Mooresville Cotton Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1939

15 N.L.R.B. 416 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of MOORESVILLE COTTON MILLS and LOCAL No. 1221,
UNITED TEXTILE' WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-85
Cotton Textile Industry-Regular and Substantially Equirualent Employment:
supplemental findings as to, upon remand from United States Circuit Court
of Appeals ; factors considered : comparison with former employment as it
would have been but for the unlawful discrimination ; (1) the employment
itself; occupational desirability of work, skill required , hourly earnings , number
of hours of work available per week, weekly earnings, lay-offs, seniority
policy, effort required , physical conditions of work, work at night and on
Saturdays, (2) location of the work; cost of commuting, time consumed in
commuting , cost of living, distance from wife and children , distance from
parents, brothers , and sisters , distance from accustomed community of resi-
dence ; no regular and substantially equivalent employment obtained by any
of individuals involved.
Mr. Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., and Mr. Berdon M. Bell, for the
Board.
Mr. Zeb. V. Turlington, of Mooresville , N. C., and Hamrick d
Hamrick, by Mr. Fred D. Hamrick, of Rutherfordton, N. C., for the
respondent.
Mr. S. A. Lischinsky, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
Mr. Bernard W. Freund, of counsel to the Board.
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
RECOMMENDATION
September 16, 109
On June 10, 1937, the National. Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, issued a Decision and Order in this case.' In its Decision
the Board found that Mooresville Cotton Mills, Mooresville, North
Carolina, herein called the respondent, had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing 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, in
that, between October 1935 and February 1936, it had denied the ap-
1 2 N. L. R . B. 952 ; The Decision contains a statement of the proceedings prior thereto.
15 N. L. R. B., No. 43.
416
MOORESVILLE COTTON MILLS 417
plications of eight employees for reinstatement because they were or
were thought to have been active in prosecuting a strike of the
respondent's employees which began on September 23, 1935, or in the
affairs of Local No. 1221, United Textile Workers of America, a labor
organization, herein called the Union.
The Board ordered the respondent to offer each of the eight indi-
viduals immediate and full reinstatement to his former position, with
back pay, less earnings, from the date of refusal of his application
for reinstatement to the date of offer of reinstatement as required by
the Board's Order. In addition, the Board ordered the respondent
to cease and desist from discouraging membership in the Union or
any other labor organization of its employees by discrimination in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment, and from in any other manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act, and ordered it to post notices in its
plant stating that it would so cease and desist.
On January 4, 1938, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, herein called the Court, having reviewed the
Board's Order upon, petition by the respondent, as provided in Section
10 (f) of the Act, issued an opinion,' and on January 5, 1938, entered
a decree enforcing the Order with certain modifications. The modi-
fications consisted of the elimination of the requirements as to the
posting of notices and as to the reinstatement of four of the eight
individuals, namely, A. J. Helms, Van Helms, Van Benfield,-and C. E.
Rogers, and modification of the back-pay provisions in so far as these
four men were concerned to provide that the respondent pay each
of them back pay, less earnings, from the date of refusal of his appli-
cation for reinstatement to the date of his "acquisition of substantially
equivalent employment."
On April 4, 1938, the Court granted a petition of the Board for
rehearing of the case, and at the same time set aside and annulled
its decree of January 5, 1938. On July 14, 1938, the Court issued a
second opinion in the case,3 in which, among other things, it modified
its former opinion with respect to the posting of notices ,4 and at the
same time entered a decree that the case be remanded to the Board
to determine the questions of fact as to whether the employment se-
cured by A. J. Helms, Van Helms, Van Benfield, and C. E. Rogers
subsequent to the strike and to the refusal of the respondent to rein-
state them was "substantially equivalent to the positions formerly
held by them respectively in the Mooresville Cotton Mills."
2 Mooresville Cotton Mills v. National Labor Relations Board , 94 F. (2d) 61.
8Mooresville Cotton Mills v. National Labor Relations Board , 97 F. (2d) 959.
' The Court ruled that the respondent should be required to post notices which included
a copy of the Order of the Board, together with a statement that the Order had been
approved by the Court and was binding upon the respondent.
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the Court's mandate, and to notice of hearing and
notice of postponement of hearing issued by the Board and duly
served upon the respondent and the Union, a hearing was held on
October 24, 25, and 26, 1938, at Charlotte, North Carolina, before
Tilford E. Dudley, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel
and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and to cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course
of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made a number of rulings on
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has considered the various rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
On November 25, 1938, the Board, acting pursuant to Article IT,
Section 38 (a), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 11as amended, ordered the Trial Examiner, to pre-
pare an Intermediate Report in the matter. On March 22, 1939,
pursuant to this order, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and
the Union. In his report, the Trial Examiner found that the em-
ployment secured by A. J. Helms, Van Helms, Van Benfield, and
C. E. Rogers, respectively, subsequent to the strike of September
23, 1935, and to the refusal of the respondent to reinstate them was
not regular and was not substantially equivalent to the positions
respectively held by them before the strike in the Mooresville Cotton
Mills, and recommended that the Board enter its findings
accordingly.
On April 3, 1939, the respondent filed with the Board exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, and on June 5, 1939, submitted a brief
which the Board has considered. On June 9, 1939, pursuant to
amended notice duly served upon the respondent and the Union, a
hearing for the purpose of oral argument was conducted before the
Board at Washington, District of Columbia. The respondent and
the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the oral
argument. The Board has considered the respondent's exceptions,
and, except in so far as they are consistent with the Supplemental
Findings of Fact and Recommendation made below, finds them to
be without merit.
Upon consideration of the entire record in the case, the Board
hereby makes the following:
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT ,
Before we proceed to an examination of the evidence, a discussion
of the issues and of some of the general problems arising in con-
MOORESVILLE COTTON MILLS 419
nection therewith is in order. Section 2 (3) of the Act provides
that "the term `employee' shall include any employee , . . . and shall
include any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of,
or in connection with any current labor dispute or because of any
unfair labor practice , and who has not obtained any other regular
and substantially equivalent employment." The factual question to
be determined in this supplemental proceeding is whether , at some
time subsequent to the strike and to the refusal of the respondent
to reinstate them, A . J. Helms, Van Helms, Van Benfield, and C. E.
Rogers secured employment which was regular and substantially
equivalent to their respective positions at the respondent 's mill. It
is the view of the Court , as expressed in its opinions of January 4
and July 14 , 1938, that , if this question be answered in the affirma-
tive, these four men are ineligible for reinstatement or for the pay-
ment of back pay beyond the date on which such employment was
obtained.
