Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 1144 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of DYLAN-SPARTA COMPANY, INC. and UNITED CONSTRUC-
TION WORKERS, U. M. W. A., A. F. of L.
Case No. 10-C-1925.-Decided August 19,1948
'Mr. Charles M. Paschal, Jr., for the Board.
Mr. Cecil Sims, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Respondent.
Mr. George Gilbert, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Union.
DECISION
AND
ORDER 2
On June 27, 1947, Trial Examiner J. J. Fitzpatrick issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto.' The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor
practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with
respect to such allegations 4 Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Re-
spondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied inasmuch as the
record and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and
positions of the parties.'
' Subsequent to the issuance of the complaint , the charging union severed its affiliation
with the A. F. of L.
2 The power of the Board to issue a Decision and Order in a case such as the instant one,
where the charging union has not complied with the filing requirements specified in Section
9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , was decided by the
Board in Matter of Marshall and Bruce Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 90.
3 Those provisions of Section 8 (1) of the National Labor Relations Act which the
Trial Examiner herein found were violated , are continued in Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
4 The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent did not discriminatorily discharge
employees Stella Horton and Polly Martin. No exceptions have been taken to these
findings.
8 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -man panel con-
sisting of the undersigned Board Members [ Houston, Murdock , and Gray].
78 N. L. R. B., No. 161.
1144
MYLAN-SPARTA COMPANY, INC . 1145
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
for the reasons set forth below will dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.
• The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent had violated Section
8 (1) of the Act by (1) publishing in the local newspaper certain state-
ments about the probable effects of union organization of the Respond-
ent's plant, (2) permitting anti-union statements to be made by Floor-
lady Qualls, and (3) discriminatorily applying a rule against talking
about subjects other than work.
(a) The published statements of the Respondent, in substance, re-
cited the history of a local mill and a mine, each of which had closed
after being organized, and declared that the Respondent could close its
plant at any time for good business reasons despite assertions to the
contrary by the Union. The Trial Examiner found these statements
coercive when viewed against a background of previous unfair labor
practices.,' The statements, however, contain no threat of coercion,
and they do not acquire a coercive character because the Respondent
had on another occasion committed unfair labor practices.7 A proph-
ecy that unionization will ultimately lead to loss of employment is not
coercive where there is no threat that the Respondent will use its eco-
nomic power to make its prophecy come trues Furthermore, the
Employer's statements were apparently factually correct, and the re-
marks about closing the plant were made in reply to allegations by
the Union that the Employer could not close its plant without violating
the Acts
(b) The Trial Examiner found that Qualls was not a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act, and no exceptions were taken to this
finding. Under the circumstances, liability for her statements might
be attributed to the Respondent upon a showing that the Respondent
encouraged, authorized or ratified Qualls' activities, or that it acted
in such a manner as to lead the employees reasonably to believe that
O Matter of Mylan Manufacturing Company, 70 N. L. R. B. 574, enf'd as mod., Feb. 10,
1948 (C C A 6), 166 F. (2d) 485.
7 Matter of Tygart Sportswear Company, 77 N L R B. 613.
s Matter of Electric Steel Foundry, 74 N L. R. B. 129.
° This case is distinguishable from Matter of Lafayette National Bank of Brooklyn, 77
N. L R B. 1210, where the Board majority found that the employer's statements con-
tained a clearly implied threat to blacklist union members In the present case, the
Respondent refers to undesirable results which have followed union organization in certain
instances, but does not suggest that such results will be brought about through the exercise
of the Employer's influence. Member Murdock does not concur in distinguishing the
instant case from the Lafayette case, having dissented in that case because of his view
that there, as here, the employer's remarks did not suggest that the employer's own influ-
ence would be used to bring about detrimental results to those who joined the Union.
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she was acting for the Respondent.10 No such showing was made in
the instant case.'1 Consequently, we do not agree with the Trial
Examiner that the Respondent is responsible for the anti-union acts
and statements Qf Qualls.
(c) The Trial Examiner found that the plant rule against talking
about subjects not related to the work was discriminatorily applied
against advocates of the Union. On several occasions employees were
cautioned by supervisors not to discuss the Union during working
hours. The Trial Examiner bases his finding that the rule was dis-
criminatorily applied on the failure of the record to disclose any order
prohibiting anti-union discussion during working hours, and on the
lack of evidence to show that Qualls was discouraged from making
anti-union remarks during working, hours. The admonitions not to
discuss the Union during working hours, however, prohibited any dis-
cussion, whether favorable or unfavorable to the Union. As for the
activities of Qualls, as previously stated, the record contains no evi-
dence on which to base a finding that the Respondent was aware of
her anti-union activities in the plant.
Accordingly we find that the Respondent has not interfered with,
restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in the Act. The complaint will therefore be dismissed in its
entirety.
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 complaint herein against
Mylan-Sparta Company, Inc., Sparta, Tennessee, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Charles M. Paschal, Jr., for the Board.
Mr. Cecil Sims, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Respondent.
Mr. George Gilbert, of Chattanooga, Tenn, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by United Construction Workers, UMWA,
A. F. of L., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Geor-
gia), issued its complaint dated March 26, 1947, against Mylan-Sparta Company,
Inc , Sparta , Tennessee , herein called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent
10 Matter of Carolina Mills, Inc., 64 N L R B. 376
ii We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's inference that the Respondent knew of
Qualls' activities . Qualls attempted to conceal her anti-union activities which occurred
in the plant during working hours, and there is no evidence that the Respondent was aware
of these activities.
MYLAN-SPARTA COMPANY, INC. 1147
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the
complaint together with notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the
Respondent and upon the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the Respondent interfered with, restricted, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by (1) since about
March 1, 1946, vilifying, disparaging and expressing disapproval of the Union,
interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliation, and urging, per-
suading, threatening and warning them to refrain from associating with, be-
coming members of, or remaining members of the Union; and (2) discharging
Stella Horton about March 28, 1946, and Polly Martin about April 11, 1946, and
thereafter refusing to reinstate either of them, because they joined and assisted
the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the
purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection.
In its answer verified March 31, 1947, the Respondent admitted certain allega-
tions in the complaint as to the interstate nature of its business. The answer also
admitted the discharges of Horton and Martin, but alleged that they were each
discharged for cause. It denied the commission of any unfair labor practices by
the Respondent.
Pursuant to due notice a hearing was held at Sparta, Tennessee, on April 28
and 29, 1947, before J. J. Fitzpatrick, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the Respondent were repre-
sented by counsel, the Union by its Regional Director. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the taking of
testimony, counsel for the Board and for the Respondent availed themselves of
the opportunity to argue orally upon the record. Since the conclusion of the
hearing the Respondent has filed a brief with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Mylan-Sparta Company, Inc., is a Tennessee corporation with its manufactur-
ing plant, office and place of business at-Sparta, Tennessee,' where it is engaged
in the manufacture, sale and distribution of men's and boys' shirts. It annually
purchases and causes to be transported in interstate commerce to its plant at
Sparta in excess of $1,000,000 in materials, and annually sells and causes to be
transported in interstate commerce in excess of $1,000,000 in finished products!
