Mock-Judson-Voehringer Co. of North Carolina, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 7, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 133 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of MOCK-JUDSON-VOEHRINOER COMPANY OF NORTH
CAROLINA , INCORPORATED and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY
WORKERS, NORTH CAROLINA DISTRICT . .
Case No. C-541.-Decided July 7, 1938
Hosiery Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion:
antiunion statements ; distribution of antiunion magazine to employees ; dis-
tribution to employees of pamphlet misrepresenting Act ; participation in
molestation of union organizers ; proffered assistance in resigning from union-
Discrimination : discharge , for union membership ; charges of , not sustained as
to one person-Reinstatement Ordered: discharged 'employee-Back Pay/:
awarded discharged employee.
Mr. Jacob Blum and Mr. Herbert 0. Eby, for the Board.
Mr. Frank P. Hobgood and Mr. Benjamin T. Ward, for the re-
spondent.
Mr. Lewis M. Gill, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges. duly filed by Henry I. Adams, district manager,
American Federation of Hosiery Workers, North Carolina District,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region
(Baltimore, Maryland), issued its complaint dated November 24,
1937, against the Mock-Judson-Voehringer Company, Greensboro,
North Carolina, herein called the respondent, alleging that the re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent discharged Cecile Clara White and Howard Cabe
McCraw on or about June 25, 1937, and July 15, 1937, respectively,
because of membership and activity in the Union, 'and has since re-
fused to reinstate them, and that during May, June, and July, of
'1937, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
8 N. L. R . B., No. 16
133
134 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees through the distribution of antiunion literature among them
and through antiunion statements by supervisory employees. The
complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the
respondent. On November 29, 1937, the respondent filed an answer to
the complaint, admitting certain allegations as to the nature of its
business but denying the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at Greensboro, North
Carolina, on December 6, 7, and 8, 1937, before James M. Brown, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the
respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hear-
ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was
afforded, all parties.
At the commencement of the hearing and again at the close of the
hearing, the respondent made various motions to dismiss the com-
plaint and particular portions thereof. The Trial Examiner denied
all such motions. Such rulings are hereby affirmed. During the
course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made a number of rulings
on motions and objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner, and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On December 19, 1937, the respondent filed a brief setting forth its
contentions. Thereafter, on March 23, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed
his Intermediate Report, in which he found that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. Particularly he found
that through distribution of antiunion literature to its employees,
through antiunion statements by supervisors, and through the dis-
charge of Cecile Clara White because of her union membership and
activity, the respondent had violated the Act. He found the dis-
charge of Howard McCraw to have been due to the latter's insub-
ordination, interference with production,aand use of profane and
abusive language, and dismissed the allegations in the complaint that
the respondent had discharged McCraw because of his union member-
ship and activities. Thereafter the respondent filed voluminous ex-
ceptions to the record and to the Intermediate Report, and requested
oral argument before the Board. Pursuant to this request, oral argu-
ment was had before the Board at Washington, D. C., on May 26,
[938. The respondent and the Union participated, and the re-
spondent filed a brief to which we have given consideration. -
We have reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and
save as they are consistent with our findings, conclusions, and order
set forth below, we find them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
135
The respondent is a North Carolina corporation, with its plant and
principal offices in Greensboro, North Carolina. It manufactures
! adies' full-fashioned hosiery, which is shipped in an unfinished state
to the plant of another corporation in New York for final prepara-
tion for marketing. Raw materials are received from Japan and
from various States of the United States; some from within North
Carolina. The hosiery is sold primarily to retailers and department
stores. Approximately 95 per cent of the hosiery is sold outside the
State of North Carolina. In its Greensboro plant, the respondent
employs about 1,250 workers. Together with certain other corpora-
tions with similar officers and boards of directors, the respondent
constitutes a group ranking about tenth in size in the hosiery in-
dustry.
H. THE UNION
American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organization
formerly affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and, since
March 1937, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organiza-
tion. It admits to membership production and maintenance workers
in the hosiery industry.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The Union began its organizational efforts at the respondent's
plant in the latter part of March 1937. The campaign was impeded
by a number of obstacles set up by the respondent.
