Morristown Knitting Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 23, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 731 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of MORRISTOWN KNITTING MILLS and MRS. BEULAH
MAE MAYES, AN INDIVIDUAL
Case No. 10-CA-79.-Decided November 23, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 22, 1948, Trial Examiner Frederic B. Parkes, 2nd, issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) of the
Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the
record and the Respondent's exceptions and brief, in our opinion,
adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.*
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by the Respondent,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
The charge filed by the complainant herein alleged that, by its dis-
charge of and refusal to reinstate the complainant, and by other acts,
the Respondent "has interfered with, restrained and coerced its em-
* Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock.
1 We make the additional finding that the discharge of Beulah Mae Mayes because of
her concerted activities was violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act as well as Section
8 (a) (3) ; and that it is necessary to order her reinstatement with back pay to remedy
the violation of either section of the Act.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 111.
731
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees in the exercise of their rights in Section 7." The complaint
issued by the Board specified certain acts whereby the Respondent was.
alleged to have interfered with the organizational rights of its em-
ployees, some of which acts occurred subsequent to the filing of the
charge. The Respondent, in its brief, protests the inclusion in the
complaint of allegations not contained in the charge. A charge, how-
ever, serves only as a request that the Board take action. Following
the filing of a charge in a Regional Office, a thorough investigation
is conducted by that office. The complaint issued by the Regional
Director is based upon the results of such investigation,2 and is in no
way defective because it covers matters which were revealed by such
investigation, and which occurred subsequent to the filing of the
charge.
The Respondent also protests the finding that it refused to reinstate
the complainant, on the ground that the record shows that the com-
plainant never made an application for reemployment. It is not
necessary, however, that an employee who has been discharged in
violation of the Act request reinstatement in order to be entitled to it.
The Respondent further objects to the finding of the Trial Examiner
that the Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., is a labor organ-
ization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. This
finding is supported by the record. In the course of the hearing,
counsel for the Board and for the Respondent, as well as many of the
witnesses, referred to "the union" and to "the C. I. 0." Because of
these references, the Trial Examiner requested the name of the union.
Counsel for the Board, without objection by counsel for the Respond-
ent, identified the union as Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. O.
In its brief the Respondent generally charges the Trial Examiner
with prejudice and bias, and claims that he "methodically discredited
the testimony of each and all of the witnesses adduced by Respond-
ent. . . ." Our examination of the record reveals, however, that
the charge that the Trial Examiner discredited all the Respondent's
witnesses is unfounded, and, further, that the Trial Examiner's credi-
bility findings are amply supported by the record.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Morristown
Knitting Mills, Morristown, Tennessee, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall :
2 Section 203 74 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5,
as amended. See Matter of Halls Brothers Company, 67 N. L. R. B. 1249.
MORRISTOWN KNITTING MILLS 733
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0., or in any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging and refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by
discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment, or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its eidtployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0.. or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Mrs. Beulah Mae Mayes immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former or a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Mrs. Beulah Mae Mayes for any loss of pay she
may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination
against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount
she would normally have earned as wages during the period from the
date of the discrimination to the date of the Respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less her net earnings during said period;
(c) Post at its plant in Morristown, Tennessee, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt there-
of and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply therewith.
3 Said notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words, "THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A TRIAL EXAMINER,"
and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A DECISION AND ORDER ." In the event
this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be
inserted, before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words, "A DECREE OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Charles M. Paschal, for the General Counsel.
Mrs. Beulah Mae Mayes, of Morristown, Tenn., for the complainant.
Mr. C. Frank Davis, of Morristown, Tenn., and Taylor d Badgett, by Mr. W. E.
Badgett, of Knoxville, Tenn., for the respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on October 1, 1947, by Mrs. Beulah Mae Mayes, herein at
times referred to as the complainant, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel,' by the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued a complaint, dated December 19,
1947, against Morristown Knitting Mills, Inc., Morristown, Tennessee, herein
called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended by Labor Management Relations Act,
1947,2 herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge, and notice of
hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the complainant.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended,' alleged
in substance that the respondent (1) on August 27, 1947, discriminatorily dis-
,charged the complainant and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate her for
the reason that she engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, and (2)
from on or about August 25, 1947, to the date of the issuance of the complaint, by
various officers, agents, and supervisory employees, interrogated its employees
concerning their union affiliations; urged, threatened, and warned its employees
to refrain from assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of a union;
and urged, threatened, and warned its employees to refrain from engaging in
concerted activities for the purpose of self-organization and improvement of
working conditions and wages. The complaint further alleged that by the fore-
going conduct, the respondent engaged in violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and
(3) of the Act.
On December 26, 1947, the respondent filed an answer denying that the re-
spondent had committed any of the unfair labor practices alleged and affirma-
tively averring that the complainant "was discharged by her foreman, due to
her loafing on the job during working hours, gossiping with and interfering
with other workers and for absenteeism without excuse." In its answer, the
respondent also moved that the paragraph of the complaint alleging violations
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act be stricken from the complaint for the reason
that "the allegations contained therein are impertinent , irrelevant, immaterial
and not germane to the charges contained in the original charge filed by affidavit
of the said Mrs. Beulah Mae Mayes in this cause."
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Morristown , Tennessee, on January
6 and 7, 1948, before Frederic B. Parkes, 2nd, the undersigned Trial Examiner,
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. At the outset of the hearing,
i The designation includes specifically counsel presenting the case on behalf of the Gen-
eral Counsel at the hearing.
