Mansfield Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1937

3 N.L.R.B. 901 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of MANSFIELD MILLS, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. C-193.-Decided October 27, 1937
Cotton Textile Industry-Interference , Restraint , or Coercion : intimidation
of union leaders and organizer ; attempts by terrorism to force union organizer
to leave town ; by public officials ; surveillance of union meetings and activities ;
expressed opposition to labor organization , threats of retaliatory action ; dis-
tributing anti-union literature among employees ; misrepresenting terms and
purposes of the Act to employees ; questioning employees regarding union affilia-
tion and activities-Discrimination : discharge ; demotion ; charges of, as to
certain employees , not sustained-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Jacob Blum and Mr. Allen Heald, for the Board.
Mr. Dickson McLean and Mr. H. E. Stacy, of Lumberton, N. C., for
the respondent.
Mr. Richard J. Hickey and Mr. Henry W. Lehmann, of counsel to
the Board.
DECISION
C
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Textile Workers Organizing Commit-
tee, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by Bennet F. Schauffier, Regional Director
for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), issued its complaint,
dated May 29, 1937, against Mansfield Mills, Inc., Lumberton, North
Carolina, herein called the respondent. The complaint and notice
of hearing thereon were duly served 'upon the respondent and the
Union.
The complaint alleged that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within
the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3), and Section 2,
subdivisions (6) and (7), 'of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On June 7, 1937, the respondent filed its answer 1 to'the complaint
denying that its operations affect interstate commerce within the
1 On June 17 , 1937, the respondent filed an amendment to its answer . The amendment
is hereby made a part of the pleadings.
901
49446-38-vol in-58
902 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meaning of the Act and that it had engaged in or was engaged in
the alleged unfair labor practices. In addition, the respondent filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for the reasons that the Act is
unconstitutional and that the Board has no jurisdiction over the
respondent.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Lumberton, North Caro-
lina, on June 10, 11, 12, and 14, 1937, before Henry T. Hunt, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the
respondent were represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evi-
dence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties. Both at
the opening and close of the hearing, the respondent renewed its
motion to dismiss, decision thereon being reserved by the Trial
Examiner.
On July 10, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Sec-
tion 37 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended, ordered this proceeding to be transferred to
and continued before it. On July 28, 1937, the Gold Star Textile
Organization of East Lumberton, Incorporated, claiming as its mem-
bership a majority of the, respondent's employees, filed a petition to
be made a party to the proceedings. Inasmuch as the Gold Star
Textile Organization of East Lumberton, Incorporated, in its peti-
tion shows no sufficient interest in'this proceeding and such petition
was not filed until after the hearing, the motion is hereby denied.
The Board has also considered all of the motions made during
the course of the hearing on which the Trial Examiner reserved
ruling. The respondent's motions to dismiss the complaint are hereby
denied. In as much as charges concerning Daniel Davis and Anna
Sutton had not been filed pursuant to Section 10 (b) of the Act,
the motion of counsel for the Board to amend the complaint to
include their names among those alleged to have been discrimina-
torily discharged is hereby denied without prejudice to their right
to file such charges. The'motions of counsel for the Board to amend
the complaint by changing the name of Frank Lamb to George
Lamb, and to dismiss the complaint with reference to Ernest Mishoe,
Earleen Mishoe, Bobby Carter, Margaret Pitts and Cathleen Aber-
nathy are hereby granted. Counsel for the Board also moved that
the pleadings be conformed to the evidence. This motion is hereby
granted. During the course of the hearing objections to the intro-
duction of evidence were made by counsel for the respondent and
counsel for the Board,., The - Board has reviewed such rulings as
were made by the Trial Examiner and finds no prejudicial error.
Those rulings are hereby affirmed. Other objections made to the
introduction of evidence with respect to which the Trial Examiner
reserved ruling are hereby overruled.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 903
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
Mansfield Mills, 'Incorporated, is a' North Carolina corporation
incorporated in 1922. Its 'principal office ' and place of business is
in East Lumberton, North Carolina, where it is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of print cloth and yarns. The respondent
owns and operates three mills situated in East Lumberton. Its
property includes the village of East Lumberton with all of its dwell-
ings and in these dwellings, it houses a majority of its mill employees.
It also maintains an.office in the adjacent town of Lumberton, North
Carolina, which is occupied by its' bookkeeping and selling depart-
ments.
The volume of respondent's products is about 90,000 pounds per
week -and, the value thereof varies from $150,000 to $160,000 per
month. The respondent employs from 600 to 650 employees, and its
weekly pay roll is between $9,000 and $10,000.