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Construction Workers, UMWA, A. F. of L., is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
The main business office is located in Nashville , Tennessee.
2 Findings based on the pleadings and a stipulation on commerce in the record.
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background and sequence
In early March 1946, a hearing was held in Sparta, Tennessee, before a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board upon a complaint (based upon
a charge filed by the Union) issued against Charles C Bassine and certain other
individuals and trustees doing business under the name of Mylan Manufacturing
Company, Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., and Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc. (the
present Respondent),' the Sparta-White County Chamber of Commerce, and
certain Sparta citizens, alleging violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act.
On April 5, 1946, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in the above
proceeding, finding that all the parties named as respondent in said complaint
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
including the publishing of a cease and desist notice in the local newspaper, the
Sparta Expositor. On August 26, 1946, the Board sustained the Trial Ex-
aminer's findings in part as to unfair labor practices committed by the respondent
partnership, above described Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., Mylan Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.; and M. C. Wallace, but dismissed as to the local chamber of commerce and
certain other individual respondents. The Board's decision provided for the
conventional posting of a cease and desist notice, but did not require that said
notice be published in the local newspaper. On September 12, 1946, the Union
filed a petition for certification of representatives in a unit consisting of the
maintenance and production employees of the Respondent, excluding office
workers and supervisory employees, and the Board ordered a pre-hearing elec-
tion which was set for November 1, 1946. However, prior to the election date
and on October 28, 1946, the Board granted the Union's request for leave to
withdraw the petition for certification, and no election has been held.
The allegations of unfair labor practices in the present complaint cover a
period beginning in March after the conclusion of the previous hearing and con-
tinuing on and until the withdrawal of the representation proceeding in late
October 1946.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that beginning early in March
1946, the Respondent by and through its officers, agents, and supervisory em-
ployees including Charles C. Bassine,' Max Feinstein, Mannie Honig and Emma
Qualls, had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Bassine is president of
the Respondent, Feinstein, plant manager, and Honig is superintendent of
the stitching department.` The Respondent, in effect, concedes responsibility
for the activities of the three management officials, but denies that Qualls was
a supervisor and disclaims responsibility for her activities. It is advisable there-
fore at this point to determine her supervisory status.
8 Although Mylan-Sparta Co , Inc., is the title used in the previous case it is obvious
and the undersigned finds that the Mylan-Sparta Co , Inc., and the Mylan-Sparta Company,
Inc., has reference to the identical corporation
4 Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc, apparently is no longer functioning as one of the
successors to the partnership and as indicated in the previous Board decision
6 Bassine's name was added by amendment to the complaint without objection at the
opening of the hearing.
"Respondent employs about 800 workers. Of this number approximately 350 to 400
of them, mostly women, are in various sections of the stitching department under Honig.
MYLAN-SPARTA COMPANY, INC . 1149
. The large stitching department is divided into approximately 15 operations
or sections. The number of employees in each section varies somewhat but
probably averages between 10 and 20 women. Each section has a floorlady whose
duties normally are to see that the employees in her section are provided with
sufficient materials so that they can "make production." They also transmit or-
ders from Superintendent Honig to the employees under them and on their own
initiative can temporarily transfer workers in their section from one job to an-
other. They instruct new workers, inspect and return bad work for correction and
if a poor worker does not improve in time they report the matter to Superintend-
ent Honig who takes such action as he deems advisable. Subject to the superi i-
tendent's approval, they permit workers under them to leave before quitting time
on proper showing. Most of the floorwalkers receive a slightly higher hourly
rate than the employees under them, but are not required to "make production."
They are eligible to join the Union. Qualls was floorlady over the buttonhole
and button sewing section and also, on occasion, saw to it that the workers in
the trimming department, which adjoins the buttonhole and button sewing de-
partment, were supplied with work. Under all the facts and circumstances as
herein detailed the undersigned finds that Emma Qualls was not a supervisor as
that term has,been defined by the Board. Her activities are nevertheless perti-
nent in view of the contention of Board's counsel that responsible management
officials had, in effect, ratified her statements to employees.
1. Events during the spring of 1946
After the hearing in the first complaint case closed on March 8, 1946, the
protagonists for the Union continued their activities for that organization.
Others in the mill, including Qualls, were very active against the Union. Stella
Horton of the trimming section, active for the Union, and whose discharge on
March 28, 1946, will hereafter be discussed in detail, testified credibly that about
the middle of March 1946, Qualls, during working hours, stated that the Union
would never get into the mill ; that President Bassine would close the mill down
and those that had joined the Union would never come back to work again.
Charity Exum, also of the trimming department, testified credibly that during
about the same period in March, on two or three occasions during working hours,
Quails told Exam and the other girls working nearby not to sign union applica-
tion cards ; that if the Union came in, the plant would move out of town and
that Qualls had been told by Manager Feinstein to "fight the Union all she
could." Polly Martin, also active for the Union, and whose discharge on April 10,
1946, will be discussed hereafter in detail, testified credibly that, after she had
received -instructions from Superintendent Honig not to talk about the Union
during working hours,? Qualls, on company time, sought unsuccessfully to have
Martin withdraw from the Union and her activities therein, and that in early
April, Honig threatened to discharge Martin for distributing a few union appli-
cation cards during the noon lunch hour.
Ida Breeding, a new employee as of April 1, 1946, in the cross stitching section,
testified credibly that the second day after she started to work, Qualls came to
her on company time and warned her against signing up in the Union saying,
° There is credible testimony on the part of the Superintendent Honig as well as others
that there was a general rule in the mill prohibiting talking during working hours except-
ing on company business, but that the rule was loosely enforced. Honig testified that
there was no specific rule so far as the Union was concerned, "one way or the other"
He was not asked and he did not deny giving the specific instruction to Martin about the
Union above referred to.
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"they will be around wanting you to join the union, but don't pay any attention
to what they say ; just tell them that you appreciate your job too much to join
the union ;" that a few days later Qualls again came to her during working hours
and stated that she had worked in the North under a Union and as a result was
out of work many times and in debt, and warned Breeding that the same, thing
would happen to her.8
Katherine Jenkins, who was a floorlady in the trimming section until about
April 1, 1946, when she quit her job, testified that when she was floorlady, acting
under instructions from Manager Feinstein, she told the employees in the trim-
ming section not to hand out union cards or discuss the Union during working
hours. This undenied testimony is credited. The record fails to disclose any
similar order prohibiting anti-Union discussion on company time, and there is
no evidence that Floorlady Qualls was censored or in any way interfered with
in her activities against the Union on company time as heretofore found. On
the contrary, Qualls who started as a floorlady at 50 cents an hour in the early
part of 1946 was receiving 601/2 cents an hour at the time of the hearing.