June 23, 1947, Public Law 101, 80th Congress, Chapter 120, 1st Session.
8 As hereinafter noted, the complaint was amended to set forth the full name of the
respondent and to correct the spelling of the name of one of the respondent' s supervisors.
MORRISTOWN KNITTING MILLS 735
the General Counsel moved to amend the complaint so as to correct the spelling
of the name of a supervisor of the respondent and to amend all formal pleadings
in order to set forth correctly the full name of the respondent. Both motions
were granted without objection. The respondent renewed its motion, contained
in its answer , that certain of the complaint's allegations of violation of Section
8 (a) (1) ° be stricken for the reason that such allegations were "impertinent,
irrelevant, immaterial and not germane to the charges contained in the original
charge filed by affidavit of the said Mrs. Beulah Mae Mayes in this cause."
The undersigned denied the motion.
The General Counsel and the respondent were represented by counsel and the-
complainant appeared personally. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence hearing on the issues was
afforded all parties.
At the close of the hearing, the undersigned granted a motion by the General
Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof as to dates, spelling, and minor
variances. At the same time, counsel for the respondent moved that the com-
plaint be dismissed on the ground that "the preponderance of evidence shows
that [the respondent] . . . is not guilty of the violations charged in the
complaint." Ruling was reserved on the motion. It is hereby denied. The
respondent again renewed its motion that certain of the complaint's allegations
of violation of Section 8 (a) (1), and all testimony adduced in support thereof,
be stricken for the reasons previously set forth and for the additional ground
that the evidence adduced by the General Counsel in support of these allegations
of the complaint occurred subsequent to the date of the filing of the complainant's
charge of unfair labor practices. Ruling on this motion was also reserved. It
is hereby denied.° Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned advised
the parties that they might argue orally before, and file briefs or proposed find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law, or both, with the Trial Examiner. The Board
* Specifically , counsel for the respondent referred to the allegations of the complaint
averring that the respondent from on or about August 25, 1947, interrogated its employees
concerning their union affiliations ; urged, threatened , and warned its employees to refrain
from assisting , becoming members of, or remaining members of a union; and urged,
threatened , and warned its employees to refrain from engaging in concerted activities for
the purposes of self-organization and improvement of working conditions and wages.
' The charge filed by the complainant alleged that the respondent "has engaged in and
Is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) subsections (1)
and (3 ) of said Act, in that on or about August 26, 1947, it discharged me, Beulah Mayes,
because of my activity on the behalf of myself and the employees and at all times since
that date it has refused and does now refuse to employ me. By the above , and other
acts, it, by its officers and agents and employees , has interfered with, restrained and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights in Section 7." The respondent con-
tended in its answer that this charge "is not actually the complaint of Mrs . Beulah Mae
Mayes, but that a union , unknown to respondent , through its representative , induced the
said Mrs . Beulah Mae Mayes to file said complaint as a guise and subterfuge as an indi-
vidual , when , in fact, it is actually the complaint of said union , and respondent charges-
that said union is not in compliance , as required by Section (F) and ( G) of said Act,
and that it has not been properly certified as required by said Section , and it is not in
compliance with Section 9 (H) and, therefore, this Board should not and cannot entertain
any such complaint so filed as a subterfuge ." As hereinafter noted, Textile Workers
Union of America, C. I. 0., commenced an organizational campaign among the respondent's
employees a few weeks following the complainant 's discharge The undersigned sustained
the General Counsel's objection to a question propounded of the complainant by the
counsel for the respondent as to whether she had "filed this complaint voluntarily" or
had "been talked into * n * doing that " Records of the General Counsel for the
Bogrd reveal that the Textile Workers Union of America , C. I. 0 , complied with provisions
of Section ( 9) (f), (g), and (h) on October 24, 1947.
6 See National Licorice Company v. N L. R B., 309 U S. 350_
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
participated in oral argument and the respondent subsequently filed a brief with
the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record, and from his observation of the witnesses, the under-
signed makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Morristown Knitting Mills, Inc., a Tennessee corporation with its principal
office and place of business at Morristown, Tennessee, is engaged in the manu-
facture, sale, and distribution of men's, women's, and children's socks and hose
and related products. In the production of its finished products, the respondent
annually uses raw materials consisting of yarn and dye stuffs valued in excess
of $25,000, of which approximately 50 percent is shipped to its Morristown plant
from points outside the State of Tennessee. On an annual basis, the respondent
produces finished products valued in excess of $50,000, of which more than
80 percent is shipped from its Morristown plant to points outside the State of
Tennessee.' In its answer, the respondent conceded that it is subject to the
Board's jurisdiction.
U. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discriminatory discharge of Beulah Mae Mayes
1. Background, circulation of petition for wage increase, and discharge of Mayes
Beulah Mae Mayes was initially employed by the respondent in June 1942,
in the boarding department. Because of illness, in May 1945, she voluntarily
terminated her employment with the respondent ,' but was rehired sometime
These findings are based upon the stipulation of the parties.