The respondent purchases 90 to 95 per cent of the, cotton which it
uses in the manufacture of print cloth and, yarns from dealers in
North-Carolina. Some of the other supplies used by the respondent
come .from outside of North Carolina. Thus it obtains machinery
and parts from Massachusetts and New England points; starch used
in the mills from Columbus, Ohio; coal used for heating purposes
from West Virginia and Virginia. In connection with its mills, the
respondent maintains and operates a store on its property. A por-
tion of the supplies forthe store are, purchased from states other than
the State of North Carolina.2 ,
It was testified by A. M. Hartley; the secretary and assistant treas-
urer of the respondent, that during April 1937, approximately 66 per
cent of its products were shipped in interstate commerce. Some of
the yarn manufactured by the 'respondent is used by' it in the manu-
facture of cloth. The surplus yarn is sold through a commission
house located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.3 The respondent ships
this surplus f., o. b. Lumberton, North Carolina, in accordance with
instructions from the customers. Thus it has shipped yarn to the
States of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York. The cloth
which it manufactures is sold through commission houses located in
2 Bd. Exh. No . 4. List of creditors to whom the respondent mailed checks on May 13,
1937 , for merchandise which ' it purchased during ' April 1937, for the store Total pay-
ments amounted to $9,415 .87. Of this amount, $1,786 .29 was sent to creditors outside of
North Carolina.
3 Another statement by A. M. Hartley permits the inference that the yarn , like the
cloth, is all sold through commission merchants located In New York City . In either
case, the commission houses selling respondent's yarn are located outside the State of
North Carolina.
904 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New York City. The greater portion of its waste material is
shipped to states other than the State of North Carolina.
II. THE UNION
Textile Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated, with the Com-
mittee for Industrial Organization, is a labor organization which
admits to membership employees working in the textile industry.
III. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE UNION
The alleged discriminatory discharges involved in this case must
be viewed in the light of certain circumstances which reflect the atti-
tude of the respondent toward the organization of its employees.
Manning, one of the respondent's employees named in the complaint
whose discharge will be considered hereinafter, continued, after his
discharge, to live in one of the respondent's houses. He was active
in organizing on behalf of the Union in East Lumberton. On May 6,
1937, just prior to the changing of shifts which took place at the
respondent's mills at 6 p. m., supervisors notified employees of the
respondent there in the mill of a meeting about to take place outside
of the mill on mill property.4 Vera Lamb, Mayor of East Lumber-
ton, and also a textile worker in the respondent's mills,5 addressed
the crowd which, gathered on mill property urging those who were
loyal to the community to follow him, and to rid the village of the
union organizer. The crowd, which was estimated to consist of ap-
proximately 200 people, then followed the Mayor to Manning's house.
In the crowd were some of respondent's supervisors and a number of
mill hands employed in one of the respondent's mills 6 on the night
shift, which had already started. A company truck filled with people
followed, the crowd, at least part way, to Manning's house. The
Mayor, when he reached the house, accused Manning of forcing people
into the Union against their will and of starting trouble. He told
Manning that many wanted their own union cards back and he warned
him that there would be violence. Grover Branch, one of the three
councilmen of East Lumberton and also an employee of the respond-
ent, participated in the altercation with Manning and threatened him
for his union activity. After further discussion the crowd finally
dispersed.
* John E. Pait and Willie Lamb , employees of the respondent who testified at the
hearings in this proceeding , both stated that Bob Collins , a section hand and oiler
employed by the respondent , told them to go to the meeting outside the mill . Archie L.
Baugh , another witness employed by the respondent , was informed of the meeting by
Waldrop, overseer of weaving for the respondent , and told that "they were planning to go
down to Ches Manning's house after they knocked off".
5 The Mayor receives no salary for his duties as a public official . The Chief of Police,
although appointed by the Mayor , is paid by the respondent for his services in policing
East Lumberton.
6 The particular mill referred to is known as the Dresden Plant.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 905
Other manifestations of hostility to the Union and to Manning as
organizer for the Union also took place. Archie L. Baugh, an em-
ployee of the respondent, testified that on May 6, Waldrop, an over-
seer, offered to buy him a gallon of whiskey if he would "stamp hell
out of Ches Manning". During Manning's absence from East Lum-
berton on the night of May 17 and early morning of May 18, the
window-panes of his house were broken and three union cards which
he had left in the house were not to be found when he returned. Late
that same day, unidentified men threw rocks at his house and shot
at it. Ferris Branch, a brother of Grover Branch, testified that on the
night when Manning's house was fired upon and the window-glass
broken, he saw his brother's car near Manning's house and heard a
gunshot coming from the car, followed by the sound of shattered glass.
He recognized his brother at the wheel of the car when it sped by.
When Ferris Branch told his brother what he had seen, he was warned
to keep silent regarding the incident if he wanted to continue working
for the respondent. Both Grover Branch and Vera Lamb tried to dis-
suade Ferris Branch from giving testimony with respect to this occur-
rence at the hearing before the Trial Examiner. Although testifying,
Vera Lamb did not deny the statement made by Ferris Branch at
the hearing that, at the beginning of the previous week, Lamb had
threatened to put Ferris Branch under a peace warrant if he gave
this testimony. Grover Branch did not testify at the hearing. The
testimony of Ferris Branch regarding the occurrence is unrefuted.
Sutton, an employee of the respondent named in the complaint and
active in the Union, was also subjected to intimidation of a similar
kind. He testified that on May 19 about 3 a. m. stones were thrown
through the windows of his house. The perpetrators of this lawless
act were not identified.