From expressions in the Court's opinions , it seems clear that the
Court contemplated that the time as of which the Board should de-
termine the regularity and equivalence of other employment ob-
tained by the four men should not be prior to the date of the Board's
Order of June 10, 1937 . It is not clear , however, whether it was
intended that employment secured subsequent to that date should be
considered . At the supplemental hearing, evidence was admitted
concerning employment obtained by the men up to the date of that
hearing, October 24 to 26, 1938. We shall consider whether the men
obtained other regular and substantially equivalent employment at
any time prior to the date of the supplemental hearing.
Assuming, as the Court has decided , that the power of the Board
to order reinstatement does not extend to a victim of illegal dis-
crimination who has obtained regular and substantially equivalent
employment elsewhere , within the meaning of Section 2 ( 3) of the
Act, we think that it was the legislative intendment that the equiv-
alence of the old and new employments be tested in the light of
all the factors which would be considered by a reasonable person
in the position of the individual involved.
The respondent contends that the location of the work should
not be taken into account in comparing a new employment to the
old one, the argument being that the word "employment " in Section
2 (3) contemplates the strict legal relationship of master and ser-
vant and therefore only the elements of nature of work, compensa-
tion, hours , and tenure are material to the comparison . We think
that Congress did not intend its use of the word "employment" to
have this restrictive effect. In this conclusion we have the support
of two other United States Circuit Courts of Appeals . The words
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"substantially equivalent" in Section 2 (3) have been defined by the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to
cover "many things, including rate of pay, hours, working conditions,
location of the work, kind of work, and seniority rights, if any." 5
[Italics ours.] The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, in remanding a case to the Board for further proof
on the question of whether an individual had obtained other "sub-
stantially equivalent employment" within the meaning of Section
2 (3), likewise has recognized that such matters as "place, distance,
hours, tenure, prestige, seniority, possibility of advancement, etc.,"
are "material conditions" which the Board may consider in determin-
ing whether the other employment is substantially equivalent to the
position formerly held by the individual.e [Italics ours.]
An analogy may be drawn to cases where a wrongfully discharged
employee brings action against his former employer to recover dam-
ages for breach of the employment contract. The damages otherwise
recoverable by the plaintiff in such a case are subject to diminution
in an amount based upon the earnings he would have made in other
available employment which he unreasonably rejected.' It often
has been held and never has been denied by the courts that the location
of the available employment may properly be considered in deter-
mining the reasonableness of the plaintiff's rejection of it. Thus, it
has been decided that a railroad switchman, wrongfully denied em-
ployment at Houston, Texas, was under no obligation to mitigate
damages by accepting like employment in a distant locality, namely,
Kennedy or San Antonio, Texas; s that the discharged employee of
a newspaper publisher at Chattanooga, Tennessee, was not compelled
to abandon his home and place of residence at Chattanooga to accept
other employment in Florida; ° that in determining the reasonable-
ness of the refusal of a woman who had been unlawfully dismissed
from employment at Boston, Massachusetts, to accept other employ-
ment at Fall River, Massachusetts, the condition of her invalid mother
in her care at Boston might properly be considered.10
Likewise, it has been held that acceptance by a discharged school
teacher of employment at another place for the same pay would
not necessarily negative the possibility of damages resulting from
the wrongful discharge, since the compensation at the new employ-
ment, although the same as before, "might have been wholly in-
6 National Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber Company, 99 F. (2d) 533, certiorari
denied, 59 S. Ct. 586.
6 National Labor Relations Board Y. Botany Worsted Mills, Inc., 106 F. ( 2d) 263, decided
August 3, 1939.
See McClelland v. Climax Hosiery Mills, 252 N. Y. 347, 358.
San Antonio d A. P. By. Co. v. Collins, 61 S. W. (2d) 84 (Comm. of App, of Tex.).
e News Publishing Co. v. Burger, 2 Tenn. Civ. A. 179.
10Ilussey v. Holloway, 217 Mass. 100, 104 N. E. 471.
MOORESVILLE COTTON MILLS 421
sufficient to compensate the plaintiff; for the expenses of breaking
up, removing, and of living at another place might come into the
estimation of damages." 11 The statement has also been made by
important legal authorities that whether a traveling salesman who
has covered New England with headquarters at Boston, Massachu-
setts, must accept other employment to cover the same territory with
headquarters at New York City is a question for the triers of fact
to determine in view of all the circumstances, including the social
interests of the salesman and his wife.12
A similar regard for location in the evaluation of an employment
is evidenced by provisions contained in the unemployment compen-
sation laws enacted in the 48 States and the District of Columbia
to qualify for benefits under ' the Federal Social Security Act, 49
Stat. 620. Enlarging upon the provisions of Section 903 (a) (5)
of that statute, which provides in part that unemployment compen-
sation shall not be denied to an otherwise eligible individual for
refusing to accept ne-v work if the "wages, hours, or other conditions
of the work offered are substantially less favorable to the individual
than those prevailing for similar work in the locality," all these local
statutes provide that the individual need not accept employment
which is not "suitable," and that in determining whether new work
which he has refused to accept is suitable, consideration may or shall
be given to the distance of the work from his residence; in some of
them, the alternative is offered of considering the distance of the
work from the place of last employment. Several of these statutes
expressly provide in addition that consideration may be given to
whether the offered employment involved travel expense to the indi-
vidual substantially greater than that required in his former work.13
In applying these provisions, State unemployment compensation
commissions have determined that work as a strawberry picker On a
farm away from home was not suitable employment for the wid-
owed mother of a 15-year-old girl, since she was "needed at home to
care for and protect her daughter and to keep her at School" ; 14
that work in a different town was not suitable for a. woman who had
to take care of a paralyzed mother; 15 that work located more than
100 miles from the individual's place of residence or last employment
was not suitable."
u Armfield v. Nash, 31 Miss. 361.
v Restatement of the Law of Agency, Section 455 (d). See also 5 Williston on Con-
tracts (1937), Sec. 1359.
mm Massachusetts Unemployment Compensation Act, Section 16 (d) ; New York Unem-
ployment Compensation Law, Section 506 (c) ; Ohio Unemployment Compensation Law,
Section 6e (3).
14 United States Social Security Board, Unemployment Compensation Interpretation
Service, Benefit Series, Vol. 1, No. 6, October 1938, pp. 802-3 (North Carolina).