e There is conflict in the testimony as to the reasons for Mayes' leaving the respondent's
employ in 1945. Mayes testified that she resigned because "I had a bad leg. I had to
have a rest on it. The doctor told me I could work only if I could get where I didn't have
to walk on concrete all the time . He told me I'd better get a rest off it or it would break
on me." She further stated at the hearing that "I give Roy McKinney [ foreman of the
finishing or "pairing" room] my slip and asked him if he had a job for me in the pairing
room, and he told me he didn't just have anything , that if he had he would let me know
about it and I told him I had to be off." It appears that in May 1945, McKinney was
the supervisor in charge of both the boarding room and the finishing department , although
there is some conflict in the evidence on this point . McKinney testified that on the
occasion in question , Mayes asked him to employ her daughter and when he replied that
no positions were available , Mayes stated that she and two other daughters in the respond-
ent's employ would quit McKinney thereupon signified his acceptance of the resignations
of the Mayes ' family, testifying that he "had good reason to get rid of" Beulah Mae
Mayes because of "so much troublemaking and all of that." Mayes denied that she
informed McKinney that she and her two daughters would quit unless a third were em-
ployed by the respondent and insisted that she had quit 2 weeks before her two daughters
voluntarily resigned from the respondent 's employ. No records as to these terminations
were produced by the respondent at the hearing. In weighing the evidence on this issue
of the case , the undersigned has considered three subsequent events which in his opinion
lend credence to Mayes' testimony . One, she was shortly thereafter rehired by the re-
spondent. Two, according to the undenied and credible testimony of Beulah Mae Mayes,
MORRISTOWN KNITTING MILLS 737
later that year o and remained in the respondent's employ until she was dis-
charged on August 27, 1947. Throughout her employment with the respondent,
she worked in the boarding department, which occupied a room about 70 feet
long and 40 feet wide in the respondent's plant. A large table, on which finished
work was deposited, divided the room lengthwise. On either side of the table,
a series of 24 "boards" or metal feet were arranged for each worker in two
rows in the shape of a "U" with the open end of the "U" facing an aisle by the
side of the table. The "boards" were heated by steam. The work of the depart-
ment, the final step in the production process, was to dry and shape socks coming
directly from the dyeing department, each sock being stretched on a steam-
heated board. Between 23 and 30 employees worked in the department ; all but
3 or 4 were women.
About August 12, 1947, the employees of the boarding department began to
talk among themselves about the need of a wage increase and, according to
Mayes' credible testimony, Mayes informed Arlie Clevenger, foreman of the
boarding room, that they were going to request a raise in wages, but he replied
that the request should be deferred because some of the respondent's officials
were then on vacation.10
About the same time in a conversation during working hours, Foreman
Clevenger told Mayes, according to the latter's credible testimony, that "if we
saw anyone with union cards or anything to tell him. That he was supposed to
watch out for things like that; not to let the union get in. . . . That Mr. Raburn
[superintendent of the respondent's mill] would close the doors before he'd have
the union." 11
In the spring of 1947, the respondent was required to lay off some of its employees and
Mayes, desiring some free time to do spring housecleaning and summer canning, urged
her foreman , Clevenger, to include her in the lay-off, but Clevenger refused, for the reason
that "He was a-going to pick on the worse hands and the ones he couldn't depend on, to
keep the ones he could depend on." Three, at the time of the hearing the third daughter
referred to in the testimony of McKinney was in the respondent's employ. In the opinion
of the undersigned, if McKinney's version of Mayes' resignation in 1945 were true, it
seems highly unlikely that the respondent would have rehired her or employed the third
daughter. Furthermore, there seems to be an inconsistency in the respondent's appraisal
of Mayes, that is, in 1945, her resignation was welcomed because of "so much trouble-
making and all of that," but in 1947 when she requested a temporary lay-off, she was
considered to be an indispensable employee. In addition, Mayes impressed the under-
signed as a more forthright witness than did McKinney. Accordingly, it is found that
Mayes voluntarily quit the respondent's employ in May 1945 because of ill health.
9 Arlie Clevenger, foreman of the boarding department when Mayes was rehired, testified
that Plant Superintendent R. P. Bible, told Clevenger to rehire her and that Clevenger
suggested that she not be reemployed because "she was pretty bad to stir, carry tales
from one woman to another," but that Bible nevertheless ordered Mayes' reinstatement
Clevenger further testified that when Mayes reported for work, he warned her "that we
had a place for her as long as she wanted to work and work regular and do all right,
. . . but if she got to stirring up trouble we'd have to let her go." According to
Clevenger, she replied that she "thought she would board and tend to her own business
and make a good hand." Although Bible was called by the respondent as a witness, he
was not questioned in regard to Mayes' rehiring. Mayes specifically denied that when
she was reemployed, Clevenger made the above-related remarks. Upon the entire record
and the undersigned's observation of the witnesses, the undersigned credits Mayes and
finds that when she was rehired, no warnings were made by Clevenger.
10 Clevenger admitted that such a conversation occurred, although he was unable to
recall with certainty that it was Mayes with whom he had spoken about the matter.
11 Clevenger specifically denied that he made these statements In view of Clevenger's
failure to deny specifically similar statements attributed to him by several other witnesses,
whose testimony is discussed below, as well as the undersigned's observation of the wit-
nesses, Clevenger's denial is not credited but it is found that he made the statements
attributed to him by Mayes. Since the complaint alleged that the respondent' s inde-
738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the month of August, discussions among employees concerning a wage
increase continued and, on August 26, 1947, culminated in a decision reached
during lunch hour by a group of employees , including employees Beulah Mae
Mayes, Ruth Rodgers , Charles Inman, and Eugene Wolfe , to circulate among
the employees a petition requesting a wage increase and "if the petition didn't
work, . . . to get a union to give us some help." As soon as they returned
from lunch , employee Wolfe obtained a sheet of paper from Foreman Clevenger's
desk and took it to his work station which adjoined that of Beulah Mae Mayes.