For a period of about 5 years ending in August 1937, the re-
spondent subscribed to a monthly magazine called "Industry and
Labor", having copies mailed directly to its employees at their homes.
The respondent denies that the publication is antiunion in nature.
However, a copy of the August 1937 issue is in evidence, no claim
is made that it is other than a fair sample, and an inspection thereof
reveals the respondent's contention to be frivolous. On the inside of
the front cover is what appears to be an editorial, violent in tone, the
theme of which is that union organizers, designated as "parasites",
are exclusively interested in extracting money from the workers.
Diatribes against the C. I. O. are'inserted throughout the magazine;
for example, under the heading "Words of Wisdom" is a statement
that "The initials C. I. O. do not represent Committee for Industrial
Organization but stand for Communistic International Order." As a
136 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
whole, distribution of the 'publication, apparently published by the
William Wallace Cowan Company, Manchester, New Hampshire,
was obviously calculated to deter the respondent's employees from
affiliating themselves with labor organizations. The respondent ter-
minated the distribution of this magazine to its employees after the
August 1937 issue.
A day or two after the constitutionality of the Act was sustained
by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 12, 1937, the
respondent distributed to its employees copies of a mimeographed
document entitled "A Message to Employees-Facts About the Wag-
ner Act (National Labor Relations Act)." The document consists
of six questions and answers, relating to such matters as whether
employees must join unions, whether employers must enter agree-
ments with unions, whether employee representation plans are in-
valid, and the like. The answers given to such questions are in the
negative. We had occasion to comment on an almost identical
document in the Mansfield Mills case.' which the respondent therein
had also distributed to employees. Another similar document was
also involved in that case. We repeat here what we said in regard
to those two documents :
Neither leaflet can be deemed an unbiased explanation of the
Act. Both alike neglect to set forth in clear terms the funda-
mental purpose of the Act to eliminate certain sources of in-
dustrial conflict "by encouraging the practice and procedure
of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by work-
ers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and desig-
nation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose
of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment
or other mutual aid or protection." In both alike, the emphasis
upon what the provisions of the Act do not purport to do, rather
than upon the principles and the rights which the Act estab-
lishes, 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 mis-
understanding." The distribution by an employer of such leaf-
lets 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 adopt the above language as applicable in this case. We do
not say that an employer is barred from giving out information on
'Matter of Mansfield Mills , Inc. and Textile Workers Organizing 'Committee, 3
N. L. R. B. 901.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 137
the Act, but a purported explanation of its effect which omits refer-
ence to its fundamental purposes and points only to its negative
aspects, must be regarded as an attempt to divert workers from the
exercise of their right to self-organization.
Early in April 1937 Charles Drake and Charles Centers, organ-
izers for the Union, stationed themselves on the sidewalk outside the
gates of the respondent's plant in Greensboro, and made ready to
distribute Union literature to the workers. Shortly thereafter a
group of men emerged from the plant and told Drake and Centers to
get away from the mill if they "knew what was healthy." Leading
the group and directing their activities was Ney Wolfe, a foreman
of the respondent. There were about eight men in this first group,
but they did not rout the organizers, whereupon Wolfe said, "Well,
if they won't chase you away, I will get somebody that will." He
reentered the mill, and presently appeared with a larger group of
workers, instructing them to take the literature away from the
organizers. From the crowd came a suggestion that the organizers
"get, away from there if they did not want to be torn apart." At
about that time (4 p. m.), a change of shift took place, and the
crowd around the organizers increased. Superintendent Hunt ap-
peared on the scene at that point, and suggested to the organizers
that they leave. An aisle in the crowd was formed through which
the organizers could depart. Wolfe added : "If you do not leave
now I will not be responsible for what these people do to you." The
organizers finally left.
