Milan Shirt Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1940

22 N.L.R.B. 1143 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

r'a
l
In the'Matter Of MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND MILAN
IMPROVEMENT COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF
AMERICA
Case No. C-1306.-Decided April W, 1940
Cotton Garment Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraont, and Co-
ercion: advising employees not to attend union meetings ; advising employee to
cease boarding at the home of a union leader; discrimination in regard to hir-
ing-Discrimination: refusal to hire because of union activities: sustained as
to 42 employees of predecessor company : dismissed as to 14-Offer of Employ-
ment: of dered-Bactc Pay: awarded : from dates of refusal to hire to dates of
offers of employment-Company-Dominated Unions- charges of, dismissed-Em-
ployer Status: corporation leasing build' to an employer but not acting in the
interest of an employer directly or inectly , held, not employer within the
meaning of the Act-Complaint: dismissed as to corporation, found not to be
an employer within the meaning of the Act.
Mr. Marion A. Prowell and Mr. Warren Woods, for the Board.
Miss Griselda Kuhlman, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. J. P. Rhodes and Mr. John E. Leake, both of Milan, Tenn., for
the Landlord. !
Holmes and Holmes, by Mr. V. H. Holmes and Mr. Richard Holmes,
of Franklin, Tenn., for the Tenant.
Mr. Robert P. Adams, of Trenton, Tenn., for Irene Bryant.
Mr. Charles F. McFrlean, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, herein called the Amalgamated, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued
its complaint dated April 10, 1939, against Milan Shirt Manufacturing
Company and Milan Improvement Company, herein called, respec-
tively, the Tenant and the Landlord, and collectively called the re-
spondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
22 N. L. R. B., No. 99.
1143
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meaning of Section 8 ( 1), (2), and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor, Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served
on the Tenant , the Landlord , the Amalgamated , and Milan Employees,
Inc., herein called Employees, Inc., a labor organization alleged in
the complaint to be dominated by the respondents.
The complaint alleged in substance (1) that the Landlord leased
industrial property to the Washington Manufacturing Company
until on or about April 16, 1938; that it acted in the interest of the
Washington Manufacturing Company in the employment of per-
sonnel, in the determination of working conditions , and in other ways;
that the Landlord has since April 16, 1938, leased industrial prop-
erty to the Tenant; that it has acted and is acting in the interest of
the Tenant in the employment of personnel , in the determination of
working conditions, and in other ways; that it is an employer within
the meaning of the Act; and that the Tenant is a successor to and
the agent for the Washington Manufacturing Company; (2) that the
existence of interlocking officers , directors , ownership, and manage-
ment among the respondents , the identity of their labor policies, and
the business operations of the respondent , all form, with respect to
the matters referred to in the complaint, a wholly integrated business
enterprise; (3) that on or about October 18, 1937, the Washington
Manufacturing Company discharged Theda Throgmorton, Flora
Sanders, and Ruth Gant because said employees refused to join the
Milan Employees Association, herein called the Association, a com-
pany-dominated labor organization, and because said employees
joined the Amalgamated ; that said discharges were caused and dic-
tated by the Landlord acting in the interest of the Washington Manu-
facturing Company ; that on or about May 23, 1938 , and at all times
thereafter , the respondents refused to reinstate , reemploy , or hire
Theda Throgmorton, Flora Sanders, and Ruth Gant because of their
membership in and activities on behalf of the Amalgamated and
because of their refusal to join or assist the Association and/or
Employees , Inc.; that on or about May 23,1938, and at all times there-
after, the respondents have refused to employ or put to work 56
named individuals , all former employees of the Washington Mann.
facturing Company, at its Milan plant , because said employees had
engaged in union activities in behalf of the Amalgamated and be-
cause they had refused to join or assist the Association and/or Em-
ployees , Inc.; (4 ) that between August 1, 1937 , and May 23 , 1938, the
Washington Manufacturing Company dominated and interfered with
the administration of the Association and/or Employees , Inc., and
contributed financial support to said labor organization; that the
Washington Manufacturing Company through the respondents en-
MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1145
couraged membership in said labor organization and discouraged
membership in the Amalgamated by assisting the Association and/or
Employees, Inc. ; that on or about April 16, 1938, and at all times,
thereafter, the respondents have dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Association and/or Employees,
Inc., and have contributed financial and other support to said labor
organization by requiring membership therein as a condition of em-
ployment, and by other acts; that the Association was found to be
company dominated by the Board; 1 that Employees, Inc., is the
same labor organization as, and is the successor to, the Association;
(5) that on or about April 16, 1938, an at all times thereafter, the
respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their em-
ployees by discouraging membership in the Amalgamated, by urging
employees not to join the Amalgamated, by vilifying and criticizing
employees belonging to the Amalgamated, by making employment
conditional on non-membership in the Amalgamated, and by per-
suading and prevailing upon local officials to deny civil rights to
representatives of the Amalgamated.