Wolfe, Mayes, and employee Inman, whose work station was also adjacent
to that of Mayes, discussed the legend which the petition should bear and who
should enscribe the legend on the petition . At this time, employee Rodgers, en
route to her place of work on the opposite side of the room, stopped at Mayes'
boards and joined the discussion . Rodgers was the only employee away from
her place of work ; the others were at their boards which ran in a series close
enough together to enable them to talk to each other . Being paid on a
piece rate basis and not knowing bow large an hourly raise to request, the
employees finally decided to head the petition simply with the phrase, "We are
asking for a raise." However , none of the 4 employees would enscribe the entire
phrase upon the petition because, according to Mayes, "we all figured we couldn't
afford to" for "fear of getting fired." In the end , each of them wrote a word or
two of the legend and signed his name. The petition thus started was passed
from one employee to another between their boards at work without its being
taken to each worker by any of the instigators . When the petition had passed
down the boards on both sides of the room , it was returned to Wolfe. Of the
approximately 23 employees then working in the department , 17 signed the peti-
tion. Later in the day , Wolfe requested Clevenger to "take the petition to the
office," but the latter refused . Wolfe and Mayes then decided to keep the petition
until the next day and attempt to secure the signatures of 2 employees who were
absent from work on August 26.12
The major portion, if not all, of the employees ' activities in connection with
the drafting and circulation of the petition on August 26 occurred during work-
ing hours . Such activities did not infringe any regulations of the respondent,
for no rule prohibiting the circulation of petitions during working hours existed.
Indeed, the record establishes that other petitions for various purposes were
circulated during working hours both prior and subsequent to that of August 26,
one having later been circulated by Foreman Clevenger during working hours.
On the morning of August 27, 1947, employee Mary Spoon, who had been
absent from work the previous day, was called to Mayes' boards Mayes
showed her the petition and, after discussing it, Spoon stated that she would
wait until the lunch hour to look at it and returned to work. Shortly thereafter.
Foreman Clevenger came to Spoon 's place of work and, according to Spoon's
undenied and credible testimony , "asked me if I was asked to sign the paper,
pendent violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act commenced on August 25, 1947,
several days subsequent to this conversation, it is not found that Clevenger's statement
was violative of the Act It has been set forth. and consideied, as part of the background
for the events and activities hereinafter discussed
1= The findings in this paragraph ate based for the most part upon the credible testi-
mony of Maves, Wolfe, Itod;eis, and Inman Much of their testimony was corroborated
by other witnesses called by the General Counsel. Their testimony stands undenied
except in one particular Clevenger dean•d that emplovee WV J Fullington asked him to
take the petition to the main office . Clevenger was not questioned with regard to the
testimony of Mayes and Wolfe in this regard From his obseriation of the witnesses
and upon the entire record , the undersigned does not credit Clevenger ' s denial and finds
that the employees requested him to take the petition to the main office.
MORRISTOWN KNITTING MVIILLS 739,
and ... who by and I said Beulah Mae Mayes and he told me better not
sign it."
During the morning of August 27, Clevenger was asked by Wolfe or another
of the employees to take the petition to the office, but he remained adamant in
his refusal to do so. The employees then decided to place the petition in a box
where piece-rate tickets were deposited and later collected for transmittal to
the main office. Clevenger learned of the decision and told them not to place
the petition in the "ticket box."
Employee Rosa Mayes, who was not related to Beulah Mae Mayes and who
had declined to sign the petition on August 26, testified credibly and without
contradiction that on the morning of August 27, Foreman Clevenger asked her
who had started the petition and that she informed him that the day before
employee Ruth Rodgers had "said that Beulah did and that's all I knew about
it."
Later in the morning, the employees again asked Clevenger to submit the peti-
tion to the main office and Clevenger again refused, saying, according to the-
undenied and credible testimony of Wolfe, that when Clevenger last took a
petition "in the office they told him if lie ever brought another they would fire
him." Wolfe then said, according to his credible and undenied testimony, if
Clevenger "didn't want to take the petition in the office to get Mr. Raburn
[president of the respondent] and let us speak to him in person about getting
a raise." At this point, admittedly, Clevenger was "a little mad." Clevenger
then asked for the petition and Wolfe gave it to him. Clevenger read the peti-
tion, tore it into minute pieces, and threw it in the trash can, saying, accord-
ing to the credible testimony of Wolfe, "This is the last of the petition and I
don't want to see no more of them. They are worse than the damn union.""'s
Clevenger left the boarding room and returned within a few minutes and
laid a slip of paper at Beulah Mae Mayes' work station" The paper contained
instructions for the timekeeper to give Mayes her pay in full. When Clevenger
gave the slip to Mayes, he stated, according to Mayes' credible testimony, that
"he hated to" discharge her, "but he had it to do or it would be his job, but he
had orders to do that." 16
18 The findings in this paragraph are based principally upon the credible testimony of
Beulah Mae Mayes and Wolfe, and also upon corroborative testimony of employees Rodgers,
Inman, Spoon, Douglas Shropshire Calfee, Sarah Collins, Grace Atkins, and Oneida Mayes
Clevenger's only specific denial in this regard, aside from that discussed in the footnote
preceding, was that he did not make the statement attributed to him by Wolfe when
Clevenger tore up the petition. For the reasons heretofore mentioned, the undersigned
does not credit Clevenger's denial. Nor is his testimony that he did not read the petition
before destroying it credited.