The record contains evidence of surveillance of union meetings by
Vera Lamb and supervisory employees of the respondent. George
Lamb, brother of Vera Lamb- and one of the respondent's employees
named in the complaint, testified that on the night of May 18, when he
came from a union meeting held in a hotel at Lumberton, he was
accosted in the street by his brother who demanded to know what he
was doing at the meeting and added that "you are taking bread out of
my children's mouth". Some supervisory employees of the respond-
ent were present. Other testimony indicates that Grover Branch,
Vera Lamb, and the superintendent of one of respondent's mills were
watching the meeting in the hotel from the yard of the court house.
It was also testified that Henry Davis and McDuffy, both overseers,
and Jim Davis, a section hand, stood in the road watching a union
meeting held at some time in the latter part of April in front of
Sutton's house.
906 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent disclaims all responsibility for the acts of the vil-
lage officials. However, the respondent cannot disassociate itself
from the events which occurred on May 6. At least two of its own
supervisors approached employees with respect to the meeting at
which Vera Lamb spoke. Employees whose shift had started work,
as well as supervisors, were identified as participating in the meeting
and the subsequent march to Manning's house. Moreover, in consid-
ering the respondent's responsibility for the occurrence, its complete
ownership of East Lumberton and its necessary moral control of the
Mayor and the Chief of Police flowing from the fact that both were
on its pay roll, as textile worker and public official, respectively,
must be recognized. The respondent's professions at the hearing
that it was concerned in maintaining disinterested aloofness towards
the organization of its employees and that it confined its expressions
with respect to union organization to answering questions of its em-
ployees and,to statements that they might join the Union if they so
desired but were not compelled to do so, cannot be reconciled with the
fact that it permitted a person on its pay roll to lead a mob consisting,
in part at least, of its own employees on its property to intimidate a
union organizer because of his union activity.
The least that can be said is that the respondent countenanced the
occurrence of disorderly acts aimed at the intimidation of a union
organizer and apparently made no effort to exercise its control for the
purpose of protecting Manning from these disorderly acts or from
the recurrence of such acts of intimidation. In this manner the re-
spondent clearly disclosed an anti-union bias in the light of which
Manning's discharge and that, of, other union members must be
considered.
Also significant with respect to the discharges hereinafter to be
described, are two leaflets which were submitted in evidence as ex-
hibits. The first leaflet,' about 400 copies of which were bought by
Morehead, the general superintendent," and distributed among the em-
ployees, is entitled "The Truth about the Wagner Labor Law". It
purports to, set forth certain rights and obligations arising under the
Act which, it claims, through misleading statements and propaganda,
have been the source of misunderstanding. Coupled with this is an
outright attack on the Textile Workers Organizing Committee on the
ground that an acceptance of membership in this organization con-
stitutes an unlimited "power of attorney" so that "the man who signs
has no right to act for himself or his family", and further, on the
7 Bd. Exh. No. 10 . The leaflet has printed on it the date May 27, 1937 . Morehead's
testimony indicates that copies thereof were distributed sometime in the last two weeks
in May.
8 Morehead testified that the Clark Textile Bulletin of Charlotte, North Carolina, sent
him these leaflets by mail. The organization publishes a magazine for the textile industry
in which the respondent has advertised on one or two occasions.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 907
grounds that union dues are excessive and that "the check-off is the
CIO objective." A second leaflet entitled "A Message to Employees;
Facts about the Wagner Act" 9 is confined to a description of the
rights and obligations arising under the Act very similar to the ex-
planation contained in the leaflet above described. Morehead testified
that he received about 55 copies of this leaflet from Mr. Gray, a vice
president and treasurer of the respondent, which he had posted in
the mill where the employees could read them.
Neither leaflet can be deemed an unbiased explanation of the Act.
Both alike neglect to set forth in clear terms the fundamental purpose
of the Act to eliminate certain sources of industrial conflict "by
encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and
by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association,
self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own
choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of
their employment or other mutual aid or protection." 10 In both
alike, the emphasis upon what the provisions.of the Act do not pur-
port to do, rather than upon the positive principles and the rights
which the Act establishes, serves to distort its true significance and
to mislead readers of the' leaflets' with respect to employees' rights
under the Act, in contradiction of their avowed intent "to prevent
misunderstanding." Thedistribution by an employer. of such leaflets
among his employees constitutes an attempt to circumvent the Act
by interfering with his employees' right, 'unprejudiced by the
employer, to make up their own minds regarding self-organization.
We likewise consider the outright hostility to the Union displayed
in the leaflet entitled "The Truth about the Wagner Labor Law."
By distributing this' leaflet among its employees, the respondent
clearly manifested to them its own hostility to the Union and its dis-
approval of-those who might become members. In view of the dis-
tribution of this leaflet among the respondent's employees under the
admitted authorization of its superintendent, we can give little
weight to testimony by supervisory employees asserting their dis-
interest in the organization of respondent's employees and their denial
that they made statements to the employees reflecting disapproval of
the Union is correspondingly weakened.
IV. THE DISCHARGES
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges the discrimina-
tory discharges of 17 employees. - At the hearing the respondent con-
tended that it had discharged only three of the 17, namely : Chester
Manning, Frank Sutton, and C. L. Anderson; that the remaining 14
Bd. Exh. No. 11.