The record shows without dispute that about the end of March or the first of
April 1946, Qualls, assisted by other employees who were opposed to the Union,
arranged for a meeting after working hours in a hall in Sparta for the purpose
of discussing the Union and that Qualls tried unsuccessfully to get Mel Wallace,
a local business man, to speak at the meeting because he knew "something about
what had happened in Sparta " ° There is credible testimony that the morning
of the day on which this meeting was held, Qualls presided at a meeting on com-
pany time of from 20 to 25 girls mostly from the sleeve and buttonhole sections in
the ladies wash room which lasted from 15 to 20 minutes wherein she urged these
employees to attend the meeting scheduled for that evening. Polly Martin, here-
tofore referred to, attended part of this wash-room conference. Her testimony is
credited that during the course of Qualls' remarks she stated to those present
in effect that if the Union came in President Bassine would close the mill down
and most of those present who were paying'for their homes and furniture would
lose them.10
8 Qualls in substance admitted most of the above credited testimony but denied that she
told Charity Exum that Feinstein had told her to fight the Union Qualls testified that
she was opposed to the Union coming into the mill and that she had told both Manager
Feinstein and Superintendent Honig how she felt about the Union. She also testified
that she talked to employees other than those above credited and warned them that if
the Union got in the mill it would immediately call a strike. Feinstein was not called by
the Respondent to explain what, if any, instructions in the above respect he had given to
Qualls and there was no showing of his unavailability. Under the circumstances Qualls'
denial is not credited.
° In the previous complaint case the Board found (70 N L. R B 592) that Wallace in
March 1945, in the presence and hearing of management, had made a speech at the plant
wherein he told about nearby coal mines closing and the silk mill (which in 1930 occupied
part of the present site of the mill) closing because of a union, and that the Respondent's
predecessors (including Charles C. Bassine who was present) would close the mill if the
Union organized the employees.
10 Qualls did not testify relative to this conference of employees in the wash room, nor
did she deny the above credited testimony of Polly Martin as to what transpired in the
wash room. She testified that she did not tell Stella Horton that Bassine was against the
Union and further testified that Bassine had given her no instructions about the Union.
In that respect, however, she admitted that she told Horton that in her opinion Bassine
was against the Union and that she based that opinion in part upon published statements
of President Bassine and of the Respondent which statements will be hereafter referred
to. Bassine, although present in the court room during most of the present hearing, did
not testify.
MYLAN-SPARTA COMPANY, INC. 1151
The meeting after working hours in the downtown hall was not too well at-
tended and there were a few pro-Union people there and some anti-Union em-
ployees. Qualls took over and explained that the speaker, Wallace, was unable
to be present. She stated the purpose of the meeting and asked some of the pro-
Union people present to explain the reasons for having a union Pauline Ander-
son offered some union literature to Qualls and suggested that it be read. Qualls
did not follow this suggestion and introduced a Mrs. Bradshaw who stated that
in previous years she had had to take in washing until she secured a job from
Bassine in the mill.
As heretofore found, the Trial Examiner in the previous complaint case issued
his Intermediate Report on April 5, 1946, finding that the predecessors of the
present Respondent, including Charles C. Bassine as one of the general partners,
had interfered with and discriminated against their employees in violation of
the Act, and had, by their silence, ratified statements published in 1945 that the
mill would close if it was organized by the Union. The Trial Examiner recom-
mended as part of the remedy that notice be published in the Sparta Expositor
by said respondents that they would refrain in the future from similar illegal
activities. In the April 18 issue of the Expositor a full page notice was carried,
entitled "A Statement of Facts and Rights by Charles C. Bassine."" In the
body of the published article Bassine denied that either he or "my company" had
ever "threatened, intimated, or coerced any individual, or organization," or "dis-
criminated against any individual because of his preference for or against a
union . . ." The article then went on to assert that the Respondent had an
"absolute right to hire any person whom we believe will be an asset to our
organization," "to discharge any person whom we believe to be a detriment or a
loss to our operation," to pay any "efficient employee a greater wage than an
inefficient employee," and "for business reasons within its own good judgment, to
expand operations, to reduce operations, or to cease operations altogether and
we fully intend to exercise" these rights. The statement closed with Bassine's
comment that as an "American citizen" he could discuss any subject that "may be
my desire." At the bottom of the article appeared the name of Bassine, as well
as that of the Mylan-Sparta Company, Inc."
2. Activities during the representation proceeding
As heretofore found, the Union on September 12, 1946, filed a representation
petition covering the maintenance and production employees, and as a result the
Board ordered a pre-hearing election to be held among such employees on
November 1. Toward the end of the election campaign, on October 24, the Re-
spondent caused to be published in the Sparta Expositor a full page advertise-
ment entitled "Just Facts." " The first sentence of this published statement, in
bold type, was as follows :
The United Mine Workers Union is again in Sparta to try to collect
yearly dues of about $15,000 from our employees. The money is the beginning
and the end of what they are after and they will promise anything to get it.
11 The Respondent admitted that this statement, as well as other statements that will
hereafter be referred to as having been published, was prepared and published by direction
of President Bassine, and copies thereof mailed by the Respondent to all persons whose
names appeared in the local telephone directory covering White County, Tennessee, where
Sparta is located.
12 See Appendix A for full text of the published article.
13 As heretofore found, this as well as other published statements of the Respondent and
Bassine, its president , were also mailed by the Respondent to all persons whose names
appeared in the White County telephone directory.
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The article then continued :
"This is the same union that came up to the mines on the mountain several
years ago" and "promised the miners the whole world . . .," "nobody
believed it but the mines closed and they have stayed closed to this day.
... honest men were out of work . . . families went hungry and where
was the union? The union packed up its wonderful promises and went
away but left behind a ruined business and a ruined people. THE UNION
WAS GONE !"
It next stated :
A few years later another union came by to show the silk mill 14 how to
run their business . . . Again a business was closed down and again
people were out of work. After that Sparta was left without any industry.
Conditions became very bad. The railroad was about to pull its tracks out
of the County-and not a single union organizer was in sight with even
the smallest kind of a little promise. THE UNION WAS GONE !
The statement proceeded,
Now once more the unions are back with us. They weren't here when
we built our business ; they weren't here when we worked day and night,
borrowing money, selling goods or getting 1,000 people jobs. They weren't
here when we started shipping car loads over the railroads and kept the
tracks running into our town. They weren't here to build our town, help
our poor and give our good citizens jobs. No, sir, they are here now with
those same old promises all shined up to look like new. The union wants
to get paid for those promises and the price is about $15,000 a year. Our
employees are the people who are asked to do the paying and it is up to our
employees to say whether they will or not.
TO OUR EMPLOYEES
Our relations have always been most pleasant. Sure, we've had our ups
and downs but we always were able to straighten them out to every one's
complete satisfaction, weren't we? Things haven't changed. We're the
same happy family, all striving to contribute our part-management by
every possible benefit to you-you by your good production effort. No out-
side element is necessary for the continued happiness and security of our
employees, town and county. A union can't help ! It can only hurt !
MYLAN-SPARTA CO., INC 1'
On October 28, 1946, the Respondent caused to be published in the local news-
paper another full page statement headed "UNIONS ARE OBJECTIONABLE."