'5lbid ., p. 805 ( North Carolina).
36 Op. cit., Vol. 1, No. 1, November 1937, part II, p. 121 (Wisconsin).
199549-39-vol. 15--28
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As the above paragraphs indicate, a realistic and just determina-
tion of whether one employment is approximately as good as, or,
in the words of the Act, is "substantially equivalent" to, another
cannot always be made by reference only to the nature of work,
wages, hours, and tenure. In our opinion, Congress intended that
the Board, in resolving the issue of substantially equivalent employ-
ment, should also take into account such matters as the comparative
expense to the individual of traveling to and from work, the cost
of living at his accustomed scale, the amount of time consumed and
the physical hardship involved in traveling between home and work,
and the opportunities to fulfill his obligations to his family and to
continue his fixed way of life.
In determining whether other employment which the individual
secured was equivalent, we shall compare it to the employment which
he would have had but for the unlawful discrimination. The em-
ployment which was unlawfully terminated had, as one of its fea-
tures, the prospect of continuance, and therefore can be evaluated
properly only by reference to the terms, conditions, and other at-
tributes which would have obtained if the unfair labor practices of
the employer had not intervened. If the employment enjoyed by
the individual before the discrimination would have become more
desirable or less desirable had it continued, the ' eventuality must
be considered in ascertaining the equivalence of other employment
secured by him. Where evidence as to the subsequent character of
the original employment is lacking, we shall, however, take the his-
tory of the employment before the discrimination as determinative
of the course which the employment would have followed thereafter,
on the basis of the presumption that a condition once existing tends
to continue.
The respondent objects to the Board's using as a basis for corn-
pa.rison the attributes of the employment as it would have been
save for the discrimination, on the ground that the determination
of those attributes requires speculation and cannot be made with any
degree of certainty. Speculation and uncertainty are involved to
a greater or less degree in the resolution of almost every controverted
factual issue, however, and their presence here cannot excuse the
Board from the performance of its duties as a trier of fact.
The respondent's mill, at which towels and other cotton textiles
are manufactured, is located in Mooresville, North Carolina, a town
of 6,500 population, in the west central portion of the State. The
respondent normally employs about 2,200 persons when operating full
time, but for several months prior to the strike on September 23,
1935, its business was slack and only about 1,400 persons were work-
ing at the mill, including the 4 men whose subsequent employment
we are about to consider.
MOORESVILLE COTTON MILLS 423
In September 1935, the respondent was operating two shifts 24
hours a week. In December 1935 it operated one shift 40 hours a
week. Production increased rapidly thereafter, and between Janu-
ary 1936 and July 1937, two 40-hour shifts were employed each week.
The respondent continued to run two shifts from July 1937 to the
date of the supplemental hearing, but curtailed the number of hours
of work per week or reduced the number of looms in operation from
time to time, averaging "about 60 per cent production," according
to John F. Matheson, president of the respondent. It appears that
the total number of employees did not fall below 1,500 or 1,600 dur-
ing this period.
A. J. Helms
A. J. Helms, a weaver, was first employed by the respondent in
1904, and remained in the respondent's employ continuously, with-
out lay-off, from 1908 until September 23, 1935, except for about 4
weeks in 1924 and several weeks on another occasion when he worked
at other mills. For 7 or 8 years .before the strike, Helms was engaged
in weaving towels, and for about 2 years preceding the strike he
operated the same set of looms.
A. J. Helms has lived in Mooresville, North Carolina, continuously
since 1.908. He was born in 1887, is married, and has six children,
the two youngest being 14 and 18 years of age, respectively. At the
time of the strike he lived with his wife and two youngest children in
a company house, which he vacated on December 1, 1935, at the re-
spondent's request. Thereafter, Helms maintained his family in a
hut on a lot which he owned at the edge of the city until 1937, when
he had a house built on the lot. Since then he and his wife, with
the two youngest children, have been living in this house ; at the
time of the supplemental hearing, in October 1938, his oldest son
and daughter-in-law were also living there.
A. J. Helms was paid on a piece-rate basis, and worked a regular
workweek of 40 hours, 8 hours per day. At the time of the strike
his hours were from 7 a. m. to 3 p. m.; be had not worked on a
night shift for a long time prior thereto. His, place of work was
well lighted and well ventilated. In 1934,17 Helms worked at least
43 weeks and averaged 42 cents per hour and $13.85 per week worked.
In 1935, he worked 37 out of the 38 weeks before the strike, averaging
$15.80 per week worked; he estimated his hourly average at 45 cents.
17 Although the record contains evidence concerning the wages and hours of A. J. Helms,
Van Helms , Van Benfield, and C. E. Rogers in the years 1930 , 1931, 1932, and 1 933, we
consider this evidence to be of little value, since it appears that substantial changes in
the wages and hours in effect at the respondent ' s mill were made following the enactment
of the National Industrial Recovery Act, 48 Stat . 195, on June 16, 1933.
424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. J. Helms' position was taken after the strike by John Nantz,
who operated the looms continuously thereafter, except for a 4
months' period in 1936 when A. S. Towell, a spare hand, substituted
for Nantz during his absence from work. Records supplied by the
respondent are incomplete, but show that the looms ,were operated
by Nantz or Towell at least 8 weeks in 1936, at least 46 weeks in 1937
at an average of 36 hours per week, and 43 out of the first 44 weeks
in 1938 at an average of 35 hours per week. The records also permit
a computation of Nantz's hourly rate, revealing yearly averages of
from 43 to 49 cents, but since hourly earnings on piece-rate basis are
dependent in part upon the skill and industry of the individual, we
do not consider that these averages provide a fair indication of what
Helms would have earned if his employment had continued.
Morgan Cotton Mills. After the strike, A. J. Helms was unem-
ployed until December 27, 1935, when he secured work at a mill
operated by Morgan Cotton Mills, Inc., at Laurinburg, North Caro-
lina, located about 130 miles from Mooresville. His employment
continued until April 18, 1.936, when he quit to accept work closer to
his family and church. During this employment, Helms lived at
Laurinburg during the week, returning to Mooresville each week end
to visit his family.
Helms' work consisted of weaving "drapery, heavy stuff," on
looms which were larger and heavier than those he had operated
at Mooresville, and which had a center stop motion with which he
was unfamiliar. He considered this work to be harder than his
work at Mooresville. The air at his place of work was kept warm
and moist, "pretty hot . . . stufy, humidity, you know."