10 49 Stat. 449 , See. 1.
908 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees were merely laid off on account of the lack of business, and
that it intended to reemploy them as soon as busines conditions war-
rant. The respondent admits that most of the employees involved
were efficient and otherwise satisfactory.
We turn to a consideration of the circumstances surrounding the
alleged discharge of each of the employees involved.
Mr. -and Mrs. Chester Manning. Manning and his wife both
joined the Union at the inception of its activities on April 20, 1937.
It seems to have become known almost immediately, at least to one
of the supervisors, that both Manning and Sutton, another employee
named in the complaint, had joined the Union.
Manning and his wife were discharged on April -23, 1937. Both
had been employed by the respondent since July or August, 1936.
About a month prior to his discharge, Manning was transferred
from his job of oiling and banding in the spinning room to running
frames or speeders. On April 22, after leave of one day, which he
had been granted to attend a funeral, he was shifted to the card
room. On April,23 -he was ordered to -sweep in the spinning room.
During the morning McDuffy, the overseer, discharged 'him, giving
as a reason that he had been "getting kicks at the office." He then
told Manning that the latter had been warned with respect to the
Union and he clearly manifested his hostility toward any organiza-
tion of the respondent's employees. Manning immediately received
both,his own time ,ticket and that, of his wife. About ten minutes
later, the Chief of Police of East Lumberton, who is paid directly
by the respondent for the performance of his public duties, met
Manning and handed him a notification, signed by G. U. Pruette,
assistant superintendent of the mills, to vacate the mill house in which
he lived.
No one told Mrs. Manning that she was discharged and she was
unaware of her dismissal until she was given her pay ticket by
Manning. McDuffy, her overseer, testified that Mrs. Manning was
a,satisfactory -employee.
McDuffy, and other supervisors of Manning, stated that he was dis-
charged because he had performed his work unsatisfactorily on dif-
ferent jobs to which he had been assigned, and that his wife had been
discharged in accordance with the respondent's policy of discharg-
ing all members of the family where the head of the family is dis-
charged, in order to make available the company house for occupancy
by some other family employed by the respondent.
In significant contrast to the statements of the witnesses testifying
on behalf of the respondent with respect to Manning's inefficiency as
an employee, is a letter, dated May 4, written to Manning by Reinhart,
who, as overseer of carding and spinning for the respondent until two
or three weeks prior to Manning's discharge, had been Manning's su-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 909
pervisor. In the letter, Reinhart offered Manning a position at
Reidsville in another mill where Reinhart was then employed. This
offer would seem to indicate that he was considered by Reinhart a
satisfactory and efficient textile worker.
Upon the basis of all the evidence we find that Manning and his
wife were discharged because of their membership in the Union.
Manning's salary at the time of his discharge, varied from $12 to
$16 per week. Mrs. Manning earned between $11 and $12 per'week.
Neither one has. earned any money since the time of his and her dis-
charges.
Mr. and Mrs. Frank Sutton. Sutton and his wife joined the Union
on April 20, 1937. Both were discharged on the following day.
Sutton had worked for the respondent for approximately 25 years.
During that period he was laid off once for about a week because
of intoxication. Otherwise nothing appears to have marred his
employment record during his long period of service with the re-
spondent. About four weeks prior to his discharge he had been
transferred, at his request, from a night job in another of the re-
spondent's mills to the daytime job which he held under McDuffy
in the spinning and carding room of the Dresden Mill at the time
of his dismissal. Mrs. Sutton had worked for the respondent some-
what longer than one year. Willoughby, her overseer, testified that
her work had been satisfactory.
On April 21, 1937, when Sutton came to work, the section hand
informed him that he was not to work any longer and told him :
"If they ask you anything about it, tell them it was kicks from
the office." When Sutton asked McDuffy, the overseer, for an ex-
planation, he was also told by him that there "is a kick from the
office that you are not giving satisfaction." When McDuffy was
further pressed by Sutton, he admitted to him that his work was
satisfactory, and added that he would ask at the respondent's office
whether he could restore him to his job.
Sutton then went to another of the respondent's mills, where his
wife worked, to inform her of what had happened. Sutton testified
that Willoughby threatened him with jail for "running around here
in the mill soliciting for the union." Witnesses for the respondent
testified that Sutton spoke to his wife in disobedience of a rule
against speaking in the mill during working hours and created some
disturbance when ordered out of the mill by Willoughby. How-
ever, a determination as to this is immaterial since the respondent
takes the position that it discharged Sutton prior to the time that
he came to the mill to speak to his wife, for the reason that he did
not tend to his work despite repeated warnings. The possibility
that some altercation between Willoughby and Sutton took place
910 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
does not preclude a finding that Sutton's prior discharge was the
result of his membership in the Union. Nor do we find that the
altercation, as described, is of sufficient moment to prevent an order
requiring Sutton's reinstatement.