The Landlord and the Tenant filed separate answers on April 17,
1939. The answer of the Landlord challenged the jurisdiction of the
Board ; denied that it was an employer within the meaning of the
Act, that it shipped or received any goods in interstate commerce,
the existence of interlocking officers, directors, owners, and manage-
inent between the Landlord and the Tenant, or that it had committed
any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. The
Landlord also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that the Board had no jurisdiction over it since it was not engaged in
interstate commerce and was not an employer within the meaning of
the Act.
The answer of the Tenant denied that it was a successor to or agent
of the Washington Manufacturing Company; that the Landlord had
any connection with the Tenant, that it had committed any of the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and set up certain
matters by way of affirmative defense which outlined the history of
the Tenant.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was commenced at Jackson, Ten-
nessee, on April 24, 1939, and continued at Milan, Tennessee, on
April 25, 26, and 27, and May 1, 2, and 3, 1939, before A. Bruce Hunt,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the
Landlord, the Tenant, and the Amalgamated were represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing. Irene Bryant, a witness,
was also represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to
1Matter of Washington Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, 4 N. L. R. B. 970.
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bear-
ing upon the issues was afforded to all parties.
At the close of the Board's case the Landlord moved to dismiss the
complaint, which motion, together with the motion which was filed
as part of the Landlord's answer, was denied by the Trial Examiner.
The Landlord also moved to strike the testimony of certain witnesses
in so far as it affected the Landlord. This motion was also denied.
These motions were renewed by the Landlord at the conclusion of
the respondents' case and were denied by the Trial Examiner in the
Intermediate Report. At the close of the respondents' case the Land-
lord moved to strike the allegations of the complaint as to all matters
occurring prior to May 17, 1938, concerning the relationship between
the Landlord and the Washington Manufacturing Company on the
ground that those matters are res adjudicata because of a stipulation
entered into on March 21, 1939, between the Washington Manufac-
turing Company and the Board. This motion was denied by the
Trial Examiner in the Intermediate Report. At the conclusion of
the hearing counsel for the Board moved to amend the pleadings to
conform to the proof. He also moved to dismiss the complaint in so
far as it alleged that Theda Throgmorton, Flora Sanders, Ruth
Gant, Labon Burrow, Verna Cantrell, Jean McFarhn, and Ruby
Rimmer had been discriminated against in violation of the Act.
Both motions were granted by the Trial Examiner.
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made various
other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prej-
udicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On June 9, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report,
copies of which were duly served on the parties, finding that both the
Landlord and the Tenant had engaged in and were engaging in un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recom-
mended that the respondents cease and desist from engaging in un-
fair labor practices, that they withdraw all recognition from the
Association and its successor, Employees, Inc., and completely dis-
establish said organizations, and that they offer immediate and full
reinstatement. with back pay to 50 of the persons named in the com-
plaint. The Trial Examiner also recommended that the complaint
be dismissed in so far as it alleged that the Washington Manufactur-
ing Company had engaged in unfair labor practices and in so far as
it alleged that the Landlord and the Tenant were engaged in business
as agents of the Washington Manufacturing Company.
Thereafter the respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report. Pursuant to notice duly served on all the parties, a hearing
MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1147
was scheduled before the Board on December 14, 1939, at Washington,
D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. None of the parties ap-
peared at the appointed time and place. The Board has considered
the respondents' exceptions to the Intermediate Report and, in so
far as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order
set forth below, finds no merit in them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
A. Milan Shirt Manufacturing Company
The Tenant, a Tennessee corporation, chartered on April 16,
1938, is engaged in the manufacture of shirts and play suits at
Milan, Tennessee. It has three customers that ship cloth to its
plant in Milan, where it converts the cloth into garments and re-
turns it to the customers. Title to the cloth and the finished
products remains in the respective customers. About 75 per cent of
the Tenant's business is furnished by the Washington Manufactur-
ing Company of Nashville, Tennessee, which from May 16, 1938, to
January 1, 1939, shipped in its trucks to the Milan plant approxi-
mately $210,000 worth of cotton cloth, at least 50 per cent of which
came from the States of North Carolina and Virginia. When con-
verted into wearing apparel this cloth, then valued at approxi-
mately $285,000, was returned to the Washington Manufacturing
Company at Nashville, Tennessee, in its trucks and thereafter at
least 50 per cent of it was shipped by the Washington Manufactur-
ing Company to points outside the State of Tennessee.