Wolfe did not testify. Hunt did, however, and as to this inci-
dent, he merely stated that he came upon the scene when about 150
or 200 employees were gathered around Drake and Centers, that the
employees were "in a very excited state," and that he advised Drake
that he and Centers should leave before any trouble started. He
asserted that he told the workers not to bother the organizers, but
admitted that he did not order them to disperse. He further testi-
fied that after the incident he spoke to Ney Wolfe : "I told Ney that
he did wrong and should not have done it." In a brief filed with
the Board, the respondent concedes the "impropriety" of Wolfe's
conduct.
A consideration of the above evidence convinces us that the molesta-
tion of the Union organizers in their peaceful distribution of literature
was instigated by Wolfe and condoned by Hunt. While the respond-
ent denies that Wolfe was authorized to act as he did, his status
as a foreman is conceded. He was a representative of the management,
and for his acts the respondent is responsible. , The respondent asserts
that in any event, since the Act only -protects employees, and since
at the time of this incident none of its employees had yet joined the
138 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union, it cannot be held to have violated the Act by any part it played
in routing the organizers. In fact, in its brief there appears the
following contention : "On the occasion complained of, if the Board
of Directors of respondent had attacked Drake and Centers with pick
axes and shot guns, the Directors would have been accountable to the
laws of the State of North Carolina, but under no construction of the
Wagner Act would they have been accountable before this Board."
We reject as patently spurious the claim that under the Act, employers
may bludgeon union representatives with impunity until the particular
unions gain a membership foothold in their plants. So open an in-
dication of hostility toward a labor organization on the part of repre-
sentatives of the management necessarily exercises a coercive influence
on the employees.
The testimony of employee John Michael also warrants attention.
He joined the Union on April 28,1937. About a week later, becoming
fearful, he telephoned Hunt and asked him how he could get out of the
Union. Hunt told him he would rather not discuss it over the phone,
but invited Michael to see him at his office at the plant. Michael was
working on the night shift at the time. When he arrived at the plant
that evening, Hunt sent for him. The testimony as to what hap-
pened in Hunt's office is conflicting. Michael testified that he asked
Hunt concerning the procedure of quitting the Union, that Hunt
advised him to send a registered letter to the Union, and that Hunt
further informed him that a number of other employees were similarly
resigning, and asked if Michael knew of others interested in doing
so. Hunt's testimony corroborates that of Michael concerning the
telephone conversation and Hunt's sending for Michael at the plant
that evening. However, Hunt averred that "I told him it was abso-
lutely up to him; he got into it and if he wanted to get out of it it
was up to him. I made no suggestions to Mr. Michael of any kind,
of how he could get out of the union." He also flatly denied saying
anything to Michael about the resignation of other workers. Wil-
liams, a foreman, was present in Hunt's office at the time, but the
respondent did not put him on the stand.
A careful review of the testimony convinces us that Michael's story
is the more credible. It seems highly doubtful that Hunt should send
for Michael, knowing the nature of Michael's problem from the tele-
phone conversation, merely for the purpose of declining to make any
suggestions. We are further convinced in this respect by the finding
of the Trial Examiner, who observed the demeanor of the respective
witnesses, that Michael rather than Hunt was telling the truth. It
so happened that Michael, upon reflection, did not resign from the
Union, but Hunt's activity nevertheless was calculated to convey the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 139
impression that he was happy to assist in the depletion of the Union
membership.
Hunt did not limit his activity to conversations with individual em-
ployees to discuss unionization, but attended meetings of the employ-
ees for that purpose. The record does not indicate the precise time of
these meetings; according to Hunt's testimony they apparently began
in the latter part of April or first part of May 1937. It appears that
certain employees sought Hunt out and expressed a desire to hear his
views on the unionization question. He agreed to discuss the matter
with them, and the first such meeting was held at his home. Another
took place in the plant cafeteria. It does not appear where the others
occurred. About 50 or 60 workers attended the meeting at Hunt's
home; about 100 were in the group gathered in the cafeteria. Hunt
testified that he merely answered questions put to him by the employ-
ees; employees Michael and Scott testified that at the cafeteria meeting
Hunt made an address in addition to answering questions. It is not
particularly important which was the case; the significant thing is
what Hunt said. Michael recalled Hunt's saying, "If you boys stick
along with me, you will get along fine." Scott said that Hunt ex-
plained "that labor unions are merely tools of getting you in trouble,
that they will do you no good . . ." Hunt recalled telling them that
he had joined a union once because he had to, and had been called out
on strike eight times in 2 years, had been expelled, and had been sub-
jected to a heavy fine by the union. He testified that he had had both
pleasant and unpleasant experiences with unions, but that he did not
relate any of his pleasant experiences to the employees. He also testi-
fied that he explained to the workers that since a union's objective is to
create a scarcity of experienced workers, the advent of a union in the
plant would necessitate a reduction in the force. He did not recall
making a statement to the effect that unions merely get employees in
trouble. He further testified that following an admonition of Jacob
Blum, attorney for the Board, he terminated these meetings.