On the same day, shortly after this incident occurred, Luther Ward,
a section man supervising Mrs. Sutton's work, dismissed her. This
took place at approximately 6:40 i.-m. after she had worked only 40
minutes that day. We do not find in the altercation between Sutton
and Willoughby a sufficient or plausible reason for the dismissal of
Mrs. Sutton, whose services were admittedly satisfactory. It was
also claimed by, the respondent that the rule, requiring the dismissal
of all members of the family when the head of the family is dis-
charged, is applicable to her. Assuming this as the reason for Mrs.
Sutton's discharge, we would necessarily find that she was the victim
of 'discrimination in violation of the Act, if we determined that
Sutton was discharged as the result of his union affiliation.
In view of Sutton's long employment in the respondent's mills,
credence cannot be given to McDuffy's uncorroborated statement that
Sutton did not tend to his work and that he had repeatedly received
warnings with respect to this. Upon all the evidence me find that
Sutton and his wife were discharged because of their membership in
the Union. ' I
Sutton received a wage of from $14 to $15 per week. Mrs. Sutton
earned about $12 per week. Neither one has obtained any regular
or substantially equivalent employment since the time of his and her
discharge.
C. L. Anderson. Anderson became a union member on April 20,
1937. He was discharged on May 20, after having been employed
by the respondent for three years. Anderson's supervisors, McDuffy
and R. C. Collins, testified that he was discharged because he had cut
waste from the bobbins in violation of a rule forbidding this. Ander-
son admitted that he had been told not to cut off the waste but added
that subsequent to this order he was told he might do so, provided that
he exercised care. The evidence is conflicting as to whether such a
rule of general application existed and whether Anderson had been
granted some leeway with respect to its observance. Nevertheless,
there is insufficient evidence to show that the respondent discharged
Anderson for union activity. '
W. C. Ward. Ward worked for the respondent for 11 years be-
ginning in 1913. He then left and did not return until one year
prior to his discharge. When last working for the respondent, he
was employed as a sweeper in the spinning room. On April 28, 1937,
he joined the Union and on May 2 he attended a Union meeting at
Sutton's house. The following day his section man, Dewey Barnes,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 911
informed him that he was laid off . Stallings, his, overseer, when
questioned, told Ward that he had orders to, lay him off. Although
he applied for reinstatement several times, he was not given an
opportunity to work until June 9, the day before the hearings in this
proceeding began, when Willoughby offered him work. Stallings
testified that Ward was laid off because of lack of work. The re-
spondent stated that it would reemploy Ward when it again had work
for him.
The record affords insufficient basis 'upon which to sustain a charge
that Ward was discharged because of his membership in the Union.
Mrs. Esther Howard. Mrs. Howard worked for the respondent for
seven years and at the time when her employment was terminated,
she was employed as a spinner . She lived in one of the mill houses.
Her husband was not employed by the respondent . Some three
weeks after Mrs. Howard joined the Union , her daughter , who also
worked for the respondent , felt ill and quit work . The following
day when Mrs. Howard reported for work, the section hand dis-
missed her and told her that she would be required to move from' the
respondent 's house. Mrs. Howard testified that new hands were
being hired at this time. McDuffy, her overseer , stated that he laid
her off to obtain the house in which she lived, inasmuch as she was
the only one in her family working for the respondent after her
daughter quit and that she was a part time hand whose services were
not then needed.
The evidence does not permit a finding that Mrs. Howard was dis-
charged because of her membership in the Union.
H. E. Lawson . Lawson had been in the respondent 's employment
about five months at the time when the alleged discrimination against
him took place . He had also worked for the respondent prior to
1919 . On April 21 , 1937 , he joined the Union. He testified that about
two weeks subsequent to this; John Phillips, his overseer , called him
into his office . There he accused Lawson of spying upon him and
told him that the respondent would never 'recognize the Union.
When questioned by John Phillips, Lawson told him that he had
joined the Union . On May 18, John Phillips shifted Lawson and
his own brother to a ten loom set. Previously Lawson had run a
16 or 20 loom set and he testified 'that the change would have cut
down his weekly wages of approximately $14 by about one-third.
That same evening he informed Caulder , the chief loom fixer, that
he was going to quit and then he left work. When' he subsequently
asked to be given back a set of looms similar to that upon which he
originally worked, he was told that the mill had : sufficient help:
John Phillips testified that shifts to different looms occurred depend-'
ing on the kind of material ordered.
912 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We cannot, upon the evidence in the record, sustain the allegation
that Lawson's transfer from a 16 loom set to a ten loom set was the
result of bias against him for his membership in the Union.
Thomas R. Boney, Sr., T. R. Boney, Jr., and Floyd Boney. The
record does not disclose the. dates upon which these employees of the
respondent joined the Union, but it was testified that all joined at the
same time and that their discharges took place after they became
Union members. The discharge of Thomas R. Boney, Sr., occurred
on May 17, 1937.11 His two sons, T. R. Boney, Jr., and Floyd Boney,
were both discharged on the day following their father's discharge.
T. R. Boney, Jr., testified that his dismissal took place about two
weeks after he had joined the Union.