14 Clevenger testified that as he was leaving Mayes' work station he overheard part of a
remaik which he assumed she made to employee Wolfe to the effect, "Hell, we can do
* * * without him knowing anything about it " (The asterisks refer to the part of
the sentence Clevenger was unable to hear). Clevenger thereupon decided to discharge
her, according to his testimony . .Mayes specifically denied making the remark attributed
to her by Clevenger . Employees Wolfe and Inman, whose boards were on either side of
those of Mayes, denied that Mayes made any such remark. As previously mentioned
Clevenger did not impress the undersigned as a reliable witness at the hearing . Mayes'
denial is therefore credited and it is -found that she did not make the remark testified to by
Clevenger
11 Clevenger denied that he told Mayes that he had orders t®, discharge her. Superin-
tendent Bible testified that he had no knowledge of Maves' discharge until after she had!
reported for her wages. For the reasons heretofore mentioned, the undersigned credits
Mayes and finds that Clevenger made the remarks attributed to him bT Mayes.
817319-49-vol. 80-48
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mayes testified credibly and without contradiction that when she cleared up
the remaining work to be done at her boards, she had the following conversa-
tion with Clevenger:
I asked him how come he just was a-firin' me and he said I was the one who
started [ the petition ], and I asked him who said that I was. And he said
it was three or four that said I was the one who started the paper. And
he wouldn 't tell me who they was . . .18
Mayes obtained the wages due her and left the plant. She never personally
requested reinstatement thereafter.
Immediately after Mayes ' discharge became known in the boarding room, an
argument ensued between employees Spoon and Oneida Mayes , daughter of
Beulah Mae Mayes . Clevenger stopped the argument and said, according to
Oneida Mayes, "I don 't want to hear this mentioned any more. I don't want
to fire all of you over something one has done." 11
Later on August 27, 1947, Clevenger asked employee Sarah Collins whether
she thought "that Beulah would get him fired." 18
2. Reasons for Mayes' discharge advanced by respondent
In its answer, the respondent averred that Mayes was discharged "due to her
loafing on the job during working hours, gossiping with and interfering with
other workers and for absenteeism without excuse." The record is barren of
any evidence that Mayes was ever absent from work without excuse and the
evidence proferred with respect to the respondent's remaining reasons for her
discharge concerned principally an alleged tendency on the part of Mayes to
gossip and talk with fellow employees during working hours to such excess that
she was "hindering other people from working" and "not working too much
herself." Thus, McKinney, who was foreman of the finishing room and who was
frequently in the boarding room each day, testified that Mayes "was all the
time going around and talking . . . with others and ganging up around."
More specifically, McKinney testified that a few days before August 27, 1947, he
unexpectedly entered the boarding room without warning during working hours
and found Mayes on one side of the table dividing the room and three or four
other employees on the opposite side of the table "all ganged up" and reported
this observation to Clevenger, foreman of the boarding room. However, Mc-
Kinney admitted that he "hardly ever" entered the boarding room during
working hours without finding employees talking and that on several occasions
he discovered an employee away from his place of work engaged in conversation
with other employees.
Clevenger testified that for a period of time following Mayes' reemployment
in 1945, her conduct, so far as talking and interfering with other workers, was
"pretty good," but that in the last few weeks she worked she spent more time
"Mayes' testimony in this regard was corroborated by that of employee Wolfe, who
overheard the conversation between Mayes and Clevenger . Employee Rodgers also testified
without contradiction that shortly after Mayes' discharge Rodgers overheard Clevenger
say in a telephone conversation that he had "fired one [employee ] for starting a petition
to get a raise." Clevenger did not deny the remarks attributed to him by Mayes, Rodgers,
or Wolfe.
17 This finding rests upon the uncontroverted and credible testimony of Oneida Mayes.
Wolfe's testimony also corroborated that of Oneida Mayes on this issue.
18 This finding rests upon the credible and uncontroverted testimony of employees
Collins and Mallie Waller.
MORRISTOWN KNITTING MILLS 741
talking with fellow employees during working hours, sometimes leaving her
place of work to do so. However, he gave no specific instances of such conduct
in his testimony except for the events occurring on August 26 and 27. According
to Clevenger, on August 26, he observed Mayes on one side of the table in the
boarding room talking with three or four other employees on the other side of
the table. He broke up the conversational group by yelling, "Okay, girls, let's
get busy here." He further testified that early in the morning on August 27,
1947, he came into the boarding department during working hours to find Mayes
on one side of the table talking to employees Rodgers, Oneida Mayes, and Sunder-
land on the other. He told the group to return to work and they ceased their
conversation. Not long thereafter, he left the boarding room for a few minutes
and when he returned, he found another conversational group formed at the
table. Clevenger was able to remember only that Mayes and Sunderland were
in the group. Upon his return, the employees immediately dispersed. He could
not recall that prior to August 27, he had ever specifically reprimanded Mayes
individually for conversing during working hours," but admitted that during
working hours there was almost constantly some conversation among the
employees.
Employee Esther Sunderland, who was a sister of Clevenger and was called
as a witness by the respondent, testified that she signed the petition on August
26, that on August 26 and 27, she left her place of work to talk with other
employees at Mayes' boards, and that both she and Mayes left their work to talk
with other employees in the boarding room during working hours. Sunder-
land admitted, however, that she "was as bad as any of them" with respect to
talking during working hours on August 26 and 27 and that on those days Mayes
was merely "talking like the rest of us was."