About 25 per cent of the Tenant's business is received from Brown
Pants Company of Little Rock, Arkansas, and Tru-Fit Trousers,
Inc., of Chicago, Illinois. These concerns ship cloth by common
carrier to the Tenant to be converted into garments and returned
by common carrier to the respective customers. From March 15,
1939, to the date of the hearing, April 24, 1939, Brown Pants Com-
pany shipped cloth to be converted into approximately 800 dozen
shirts. From the beginning of 1939 to the date of the hearing Tru-
Fit Trousers, Inc., shipped cloth to the Tenant to be converted
into approximately 150 dozen shirts. The record does not disclose
the value of the cloth or shirts.
The buttons and other trimmings used by the Tenant in its busi-
ness, except thread, are furnished by its customers. Neither the
value nor the source of such trimmings is disclosed by the record.
Thread is furnished by the Tenant and is purchased from the
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Plymouth Thread and Rayon Company of New York City. Neither
the value nor the quantity of the thread used is shown by the record.
The Tenant employs an average of 240 employees and at the time
of the hearing there were 276 employees on the pay roll.
B. Milan Improvement Company.
The Landlord is a Tennessee corporation, chartered on February
20, 1924, "for the purpose of erecting, owning and leasing a build-
ing or buildings in the town of Milan, Tennessee." It owns one
factory building located in Milan, Tennessee, which is now occupied
by the Tenant and which was formerly occupied by the Washington
Manufacturing Company. The Landlord has no source of income
and the factory is leased rent free. The Landlord has no employees
and the record does not disclose the receipt or shipment of any goods
by the Landlord.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor or-
ganization, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
which admits to its membership employees of the Tenant.
Milan Employees Association was an unaffiliated labor organiza-
tion which admitted to membership persons employed by the Wash-
ington Manufacturing Company at the plant owned by the Land-
lord in Milan, Tennessee.
Milan Employees, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, is an unaffiliated
labor organization which admits to its membership employees of
the Tenant.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background of the unfair labor practices
The town of Milan , Tennessee, has approximately 4,000 inhabit-
ants. During 1924 the Landlord was organized by the businessmen
of Milan for the purpose of erecting a factory building. Nine busi-
nessmen of the community became the incorporators and directors
of the Landlord. Through the sale of stock to themselves and to
approximately 80 other businessmen and concerns, the building,
costing approximately $40,000, was financed. The factory was
occupied for several years by the American Cigar Company and
from about 1931 to May 1938 by the Washington Manufacturing
Company.
During 1934 the Washington Manufacturing Company complained
to the Landlord that the plant was not sufficiently large for its pur-
poses. Accordingly, an addition to the plant was constructed. This
MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1149
addition was financed by a loan made on the strength of promissory
notes executed by local businessmen . While the exact cost of the
addition does not appear in the record, it is clear that the amount
totaled several thousand dollars. Shortly thereafter the employees
who were working in the factory purchased stock in the Landlord
by the payment of a sum equal to 10 per cent of their wages. The
money so raised was used to pay the notes which had been signed to
secure the loan.
In the spring of 1937 the Amalgamated commenced organiza-
tional activities among employees of the Washington Manufactur-
ing Company . It is clear from the record that these organizational
activities did not meet with the approval of the town officials and
many local businessmen . The Amalgamated filed charges against
the Washington Manufacturing Company with the Board. A com-
plaint was issued and hearing thereon , as it affected the activities
of the Washington Manufacturing Company at its Milan plant, was
held from June 25 to July 2, 1937, in Milan.
Subsequent to July 2, 1937, the Washington Manufacturing Com-
pany experienced continued labor difficulties in the Milan plant.