Helms. was paid at a flat rate of 35 cents per hour for about 4
weeks, on a temporary basis, and thereafter was paid by piece work.
During the first 8 weeks the hours were 50 per week, 10 per day,
and Helms worked from 6 p. m. to 4 a. m. Thereafter his hours
were 40 per week, 8 per- day, from 3 to 11 p. m. During the weeks
he. worked at the flat rate of 35 cents per hour, Helms averaged
$16.45 per week. Paid on a piece-rate basis, he averaged 38 cents per
hour, and his average weekly earnings were $18.10 until his hours
were shortened, and $11.50 during the 8 weeks thereafter. His total
earnings at this employment were $233.38. The cost of his board and
lodging was $6.00 per week during the first 3 months, $5.00 per week
thereafter, and the travel expense of his visits to Mooresville was
$2.00 per week.
Although A. J. Helms' weekly pay at first was more than at
Mooresville, this was due to the much longer hours. Throughout
this employment, Helms was compelled to work long night hours
under uncomfortable physical conditions, his work was harder, and
MOORESVILLE COTTON MILLS 425
he earned substantially less per hour than at Mooresville . In addi-
tion, the location of the work involved increased living expenses and
separation from home and family. We find that the employment was
not regular and substantially equivalent to A. J. Helms' employment
at Mooresville.
Killingly Worsted Mill. From April 18 to about May 23, 1936,
A. J. Helms was employed at the Killingly Worsted Mill , located
at Stony Point, North Carolina, about 28 miles from Mooresville.
This is a small mill employing only about 165 persons . Helms com-
muted daily between Mooresville and Stony Point at a weekly cost of
$1.25. In one week he earned $9.25 for 40 hours' work , and in an-
other $5.25 for 32 hours . He testified that he made about $20 in all
during the first 3 weeks , and about $8 per week the following 2
weeks, after which he quit.
The low hourly and weekly pay at this employment as compared
to that at Mooresville , and the added expense and time of travel,
made it far from substantially equivalent . We find that it was not
regular and substantially equivalent to A. J. Helms' employment in
the respondent 's mill.
Morgan Cotton Mills. On May 25, 1936 , A. J. Helms returned to
his former work at the Morgan Cotton Mills at Laurinburg, North
Carolina. About August 22, 1936, he observed that the work was
running out , and, upon learning from his foreman that his duties
could be distributed among the other employees , he quit, in order that
he might return to his home at Mooresville . During this period of
employment , Helms worked on the shift from 3 to 11 p. in. He con-
tinued to average 38 cents per hour, paid on a piece -rate basis, but
his average weekly earnings were only $10.80, since he averaged only
28 hours of work per week . His total earnings were $140.54 . Helms'
board and lodging at Laurinburg cost $5.00 per week during this
period of employment , and he visited Mooresville each week end at
a travel cost of $2.00 per week.
During this period of employment, A. J. Helms worked on a less
desirable shift with substantially lower earnings per hour, averaged
considerably less pay per week than at Mooresville , and was forced
to live apart from his family . The employment was not regular and
substantially equivalent to the former employment in the respondent's
mill.
Cornelius Cotton Mill . A. J. Helms testified that after leaving
Laurinburg , he was unemployed for 4 or 5 weeks before he obtained
a job at the mill of the Cornelius Cotton Mill Company , located at
Cornelius , North Carolina, about 7 miles from Mooresville. That
company's records indicate , however, that Helms' employment began
about August 22, 1936, and continued until about June 25, 1937,
when he was discharged . His duties consisted of weaving summer
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pants goods on old looms; he testified that he considered this work
harder than his work at Mooresville. His regular hours were 50 per
week, 10 per day, and he worked on a night shift. Helms was paid
on a piece-rate basis, and during the 44 weeks of this employment
averaged 28 cents per hour, $12.70 per week. His total earnings were
$559.14.
The night shift, the lower weekly earnings, and the rate of pay of
this employment establish that it did not measure up to the employ-
ment at Mooresville. We find that it was not regular and substan-
tially equivalent to A. J. Helms' employment in the respondent's mill.
Highland Park Mill No. 3. A. J. Helms next worked at. the High-
land Park Mill No. 3, operated by the Highland Park Manufacturing
Company at North Charlotte, North Carolina, 28 miles from Moores-
ville. The secretary of this company at first testified that Helms'
work began prior to June 30, 1937, but later furnished records indi-
cating that the employment commenced on July 17, 1937. With the
exception of a 6 weeks' period in September and October 1937 when
the employees were on strike, Helms worked here continuously until
about January 15, 1938, when he was laid off because of poor business
conditions. Helms testified that about half of the employees work-
ing on looms like his were laid off at the same time and that the older
employees were given preference in retention at work.
The work consisted of weaving shirt goods, which A. J. Helms con-
sidered harder than weaving towels. He was employed on the after-
noon and evening shift from 2: 30 to 10: 30 p. in. His place of work
was hot and stuffy. During this employment, Helms averaged 44
cents per hour at piece rate, and $13.60 per week. His total earnings
were $271.88. Helms commuted to work daily from his new home at
Mooresville at a cost of $2.00 per week.
We consider that the undesirable night hours of work, the un-
pleasant physical working conditions, and the unfavorable effect
upon Helms' tenure of employment of the company's seniority pol-
icy prevented this employment from. attaining substantial equiva-
lence to the work at Mooresville. If a seniority policy were in effect
at the respondent's mill, which it apparently is not, it would work
to Helms' advantage, in view of the length of his employment there.
Despite the absence of a seniority policy at Mooresville, however,
since neither Helms nor his successor after the strike was ever laid
off from work there, the fact that Helms was subjected to lay-off at
North Charlotte is evidence that the employment in the latter place
did not measure up, in security of tenure, to Helms' employment at
the respondent's mill. Although the average pay per hour was about
the same, the weekly earnings were substantially less than what
Helms earned at Mooresville in 1935 or would have earned in 1937
MOORESVILLE COTTON MILLS 427
and 1938,18 and the added cost of transportation and time required
to go to and from work must also be taken into account. We find
that Helms' employment at North Charlotte was not regular and sub-
stantially equivalent to his former employment at Mooresville.
Locke Cotton Mill. After being laid off at North Charlotte, A. J.
