded" Linker
with remarks similar to those which had just made Creswell mad.
Taylor sought to explain his conversations both with Creswell and Linker and
other remarks here found coercive made to others on the grounds that he was
"joking," "kidding ," or speaking "in fun." He explained that his reference to having
somebody attend the last union meeting before the election to E. E . Starnes was
merely a standing "joke" among the supervisors during this whole period . Neither
Creswell nor Linker, participants in two of these allegedly joking , kidding conversa-
tions, nor employee Sechler, who was present at the Creswell-Taylor conversation,
nor Supervisor Jim Poe, who overheard the Taylor-Starnes conversation regarding
the union meeting, was able to detect the alleged humor in any of these remarks
by Taylor. Therefore the Trial Examiner must find that , while making the above
and other remarks, Taylor was not joking or kidding but was in fact serious. This
finding is buttressed by the fact that, during the entire 4 days of the present hearing,
Taylor exhibited a complete lack of a sense of humor.
These threats to the tenure of employment of Creswell and Linker together with
the threat to blackball Creswell from employment in all cotton mills in the State
violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act as they are not protected under Section 8 (c)
of the Act
3. Conclusions
- a. Unfair labor practices
As indicated heretofore, the facts prove that Respondent interfered with , restrained,
and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by:
1. Threatening the employees with either the closing of the plant or the loss,of
their individual jobs if the Union came in to the plant through statements to that
effect by Overseer Taylor and other supervisory officials.
2. Covertly sponsoring, assisting in the circulation , and publicly publicizing the
antiunion "No Stretchouts, No Layoffs, No Dues" petition on Respondent 's bulletin
board thereby, in effect , interrogating and polling its employees in regard to their
union membership or in regard to how they intended to vote in the scheduled Board
election.
3. Threatening employees that the Respondent was going to keep the last union
meeting prior to the December 17, 1954, election under surveillance.
4. Actually keeping the union meeting of November 20, 1954, under the open
surveillance of Sectionman Albert Freeman.
5. By continually encouraging its sectionmen and other supervisors to spy upon
and to find out which employees were members of the Union and how they felt
about the Union and/or were going to vote in the election of December 17.
6. Actually threatening employees Creswell and Linker , in the presence of other
employees , with loss of their employment and/or with blackballing them from em-
ployment in the cotton mills of the State of North Carolina if they acted as ob-
servers on behalf of the Union at the Board election of December 17.
b. Objections to the Election
The facts clearly demonstrate that promptly upon learning of the commencement
of the Union 's organizational drive among the Respondent's employees at the Con-
cord and Landis plants, the Respondent began a campaign of its own designed to
interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in those two plants with the object
of causing them to refrain from joining or from voting in favor of the Union as
more particularized in the preceding section of this Intermediate Report. It is clear
that this campaign continued unabated after the execution of the consent-election
agreement of December 2, 1954, because after that date the Respondent:
1. Threatened employees through statements of supervisory officials with the fact
that the plant would close down or the individual employees would lose their jobs
or that the workloads would be increased if the Union came into the plant.
2. Threatened employees that the Respondent would keep the last union meeting
prior to the election under surveillance.
3. In the presence of other employees threatened Creswell and Linker with loss
of employment and with blacklisting from employment in any and all cotton mills
in the State of North Carolina if they acted as observers on behalf of the Union
at the scheduled Board election of December 17.
4. Covertly sponsored and assisted in the circulation of and thereafter publicly
publicized the antiunion petition headed "No Stretchouts , No Layoffs , No Dues"
thereby, in effect, publicly interrogating the employees as to their union membership
118 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or sympathy and polling them as to how they intended to vote in the.December 17
election.
Obviously this campaign of interference, restraint, and coercion which the Re-
spondent continued with increasing vigor after December 2, 1954, in the afore-.
mentioned ways, all of which in themselves amounted to individual unfair labor,
practices, were intended to create such an atmosphere of interference, restraint, and
coercion among the employees entitled to vote in the Board election as to prevent
many of them through fear engendered thereby from feeling free to vote their own
desires in the election of December 17. The Respondent's continued commission of
unfair labor practices throughout the period of December 2 to December 17 was
intended to, and did, prevent the creation of those "laboratory like conditions" under
which the employees would feel free to express their own desires by secret ballot
in the election of December 17. As the Respondent itself created conditions tend-
ing to create fear among the employees and to prevent the establishment of the
necessary ' "laboratory like conditions " necessary for a free election , the Trial
Examiner will recommend that the election of December 17, 1954, be set aside and
another election held at such time as the necessary conditions can be established at
the Respondent's plants at Landis and Concord.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. TIIE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Corbett J. Tucker by discharging him on September 10,
1954, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent offer, to Corbett J.
Tucker immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of said discrimination
against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would
have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against him to the date
of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period, in accordance
with the formula set forth in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
In the opinion of the Trial Examiner, the unfair labor practices committed by
Respondent in the instant case are such as to indicate an attitude of opposition to the
purposes of the Act generally. In order, therefore, to make effective the interde-
pendent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, thereby minimizing industrial strife,
which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act,
it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any
manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Textile Workers of America, AFL, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act..
2. By discharging Corbett J. Tucker on September 10, 1954, thus discriminating
in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of said Tucker and thereby dis-
couraging membership in United Textile Workers of America, AFL, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By threatening employees with loss of employment or closing the plant; by
polling and interrogating employees as to their union affiliations, sympathies, and
activities; by threatening to and keeping union meetings and activities under sur-
veillance; and by interfering with, Iestraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
'(1) of the Act.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 119
. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The' unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent between December
2 and December 17, 1954, prevented the holding of a free and fair election on De-
cember 17, 1954.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb-
ing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
Local 420, AFL-CIO and Local 161 , International Association
of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 4-CB-282. July 11, 1956
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 9, 1956, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, only insofar as they are consistent with
our Decision and Order herein.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent, in violation of
Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act, caused Frick Company and,
"by its apparent acquiescence," Bolger-Parker, to transfer certain dis-
puted work from the riggers employed by Bolger-Parker to the steam-
fitters employed by Frick Company, and thereby caused Frick Com-
pany and Bolger-Parker to discriminate against the riggers, including
two named riggers, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. We
do not agree.
It is settled law that a finding that a union has violated Section 8
(b) (2) for causing an employer unlawfully to discriminate against
an employee requires a determination that, were the employer before
the Board, it would have been found to have violated Section 8 (a)
(3) by such discrimination? In the present case, we are unable to
As the record , exceptions , and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of
the parties , the Respondent 's request for oral argument is denied.
2 See , for example , Wisconsin Axle Division, The Timken -Detroit Axle Company, 92
NLRB 968, 970-971, enfd . 194 F. 2d 698 (C. A. 7).
116 NLRB No. 19.