The Association , which the Board's complaint had alleged to be
dominated , interfered with, and supported by the Washington
Manufacturing Company, decided to engage in a strike to enforce
a demand for a closed shop. Accordingly , early in September 1937
a strike was called and all employees, except the active members of
the Amalgamated , participated therein. Within 3 days the strike
terminated unsuccessfully , the Washington Manufacturing Company
having refused to grant the closed-shop demand.
During November 1937 the Washington Manufacturing Company
suspended various operations at its Milan plant and numerous em-
ployees were laid off. Some of these employees were recalled after
the first of the year 1938 . On January 19, 1938, the Board issued its
Decision and Order finding that the Washington Manufacturing
Company had engaged in unfair labor practices .2 At approxi-
mately the same time it became known that the Washington Manu-
facturing Company had decided to cease operating the Milan plant.
At or about the same time W. H. Yost, who prior to 1934 had been
employed by the Washington Manufacturing Company as traveling
manager and representative of factories, was approached by some
employees of the Washington Manufacturing Company and in-
formed that the Washington Manufacturing Company planned to
cease operating in Milan and would either sell or lease the Milan
plant. They persuaded him to attempt to secure and operate the
2 Matter of Washington Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
i&merica, 4 N L. R. B. 970
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant. Yost approached the Washington Manufacturing Company
and was given an option on the plant. Subsequently he went to
Milan to examine the plant and machinery to determine whether or
not he could successfully operate it. Yost remained at the plant
from February 1938 until the Washington Manufacturing Company
ceased operation on May 5, 1938. Some employees testified that
Yost was manager during this period and Yost admitted that he
may have given orders to the employees. He testified that one
Dietz, who had been nmanager, left in April 1938, at which time the
Washington Manufacturing Company requested him to look after
their interests at the plant. Yost also testified that the Washing-
ton Manufacturing Company paid all his expenses including his
living expenses while he was in Milan from February to May 1938,
in return for which he was to assist in the management of the
factory.
Yost, Mildred K. Bryant, then an office employee of the Washing-
ton Manufacturing Company, and J. W. Haynie,' the publisher of
a local newspaper in Milan, and stockholder in and former president
of the Landlord, became incorporators and directors of the Tenant.
Yost, the sole stockholder, became its president and manager, and
Mildred K. Bryant became its secretary.
On May 3, 1938, the Washington Manufacturing Company and the
Tenant entered into a written agreement whereby the latter succeeded
to the rights and obligations of the former under the terms of the
lease agreement with the Landlord. The succession was approved by
the Landlord. By this agreement the Tenant also became the lessee
of the machinery and equipment owned by the Washington Manu-
facturing Company, which was located in the Milan plant. In addi-
tion to this agreement the Washington Manufacturing Company and
the Tenant entered into an agreement whereby the latter receives
about three-fourths of its business from the Washington Manufactur-
ing Company.
On May 9, 1938, the Tenant posted a notice in part as follows :
The Milan Shirt Manufacturing Company expects to com-
mence operations on or about May 17, 1938. Should you desire
to make application for employment you may do so at the com-
pany's office on and after May 11th, 1938.
Pursuant to this notice, the Tenant received several hundred appli-
cations, including those of many former employees of the Washing-
ton Manufacturing Company. Included among the applicants were
the employees who, as active members of the Amalgamated, had re-
fused to participate in the strike during September 1937. Each
3 Also referred to in the record as Haney.
MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1151
applicant for employment was directed to give as reference two local
businessmen, and Yost, who had talked to nearly everybody in town
before forming the Tenant, wrote to various businessmen with respect
to such applicants. Certain of the applicants called upon business-
men in an effort to obtain endorsement for employment with the
Tenant.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Oberlon Houge, a former employee of the Washington Manufac-
turing Company and an applicant for employment with the Tenant,
testified that she had a conversation with J. W. Haynie in the office
of Dr. Virgil Fields, a local dentist, in December 1938. The record
establishes that Haynie was one of the three incorporators and direc-
tors of the Tenant and that he was still a director at the time the
conversation took place. She testified as follows :
He [Haynie] asked me why I wasn't working. I told him
that I was laid off and never called back. . . . so he said "You
are not one of those silly girls that joined the C. I. 0.?" I said,
"I certainly am." He said, "Well, if you would like to go back
to work," he said, "I can help you." About that time Virgil
Fields called from his inner office and said, "If you belong to the
C. I. O. you will never get back." . . . He [Haynie] told me he
would talk to Mr. Yost and try to get me my job back. . . . He
said Mr. Yost was a very good friend of his; he was sure he
could get me back if Mildred [Bryant] didn't have anything
against me.