Helms was unemployed until June 8, 1938, when he began his last
employment prior to the supplemental hearing, at the Locke Cotton
Mill, Concord, North Carolina, located about 25 miles from Moores-
ville.. His work continued until September 19, 1938, when he was
included in a lay-off due to poor business conditions. Helms wove
twisted rayon dress goods on hand-threaded looms. This he con-
sidered more difficult than weaving towels on magazine looms, the
work he had done at Mooresville. For the first 7 or 8 weeks the reg-
ular workweek was 55 hours, consisting of 10 hours per day Monday
through Friday and 5 hours on Saturday ; thereafter it was 44 hours,
8 hours per day Monday through Friday and 4 hours on Saturday.
Until the change in hours, Helms worked on the night shift, from
5:45 p. m. to 4 a. in.; his hours thereafter were from 3 to 11 p. m.
Before the hours were changed, A. J. Helms was paid 38 cents per
hour, and averaged $18.50 per week; thenceforth his hourly rate
until he was laid off was 34 cents, and he averaged $14.00 per week.
His total earnings were $239.38. He commuted to work daily from
his home at Mooresville at a cost of $1.25 per week.
A. J. Helms' weekly earnings during the first part of his employ-
ment at Concord were measurably higher than at Mooresville, but
were gained at a substantially lower hourly rate, and only by per-
forming more difficult work, by working at night and on Saturdays,
and by working much longer hours. Moreover, this period of rela-
tively high weekly earnings continued for only 7 or 8 weeks. It was
followed by a sharp drop in hourly rate and weekly pay. Less than
2 months later, after a total employment of not quite 31/2 months, the
employment ended with his lay-off, in contrast to the steady work
which he would have enjoyed at Mooresville. In addition, it involved
additional travel time and expense. We find that the employment at
Concord was not, regular and substantially equivalent to A. J. Helms'
former employment at Mooresville.
Van Helms
Van Helms began working for the respondent as a weaver about
1910, and was continuously employed by the respondent until Sep-
"We assume that the number of hours of employment per week which Helms would
have had at Mooresville in 1937 and 1938 was not less than the amount actually enjoyed
by his successors after the strike, to wit, 36 hours per week in 1937 and 35 hours per
week in 1938 . On the basis of the low hourly rate of 42 cents which Helms averaged in
1934 , he would have earned about $ 15.10 per week in 1937 and about $ 14.70 per week in
1938.
428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tember 23, 1935, when he went out on strike . About 1930 his duties
were changed to those of a loom fixer, and it was in that capacity
that he was employed at the time of the strike. During the last 4
to 6 weeks before the strike, Helms was in charge of 50 Crompton
looms. Prior to that time he had worked on 52 box looms.
Van Helms has lived in Mooresville ever since starting to work for
the respondent . He is married and has three daughters between the
ages of 14 and 19 and a 32-year-old stepson , all of whom have lived
with him since 1926 in his own home about 1 mile from the respond-
ent's mill . Three of his wife's brothers live in Mooresville, as do
two cousins of Helms.
Van Helms was paid at a flat hourly rate, and worked a regular
workweek of 40 hours , 8 hours per day. At the time of the strike
he was working on the day shift; he had never had a regular job
on the night shift at the respondent's mill. During the last 101/2
months of 1934,1° Helms was paid 50 cents per hour and worked at
least 41 weeks, during which he averaged $17.35 per week. In 1935,
he worked 37 out of the 38 weeks before the strike, and averaged
$19.40 per week. He worked no overtime during these 2 years.
His travel expense between home and work was about $1.00 per
week when lie drove his car, but he walked about one-third of the
time.
Since the strike, Van Helms' work on the Crompton looms which
he operated at the time of the strike has been performed by C. A.
Frazier, and the box looms previously in his care have been succes-
sively operated by Loyd Lawing, W. D. Middlebrook, and S. R.
Isenhour, as nearly as the respondent's records indicate. There is
no evidence that the regular workweek of 40 hours was changed
after the strike. All these men were paid at a flat hourly rate, and,
with the possible exception of Lawing , had opportunities to earn
bonuses up to 10 per cent of their hourly rate. From an examina-
tion of their employment records, we find that, if Helms' employ-
ment had continued , he would have earned at least 50 cents per
hour until February 13, 1937, 60 cents per hour from February 13,
1937, to July 10, 1938 , and 55 cents per hour thereafter.
The record does not reveal the full extent to which Van Helms'
looms were operated after his work ceased , but does show that
Frazier worked at least 8 weeks before February 13, 1937, at an
average of 40 hours per 'week, at least 67 of the 73 weeks between
February 13, 1937, and July 10, 1938, at an average of 34 hours per
week, and continuously thereafter at an average of 43 hours per
week, and that , allowing for overlaps in their records , as furnished
by the respondent , Lawing, Middlebrook , and Isenhour successively
"See footnote 17, above.
MOORESVILLE COTTON MILLS 429
worked during at least 11 weeks before February 13, 1937, at an
average of 49 hours, at least 59 weeks between February 13, 1937,
and July 10, 1938 , at an average of about 29 hours , and continuously
thereafter at an average of 40 hours.
It does not appear that Frazier had any overtime work until
September 1937, but between that date and July 10, 1938 , he worked
14 extra hours in 4 weeks, and from July 10 to November 5, 1938,
he worked 50 extra hours in 7 weeks . Lawing worked at least 118
extra hours in 7 weeks between July 13, 1936 , and February 13, 1937,
and 160 extra hours in 13 weeks between February 13 and August
21, 1937. The evidence does not show that Middlebrook or Isenhour
worked overtime.
h'illingly Worsted Mill. After the strike , Van Helms was unem-
ployed until about January 6 , 1936, when he obtained a job as loom
fixer at the small Killingly Worsted Mill, in Stony Point, 28 miles
from Mooresville . This employment terminated about May 9, 1936,
when the three weavers operating the looms in Helms' charge quit
because of low pay. The machinery at this mill is old and worn
and Helms testified that this made his work harder than at the
respondent 's mill. He worked on the day shift and was paid at a
flat rate of 45 cents per hour, working 40 hours per week, 8 hours
per day, and thus earning $18.00 per week.. His total earnings were
$324.00. During this employment , Van Helms commuted daily
between home and work at a cost of $2.00 per week.
This employment involved a substantially lower rate of pay,
harder work, and added time and expense in going to and from
work, and was terminated by lay-off after only 18 weeks. - It was
not regular and substantially equivalent to Helms' former position
at Mooresville.
