Mt. Vernon- Woodberry Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 18, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 294 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of MT . VERNON -WOODBERRY MILS, INC.' and TiFxTiLF,
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No.10-C-1554.Decided October 18,194, 5.
Mr. Dan M. Byrd, Jr., for the Board.
Messrs. John Wesley Weekes and Miurphy Candler, Jr., of Decatur,
Ga., Mr. William Carvell Woodall, of Tallassee , Ala., and Mr. R. T.
Milner, of Wetumpka, Ala., for the respondent.
Mr. Houston Troupe, of Huntsville , Ala., for the Union.
Mr. Ben Grodsky, of counsel to' the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF TILE CASE
Upon a first amended charge duly filed on November 10, 1944, by,
Textile Workers Union of America, CIO,-herein called the Union, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued
its complaint dated November 10, 1944, against-Mt. Vernon-Wood-
berry Mills, Inc., herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6.) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing
thereon, were duly served-upon the respplident-and,the, Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance : (1) that on or about April 17, 1944, the respondent dis-
charged Allen J. Manning and Herbert French, on or about April 20,
1944, discharged W. R. Mathis, and thereafter refused to reinstate
Manning and Mathis, because of their' union activity; (2) that on or
about April 20, 1944, the respondent reemployed French and again '
discharged him on or about June 3, 1944, because of his union activity;
and (3). that since about April 1, 1944, the respondent vilified, dis-
The spelling of the respondent ' s name in the complaint was corrected by motion made
at the hearing
64 N. L. R. B., No. 53.
294 '
0
MT. VERNOAT-WOODBERRY MILLS, INC. 295
paraged, expressed disapproval of the Union, interrogated its ' em-
ployees concerning their union affiliations, urged, persuaded, threat-
ened, and warned its employees to refrain from assisting, becoming
members of or remaining members of the Union, and kept under
surveillance the activities of the Union or the concerted activities of
its employees for the purpose of self-organization or improvement of
working conditions.
On November 21, 1944, the respondent filed an answer, admitting,
the discharges alleged but denying the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on December 7, 8, and 9, 1944,
at Jordanville,,2 Alabama, before J. R. Hemingway, the Trial Exam-
iner duly designated by the• Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and
the respondent were 'represented by counsel, and the Union by its
representative. Full opportunity was afforded all parties to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues. At the opening of the hearing, the respond-
ent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the charge
was,not,signed,by a properly designated official of the Union and that
the Union itself was not a proper party to the proceedings. The mo-
tion was denied. At the conclusion of the heiiring, counsel for the
Board moved to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof as to
formal matters, and the respondent's counsel moved to amend the
answer to conform to the proof regarding the discharges, concerning
which there was some testimony that certain alleged dischargees had
quit rather than had been discharged. These motions were granted.
During the course, of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings
on other motions and on objections to the, admissibility of evidence.
The Board has reviewed the rulings and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The Trial Examiner's rulings, insofar as they are not
inconsistent with our findings and order below, are hereby affirmed.
On March 7, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and the
Union. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was engag-.
ing in certain unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8
(1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7)'of the Act,,and recommended
that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act and that the
complaint be dismissed as to the remaining allegations. Thereafter,
2 The notice of hearing stated that the hearing would be held in the Circuit Court Room
at, Tallassee , Alabama. The - correct name of the-room where the hearing was held is
Inferior and Mayors Court which is in Jordanville . a community adjoining Tallassee All
parties were represented throughout the hearing' and no question was raised as to the
sufficiency ' of the notice
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a
supporting brief.
On July 26, 1945, the Board heard oral argument at Washington,
D. C. The respondent appeared and participated in the argument;
the Union appeared but did not participate. , '
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's
exceptions and brief , and the entire record in the case, and hereby
sustains the exceptions insofar as they are consistent with the findings
of fact, conclusions of law , and order set forth below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS or FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT -
The respondent, a Maryland corporation, has its principal. office
and place of business at Tallassee, Alabama, where it is engaged in the
Manufacture, sale, and distribution of duck,-canvas, cloth,-cordage,
and other cotton goods. Its annual purchases of raw cotton exceed
$7,000,000, of which 75 percent is received from points outside the
State''of Alabama. Its annual sales of finished products exceed $18,-
000,000, of which more than 75 percent is shipped to points outside the
State of Alabama.$
We find that the respondent is engaged in commerce, within the
meaning of the Act.
A
II. TILE ORGAN-IZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, adirntting to meDlber-
ship employees of the respondent.