After testifying that Haynie later told her that he had been unable
to obtain employment for her, Houge continued :
He [Haynie] said, "Let me tell you don't go to any of those
C. I. O. meetings between now and next Monday." Then he told
me, "If I get you back you will have to move your boarding
place, not board with Elizabeth Bryant."
The record establishes that Elizabeth Bryant was one of the two
leading figures in the Amalgamated. The testimony of Houge was
not denied and the record shows that Haynie was in Milan during
the hearing. We find that Haynie made the statement attributed
to him by Houge substantially as related above. We find further
that the Tenant has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
Many of the witnesses called by the Board testified to conversations
they had had with various local businessmen, most of whom were
stockholders in the Landlord and some of whom were officers and
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
directors of the Landlord. The substance of the statements, if made
by an employer to his employees, would fall within the proscription
of Section 8 (1) of the Act since the statements interfered with
the rights guaranteed to employees in Section 7 of the Act. The
Trial Examiner found that the Landlord was responsible for the
acts of these individuals and that both the Landlord and the indi-
viduals, in the commission of the acts, were acting in the interest
of the Tenant in endeavoring to maintain conditions which the
Trial Examiner found the Tenant had demanded, and that they were
acting within the scope of the corporate functions of the Landlord.
The Trial Examiner found that Yost had threatened to vacate the
plant in the event the Amalgamated should organize the employees
and that the fear of such an event had caused the Landlord's officers,
directors, and stockholders to commit the acts which he found to
be unfair labor practices. We are not convinced that the record
supports the finding of the Trial Examiner that Yost threatened to
vacate the plant in the event the Amalgamated organized the em-
ployees, or that the Landlord, its officers, directors, and stockholders
acted pursuant to any authority from the Tenant, express or implied,
or in order to maintain any particular conditions demanded by the
Tenant, in engaging in the acts set out in the record.4 The only
relationship between the Landlord and the Tenant which this record
establishes is that of landlord and sublessee. We, therefore, overrule
the Trial Examiner's finding that the Landlord is acting in the inter-
est of the Tenant and is an employer within the meaning of the
Act. We shall dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleges that the
Landlord has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning
of the Act.
C. Discrimin ation
The complaint alleges that the Washington Manufacturing Com-
pany discharged 3 individuals in violation of Section 8 (3) of the
Act and that the respondents violated Section 8 ( 3) of the Act by
discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment of 56
individuals , including 2 of the 3 individuals alleged to have been
discriminated against by the Washington Manufacturing Company.
As to the three individuals 5 alleged to have been discriminated
against by the Washington Manufacturing Company and as to six
of the individuals ° alleged to have been discriminated against by
the respondents , the Trial Examiner on motion of Board counsel
4 Cf Matter of Regal Shirt Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
4 N L R. B. 567
5 Their names are Theda Throgmorton, Flora Sanders, and Ruth Gant
°Their names are Labon Burrow, Verna Cantrell, Ruth Gant, Jean McFarlin, Ruby
Rimmer, and Theda Throgmorton.
MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1153
dismissed the complaint. No exceptions were filed to his ruling and
it is hereby affirmed.
The remaining 50 persons named in the complaint, who are listed
in Appendix A hereto, were all employees of the Washington Manu-
facturing Company and were laid off by that concern at various times
between September 1937 and May 5, 193&, the day the plant closed,
except that the record is not clear as to when Frances Whitman
was laid off. They performed various operations for the Washington
Manufacturing Company, many of them having been employed since
the commencement of operations in Milan in 1932. The 50 employees
affiliated themselves with the Amalgamated and attended its meet-
ings; many of them served on its committees and otherwise partici-
pated actively in the conduct of its affairs. With one exception they
all applied for employment with the Tenant when it commenced
operations on or about May 17, 1938. Irene Altman Grady , applied
for employment with the Tenant during January 1939.