Watts Mill. Between May 9 and July 11, 1936 , Van Helms was
unemployed . He then secured work as a loom fixer at a mill oper-
ated by the John Watts Sons Company located 3 miles from Rox-
boro, North Carolina , which is about 150 miles from Mooresville.
Toward the end of January 1937, Helms feared that he would be
laic! off because of lack of seniority , and therefore made arrange-
ments to resume his former employment at the Killingly Mill.
When he quit his employment at Roxboro about January 30, 1937,
he was told that he would probably not be laid off , but he decided
to leave nevertheless in order to be closer to home, so that he could
spend more time with his family.
Because the distance of this employment from Mooresville made
it impossible for Van Helms to live at home, he lived near his work,
at first close to the mill for 41/2 months, and thereafter at Roxboro,
managing to return to Mooresville once a month to visit his family.
He did not consider giving up his home at Mooresville and moving
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to Roxboro because he did not like the location of Roxboro and
his wife did not want to move there. His work at Roxboro was
harder than at Mooresville because the 26 looms in his charge dur-
ing this employment were 20-harness looms, whereas the 50 Cromp-
ton looms which he fixed at the respondent's mill at the time of
the strike were 4-harness looms.
The regular workweek at this mill consisted of 40 hours. Van
Helms was permitted to work overtime, and worked 154 extra hours
during 16 of the 29 weeks of his employment. During the first 9
weeks of the employment, Helms was paid at the flat rate of 50 cents
per hour, plus bonuses which brought his average hourly pay dur-
ing this period to 53 cents, and he averaged $25.10 per week. Dur-
ing the succeeding 20 weeks until he quit, his hourly rate was 55
cents per hour, without bonuses, and his average weekly pay was
$23.95. His total earnings at Roxboro were $705.05. During the
41/2 months when Helms boarded at Roxboro, his travel expense
between Roxboro and the mill was $1.00 per week. His board cost
$5.00 per week throughout the employment, and the round-trip bus
fare on his monthly visits to Mooresville was $5.00.
Aside from the harder work and the possible existence of a seniority
policy at the Watts Mill which, if it were applied in normal course
to Van Helms, would make his employment there compare unfavor-
ably with that at Mooresville, the wages, hours, and similar incidents
of Helms' work at Roxboro were as good as and even better than
the corresponding attributes of employment at the respondent's mill.
Further, however, the substantial -equivalence does not extend. The
advantages of the job itself could not make it substantially equiva-
lent when, by reason of its location, it separated Helms by 150 miles
from his own home in the community in which he had resided for
over 25 years, involved his living apart from his wife and children
and seeing them only for a short time each month, and gave rise
to added living and transportation expense. We find that Van
Helms' employment at Roxboro was not regular and substantially
equivalent to his former employment in the respondent's mill.
Killingly Worsted Mill. Van Helms was again employed at the
Killingly Worsted Mill, Stony Point, North Carolina, in his former
job as loom fixer from February 6, 1937, to March 26, 1938, when
he was included in a lay-off due to business conditions. From that
time until the date of the supplemental hearing, Helms was unem-
ployed. During this employment, his regular hours of work con-
tinued to be 40 hours per week, 8 per day, but he was employed on
the afternoon and evening shift, ending at 10 or 11 p. m. The
machinery was old and worn, making Helms' work harder.
Until January 1, 1938, Van Helms was paid at the flat rate of
55 cents per hour, and thus earned $22.00 per week. Thereafter his
MOORESVILLE COTTON MILLS 431
hourly rate was reduced to 50 cents, and his weekly earnings dropped
to an average of $19.65. His total earnings were $1,270.00. Helms
commuted daily between home and work at a cost of $2.00 per week.
This employment involved Helms' working until late at night at
from 5 to 10 cents per hour less than he would have earned at Moores-
ville, required added expense and time for traveling between home
and work, and was terminated by lay-off. It was not regular and
substantially equivalent to his former employment at the respond-
ent's mill.
George Van Ben field
George Van Benfield'20 a doffer, was first employed by the re-
spondent about 1924. Between 1924 and September 23, 1935, when
he went out on strike, Benfield occasionally left his employment with
the respondent to accept work at other mills for 2 or 3 weeks at a
time, but he testified that he had worked for the respondent continu-
ously for 4 years prior to the strike. Benfield worked in 1933 and
1934 as a doffer in No. 2 spinning room, which has since been dis-
mantled, and he testified that he worked on the same frames almost
all the time during this period.
According to Benfield's testimony, he was employed as a regular
doffer on a set of frames in No. 3 spinning room for 8 to 12 months
preceding the strike. Grady Marlow, who also worked in No. 3
spinning room before the strike, testified, on the other hand, that he
thought, although he was not sure, that Benfield was working as a
spare hand, substituting for regular doffers in their absence, and had
been assigned to No. 3 spinning room only 3 or 4 months before the
strike. In the absence of more reliable evidence than the uncertain
testimony of Marlow to refute Benfield's own account of his duties,
we find that Benfield was employed as a regular doffer at the time
of the strike.
Benfield had lived in Mooresville all his life up to the time his
work for the respondent ceased. He has been married for 11 years,
and has 4 sons, the youngest born in 1937. Prior to the strike, and
until August 1936, when. he moved to Cornelius, North Carolina,
Benfield and his family lived with another family in a rented house
two blocks from the respondent's mill. Benfield's father is dead,
but his mother and two brothers and a sister live in Mooresville.
Benfield -was' employed 40 hours per week, 8 hours per day, and
worked on the second shift, from 3 to 11 p. in. He was paid a flat
hourly rate. In 1934,21 he received 33 cents per hour and worked
at least 36 weeks but net more than 49 weeks, averaging $9.45 per
20 Heretofore known in these proceedings as Van Benfield.
21 See footnote 17, above.
432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
week. In 1938, he worked every week up to the time of the strike,
and averaged $10.15 per week.
Benfield's position was held after the strike by Grady Marlow.
Marlow doffed at the frames in No. 3 spinning room, on which Ben-
field had worked, from October 1935 to about March 1938, when
the rings on these frames were moved to other frames, to which Mar-
low was then transferred. At the time of the supplemental hearing,
Jack Murdock was doffing at the old frames. Both men were paid
a flat rate per hour. From examination of their incomplete employ-
ment records, we. find that, if Benfield's work for the respondent. had
continued, he would have been paid at the rate of 33 cents per hour
until March 8, 1937, 35 cents per hour from March 8 to April 12, 1937,
371/2 cents per hour from April 12, 1937, to July 10, 1938, and 35
cents per hour thereafter, and that, if he had followed the rings
in March 1938, as Marlow did, work would have been available to
him at least 9 weeks between January 1 and March 8, 1937, averaging
$12.75 per week; at least 2 weeks between March 8 and April 12,
1937, advertising $14.00 per week; at least 61 weeks between April 12,
1937, and July 10, 1938, averaging $11.35 per week; and every week
from July 10, 1938, to the date of the supplemental hearing, averag-
ing $10.70 per week.