Upon all the evidence, we are convinced that at these meetings
Hunt conveyed to the employees his distaste for unions, and that the
intended effect of his remarks was to influence his listeners against
affiliating themselves with the Union. The Trial Examiner so found.
We find that by the distribution to its employees of the magazine
"Industry and Labor" and the pamphlet concerning the Act, by its
participation in the molestation of organizers for the Union, and by
Hunt's antiunion remarks to employees and his proffered assistance
to employee Michael in resigning from the Union, the respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
140 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The discharges
Howard Cabe McCraw, began work at the respondent's plant in
1933, starting as an inexperienced helper and-working up to a posi-
tion as knitting machine operator at a rate of $35 to $40 a week. He
joined the Union in the latter part of April 1937, and was active in
soliciting other members. He was discharged on July 15, 1937,
under circumstances which we shall now set forth.
A few days prior to July 15, one George Geissinger, an employee
of the respondent who worked in the knitting department along with
McCraw, was discharged. The circumstances surrounding Geis-
singer's discharge are not clearly shown, but although he was not a
member of the Union, his discharge was deemed unfair by McCraw.
On the morning of July 15 McCraw induced a number of the opera-
tors in the knitting department to cease work in protest against Geis-
singer's dismissal. McCraw also stopped work and seated himself
on a table next to his machine to await developments. His foreman,
Fred Zwicky, presently appeared and, noting McCraw's inac,ivity,
asked why he was not working. McCraw replied that he was "wait-
ing for George Geissinger to come back to work." Zwicky indi-
cated that the matter was one which should be referred to Hunt, the
superintendent, and he and McCraw set out for Hunt's office. As
they were passing through the department, McCraw called to his fel-
low workers to come along. His testimony is that he called "Come
on, fellows; let's go to the office." Zwicky testified that McCraw,
when the other workers did not follow, cursed them vehemently. At
any rate, no one followed. When they arrived at Hunt's office,
Zwicky told Hunt what had transpired. McCraw testified that Hunt
thereupon told him that he was fired. Hunt and Zwicky testified
that Hunt first told McCraw that Geissinger would not be taken back,
and advised McCraw to go back and resume work; that McCraw then
profanely retorted that they had had control long enough, and that
from then on the Union was going to tell them "how to run this
place"; that after Hunt told him to cease such talk and go back to
work, McCraw stated "I am not working for you any more"; and
that Hunt then told Zwicky to make out a discharge slip for McCraw.
The Trial Examiner found Zwicky's story more worthy of belief than
that told by McCraw. We uphold his findings and adopt the
respondent's theory of the course of events as set forth above.
After being told he was fired McCraw engaged in very compro-
mising conduct. Apparently under the belief that he was not to be
paid for the set of 12 pair of hose then on his machine (although
Zwicky testified that he assured McCraw that he would be paid for
what work he had done on the set), McCraw turned off the machine,
deliberately damaging the entire set, although not completely be-
DECISIONS AND OitDEIiS 141
yond repair. The other knitters, who had apparently been idling
by their machines while all this was going on, resumed work when
Zwicky told them to do so. McCraw finally got his pay and left
the plant.
We find that the evidence does not sustain the allegation in the
complaint that McCraw was discharged because of his membership
and activity in the Union.