The father, Thomas R. Boney, Sr., had worked for the respondent
for three years and for the last two years of that period was em-
ployed as a painter. Although the number of painters' employed
varied, the respondent appears to have had five painters, at the time
the elder Boney's services were terminated, who were engaged in
painting the houses in the mill village and repairing windows under
the direction of Calton Flowers, a supervisor in charge of the painters
and carpenters. Thomas R. Boney, Sr., was the oldest in length of
service among the five painters and was considered a leader of them.
At some time before he joined the Union, he was questioned by
Flowers as to whether he had heard anything about the Union.
Flowers also told him that this influence counted among the men and
that he would appreciate it if the elder Boney "would cater in that
way toward the Company".
It appears that a short time prior to the date of the elder Boney's
discharge, he and all the other painters were laid off. . He testified
that at the time he was first laid off, together with the other painters,
"They marked on my time, pay sheet, `leaving'. And I corrected
that, told them `no', that I wasn't leaving, that I wasn't going any-
where. And Mr. Flowers spoke and said, `Well, that would sound
better than being discharged"'. After a day's absence from work the
painters were recalled, and worked until May 17. On that date Boney
was paid off in full. He has not been called back to work since that
time. The record discloses that at least three of the five painters dis-
charged at this time, were Union members. The fourth, Ernest
Baxley, who was not a Union member, was taken back to work after
the general lay-off. No evidence appears as to whether the fifth
painter belonged to the Union.
11 Thomas R. Boney , Sr., testified that he was discharged on May 7, 1937 . But it was
testified by him and by two other painters , John McCormick and George Lamb, also named
in the complaint , that the work of all three was terminated at the same time. McCormick
and George Lamb further testified that this occurred on May 17 We therefore find that
the correct date of the elder Boney's discharge is May 17, 1937.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 913
Witnesses for the respondent testified that economy required the lay-
off of the painters. Pruette, the assistant superintendent, said that he
was willing to restore all the painters to their jobs as soon as the man-
agement would permit this. It was admitted that the elder Boney
performed his work satisfactorily. We do not attach any weight to
Flowers' uncorroborated statement that Baxley was retained in pref-
erence to the elder Boney because Boney had been in poor health and
could not do all the -climbing required in repairing windows which
constituted the greater part of the work after the lay-offs. The elder
Boney explained that in his work he had been engaged in putting in
window-glass as well as in painting.
T. R. Boney, Jr. had been employed for two and a half years. At
the time of his discharge he was employed hauling filling. Prior to
his discharge, he was questioned by Alvin,Bane, a second hand in the
weave room, about the Union and warned against joining it. The
day after his discharge, Bane ,told him that he had been dismissed
because of his membership in the Union.
The respondent offered no evidence specifically directed to explain-
ing the discharge .of Floyd Boney. He had been employed by the
respondent for six years and was discharged the same day as his
brother, T. R. Boney, Jr. His overseer, McDuffy, discharged him
referring to the fact that his father had been laid off and stating that
there was no work for him. Waldrop, overseer of weaving, under
whose supervision T. R. Boney, Jr. worked, stated that this son was
discharged under the rule,, already referred to, that when the head of
the family is discharged, other members are likewise dismissed in
order that the respondent may repossess itself of the house. As indi-
cated above, it was.stated on behalf of the respondent that the painters,
including the elder Boney, were not discharged but laid off pending
the resumption of work. That the respondent enforces a policy re-
quiring the discharge of all members of a family when its head is dis-
missed in order to repossess the mill house may well be true, but it is
hardly credible that this same policy is pursued in the case of em-
ployees merely laid off, and not permanently discharged, and who are
expected to return to work upon the resumption of activity in the
mills. Although we do not agree that these men were only laid off,
the respondent's claim to that effect appears to contradict the explana-
tion offered by it.
We find that Thomas R. Boney, Sr., T. R. Boney, Jr., and Floyd
Boney were all discharged because of their membership in the Union.
Thomas R. Boney, Sr., earned $15 per week at,the time of his
discharge. Since then he has earned a total of between $12 and $15.
T. R. Boney, Jr. received a wage of about $12 per week. He has
earned nothing since his dismissal from the respondent's employ.
914 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Floyd Boney was earning eight dollars per week when discharged.
He has had no work since that time. None of these -three men had
obtained any other regular or substantially equivalent employment
at the time of the hearing.
George Lamb. Lamb had worked as a painter for the respondent
for about three and one-half months. ^ He was in the same group of
painters as the elder Boney. About May 1, 1937, he- was laid off.
He testified that when he pressed Flowers for an explanation con-
cerning his lay-off he was given to understand that the Union had
been the cause thereof. ' Lamb then told him that he did not belong
to the Union, and on the following day he was permitted to return
to work. On about May 4 or 5, he joined the Union. As in the case
of the 'other painters, his employment was terminated on May 17.
Subsequently Flowers told him that if he left the Union and sur-
rendered his Union card, he would, after reporting back to the office,
be foreman of the painters within two weeks. Witnesses for the
respondent testified that Lamb's lay-off was occasioned by the decline
in the respondent's business which took place in April and May 1937.
In view of the testimony showing that the respondent was employing
only one painter and that this painter, Baxley, was second in seniority
among the painters, surpassed only by the elder Boney in the length
of time employed by, the respondent, ' we do, not find, that Lamb's
employment was terminated as a result of his membership in the
Union.