Employee Viola Ada Myers, who was also a sister of Clevenger and a witness
of the respondent, testified that she was not at work on August 26 or 27, that
previously Mayes gossiped during working hours, but "we all gossiped as far
as that goes," that she had observed other employees talking to Mayes at the
latter's boards during working hours, and that Myers had left her place of
work to talk to Mayes. She admitted, however, that all employees of the board-
ing room talked to each other during working hours and that she had observed
conversational groups of employees in which Mayes was not included.21
Employee Ann Letner, a witness for the respondent, testified that Mayes "did
talk a lot" and sometimes left her place of work in order to talk to other em-
ployees and that on August 26 and 27, she observed a group of employees talking
at Mayes'. boards on one occasion each morning. Letner also admitted that
employees talked to each other during working hours and that she sometimes
left her work to converse with other employees.
Employee Spoon, a witness called by the General Counsel, testified that on
August 27, she observed two or three employees conversing with Mayes at the
latter's boards during working hours, but stated that it was not unusual, both
prior and subsequent to Mayes' discharge, for employees to leave their work to
talk with other employees.
IO Clevenger testified that when he found employees engaged in extended conversations
during working hours he reprimanded them by saying, "You girls got to get busy here and
quit talking so much" and that in such reprimands , he "didn't call any individual name."
Mayes denied that she was ever reprimanded individually for talking during working hours.
The undersigned credits Mayes and finds that she was never warned against talking during
working hours prior to her discharge.
20 Similar testimony of a general nature that Mayes conversed with other employees
during working hours was given by employee Coy Trent, a witness for the respondent.
742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mayes denied that on August 26 and 27 any groups of employees assembled at
her bench to converse during working hours and insisted that the only employees
who came to her place of work at that time were Rodgers on August 26 and Spoon
on August 27. She stated on cross-examination , however, that she "wouldn't
say for sure" whether she had left her boards to talk with other employees on
August 26 and 27. She admitted that prior to these dates, she had on occasion,
joined other employees in brief conversations during working hours away from
her boards. She denied that she had ever been reprimanded for talking during
working hours 21 and insisted , without contradiction, that the only reason given.
for her discharge was "for starting the paper."
Employees Wolfe, Rodgers, Inman, Calfee, Collins, Fullington, and Waller, all'
of whom signed the petition on August 26 and were called as witnesses by the
General Counsel, as well as employees Atkins and Rosa Mayes, who had not
subscribed to the petition but were witnesses for the General Counsel, all cor-
roborated Beulah Mae Mayes' testimony to the effect that no conversational
groups of employees gathered at Mayes' place of work on August 26 and 27.
It is undisputed that each employee talked with his neighboring employees
during working hours without restraint and that it was not uncommon for an
employee to leave his place of work to talk with an employee working elsewhere
in the boarding room. No rules of the respondent prohibited such conversations
during working hours. There is no credible evidence that Mayes' conversational
propensities interfered with the work of other employees or with her own pro-
duction. Indeed , records introduced into evidence indicate that on August 2(r
and 27, she more than fulfilled her work quota. Since Clevenger testified that as
employee "couldn't do a good deal of [talking or loafing during working hours]
and make production," the undersigned infers from the fact that Mayes exceeded
her work quota on August 26 and 27, that she did not on those dates engage in
extended conversations or in absences from her place of work. As found above,
Clevenger never warned the complainant individually to cease talking during
working hours. In view of these factors, as well as his observation of the wit-
nesses, the undersigned does not credit the testimony of respondent's witnesses
that Mayes habitually gossiped and conversed with other employees during
working hours to an excessive degree. Rather, it is found that on August 26 and
27, and prior thereto, Mayes did not exceed the customary conversational privi-
lege of the employees in the boarding room and did not on those dates engage iir
numerous and extended group conversations or depart from her place of work
to an unwarranted degree. It is further found that such conversation as Mayes
engaged in on August 26 and 27 did not unduly interfere with the production of
the boarding department 22
n Upon the entire record and his observations of the witnesses , the undersigned does.
not credit the testimony of McKinney , who was foreman of the finishing department, that
he reprimanded and warned Mayes for talking during working hours.
22 Other reasons relied upon by the respondent as justifying Mayes' discharge clearly
are without merit They are as follows : ( a) McKinney testified at length that he fre-
quently returned Mayes work to be redone . This testimony Is clearly without credence,
for Foreman Clevenger admitted that Mayes "didn ' t have too much make up." (b)
Clevenger testified that Mayes complained upon being given small job lots of work and
desired that they be given the second shift and upon not being assigned to a position
boarding silk socks when it became available It was established, however, that on piece-
work it was to Mayes ' advantage to have large job lots and that boarding silk socks paid
a higher rate than the boarding of other varieties Therefore , Mayes' requests are not,
in the opinion of the undersigned. censorable conduct inasmuch as she clearly was attempt-
ing only to augment her take-home pay, an attitude common to all employees . ( c) Clevenger
testified that Mayes caused " trouble with other people . She'd tell one woman one thing
MORRISTOWN KNITTING MILLS 743
3. Conclusions
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that Mayes was discharged by the
respondent because she engaged in concerted activities with other employees
in connection with the formation and circulation of the petition for a wage
increase on August 26 and 27. The record discloses that Mayes was an experi-
enced and competent worker, so much so in fact that, as set forth in the margin
above, her foreman in the spring of 1947 refused her request to be included
among those employees to be laid off because he was "going to keep the ones he
could depend on."