III.' Ti 11.`':1LLEGED UNFAIIr LAIIOY."I'RtC'rICES'-
In March and April 1944, the Union as engaged in an organiza-
tional campaign at the respondent's mill. Employee Hen J. Manning
signed an application for membership on March 23, 1944; employee
Herbert French, on April 12, 1944; and employee Wilmer R. Mathis,
on April 10, 1944. All three were active thereafter in soliciting
memberships for the Union at the respondent's plant during working
hours and, according to their testimony, they, as well as other union
proponents, were closely watched during working hours-by Andrew-
Golden, a second hand-. The Trial Exanliner•_ found that Golden's
3 The respondent either admitted in its ans-,i er to the Boards complaint or stipulated
to the foregoing farts.
a A second hand is equivalent to a shift foreman Golden was a second hand in weave
room number 2 where Heibert French.and Allen 'Manning were employed
'MT. 1ERNON-WOODBERRY MILLS, INC. 297
close observation of these employees constituted surveillance, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. We do not agree. All of
Golden's activities in this respect were confined to working time and
were necessary and proper incidents of his supervisory position.
Moreover, there is no basis in the record for inferring, that such con-
duct was motivated by anti-union considerations or•-wasidesigned to
discourage self-organization among the employees.5
On April 17, 1944, the respondent' discharged Manning and French
and on April 20, discharged Mathis and reemployed French as a new
employee to work in a department other than the one in which he
formerly worked. On June 3, 1944, the respondent again discharged
French. The complaint alleges that these discharges were violative
of the Act.
The respondent asserts that Manning, a .loom. fixer, was discharged
because he did not pay attention to •his work. Golden testified that
on the day of Manning's discharge he noticed' that Manning was
off the floor for- 40 minutes and that Manning had only fixed one
of the many looms he had been, instructed to repair. At the hearing
before,the Trial Examiner , Manning admitted that he had gone to
the refreshment stand in the basement, and that, after returning to
the floor for a few minutes , he went to the dressing room for a•smoke,
but claimed that at the tinges in question there was no emergency
repair work to be performed 6
The respondent asserts that French, a warpman, was discharged on'
April,17,' because he used a small drag roller on a looun designed for
a larger roller, leaving one of the looms requiring the shorter roller
without such roller. French did not deny using the short roller but
explained that the short roller was on the loom at the time he changed
the warp. With respect to his second discharge, the respondent asserts
that it was due to French's failure to keep up with the work. - French
admitted that the work was piling up but explained that it was due to
the fact that the respondent ceased to supply him with assistance, as it
had-previously done. _
The respondent maintains that Mathis, a loom fixer, was , also dis-
charged for cause. It appears from the record that on the day before
his discharge , Mathis was ordered to check a number of loons making
6 The Trial Examiner found no evidence to support the other 8 (1) allegations of the
complaint and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to them
6 Golden cl a imed that there were several " flags" up indicating need for immediate repairs
on looms The Trial Examiner found that Golden's testimony was exaggerated and not
inconsistent with Manning ' s because employee Sargent testified that lie bad " flagged" a
loom but then fixed it himself and removed the "flag " • Manning had a check list of looms
requiring attention , but this was not urgent work except insofar as the looms would
produce "seconds," which in this case they did not
' At the hearing, before the Trial Examiner the respondent also took the position that
French quit on April 17. However , we agree with the Trial Examiner that French was
then discharged
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
seconds and, sometime later in the day,' his immediate supervisor,
Peoples, in checking on Mathis' work, ' found that one of the looms
which Mathis was supposed to have fixed was making imperfect
cloth because a Stafford feeler knife was out of adjustment.$ The
following day, after inspecting the seconds produced by Mathis' looms,
Peoples remonstrated with Mathis concerning his failure to fix 'the
looms. According to Peoples, Mathis replied that he "couldn't get to'
the looms [yesterday] and I can't get to them today either" and used
a vulgar expression toward Peoples. Thereupon, Peoples discharged
him.
The Trial Examiner concluded from the above circumstances and
other evidence, not herein detailed, which'tends to cast-doubt upon
the respondent's asserted good faith, that these employees were not
discharged for the 'reasons assigned-by the respondent but rather be-
cause of their union activities. While the respondent's summary and
harsh treatment of these employees, who as skilled and competent
workmen had been in its employ for a .number of 'years," raises a
strong' suspicion of discrimination, we are unable to fiiid on the record
as a whole that their discharge was due to their union activities. In
reaching this 'conclusion we are persuaded in part by th,6 fact, that there
is no substantial evidence of anti-union animus by the respondent and
that French was reemployed at a time when his union activity was
known to the respondent.
'Upon the basis of-the entire record; we find, contrary to the Trial
Examiner;'that the respondent has not engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. We
shall accordingly, dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Upon the basis of_the foregoing findings of fact and upon the en-
tire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
` CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the respondent, Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Mills,'
Inc., constitute commerce and affect commerce, within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Textile Workers Union of America-, C. 'I. O., is a labor organiza-
tion, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
'3.: The respondent has not engaged, in unfair labor practices as
alleged in the complaint, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)
of'the Act.
The record indicates, as found by' the'Ttial•Exanhitier, that the knife slipped out of
adjustment only several minutes before it was discovered-by Peoples.
Manning worked for the respondent for 11 years ; French, foi over 7 years and Mathis,
for over 14 years '
I
MT. VERNON-WOODBERRY MILLS, INC. 299
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the com-
plaint against Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Mills, Inc., Tallassee, Alabama,
be, and -it?hereby: is, dismissed.