Excerpts from the article follow :
Unions cause . . . strikes . . . when unions cause slow downs, wages go
down. When unions strike, wages disappear . . . Unions never gave anyone
in White County a job. Our history shows that unions caused our people to
lose jobs. . . . The union is telling you that if you don't join the union you
won't have a job. That is not true. Our history shows just the opposite.
When our people joined unions in the past that is when there were no
jobs . . . the unions is telling you that no matter what may happen we can-
- 14 Welwood Sparta Silk Mill which occupied part of the Respondent 's present site. See
previous Board's decision footnote 9, supra.
11 Full text of the article is attached as Appendix B.
MYLAN-SPARTA COMPANY, INC. 1153
not close our factory-that is not true. We have the right for good business
reasons to close ... entirely or in part at any time. It's just the same as
if we were running a farm or a grocery store or a gasoline station. Ask any
of them if they can close. Ask the mines if they could close. Ask the silk
mill if they could close.
TO OUR EMPLOYEES
You will shortly be asked to vote by secret ballot for or against the union.
You may have already signed a union card THIS DOES NOT LEGALLY
REQUIRE YOU TO VOTE FOR THE UNION, YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR
MIND, THE BALLOT IS WHAT COUNTS AND THAT BALLOT IS
SECRET, NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW HOW YOU VOTED. The Company
wishes to impress upon you the importance of voting at the proper time.
Every one is urged to vote. The Company has every confidence in your in-
telligence and good will. We look forward to many happy years of future
benefits and accomplishments together. MYLAN-SPARTA CO., INC 19
On October 28, as heretofore found, the Union's request was granted for leave
to withdraw the representation petition. On October 31, Respondent published
another full-page statement in the local newspaper wherein it congratulated its
employees because the "Union and the National Labor Relations Board have
called off the election." 14
Conclusions as to interference, restraint, and coercion
The Respondent's acts and statements during the employees' organizational
activities of 1946 must be viewed against the background of unfair labor prac-
tices heretofore found by the Board during the union activities of 1945, particu-
larly the condoning by the Respondent's predecessors (including President Bas-
sine) of a speech by a local business man in a mill meeting that the coal mines
and the silk mill had been closed because they were organized by a union and
warning the employees that the Mylan plant would also close in the event that
the Union organized it. The published statement of the Respondent issued in
April 1946, shortly after the receipt of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report
in the previous case to the effect that the Respondent had the "right" among
other things "for business reasons . . . to expand operations, to reduce opera-
tions, or to cease operations altogether and we fully intend to exercise that right,"
was certainly not compliance with the recommendations in the previous case.
Standing alone, it could be construed as a statement on the part of Bassine and
the Respondent that they disagreed with the findings in that Report, as they
certainly had a perfect right to do. However, the use of the language above
quoted, that the Respondent had a right to cease operations, and that it fully
intended to exercise that right, publicly announced during the revival of the
union campaign and when employees were being told that President Bassine and
Plant Manager Feinstein would close the plant if the Union came in, had the
effect of confirming, instead of repudiating, in the minds of the employees the
rumors spread by Floorlady Qualls that the mill would close in Sparta if the
employees organized.
16 Full text of the statement is attached as Appendix C.
17 On another full-page of the same issue of the Expositor, the Respondent published a
speech President Bassine had delivered before the local Rotary club on October 28 and
before the local Civitan club on October 29. The speech so published was a diatribe against
the Act, the Board, and the Board' s personnel , as well as against "aggressive union or-
ganization " It stated flatly, "We will not abide by its [the Board' s] decision.
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If there was any doubt in the minds of the employees or the townspeople in
the spring of 1946 that the Respondent was threatening to remove the mill if
the employees organized, that doubt must have been removed (after the Union
had filed a petition seeking representation and a date had been set to permit the
employees by an election to decide for themselves whether they wanted collective
bargaining representation by the Union), when the Respondent published its
"Just Facts" statement of October 24 wherein it stated, "This is the same Union"
that organized the mines a few years ago and "the mines closed . . . a union
tried to show the silk mills how to run their business . . . again a business was
closed down and again people were out of work." "Now once more the Unions
are back with us . . . with the same old promises . . ."; and when it published
"Unions are Objectionable" on October 28, wherein Respondent said, "Unions
never gave anyone in White County a job. Our history shows that Unions caused
our people to lose jobs. When people joined unions in the past that is when there
were no jobs." "The Union is telling you that no matter what may happen we
cannot close our factory . . . that is not true. We have the right for good busi-
ness reasons to close . . . at any time." "Ask the mines if they could close. Ask
the silk mill if they could close."
In other words the published statements of the Respondent reminded the
readers thereof that always in the past when a union had attempted to organize
an industry in White County that industry had ceased to function, it told them
that the Respondent regarded a union functioning in its plant as highly objec-
tionable, and that if such a union did get in the mill it could close its plant for
good business reasons. Finally, in the last issue of October 28, the Respondent
addressed the employees directly, and reminded them they were about to vote
on the question of whether the Union should represent them in collective bar-
gaining. "The Company has every confidence in your ieitelligence and good will.
We look forward to many happy years of full benefits and accomplishments."
The published statements taken in their context and setting constituted a warn-
ing that what had happened before would happen again and that the plant and
the Respondent would leave Sparta or close if the Union succeeded in its organ-
izing attempt. In the eyes of the employees they in effect constituted a ratifica-
tion of the previous statements of Floorlady Qualls that President Bassine and
Plant Manager Feinstein were opposed to the Union and that the mill would
leave Sparta if the Union succeeded in its efforts.
It is therefore found that the Respondent, by permitting anti-union employees,
including Floorlady Qualls, to campaign against the Union on company time
while prohibiting similar activity by union protagonists, and by its threat to
close the mill or remove it from Sparta if the Union succeeded in organizing
the employees and became their bargaining representative, has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act 18
It is the Respondent's contention as stated in its brief that it is not responsible
for the personal opinion or statements of Floorlady Qualls. The undersigned
does not disagree with this general contention, and he has found that Qualls
was not a supervisor for whose statements and acts Respondent is ordinarily
accountable. While Qualls' duties were such as to exclude here from the Board's
18N. L R. B. v Virginia Electric & Power Co, 314 U. S. 469; N. L. R B. v. Trojan
Powder Co., 135 F (2d) 337 (C. C. A 3), cert. den. 320 U S. 768 , In the Matter of Van
Raalte, Inc., etc, 69 N L. R. B. 1326.
MYLAN-SPARTA COMPANY, INC. 1155
definition of a responsible supervisor, in the eyes of the employees she was rep-
resenting management when she stated to them that the plant would move from
Sparta if the Union came in. The Respondent made no effort to repudiate this
information that was being passed on to the employees although it is a reason-
able inference that it was aware of the statements. In fact, as heretofore found,
in the published statements the Respondent in effect corroborated and ratified
them, by disputing the Union's apparent attempt to discredit, as idle rumors,
statements that the plant might close. Under the circumstances it must accept
responsibility therefor." The Respondent further contends that the newspaper
advertisements sponsored by it were addressed to the "reasoning power of the
employee and manifestly contain no hint or suggestion of coercion or intimida-
tion." The Board and the Courts have held on numerous occasions that any
statements or acts of an employer to his employee embodying threats of reprisals
for union activities are violative of the Act. Certainly a threat or an implied
threat that a plant will close if it becomes unionized is more coercive in its
effect on the employees as a whole than a threat against an individual employee
who is active for a union. These contentions of the Respondent are therefore
rejected.