Mr. John B. McCormick and Mrs. Betty McCormick.12 McCormick
was one of the group of painters working under 'the direction of
Flowers. He had been' employed by the respondent since March
1937. On April 20 he joined the Union. His employment, as that
of the elder Boney and George Lamb, was terminated on May 17.
Our reasons for finding that George Lamb was not discharged for his
union affiliation are likewise applicable to McCormick.
Mrs. McCormick had 'been employed by the respondent since'Feb-
ruary 26, 1937. She joined the Union on April 20, 1937. In her
testimony she stated that she was discharged on' April 3, 1937.
Johnny Barnes, her section man, stated that she was a good worker
and that it was necessary to lay her off because he had n'o work to
give her. The evidence does not warrant a finding that Mrs. Mc-
Cormick's employment was terminated as a result of her membership
in the Union. I '
Mrs. Hattie Beasley Brown. • Mrs. Brown began working for the
respondent in 1930 and has been in its' employ since that time with
the exception 'of one year. She' joined the Union on April 20, 1937.
When she came to work on the following day, she was discharged
12 In the complaint the name Mrs. Betty McCormick is given. However , in the record
Mrs. McCormick is referred to as Mrs. Beadie McCormick.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 915
by Jimmie Edwards, the section man. She was told by McDuffy,
to whom she went, that her work was satisfactory but that he had
received orders from the main office to let, her go since she was
"trying to cause a disturbance for the mill company". She further
testified that, "He said `I haven't a soul to put on your job, on your
work. I have always found your work satisfactory. I would like to
keep you. They won't let me.' He, said the complaint come from the
office.". At some later time, Morehead, the general superintendent,
notified her that she could return to work. When she reported for
work on May 17, she was told by McDuffy that he would not reem-
ploy her because she had taken Manning and Sutton to Fayettesville
to see the Union organizer Strickland.'! Mrs. Brown also stated
that the respondent needed help at the time and that McDuffy's wife,
who had been ill, had been hired to fill her place.
Morehead testified that Mrs. Brown had been discharged by
McDuffy for failing to come to work at noontime and remaining
outside of the mill after she was to have started working, either one
or two days prior to her discharge. However, he later asked Mc-
Duffy to reemploy her since her work had been satisfactory, and
notified her of this. When after the lapse of some time she reported
for work on May 17, her job had been filled by someone who lived
in the village. Morehead stated that those living, in the mill village
are given preference in employment over those- who, like Mrs.
Brown, do not live in the village of East Lumberton.
It, is difficult to believe that Mrs. Brown's discharge was solely
motivated by the infraction of discipline offered by the respondent
as the cause of her discharge, particularly in view of her admitted
competence as an employee and her long service with the respondent
since 1930. We find that Mrs. Brown was discharged because of her
membership in the Union, and that the subsequent failure to reemploy
her was occasioned by her driving Manning and Sutton, both active
in the Union, to Fayettesville. '
Mrs. Brown earned $12 per week prior to her discharge. Since
that time she has earned a total of ,$8.90. She had not obtained any
other regular or substantially equivalent employment at the time of
the hearing.
Mr. Gregory Phillips and Mrs. Mary Phillips. Phillips and his wife
both joined the Union on April 26i,1937,. He had been working for
the respondent since 1918, with the exception of two years which were
probably 1924 and 1925. For the,three months prior, to his,discharge,
he had been, driving one of the respondent's three trucks on the night
shift. Mrs. Phillips had worked, for about 20 years for the respondent
and was employed as a,winder at, the time of her discharge.
is Other testimony indicates that this trip was also taken to file charges against the
respondent with an agent of the National Labor Relations Board.
916 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 2, 1937, Mrs. Phillips attended a Union meeting at Sut-
ton's house. The following day she was discharged by Edgar Baxley,
her section boss. Stallings, the overseer of the night shift upon
which' Mrs. Philllips• worked, told her that inasmuch as her husband
was working, she did not need a job. She testified' that at this time
new hands were being hired by the respondent. On May 4, 1937,
the day following his wife's' discharge, Phillips returned to work
after an absence caused by his illness. Capers Clewis, the yard
foreman and Phillips' 'supervisor, notified him that he would not be
continued on his job.
Phillips testified that about two weeks prior to the time when he
joined the Union, he had been questioned by Clewis as to whether
he had seen any organizer. A few days thereafter, Clewis asked
Phillips what kind of car the organizer drove, and where he was
organizing. Moreover, Willoughby, one of the respondent's over-
seers, took occasion to tell Phillips that the respondent would cease to
operate rather than have a union in its mills. Phillips also stated
that Willoughby told him that "The union activity would go into a
place to organize and sign them up and, go to the main office and
draw a check for every employee' for the amount, a dollar or so, or
two dollars for the employees, up to the office and then their Union
organizers were gone."