It was claimed by some of the witnesses at the hearing that all
of the 50 refused to take part in the Association strike in September
1937, that they thereby publicized their allegiance to the Amalgamated
and their opposition to the Association, and that because of such ac-
tion they had been refused employment by the Tenant. The record
is clear, and we find, that the 42 employees of the Washington Manu-
facturing Company named in Appendix B hereto refused to take part
in the Association's strike for a closed shop in September 1937. A
list of persons, 42 in number, who did not participate in the strike,
was introduced in evidence at the hearing. The list was compiled
from a diary kept by Elizabeth Bryant, one of the leaders of the
Amalgamated, who testified that the diary contained the names of all
but a "couple" who did not participate in the strike. Three of the
persons so listed, namely Labon Burrow, Jean McFarlin, and Ruby
Rimmer were among the persons concerning whom the complaint was
dismissed on motion of Board's counsel. In addition to the other 39
persons on the list, the parties stipulated at the hearing that Marine.
Wadkins did not participate in the strike, and from the testimony-
of Robert Taylor and Lela Mae Chatman we find that Mary Ella..
Bowene and Lorraine Johnson did not participate in the strike.
Thus, a total of 42 employees of the Washington Manufacturing
Company did not participate in the strike. Their names are listed
in Appendix B. As to the other eight persons listed in Appendix A
hereto, namely, Imogene Garmany, Oberlon Houge, Irene Sanders,
Martha Rogers, Frances Whitman, Laura Sue Jackson, Lessie Myracle,
I Irene Altman Grady appears in the complaint as "Irene Altman ," but she testified that
she had recently been married and that her married name is "Grady "
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Euline Killen, there is not sufficient evidence to show that they
remained at work and refused to participate in the strike.
It is clear from the record that the strike of September 1937 was
purely an Association affair, called for the purpose of attempting
to enforce the Association's demand for a closed shop. The mem-
bers of the Amalgamated, having heard of the strike prior to its
occurrence, decided not to participate in it. They accordingly re-
mained in the plant when the Association members left, but they
were unable to work because the power had been shut off by the mem-
bers of the Association as they left the plant. The identity of those
who remained at their work was known. Hedrick, an official of the
Washington Manufacturing Company, and Ault, a supervisory em-
ployee of that company, who is now in the employ of the Tenant,
apparently in a supervisory capacity, remained in the plant with the,
members of the Amalgamated until they left at the end of the day.
Shortly after the strike started, the sheriff of Milan County also went
into the plant and talked to the employees remaining there. That
others knew who remained in the plant is clear from a conversation
between Charlie Fields, the foreman of the finishing room for the
Washington Manufacturing Company, who is now employed by the
Tenant, apparently in a supervisory capacity, and Will E. Robinson,
the father of Irene Robinson Davidson and Lucille Robinson Phelps,
two employees named in Appendices A and B hereto. The conver-
sation took place during October 1938 when Robinson called on Fields
in an effort to obtain employment for his daughters. We adopt
Robinson's uncontradicted testimony that :
I said, "Charlie, could you help me get my girls back to work?
We need it awful bad." He says, "I will do anything in the
world I can for you, Mr. Will. I always liked your girls. They
gave perfect satisfaction. They worked in that.factory a long
time, but they made a mistake; they stayed in up there the day
they walked out; they showed which side of the fence they were
on. I doubt very much whether they can ever get back on in
that factory now ..." [Italics supplied.]
Charlie Fields was not in the plant during the strike, but it is clear
from the above that he knew who refused to participate in the strike.
At the time that applications for employment were being made to
the Tenant, as previously described, Yost brought to the plant a
young woman named Dorothy Arnold, a stranger to the community,
for the purpose of interviewing applicants. She required each appli-
cant to give as references two local businessmen and the Tenant
sought the recommendations of local businessmen for some of its
MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1155
applicants: A few references to the record will show the effect of
requiring this type of reference. Otis E. Carter, a local druggist,
testified : "I imagine 95 per cent" of the local businessmen are opposed
to the Amalgamated. This testimony is further supported by the
fact that practically every business house in Milan had placards in
its windows shortly after the Amalgamated first organized, stating
in part that they were 100 per cent for the Association and against
the C. I. O.s
Dr. Odell Fields, a local dentist, testified that he had written Yost
concerning the "desirability" of certain applicants for employment
and that some of his letters were in response to letters received from
Yost. Fields further testified: "I didn't care for the C. I. 0.; I
didn't feel that it was best for Milan." Fields also testified that he
at one time told the C. I. O. organizers that it would be best for
them to leave town, and he openly admitted that he was prejudiced
against the C. I. O. Fields also testified that he would not recom-
mend a member of the Amalgamated for employment.