C. The discharges of Horton and Martin
The complaint alleges and the Respondent admits that Stella Horton was
discharged about March 28, 1946, and Polly Martin about April 11, 1946. The
answer alleges that Horton was discharged because of her failure to properly
perform her duties, and Martin because of use of abusive language to her
supervisor.
Stella Horton first worked for the Respondent in the trimming section of the
sewing department from June 10 to October 1945, when she quit her job due to
the illness of her daughter. In January 1946, she returned to work again as a
trimmer. She joined the Union about the first of March of that year and there-
after was active in soliciting members for that organization . She as well as
some other union employees wore distinctive yellow crepe ribbons in their hair.
She defended efforts to organize a union in the factory in an argument with
Flooilady Qualls. Because of Qualls' animosity to the Union and her close asso-
ciation with management, and the other facts above detailed, it is found that
management was aware of Horton 's union affiliation.
Up to about the first of March 1946, the Respondent's production had con-
sisted almost exclusively of army shirts, but about the middle of that month it
completed its army contract and resumed the manufacture of civihadi shirts,
and Horton was promoted to the job of inspector but with no increase in pay 2°
She worked as an inspector for about 2 weeks and until March 28, when she was
discharged for "passing bad work," and has not since been rehired 21
"Cf. International Association of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72, Matter of
Wichita Engsneet ing Co , 65 N L It B. 1382
2° There were 10 of these inspectors who looked over the shirts for imperfections before
they were sent to the pressing department . Each inspector had a number for the purpose
of identification and keeping the records straight If an inspector approved and passed
a shirt she penciled her number on the tail of the shirt.
2' After her discharge , Horton registered presumably in the local office of the United
States Employment Service In May 1946 she received a post card to report for work
with the Respondent as a sleever . When she applied Superintendent Honig asked her if
she was not a trimmer , and when she responded in the affirmative he told her that they
had no work for her The record does not otherwise show that there was work available
in May that Horton was qualified to do and no finding to that effect is made.
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The circumstances involving the discharge of Horton are as follows : During
working hours on March 28, Mannie Honig, superintendent of the entire stitch-
ing department, brought from the pressing department to the trimming section an
armful of defective civilian shirts. The first one of these returned shirts that
Honig picked from the pile had a penciled 60 on the tail. Honig asked Viola
Perris, acting floorlady of the trimming department, which inspector had that
number and, on ascertaining that it was Horton's number, he called her over.
When Horton appeared, Honig displayed the shirt with her inspector's number
thereon and called attention to the fact that the yoking of the garment was
defective. He cautioned her to watch her work and Horton, without comment
of any kind, returned to her work.z2
Upon examination of the remainder of the defective shirts, it developed that one
of them had been passed by Inspector Mertie Green, one to three had Inspector
Ira Cantrell's number thereon, and the remaining three had Horton's penciled
number. Honig, after criticizing both Green and Cantrell, sent them back to
their work.23 The yoking was poor in the remaining three shirts which bore the
penciled number 60. When these were shown to Horton, she denied that any
of them were shirts that she had inspected or that the penciled number was in her
handwriting. Although Honig testified that when Horton was called over to
him a second time and shown defective shirts she did nothing and nodded her
head when shown the numbers, Ferris in substance corroborated Horton that
she disclaimed responsibility for passing these shirts. Honig then discharged
Horton although she again denied responsibility and stated that she was being
discharged because of her union activity. Under the circumstances it is found
that management was justified in assuming that the four defective shirts had
been approved by Inspector Horton .24
22 It is Horton ' s testimony that as Honig brought the defective shirts from the pressing
department lie "motioned" to Horton and she came over to him ; he then held up a shirt
"practically all to pieces" and that she denied that she had ever inspected any shirts
"like that " Honig testified that Horton admitted that this first shirt had been passed
by her and contained her number . Acting Floorlady Ferris, not working for the Respond-
ent at the time of the hearing and who had signed a union card , testified that Horton said
nothing when she was shown the first shirt by Honig and admonished to be careful in the
future. Under the circumstances Ferris' version is credited.
23 Both Cantrell and Honig testified that Cantrell had only one shut in the pile. On
the other hand, both Horton and F1oorlady Ferris testified that Cantrell had three defective
shirts. Ferris' further testimony however is credited that on two of Cantrell's shirts the
collars were damaged , a condition that could have been caused in the pressing department
and which could not properly be held against the inspector.
21 At the hearing five shuts were received in evidence , two blue, two brown, and one
lavender . The two blue shirts as well as one of the brown each had a penciled 60 on the
tail. Honig testified that Attorney Sims had previously advised him "because of labor
trouble" he should be ceitam not to fire any one "because she is a union girl," and that on
March 28, when he went to the office to make out Hot ton's separation slip Sims was talking
on the telephone to William Cowden who is in charge of production records ; that he
asked to talk to Sims and told him the circumstances involving Horton ' s discharge and
that Sims then instructed him to preserve for future reference the defective shirts that
Horton had passed and which had caused her discharge. Honig identified the five shirts
above referred to as the defective shirts he had shown to Horton immediately prior to
her discharge and which , according to his testimony and presumably as lie explained it to
Sims, she admitted having passed . These five shirts were received as exhibits , in part at
least for the purpose of comparing the penciled 60's thereon with samples of Horton's
handwriting of 60 also in evidence However, as previously found , and as Honig himself
testified, he only showed four shirts to Horton on March 28. Furthermore, only two of
these five defective shirts received in evidence are blue and Ferris' testimony supported by
that-of Horton and Polly Martin, is credited that the shirts shown to Horton were all blue
or blue striped. It is apparent that Honig in attempting to preserve the shirts as in-
MYLAN-SPARTA COMPANY, INC. 1157
- There is credible and undisputed testimony that Horton was a first class
trimmer, and that her work as an inspector had never been criticized prior to
March 28. It was not unusual for an inspector to approve an occasional defective
shirt and have it returned from the pressing department, and no inspector had
ever been discharged for passing such defects prior to the Horton incident. How-
ever, Inspector and Checker Maggie Marsh's testimony is credited that prior to
March 28, on Superintendent Honig's instruction, she exhibited to the inspectors
a defectively sewed shirt and told them that the next inspector who passed such
a shirt would be discharged.. And Horton's testimony is noted that any inspector
who passed the shirts that were shown to her on March 28 by Honig should have
been discharged.