Cecile Clara ZVhite began work for the respondent on January 13,
1937, and was employed in the closing department, operating a
machine which sewed together the elastic at the top of knee-length
hosiery. There were 13 girls engaged in this work during the peak
season. III the early part of June, the respondent began slackening
its production of knee-length hosiery, and from that time until the
middle of November 1937, when production of knee-length hosiery
was completely terminated, the girls in the closing department were
successively dismissed. Elizabeth Ozment, Edna Phillips, Robina
Lee, and Lenora Ferguson, none of whom appear to have been mem-
bers of the Union, were the first four to go, and were all dismissed
by June 11. Miss White was the fifth, being discharged on June 25.
After June 25 a month elapsed before the sixth dismissal occurred;
on November 12 the last of the 13 girls was let out. Besides White,
three other girls among the 13 were Union members; they were the
7th, 9th, and 10th to be ]et off, and there is before us no complaint
as to their dismissals.
While it may appear from the above general schedule of dismiss-
als that White was fairly well down the list in time of discharge, a
closer inspection reveals that Ozment, the first to go, had been work-
ing less than a month and was by far the newest employee; and
that Phillips, Lee, and Ferguson were all taken back by the respond-
ent in other departments before White was discharged. Accordingly,
iii practical effect, White was the first to go with the exception of
Ozment, who had barely started work when the reduction in force
began.2
White had joined the Union on April 27, 1937. Hodgins, fore-
man of the closing department as well as of the seaming and loop-
ing departments, testified that lie had, prior to White's discharge,
heard a rumor that White belonged to the Union. White testified
7 Aside from the case of Ozment, seniority appears not to have been followed with
any consistency in the order of dismissal of the 13 girls. Ozment had been at work only
slightly over 3 weeks when the reduction began; her selection for the first dismissal ap-
pears logical, since the others had been at work for periods ranging from nearly 4 months
to over 2 years . The other 3 girls who were dismissed before white (but rehired
before she was let go) had slightly less seniority than white ; of the 8 dismissed after
White, 3 had a few days more seniority than she, 2 had slightly less , and 3 had con-
siderably more . The respondent 's position at the hearing was that seniority is given no
consideration whatsoever in regard to lay-offs , dismissals , and rehiring ; merit is said
to be the sole criterion.
142 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Hodgins had stopped by her machine one day and remarked
that he understood she and three other girls had joined the Union.
Hodgins testified that he "wouldn't say either way" as to whether he
had questioned White on her Union membership, that although he
"would lean towards not saying it," he would not deny it positively.
The Trial Examiner, who observed Hodgins on the witness stand,
pointed out in his Intermediate Report that he was "anything but
impressed with the witness' denial at this point." We find that
Hodgins did speak to White concerning her membership in the
Union.
Both Hodgins and Mrs. Jordan, supervisor in the department,
averred that White turned out a considerable amount of bad work,
although she was a fast producer. It appears that the bad work
consisted of leaving strings of thread on the hosiery after the ends
of the elastic had been sewed together. The following testimony
by Hodgins indicates that the girls who leave strings on their work
must remedy the deficiencies themselves, thus reducing their pro-
duction on which pay is based :
Q. (by counsel for the Board). Is an employee paid for bad
work?
A. They are paid, but we have to fix it over.
Q. In fixing over bad work, they are not paid twice, are they?
They are just paid once?
A. No.
Q. And if they do that it interferes with their regular pro-
duction work?
A. That is right.
Q. Well, including what bad work Miss White did and had
to do over again, do you know how her salary compared with
that of other girls in that department?
A. No. .^
Q. Do you know whether she made more than the other girls,
on an average?
A. She made as much.
Q. Including what bad work she did?
A. Well, they had all the time to work on that. You see,
that is done in the morning and in the late afternoon.