It is apparent that whatever complaints the respondent may have had regard-
ing Mayes' alleged interference with the employees arose immediately prior to
and coincidentally with her concerted activity in respect to the petition for a
wage increase. While the petition was circulated during working hours and
Mayes engaged in some conversations regarding the petition during working
time, such circulations of petitions were a common practice in the respondent's
plant and there is no substantial evidence that the extent of Mayes' activities
and conversations in regard to the petition exceeded the permissible bounds of
conduct engaged in by all employees of the department. It follows that the
reasons advanced by the respondent for the discharge of Mayes are without
merit.
That Clevenger was cognizant of the petition and its circulation is shown
from the request made to him by employees to take the petition to the office
on August 26. On the following morning he asked employee Spoon who had
requested her to sign the petition and on being informed that Mayes was the
solicitor, warned Spoon not to sign it. On the same morning, Clevenger inquired
of employee Rosa Mayes as to the identity of the employee starting the petition.
She informed him that, according to her information, Beulah Mae Mayes had
initiated the petition. Later in the morning, when again requested to transmit
the petition to the office, Clevenger asked for it, read the petition, and tore it
into shreds, stating, "This is the last of the petition and I don't want to see no
more of them. They are worse than the damn union." Immediately thereafter
he discharged Mayes. It is significant that she was discharged without any
prior warning by her foreman for conduct alleged by the respondent to have
motivated her discharge. More significant, however, as to the respondent's
motivation for Mayes' discharge, was Clevenger's statement to her that her
employment was terminated because "she was the one who started [the petition]."
Shortly thereafter, employee Rodgers overheard Clevenger make the same ob-
servation in a telephone call, that is, he had "fired one [employee] for starting a
petition to get a raise." Later that morning, he again expressed the same
motivation for Mayes' discharge when he said, in quelling a disturbance among
certain employees, "I don't want to fire all of you over something one has
done."
Upon the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record, the undersigned
concludes and finds that the respondent discharged Beulah Mae Mayes because
,of her concerted activities in regard to the formation and circulation of the
petition for a wage increase on August 26 and 27, 1947, with the resulting effect
that the respondent has discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of
and start an argument up and stuff." No specific instances of such conduct on the part
of Mayes was elicited in the testimony of Clevenger or any of the other witnesses. As
heretofore stated, the undersigned did not find Clevenger to be a reliable witness; his
general testimony in this regard is not credited.
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employment and discouraged the formation of, and membership in, a labor
organization in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.23 By discharging
Mayes, by Clevenger' s inquiries in respect to the concerted activities of the
employees in the formation and circulation of the petition , and by Clevenger's
statements to employees Spoon, Wolfe, and Mayes, containing implied threats
of reprisal , the respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 ♦f the Act,
thereby violating Section 8 ( a) (1) thereof.
B. Advent of the Union; additional interference, restraint, and coercion
So far as the record shows, no labor organization was seeking to enlist the
membership of the respondent's employees at the time of Mayes' discharge.
Thereafter, in September 1947, Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, com-
menced an organizational campaign at the respondent's plant. Shortly there-
after, according to employee Wolfe's credible testimony, he had the following
conversation with Foreman Clevenger :
One morning when I went to get work, Mr. Clevenger asked me if I
heard about the union, and I told him "No." He said, "Well, some of the
girls have been saying that union organizers are coming around to see
them." Asked me what did I think about it. I told him I thought it would
be a good thing. He asked me "why." He referred to the tannery across
the street and said, "Look, when the union went in that little place it had
to shut down because it couldn't pay the union wages. This little place
can't pay them either." 24
About the same time, Clevenger asked employee Mary Elizabeth Self in a
conversation during working hours "if (the Union) would come through would
you be for it" and stated that the employees might be off for 3 or 4 months
getting organized?'
22 See Matter of Worthington Creamery and Produce Company, 52 N. L. R. B. 121, a case
involving discharges of employees because of their concerted activities , wherein the Board
stated, "We are of the opinion and we find that , irrespective of whether such concerted
activity resulted from any lnteiest or activity in a labor organization , such discrimination
has the effect of discouraging the formation of and membership in a labor organization,
which is the customary instrument utilized by employees in exercising the right to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and constitutes an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act " See, also, Matter of Rockingham Poultry
Marketing Cooperative, Inc., 59 N. L. R . B. 486; Matter of Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance
Company, 73 N. L. R B. 1463.
24 Clevenger did not specifically deny the remarks attributed to him by Wolfe. He denied
generally that he had ever interrogated employees concerning their union affiliations , that he
had ever urged, threatened , and warned employees to refrain from assisting , become mem-
bers of, or remaining members of a union, or that he had ever urged, threatened, and
warned employees to refrain from engaging in concerted activities As hereinafter set
forth, Clevenger admitted that he engaged in conversations with employees respecting the
Union and made certain statements therein. Upon the entire record and his observation
of the witnesses , the undersigned does not credit Clevenger's general denial but finds that
the conversation occurred as testified to by Wolfe.
n This finding is based upon the credible testimony of employee Self. Aside from the
general denial of Clevenger , discussed in the footnote immediately preceding , Clevenger
was not questioned with respect to the conversation with Self. For the reasons heretofore
mentioned , the undersigned does not credit the general denial but finds that Clevenger
made the statements attributed to him by Self.
MORRISTOWN KNITTING MILLS 745
Employee Grace Atkins also testified to a similar conversation with Clevenger.
In October 1947, Clevenger asked her "what (she) thought about the union"
and said "if the union got in that plant, the mill would close down for a month
or two." 26 According to employee Rodger's credible testimony, which was not
specifically denied, Foreman Clevenger observed in a conversation during work-
ing hours that President "Raburn would close the mill down before he'd let
(the Union) come in."