While not unmindful of the anti-Union background of the Respondent, and its
antagonism to the Union's efforts to become the certified representative of the
employees in the late summer and fall of 1946, the undersigned is not convinced
that when organization activities were resumed in the spring of 1946 the respond-
ent discriminatorily discharged Horton because of her union activity, where the
record shows that four defective shirts were passed by her as an inspector
apparently in one day. It will therefore be recommended that the complaint be
dismissed as to Horton.
Polly Martin first worked for the Respondent in the fall of 1942 trimming army
shirts. After about a year of this work she was promoted to the position of
floor lady for the buttonhole section and time keeper or checker for the trimmers.
She had some difficulty in this new work and after about 3 months Superintendent
Honig told Martin he was placing her back on trimming work because her records
were inaccurate. Rather than accept this demotion, Martin quit her job, but
2 weeks later applied to Plant Manager Feinstein and was rehired as a trimmer,25
which position she held continuously until her discharge on April 10, 1946, as will
hereinafter appear in more detail.
Martin joined the Union about March 10, 1946 and was active thereafter in
soliciting members. She argued in favor of the Union with Floorlady Qualls,
heretofore referred to as opposing the Union. On one occasion, about the middle
of March, Superintendent Honig told seven union girls, including Martin and
Stella Horton, that their interest in the Union indicated that they did not seem
to appreciate how well off they were in the factory. Honig instructed Martin
personally not to talk about or to distribute union cards during working hours.
As a trimmer Martin's work was reasonably good and she made production.
Occasionally one of her shirts did not pass inspection but her experience in this
respect was no worse than the average trimmer. About the first of April 1946,
because of complaints he had received of faulty trimming, Honig brought into
structed by Sims became confused as to the number and probably as to the type of shirt.
The exhibits will therefore be disregarded except as to the two blue ones (Respondent's
exhibits 2 and 5). There is no evidence that any other inspector or any one else used
Horton's number or penciled it on the shirts shown to her on March 28, and her writing
of 60 appears similar to the same penciled number on respondent's exhibits 2 and 5. Horton
also testified that during her 2 weeks as inspector she only passed on white shirts. How-
ever, William Cowden, in charge of production records of the Respondent, testified credibly
that Respondent did not begin the making of white shirts until March 28, and that no
white shirts got to the pressing department until March 29, 1946, the day after Horton's
discharge. Horton's testimony that she only inspected white shirts is rejected
25 No implication is intended here that as a result of the demotion Martin was persona
non grata with Honig. As a matter of fact the record discloses that shortly after she
quit her job Honig sent word to her through her son that her trimming job was ready
for her any time she desired to return to work.
798767-49-vol. 78-74
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the trimming section a pile of rejected shirts. Four of them were Martin's.
She acknowledged that the trimming was defective and Honig told her that if that
was the type of work she was doing he did not need her 26 Martin at. the time
accused Honig of "picking on" union members 2' and cited the discharge of Stella
Horton a few days before.28
The next week following the above incident Martin, during the lunch hour,
handed some union cards to Ruby Clark and another employee, as both of these
employees had previously requested her to do. After work was resumed, Honig
accused Martin of distributing cards in the plant. Martin did not deny that
she had handed out union cards. She tried without success to ascertain who
had reported her to Honig, and then stated that it was Floorlady Qualls and that
management was trying again to get rid of her because of her activities for the
Union. During the somewhat heated argument Honig tried to take Martin's
purse (presumably to see if it contained any union cards), but Martin pushed
him away 29
On Friday, April 5, Martin worked until 12 o'clock noon when Honig told her
that her husband had telephoned that their small daughter was ill, and with
Honig's permission she left her work and went home. She did not return to the
plant on Saturday morning 30 or all clay Monday. When she reported for work on
Tuesday (April 9), Honig wanted to know why she had not been at work. On
responding that her daughter was still ill and that she should not have reported
to work on Tuesday, Honig told her that he had seen her "fiesting around." Mar-
tin replied that she and her husband had merely been to the drug store to have
some prescriptions tilled."
Martin worked until 4 o'clock p. m. on Tuesday but secured permission from
Acting Trimmer's Floorlady Jewel Cole to leave at that time instead of the usual
quitting time of 5 o'clock because of her daughter's illness. She and 10 or 15
other women workers lined up at 4 o'clock to leave, but as Martin was about to
clock out Honig shouted loudly to her to return to work.32 Martin obeyed the sum-
26 This credited testimony of Martin was not denied by Honig.
22 There is no evidence that Honig at the time thieatened to fire any of the other
trimmers whose defective shirts were included in the pile that he had biought into the
section.
23 Findings based upon a reconciliation of the testimony of Martin , Honig and Trimming
Floorlady Katherine Jenkins
20 Findings based upon the testimony of Martin. Honig testified that he did not remem-
ber any occasion when he had accused Martin of giving out union cards . He was not asked
and did not testify as to the pocket book and the " pushing " incident Honig ' s testimony
has not always been found reliable herein. His denial of the above incident was sketchy to
say the least . On the other hand Martin 's testimony as to the argument , both, on direct
and cross -examination , was detailed and consistent I do not believe she manufactured
it out of whole cloth. Furthermore , although Martin had no difficulty as a trimmer with
Honig prior to the spring of 1946, lie displayed thereafter a persistent intent and purpose
to find a legitimate excuse to discharge her. His qualified denial is therefore not credited
30 The factory apparently worked to noon only on Saturday.
31 Findings based on Martin's credited testimony. Honig was not asked and did not
deny any of this testimony , except that lie testified that lie did not recall any occasion
when Martin had been off because of family illness , or of accusing Martin of "fiesting" and
testified that he did not know what the word meant. While Honig may not have used the
word fiesting , it is found that he did talk to Martin on Friday and again on Tuesday and
knew that she was absent because of family sickness.
. a. It is Honig 's testimony that Martin should have secured permission from him to leave
early, or to have been sure that the floorlady secured his okay before leaving the plant.
This testimony is not credited . The record otherwise shows conclusively that it was the
practice of the floorlady to grant permission to leave early on showing of adequate reasons
therefore , unless special circumstances required the worker's presence . In this instance
MYLAN-SPARTA COMPANY, INC. 1159
nnons.33 As Martin walked back along the line of girls who were waiting to check
out trimmer Itosie Whittenberry asked her where she was going and Martin
replied in the hearing of several other employees that she was returning to see
"what the darn old fool wanted." " Whittenberry and Timekeeper Denton re-
ported this comment of Martin to Honig at the opening of the work period the
next morning (April 10). Martin was late in reporting for work and when she
arrived Honig told her she was being discharged as a matter of plant discipline
because she had made slurring remarks about him.35
Martin refused to accept this verdict of the superintendent that she was dis-
charged, and waited until Plant Manager Feinstein (Honig's superior) arrived
at the plant. When Feinstein came in about 9 o'clock, according to Martin's un-
denied and credited testimony, she told the plant manager that the superintendent
had fired her because she had made a slurring remark about him ; that Feinstein
told her to wait and he would "fix it up with" Honig, and went into the office to
talk to the superintendent ; that in a few minutes Feinstein returned to the hall
where Martin was waiting and told her to "forget" the incident and return to
work ; that she told Feinstein that she did not think she would return to work
"the way I felt that day . .. for your part I would come back, but I would
rather not right now," as Honig was "mad at me"; and that Martin, then left the
plant and has never since returned except to get her separation slip.