John Denney,° who is a local banker in Milan, acknowledged that
he had recommended persons for employment with the Tenant and
that in this connection he had conversed with Yost. Concerning the
employment of Amalgamated members Denney testified :
I don't think it would be good advertising for me in my busi-
ness, to employ them . .. This is a small town and we have
this factory and payroll here. We have had a happy factory
here; we have now something like between two and three hundred
working; two hundred and forty or fifty, and the payroll is run-
ning close to $13,000.00 a month. I think the people need em-
ployment. It is quite an asset to the town, and this seems to
bring a disturbance . . . tho local business men didn't want to
lose the payroll in the local factory and the people lose em-
ployment. (Italics supplied).
Mattie Hurt, one of the persons named in Appendix B hereto, ap-
proached Denney in August 1938 in an attempt to secure employment
with the Tenant. She testified without contradiction, and we find,
that he told her that "he could not do anything for me [her] ; they
wouldn't work any C. I. O.'s."
The record contains considerable additional testimony of a similar
nature.
Yost, who provided that all applicants for employment with the
Tenant should give two local businessmen as references, testified that
he talked to nearly everyone in Milan before incorporating the
8 The Amalgamated, an affiliate of the C. I 0., was often referred to as the C. I. O.
Also referred to in the record as "John D Denny"
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tenant. In addition, the record shows that he sought the recom-
mendations of businessmen in Milan concerning applicants for
employment.
A total of 360 persons have been employed by the Tenant since it
commenced operations. Of this number, 82 had not previously been
employed by the Washington Manufacturing Company, while 278
had been so employed. All of the 278 persons previously employed
by the Washington Manufacturing Company, who have since been
hired by the Tenant, were members of the Association. None of the
former employees of the Washington Manufacturing Company, who
affiliated with the Amalgamated and retained that affiliation and
who refused to participate in the strike of the Association, have been
employed by the Tenant.10
The Tenant hired 278, or approximately 62 per cent, of the 449
employees of the Washington Manufacturing Company.il Under
such circumstances the 42 members of the Amalgamated who refused
to participate in the Association strike might reasonably have ex-
pected 26 of their number, as a minimum, to receive employment
from the Tenant;'- yet none were hired. That 26 was the minimum
number of jobs they should have received is apparent from certain
other facts. The Tenant did not restrict its hiring to 62 per cent of
11 The record shows that only about eight people were employed by the Tenant who were
ever affiliated with the Amalgamated, and they either resigned or withdrew from the Amal-
gamated prior to their employment by the Tenant Certain other persons who affiliated
themselves with the Amalgamated have not been called to work by the Tenant although
they filed applications , but we are unable to find on the basis of the record before us that
their affiliation with the Amalgamated was a matter of public knowledge in the community
as was that of the 42 who publicly displayed their affiliation when they refused to partici-
pate in the strike of the Association , or that their affiliation was known at all
n The record does not show the total number of employees of the Washington Manufac -
turing Company , as such We base our finding that the Washington Manufacturing Com-
pany had 449 employees on the following facts (1) the Tenant employed 278 persons
formerly employed by the Washington Manufacturing Company; ( 2) 147 former employees
of the Washington Manufacturing Company who belonged to the Association were not
hired by the Tenant; ( 3),24 former employees of the Washington Manufactuiing Company
who were members of the Amalgamated and who had not also joined the Association, were
not hired by the Tenant Adding these figures we arrive at a total of 449 employees of
the Washington Manufacturing Company This figure is corroborated by Adams, attorney
for the Association, who testified that the Association represented all but about 20 of the
Washington Manufacturing Company employees . The Association had 425 members among
the employees of the Washington Manufactui ing Company
'a Cf North Whittier Heights Citrus Association v N L R B, 306 U S 660.
enf'g Matter of North Whittier Heights Citrus Association and Citrus Packing House
Workers Union, Local No 21091, 10 N L R B. 1269 ; West Oregon Lumber Company and
Lumber and Sawmill Workers Local Union No 3, International TVoodworkers of America,
20 N L R B 1; Hamilton-Bi own Shoe Company, a corporation v N L R B, 104 F
(2d) 49 (C C A. 8), enf'g as mod Matter of Hamilton -Brown Shoe Company, a corpora-
tion and Local No 125 United Shoe Workers of America , affiliated with the Committee for
Industrial Organization , 9 N. L R . B 1073; Montgomery Ward