Employee Sarah Collins 22 testified that in October 1947 , at work , Foreman
Clevenger inquired as to the identity of the organizers for the Union and asked
"what they promised us when they come to get us to sign," warning that "they'd
promise us anything to get us to join." Employee Mallie Waller testified that
she overheard Clevenger ask Collins "if she knew the union men." According
to Clevenger, Collins initiated a conversation about the Union by asking, "What
I thought; if I thought it would be good or if it would get in and I said it all
depends on how many wants it." He further stated that he did not ask Collins
whether she had joined or would join the Union. From his observation of the
witnesses and upon the entire record , the undersigned finds that Clevenger
made the remarks attributed to him by Collins.
Foreman McKinney admitted on cross-examination that after the advent of
the Union's campaign, he had asked "a lot of" employees how they "felt" about
the Union, "What they thought it was like," although he never directly asked
them whether they had joined or would join the Union.
The questioning of employees as to what they "thought" or "felt" about the
Union was calculated, in the opinion of the undersigned, to cause the employees
to disclose their union affiliation or sympathies and was violative of the Act.28
Similarly , interrogation of Collins as to the identity of the Union 's organizers
was an unwarranted interference with the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.28 The statements that the plant would be closed if the Union succeeded in
its organizational campaign were clearly coercive.30 The undersigned concludes
and finds that by these statements of Foremen Clevenger and McKinney, the
respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section
8 (a) (1) thereof.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent 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.
26 This finding rests upon the credible testimony of Atkins. On cross -examination,
Clevenger admitted that he asked Atkins "how she felt about the union" and "how many
she thought had joined ." He denied that he said anything else in the conversation Upon
the entire record and his observation of the witnesses , the undersigned finds that the
conversation occurred as testified to by Atkins.
2' Collins is also referred to in the record as Sarah Drenin.
28 See, Matter of Sohio Pipe Line Co , 75 N. L. R. B. 858; Matter of Ames Spot Welder
Co., Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 352; Matter of Newman Machine Co ., Inc., 74 N L. R. B 220.
29 See Matter of Young , doing business as Young Patrol Service, 75 N. L R B. 404.
30 See Matter of William Spencer, doing business as Alliance Rubber Company, 76
N. L. It. B. 514; Matter of Unique Ventilation Co., Inc., 75 N . L R. B. 325 ; Matter of
Boreva Sportswear, Inc, 73 N. L. R. B. 1048; Matter of A. J. Showalter Company, 64
N. L. R. B. 573.
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the respondent has independently violated Sections 8 (a),
(1) and (3) of the Act, the undersigned must recommend that the respondent
cease and desist therefrom. These violations, as set forth above, clearly indicate
that-the respondent's purpose was to defeat the exercise by employees of their
rights of self-organization. Thus, the respondent discriminatorily discharged
Beulah Mae Mayes because of her concerted activities with other employees in
connection with the petition for a wage increase. Thereafter, when the Union
commenced its organizational campaign, the respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees by questioning them with respect to their
union affiliation or sympathies and to the identity of union organizers and by
threatening a cessation of plant operations if the Union should succeed in its
organization campaign. Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its
underlying purpose, the undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor practices
found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and
that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the
respondent's conduct in the past.' The preventive purposes of the Act will be
thwarted unless the recommendations are coextensive with the threat. In order,
therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantee of Section 7, to prevent
a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife
which burdens and obstructs commerce , and thus effectuate the policies of the
Act, the undersigned will recommend that the respondent cease and desist from
in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The undersigned has found that the respondent discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of Beulah Mae Mayes. The undersigned will
therefore recommend that the respondent offer her immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former or substatially equivalent position,82 without prejudice to
her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of
pay she may have suffered by reason of such discrimination, by payment to her
of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages
from the date of her discriminatory discharge to the date of the offer of rein-
statement, less her net earnings n during such period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONcLUsIONs OF LAw
1. Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, 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 employment of
Beulah Mae Mayes, thereby discouraging the formation of and membership in
as See N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426; May Department Stores
Company v. N. L. R. B., 326 U S. 376.
31 In accordance with the Board' s consistent interpretation of the term , the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wher-
ever possible , but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equivalent
position." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan,
Puerto Rico Branch, 65 N. L. R. B. 827.
33 See Matter of Ci ossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. R . B. 440, 492-498.
MORRISTOWN KNITTING MILLS 747
a labor organization , the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (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 (a)
(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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, Morristown Knitting Mills, Inc.,
Morristown, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in any labor organization of its employees by
discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of its employees,
or any term or condition of their employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to join or assist Textile
Workers Union of America, C. 1. 0., or any other labor organization, to form
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Beulah Mae Mayes immediate and full reinstatement to her former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against her, by payment to her of a
sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages
from the date of the discrimination against her to the date of the respondent's
offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during such period ;
(b) Post at its plant in Morristown, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
respondent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22, 1947, any party may, within
twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case
to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six
copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate
Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon
all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and six
copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period,
file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the
party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties.
Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be
promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section
203.46, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board,
request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days
from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, and all objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed waived
for all purposes.
FREDERIC B. PARKES, 2ND,
Trial Examiner.
Dated March 22, 1948.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL or in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0.,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employee named below immediate and full rein-
statement to her former or substantially equivalent position without preju-
dice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and
make her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Beulah Mae Mayes
All our employees are free to become or remain members of any labor organ-
ization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any labor organization, or because he has engaged
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection.
MORRISTOWN KNITTING MILLS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated ------------------------ By ---------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.