Martin was an old, experienced and reasonably valuable employee. While it
is true that she failed to make good as a floorlady in 1943, the respondent thought
enough of her ability to give her the opportunity. As a trimmer her work was at
least average and she encountered no difficulty until the spring of 1946. After
it became known that she joined and was active for the Union, Honig made an
effort to discharge her the first of April when some of her trimming proved de-
fective, and again the next week when he heard that she had distributed union
cards in the plant, but did not go through with either effort when Martin insisted
on each occasion that his efforts were inspired by his knowledge of her union
there is no dispute that Acting Floorlady Cole had given Martin permission to leave at
4: 00 p in. Although Honig denied that he had been advised that such permission had
been granted, when Cole was asked if Honig had said that Martin could leave early she
testified that she did not "remember " Honig had asked Cole that night to list the
employees under her who were leaving early without permission. Significantly Cole did
not include Martin in this list
33 Honig testified that he called Martin back to work at 4 o'clock because the trimming
section was behind in its work and Martin was the only trimmer he saw in the 4 o'clock
line. This testimony is not credited The record otherwise discloses that there were
other trimmers in the 4 o'clock line ; and Honig himself testified that he gave Trimmers
Hunter and Poore permission to leave early that night because they lived out of town.
34 Finding as to Martin's comment about Honig based on testimony of Whittenberry,
Irene Denton and Marina Clouse. Martin denied that she so referred to Honig but the
denial is not credited in view of the preponderance of credible testimony to the contrary.
It is also noted that Martin testified that Honig's previously friendly attitude toward
her had changed after she joined the Union in the spring of 1946 and, as above found,
she had recently had several sharp altercations with Honig.
35 When Martin arrived at the plant she-was called into the office by Honig. It is her
testimony that in notifying her of her discharge Honig told her in the presence of Guy
Allen and William Cowden (the latter in charge of production records in the plant and
otherwise referred to herein) that she was "too closely associated with UMWA." Honig
denied that he made any such statement and was corroborated in this by Cowden. Allen
was not called as a witness . The corroborated denial of Honig is credited in the above
respect.
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activities." Finally, on April 10, a very plausible reason developed to justify the
elimination of Martin. She had referred to Honig in the presence of other em-
ployees as an old fool. Honig could fire her for making slurring remarks about
her supervisor on the grounds that it was necessary in order to maintain proper
plant discipline, and he did so.
While far from condoning slurring comments by an employee about her super-
visor, the question immediately arises whether under any circumstances such
type of remarks would warrant anything more than minor disciplinary action,
at least on the first offense. Under the circumstances here detailed the under-
signed is convinced and finds that the drastic punishment of discharge was
invoked by Honig in order to remove Martin from the pay roll, because she was
an active member of the Union, and that her disrespectful comment was utilized
merely as a convenient excuse therefor.
However Martin did not accept this decision of Honig to discharge her as final,
and appealed to Honig's superior, Feinstein ; but when the latter promptly re-
versed the discriminatory order of his subordinate and told Martin to return to
work, she refused to do so and left the Respondent's employ. Under the circum-
stances, it is found that Martin was not in fact discharged by the Respondent
but quit her job voluntarily. It is further found that the Respondent did not
discriminate as to her hire and tenure of employment, and it will be recommended
that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges discrimination as to Martin.
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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminatorily applied against union
members a rule against talking about or engaging in outside activities on com-
pany time, and during a campaign to decide a bargaining representative for the
employees it published statements which together constituted an implied threat
to close the plant if the Union succeeded in being elected as the bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees. It will be recommended that the Respondent cease
and desist from such activities.
The Board has heretofore found that the Mylan Sparta Co., Inc., as one of the
respondents in the previous case (70 N. L. R. B. 574) has demonstrated an atti-
tude "of opposition to the purposes of 'the Act to protect the rights of the
employees generally." In view of this attitude of the Mylan Sparta Co., Inc.
(herein found to be the identical corporation as the present Respondent), and
its additional acts of interference and coercion herein found, there is danger that
the Respondent will in the future engage in conduct proscribed by the Act. It is
therefore advisable that the'remedy applied be as comprehensive as the threat.
ae It is to be recalled that Honig had been previously instructed by Respondent's attorney
Sims to be sure that he had a legitimate reason if he discharged a union member.
MYLAN-SPARTA COMPANY, INC . 1161
It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in
any other manner interfering with the rights guaranteed to employees in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
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. United Construction Workers, UMWA, A. F. of L., is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
.of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Respondent has not discriminated as to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of Stella Horton or Polly Martin in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing_ findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
,undersigned recommends that the Respondent, Mylan-Sparta Company, Inc.,
Sparta, Tennessee, and its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discriminatorily applying against employee members of United Construc-
tion Workers, UMWA, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, any rule or
rules prohibiting its employees from talking about, or engaging in, outside activi-
ties on company time, or likewise discriminatorily applying any other rule or
regulation of its factory;
(b) Issuing or distributing, in conjunction with any election campaign to desig-
nate a bargaining representative for its employees, any literature, statements, or
advertisements wherein it is stated or implied that the Respondent will close its
plant in whole or in part if the United Construction Workers, UMWA, A. F. of L.,
or any other labor organization, becomes the bargaining representative of its
employees ;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist United Construction Workers, UMWA, A. F. of L., or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activity 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 undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its Sparta, Tennessee, plant copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix D." Copies of said 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 the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are custom-
-arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within tell
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
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 above recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
It is also recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges-
discrimination by the Respondent of Stella Horton or Polly Martin.
As provided in Section 203 39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or counsel
for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the order
transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.33 of said Rules
and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25,
D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such.
exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or pro-
ceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,.
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any
party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original and
four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon
the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel
for.the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other
parties and shall file a copy with the said Regional Director. Proof of service-
on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as
required by Section 203.65. As further provided in said Section 203 39, 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.
J. J. FITZPATRICK,
Trial Examiner.
Dated June 27, 1947.
APPENDIX A
A STATEMENT OF FACTS AND RIGHTS BY CHARLES C. BASSINE
FACT No. 1-Neither myself nor my company has ever threatened, intimidated,
or coerced any individual, or organization and we intend to continue to live
that way.
FACT No. 2-Neither myself nor my company has ever discriminated against any
individual because of his preference for or against a union and we intend to
continue to live that way.
RIGHT No. 1-My company has the absolute right to hire any person whom we-
believe will be an asset to our organization and we fully intend to exercise
that right.
RIGHT No. 2-My company has the absolute right to discharge any person whom
we believe to be a detriment or a loss to our operations and we fully intend
to exercise that right.
RIGHT No. 3-My company has the absolute right to pay any efficient employee m
greater wage than an inefficient employee and we fully intend to exercise that
right.