It was testified on behalf of the respondent that lack of business
required it to minimize expenses and that Phillips was laid off
because he was an extra man and because he and his wife did not
live in the mill village in a company house but had their own home
outside of East Lumberton. Of significance is the testimony of
Capers Clewis that after Phillips was' laid off two of the three truck
drivers employed had their hours of duty extended to 16 hours on
some nights and to 17 hours on other nights. Prior to the termina-
tion of Phillips' employment they were on duty 11 or 12 hours per
day. The rnork, which so excessively lengthened the hours of duty
of the two drivers, might well, have been given to Phillips as part
time work. It is a warranted and normal assumption that an em-
ployer would prefer to utilize the services of an employee who worked
for him for a long period of time rather than increase the hours of
duty previously required of other employees. We find that Phillips
and his wife were both discharged as a result of their membership in
the Union.
At the time of his discharge Phillips was earning $13' per week.
Since then he has obtained other work which pays him $15 per week.
He testified that he wished to return to his employment with the
respondent, since his present work as a carpenter is not steady work.
Mrs. Phillips has not been employed since the time of her discharge.
DECISIONS AND OUDEIIS 917
In view of the hostility and intimidation which was directed
against Manning, and the respondent's expressed bias against the
Union, and in view of the circumstances surrounding the discharges
hereinbefore described, we find that by discharging Chester Manning
and Mrs. Chester Manning, on April 23, 1937; by discharging Frank
Sutton and Mrs. Frank Sutton, and Hattie Beasley Brown on April
21, 1937; by discharging Thomas R. Boney, Sr. on May 17, 1937;
by discharging T. R. Boney, Jr. and Floyd Boney on May 18, 1937;
by discharging Mrs. Mary Phillips on May` 3, 1937; and by discharg-
ing Gregory Phillips on May 4, 1937, the respondent has discrim-
inated against its employees with respect to hire and tenure of em-
ployment for the purpose of discouraging membership in a labor
organization, and that by such acts the respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Their work having ceased
as a result of unfair labor practices, Chester Manning, Mrs. Chester
Manning, Frank Sutton, Mrs. Frank Sutton, Hattie Beasley Brown,
Thomas R. Boney, Sr., T. R. Boney, Jr., Floyd Boney, Gregory
Phillips, and Mrs. Mary Phillips at all times thereafter retained
their status as employees of the respondent, within the meaning of
Section 2, subdivision (3) of the Act.
The evidence concerning C. L. Anderson, W. C. Ward, Esther
Howard, H. E. Lawson, John B. McCormick and Mrs. Betty McCor-
mick, and George Lamb does not establish discrimination in regard
to hire and tenure of employment. The complaint with respect to
these persons will therefore be dismissed.
V. EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes
the following conclusions of law :
1. Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5) of the Act.
2. Chester Manning, Mrs. Chester Manning, Frank Sutton, Mrs.
Frank Sutton, Thomas R. Boney, Sr., T. R. Boney, Jr., Floyd Boney,
Hattie Beasley Brown, Gregory Phillips, and Mrs. Mary Phillips
were, at the time of their discharge and at all times thereafter, em-
ployees of the respondent, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivi-
sion (3) of the Act.
49446-38-vol. iii-59
918 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the Act.
4. The respondent, by discriminating against Chester Manning,
Mrs. Chester Manning, Frank Sutton, Mrs. Frank Sutton, Thomas
R. Boney, Sr., T. R. Boney, Jr., Floyd Boney, Hattie Beasley Brown,
Gregory Phillips, and Mrs. Mary Phillips in regard to hire and
tenure of employment and terms and conditions of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in the Union, has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8, subdivision (3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions (6)
and (7) of the Act.
6. The respondent in the discharge of C. L. Anderson, W. C.
Ward, Esther Howard, John B. McCormick, Betty McCormick, and
George Lamb, and in the reduction of the number of looms that
H. E. Lawson operated, from 16 to ten, has not engaged in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and
(3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
Mansfield Mills, Inc. and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from discharging or refusing to reinstate any
of its employees, or from in any other manner discriminating in re-
gard to hire or tenure of employment of any of its employees, in
order to discourage membership in Textile Workers Organizing Com-
mittee or any other labor organization of its employees;
2. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act;
3. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Chester Manning, Mrs. Chester Manning, Frank Sut-
ton, Mrs. Frank Sutton, Hattie Beasley Brown, Thomas R. Boney,
Sr., T. R. Boney, Jr., Floyd Boney, Gregory Phillips, and Mrs. Mary
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 919
Phillips immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole the employees named in paragraph (a) above for
any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's dis-
crimination in regard to their hire, by payment, respectively, of a
sum of money equal to that which each would have earned as wages
during the period from the date of such discrimination to the date of
such offer of reinstatement, less the-amount each has earned during
that period;
(c) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
in each department of its cotton mills stating (1) that the respond-
ent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and (2) that such
notices will remain posted for a period of at least thirty (30) con-
secutive days from the date of posting;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region within ten
(10) days from the date of this order what steps the respondent has
taken to comply herewith.
And it is further ordered that the complaint be, and is hereby,
dismissed in so far as it alleges discrimination against C. L. Ander-
son, W. C. Ward, Esther Howard, H. E. Lawson, John B. McCor-
mick, Mrs. Betty McCormick, and George Lamb.