As indicated by the above testimony, White made at least as much
as the other girls despite the alleged bad work and the loss of time
involved in doing it over. As a matter of fact, White herself testified
that she consistently had the highest pay check of any of the 13 girls
in the department. She was positive as to this, and in view of the
respondent's failure to contradict it, we see no reason to disbelieve
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 143
her. Furthermore, we are inclined to regard as specious the entire
claim as to bad work on her part. On her, employment card, kept
by the respondent in its files, there appears the following explanatory
legend concerning her dismissal: "Good producer. Knee-length
styles going off." We. see nothing there about bad work. And finally,
in the respondent's brief there appears this statement : "The Exam-
iner labors the point of Miss White's proficiency. Respondent has
never asserted that she was discharged because of inefficiency."
Although this latter statement is somewhat at odds with the apparent
effort of the respondent at the hearing to show that White's work was
unduly poor, upon all the facts we find that bad work was not a factor
bearing on her discharge and the subsequent refusal to rehire her.
When White was discharged on June 25, she immediately filed with
Wilkins, employment manager, her application for rehire. She fol-
lowed it up from time to time thereafter, without success. On one
occasion when she saw Hodgins he advised her to get another job.
Wilkins testified that since White's discharge, he has hired 12 new
female applicants with no prior experience in the type of work to
which they were assigned. He averred that in his judgment, which
is controlling in hiring applicants, all were superior to White; he
did not elaborate on this broad assertion. It is true that White was
experienced only in the closing department work. * However, she had
been classified on the respondent's records as a "good producer," her
production was the highest of all the girls in the closing department,
and it is reasonable to suppose that she normally would be given
preference over completely untried applicants.
White's average weekly wage in the closing department was $17.81.
After 12 weeks of unemployment following her discharge, she
obtained another position in Greensboro at a rate of $11 a week.
Upon all the evidence, while White's case is not totally free from
doubt, we are of the belief that she was selected for early discharge,
and consistently denied reemployment, not because she was less quali-
fied than those accorded preference, but because of her membership in
the Union. The Trial Examiner's judgment to this effect is persuasive,
as it was to the contrary effect in the case of McCraw, and we sustain
his finding. 'There is evidence in the record that Phillips, another
employee in the closing department, was told by Hunt and Wilkins
that she would be assured of a job if she would stay away from the
Union. This evidence, which we believe, tends to corroborate our
conclusion as to White.
By discharging and refusing to reemploy Cecile Clara White, the
respondent has discriminated with respect to her hire and tenure of
employment, thereby discouraging membership in the'Union and in-
terfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
144 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, have a close, intimate,, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
The respondent urges that it has already ceased and desisted from
any antiunion activities it may have committed in the way of. dis-
tribution of antiunion literature or influencing its employees against
union affiliation; hence that a cease and desist order as to such activi-
ties, even if they are found to have been violative of law, is inappropri-
ate. We do not share this view. Without alleging that the respond-
ent's assurances of future conduct are insincere, we deem it necessary
and appropriate, on the facts in this case, to issue our usual cease and
desist order. -
Since we have found the discharge and subsequent refusal to re-
hire Cecile Clara White to have been based on her union affiliation,
we shall follow our usual practice and order that she be reinstated,
with back pay, to a position substantially equivalent to her old job.
The complaint will be dismissed in so far as concerns the discharge
of Howard McCraw.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the en-
tire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, North Carolina Dis-
trict, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Cecile Clara White, and thereby. discouraging membership in
the Union, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of,the Act.,
3. By. interfering with, restraining, 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 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
5. By discharging Howard Cabe McCraw, the respondent has not
engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8
(3) of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
ORDER
145
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ent; Mock-Judson-Voehringer Company of North Carolina, Incorpo-
rated, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, North Carolina District, or any other labor organization
of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reemploy any of its
employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to -their
hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of their
employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section, 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Cecile Clara White immediate and full reinstatement
to a position substantially equivalent to that formerly held by her,
without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Cecile Clara White for any loss of pay she may
have suffered by reason of the respondent's discriminatory acts, by
payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would
normally have earned as wages during the period from June 25, 1937,
to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less any amount
she has earned during that period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant
notices stating that the respondent will cease and desist as aforesaid,
and maintain such posted notices for a period of at least thirty (30)
consecutive days from the date of posting;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
And it is further ordered that.the complaint, in so far -as it alleges
that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Howard Cabe McCraw, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.