MYLAN-SPARTA COMPANY, INC. 1163
RIGHT No. 4-My company has the absolute right, for business reasons within its
own good judgment, to expand operations, to reduce operations, or to cease
operations altogether and we fully intend to exercise that right.
RIGHT No. 5-I, as an American citizen, have the absolute right to fairly discuss
with my fellow citizens any and every subject that may be my desire. I have
the right to do it on the streets, in our homes, in public assembly, in private,
anywhere, anytime, freely and without fear. I fully intend to exercise that
right.
THESE RIGHTS ARE SACRED TO ME AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND VITAL
TO MY BUSINESS IF IT IS TO SURVIVE AS A BUSINESS. IN THE DE-
FENSE OF THESE RIGHTS BOTH MY COMPANY AND MYSELF WILL
EXPEND ALL OF OUR ENERGY AND ALL OF OUR RESOURCES.
WE RESPECTFULLY ISSUE THIS STATEMENT TO ALL OF OUR FELLOW
CITIZENS.
CHARLES C. BASSINE.
MYLAN-SPARTA CO., INC.
APPENDIX B
JUST FACTS -
THE UNITED MINE WORKERS UNION IS AGAIN IN SPARTA TO TRY
TO COLLECT YEARLY DUES OF ABOUT $15,000.00 FROM OUR EMPLOYEES.
THAT MONEY IS THE BEGINNING AND THE END OF WHAT THEY ARE
AFTER AND THEY WILL PROMISE ANYTHING TO GET IT.
This is the same union that came up to the mines on the mountain several
years ago. They didn't come up there when all that money and brains were being
invested. They didn't come up when the machinery was being bought and the
mines dug. No Sir ! they came up there when all that hard work was finished
and promised the miners the whole world with a fence around it. Nobody
believed it but the mines closed and they have stayed closed to this day. Good,
honest men were out of work and where was the union? Good families went
hungry and where was the union? The union packed up its wonderful promises
and went away but left behind a ruined business and a ruined people. THE
UNION WAS GONE !
A few years later another union came by to show the silk mill how to run
their business. Public spirited men built the building but the union wasn't
there at that time. Hard work was done, money was borrowed and brains were
used to build that business but the union wasn't interested then. No sir, they
came later to do their collecting of dues. The same wonderful promises were
made. Again a business was closed down and again people were out of work.
After that Sparta was left without any industry. Conditions became very bad.
The railroad was about to pull its tracks out of the county-and not a single
union organizer was in sight with even the smallest kind of a little promise.
THE UNION WAS GONE !
Now once more the unions are back with us. They weren't here when we
built our business ; they weren't here when we worked day 'and night, borrowing
money, selling goods and getting 1,000 people jobs. They weren't here when we
started shipping carloads over the railroad and kept the tracks running into
our town. They weren't here to build our town, help our poor and give our
good citizens jobs. No sir, they are here now with those same old promises all
1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shined up to look like new. The union wants to get paid for those promises and
the price is about $15 ,000.00 a year . Our employees are the people who are asked
to do the paying and it is up to our employees to say whether they will or not.
To Our Employees:
Our relations have always been most pleasant. Sure , we've had our ups and
downs but we always were able to straighten them out to everyone 's complete
satisfaction , weren't we ? Things haven 't changed . We're the same happy
family, all striving to contribute our part-management by every possible benefit
to you-you by your good production effort. No outside element is necessary
for the continued happiness and security of our employees , town and county. A
union can 't help ! It can only hurt !
MYLAN-SPARTA CO. INC.
APPENDIX C
UNIONS ARE OBJECTIONABLE BECAUSE . . .
Unions cause trouble for employees through strikes and production slow downs.
Don't let anyone tell you unions do not strike-that is the way they make their
living. Wages depend upon production . Wages must go where production
goes-up or down. When unions cause slow downs , wages go down. When
unions strike , wages disappear.
Unions never gave anyone in White County a job . Our history shows that
unions caused our people to lose jobs.
Unions want to make our employees pay them for benefits which our people
have always received without any charge.
Unions destroy friendly relations and set us all against each other as enemies
instead of friends. Unions don't , want management friendly to employees.
Unions don 't want employees friendly to management . Unions don't want man-
agement friendly to the community . Unions want trouble because without trouble
there soon wouldn't be any unions.
Unions spread false rumors to confuse our employees and frighten them into
joining the union when they really don't want to join. Let us tell you of just
a few of these false rumors. -
(1) The union is telling you that if you don't join the union you won't have
a job. That is not true Our history shows just the opposite . When our people
joined unions in the past that is when there were no jobs. You will always have
a job with us as long ' as you want to work, and don't let anyone tell you that
you need to join a union to keep your job. It is not the truth.
(2) The union is telling you that if you don't hurry up and join now they
are going to make you pay a large initiation fee later . Don't pay any attention
to that. It's just plain nonsense . You will never have to pay any person or
any union one red cent to work for us. We want you to know that your job
belongs to you and you are beholden to no one for it.
(3) The union is telling you that you cannot talk against the union. That is
not true. You can talk against the union all you want to The law guarantees
you the right to express your opinions against the union and no one can take
that right away from you,
(4) The union is telling you that no matter what may happen we cannot
close our factory. The union is saying that it's against the law for us to close:
That is not true. We have the right for good business reasons to close' our
MYLAN -SPARTA COMPANY, INC. 1165
factory entirely or in part at any time . It's just the same as if we were running
a farm or a grocery store or a gasoline station. Ask any of them if they can
close. Ask the mines if they could close. Ask the silk mill if they could close.
To Our Employees:
You will shortly be asked to vote by secret ballot for or against the union.
You may have already signed a union card.
- THIS DOES NOT LEGALLY REQUIRE YOU TO VOTE FOR THE UNION,
YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR MIND, THE BALLOT IS WHAT COUNTS AND
THAT BALLOT IS SECRET , NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW HOW YOU
VOTED.
The Company wishes to impress upon you the 'importance of voting at the
proper time. EVERYONE IS URGED TO VOTE . The Company has every
confidence in your intelligence and good will . We look forward to many happy
years of future benefits and accomplishments together.
MYLAN-SPARTA CO., INC.
APPENDIX D
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 NOT discriminatorily apply against employee members of United
Construction Workers, UMWA , A. F. of L., or of any other labor organization,
any rule prohibiting the discussion of, or engaging in, outside activities on
company time , or likewise discriminatorily apply any other plant rule or
regulation.
WE WILL NOT in conjunction with any election contest held to designate
a bargaining representative for our employees , distribute or publish state-
ments, stating or implying that if the United Construction Workers, UMWA,
A. F. of L., or any other labor organization , is selected by the employees as
their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining that the Re-
spondent 's plant in whole or in part will be closed or removed.
WE WILL NOT 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 UNITED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, UMWA,
A. F. OF L.,,or any other organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for
the- purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All
our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any
other labor organization.
MYLAN-SPARTA COMPANY, INC,
Employer.
By ----------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated--------------------------------•
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.