Cornelius Cotton Mill. Following the strike, Benfield was out of
work until March 15, 1936. From that date until May 14, 1937, he
was employed as a doffer at the mill of the Cornelius Cotton Mill
Company, located at Cornelius, North Carolina, 7 miles from Moores-
ville. Benfield quit this employment because the company increased
his duties to such an extent that he had more work than he could do.
He traveled back and forth daily between Mooresville and Cornelius
until August 1936, when, in order to save the cost of commuting, he
moved with his family to a rented house at Cornelius, where he
continued to live during the balance of this employment.
The spindles on the looms on which Benfield worked at this mill
were more out of line than those at Mooresville, and Benfield testi,
fied that the job was harder because the machinery was harder to
handle and the hours of work were longer. In addition, his place
of work was very cold in winter and hot in summer, the floor was
in bad condition, and the toilet was not kept so clean as at the
respondent's mill.
The regular hours of work during this employment were 50 per
week, 10 per day, and Benfield worked on the night shift, from 6
p. in. to 4 a. in. He testified that since he was not accustomed to
working until 4 a. in., he 'was unable to sleep much. Benfield was
paid at the rate of 24 cents per hour from March 15 to November
15, 1936, averaging $11.25 per week; 252/lo cents per hour from
MOORESVILLE COTTON il'IILLS 433
November 15, 1936, to March 29, 1937, averaging $12.05 per week;
and 27%0 cents per hour thereafter, averaging $5.60 per week,
until he quit. His total earnings were $626.81. His travel expense
before he changed his residence to Cornelius varied from $1.00 to
$1.25 per week. The cost of moving his family and furniture from
Mooresville to Cornelius was $3.50.
In view of the long hours of work on the night shift, the markedly
lower rates of pay, the harder. work under undesirable physical con-
ditions, the sharp reduction in average weekly pay during the last
7 weeks, and the increase in duties at the end, this employment com-
pared unfavorably with that at Mooresville. We find that it was
not regular and substantially equivalent to Benfield's employment
in the respondent's mill.
Gem Yarn Mills. From May 27, 1937, to March 3, 1938, Benfield
was employed as a doffer at the mill of the Gem Yarn Mills, Inc.,
also located at Cornelius, North Carolina. He testified that he quit
this job because his weekly wages were reduced from $12.00 to
$10.00. A few weeks after he began this employment, Benfield
moved into an old company house, vacant during the previous 4
years, which the superintendent of the Gem mill permitted him to
occupy rent free. Benfield testified that the machinery at the mill
was old and in bad condition, and that the work was harder than at
Mooresville.
Benfield was employed full weeks of 40 hours each. However,
the mill was shut down frequently for a week at a time, and accord-
ing to Frank Sherrill, vice president of Gem Yarn Mills, Inc., oper-
ated only about 60 per cent of the time throughout Benfield's
employment, and about 50 per cent in 1938. Sherrill testified that
Benfield was paid 30 cents per hour, at which rate he would have
earned $12.00 per week. Benfield said that, although he was raised
to $12.00 per week during the course of the employment, his weekly
wages were only $10.80 at first, and were reduced to $10.00 before he
quit. His total earnings during the employment were $351.25,
according to Sherrill's testimony.
Benfield's employment at Mooresville would have been more regu-
lar, and at a rate of pay at least 15 to 25 per cent higher. We find
that his employment at the Gem mill was not regular and substan-
tially equivalent to his employment at Mooresville.
Sharecropping. Upon quitting the Gem mill, Benfield moved at
a cost of $7.00 to a farm about 5 miles from Mooresville, on which
he made a total of about $25.00 in 1938, farming the land with another
man on shares and raising garden produce. At the time of the sup-
plemental hearing, he was earning up to $1.50 per week at odd jobs,
but was forced to rely principally upon unemployment compensa-
434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion payments for the support of himself and his family. We find that
Benfield's employment from March 3, 1938, to the date of the sup-
plemental hearing was not regular and substantially equivalent to
his employment in the respondent's mill.
C. F. Rogers
C. E. Rogers started in the employ of the respondent as a thread
shellacker in 1914, and worked for the respondent about 18 years
between then and September 23, 1935, when he went out on strike.
He was employed as a weaver in 1926, and between 1928 and the date
of the strike his employment with the respondent in that capacity
was continuous. During the last 11/2 years before the strike he
operated the same set of magazine looms, weaving towels. He
testified that he considered weaving to be the "easiest and cleanest
work."
Rogers had lived in Mooresville all his life up to the time of the
strike, and continued to live there until June 1936, when he moved
to Stony Point, North Carolina. He is married and has 4 children,
the youngest 3 ranging in age from 3 to 12. Prior to the strike and
until June 1936, Rogers lived with his wife and children on his
father's 98-acre farm about 2 miles from the respondent's mill, in a
house of which he has long considered himself the owner by virtue
of an understanding with his father.
Rogers' mother and 58-year-old father, the latter in poor health
and unable to work, live in another house on the farm, about 1/1
mile from Rogers'- house. Before he left Mooresville, Rogers saw
his father every day and helped him a great deal on the farm. Of
his three brothers and six sisters, all but one live in or within 4
miles of Mooresville. Three of the sisters live on the family farm,
and one of the brothers has also lived there, in Rogers' house, since
Rogers moved away. While living on the farm at Mooresville,
Rogers owned two cows (one of which his father kept), a hog, and
a number of chickens ; he bought $1.00 worth of feed each month
for the cow he kept, but otherwise maintained his livestock and
poultry on the farm without cost, and consequently was able to
secure dairy products and eggs for his family at low expense. In
addition he raised garden produce for his use on an acre of land
about his house, and cut his kindling wood free of charge from the
timber land on the farm.
Rogers was paid on a piece-rate basis, with a regular workweek
of 40 hours, 8 hours per day, and worked on the day shift from 7 a. in.
to 3 p. in. In 1934 22 he worked at least 38 weeks and averaged 46
21 See footnote 17, above.
MOORE, SVILLE COTTON MILLS 435
cents per hour, averaging $15.20 per week. In 1935 he was employed
during 32 of the 38 weeks before the strike and averaged $18.35
per week; he estimated his hourly average at 50 to 55 cents. His
weekly transportation expense between home and work was 75 cents.
After the strike, Rogers' work was performed by Mrs. Ernest
Newton until May 1936, and from then until the supplemental hear-
ing by Mrs. Valley Rhinehardt. The employment records of these
two women prior to January 1, 1937, are not in evidence. From the
incomplete record of Rhinehardt's employment thereafter it appears
that if Rogers had been reinstated by the respondent he would have
worked at least 43 weeks in 1937, averaging 32 hours. per week, and
every week in 1938 up to the date of the supplemental hearing,
averaging 34 hours per week. Rhinehardt averaged 55 cents per
hour in 1937, and 51 cents per hour in 1938, but since hourly earnings
on a piece-rate basis are dependent in part on the skill and industry
of the individual, we do not consider that these averages provide a
fair indication of what Rogers would have earned at Mooresville.
Bath Mill. After the strike, Rogers was unemployed during the
balance of 1935. In the first week of January 1936, he obtained
employment with the Bath Mill, Inc., located at Bath, South Caro-
lina, 213 miles from Mooresville, as a loom fixer, a type of employ-
ment in which he had had very little previous experience. W. Fred
Gunnels, office manager of this company, testified that Rogers worked
44 hours in the week ending January 7, 1936, and continued in the
company's employ thereafter, but that he did not know for how long.
According to Rogers, however, he worked for this company for only
4 days. He quit this employment because he realized that he "could
not make the grade," that he "could not fix the looms." During his
stay, he was paid at the rate of 571/2 cents per hour; he earned $25.30
during the week ending January 7, 1936.
This employment involved a different type of work for which
Rogers was not qualified. We find that it was not regular and sub-
stantially equivalent to the employment at Mooresville.
Cascade Mill. After leaving Bath, Rogers secured temporary
work for 1 week as a thread shellacker at the Cascade Mill in Moores-
ville, for which he was paid $12.00. We find that this employment
was not regular and substantially equivalent to Rogers' former
employment in the respondent's mill.
Cornelius Cotton Mill. Rogers testified that he next secured work
as a weaver at the Cornelius Cotton Mill at Cornelius, 7 miles from
Mooresville, which he quit after 2 weeks to accept other employment
at Stony Point. F. C. Stough, secretary and treasurer of the' Cor-
nelius Cotton Mill Company, testified, however, that Rogers had not
worked for his company. According to Rogers, he worked on the
436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
night shift and operated old looms with hand-threaded shuttles. His
total pay for the 2 weeks' work was $22.00.
This short employment involved night work and lower weekly pay
than at Mooresville. It was not regular and substantially equivalent
to Rogers' employment at Mooresville.
Killingly Worsted Hill. About March 15, 1936, Rogers started
working at the Killingly Worsted Mill at Stony Point, 28 miles from
Mooresville, and he was still employed there at the time of the sup-
plemental hearing. Only about 165 persons are employed at this
mill. Rogers commuted to work daily from Mooresville until June
11, 1936, when he moved his family to a rented house about 3/4 mile
from the Killingly mill. He has since cultivated a 1/4-acre garden
around this house, but, because of the change in living conditions,
is now obliged to purchase his stove wood, and has sold his livestock
and all his chickens. Rogers stated at the supplemental hearing that
he did not intend to make Stony Point his home, preferring to live
in Mooresville, and that he wished to return to Mooresville so that
he could be at home with his father.
Rogers has done no weaving since lie began working in Stony
Point. From March 15 to May 9, 1936, he overhauled and fixed
looms at 30 cents per hour. Between May 9, 1936, and January 1,
1937, he worked on towel warps at 45 cents per hour. From January
1, 1937, to January 1, 1938, he earned 491/2 cents per hour, apparently
still working on towel warps. Between January 1 and March 26,
1938, he was employed as a loom fixer, and was paid 50 cents per
hour. On the latter date, Rogers was transferred back to towel
warps, at which he worked thereafter at 45 cents per hour. He tes-
tified that he preferred weaving to either loom fixing or work on the
warps.
Rogers worked on the day shift at Stony Point. The regular
workweek appears to have been 40 hours, but Rogers worked 54
hours per week at the beginning of his employment. At the time of
the hearing, however, he was working only 12 to 20 hours per week,
with average weekly earnings of only about $7.00 per week, the
mill having been running only part time since April 1, 1938. Rogers'
transportation expense before he moved to Stony Point was $3.50
per week, and the immediate increase in the cost of food for his
family upon moving to Stony Point, by reason of the change in
residence, was about $1.50 per week.
Rogers' job at Stony Point clearly did not measure up to that at-
Mooresville at first, in view of the extremely low rate of pay, and
we are of the opinion that it did not become substantially equivalent
thereafter. At the respondent's mill, Rogers would have been en-
gaged in weaving, as he had been for almost 10 years before the
MOORESVILLE COTTON MILLS 437
strike; at the Killingly mill he performed the duties, less desirable
to him, of fixing looms and working on warps. Continued lack of
opportunity to work as a weaver must necessarily result in Rogers'
losing much of his skill at his preferred occupation,. and constitutes
a serious defect in the employment at Stony Point. We attach con-
siderable significance also to the fact that Rogers' employment at
Stony Point has involved his abandoning his home on the family
farm in the community where he had lived all his life, with the
result that opportunities to see and assist his ailing father and enjoy
the society of his. parents and brothers and sisters have diminished
and his cost of living has become appreciably higher. • Upon a con-
sideration of all the evidence, we find that the employment at the
Killingly mill has not been regular and substantially equivalent to
that at Mooresville.
We find that, subsequent to the strike and to the refusal of the
respondent to reinstate them, and up to the time of the Board's
supplemental hearing, October 24 to 26, 1938, A. J. Helms, Van
Helms, Van Benfield, and C. E. Rogers had not obtained any employ-
ment which was regular and substantially equivalent to the positions
-Formerly held by them respectively in the Mooresville Cotton Mills.
RECOMMENDATION
Upon the basis of the above supplemental findings of fact and of
the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (f) of the
National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby recommends to the United. States Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit that paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of the Order
of the Board, issued by the Board on June 10, 1937, be enforce& as
issued and that they be not modified or set aside in, whole or in part.
199549-39-vol. 15-39