National Mattress Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 890 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NATIONAL MATTRESS COMPANY ; NATIONAL WOODWORKING COMPANY;
NATIONAL COUCH COMPANY 1 and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAIIFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS , LOCAL No.
505, AFL. Case No. 9-CA-674. March 9,1955
Decision and Order
On July 6, 1954, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. 't'hereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a supporting brief and the Respondents filed a
reply brief.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Trial Ex-
aminer, only insofar as they are consistent with this Decision and
Order.
1. The Trial Examiner found that each of the three companies in-
volved herein is independently engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act. We assert jurisdiction, however, on the ground that all
three companies constitute a single employer within the meaning of
Section 2 (2) of the Act and that the Respondents' direct out-of-State
shipments exceed $50,000 a year.
The evidence in support of our finding that the 3 companies con-
stitute 1 employer is as follows : Respondent Mattress, Respondent
Woodworking, and Respondent Couch, are West Virginia corpora-
tions and have their principal offices and places of business in Hunt-
ington, West Virginia. Except for qualifying shares, Respondent
Mattress owns all of the stock in Respondents Woodworking and
Couch ; s and the president, vice president, treasurer, and `secretary of
each company is identical. Respondent Woodworking is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of wood box spring frames and chair
frames; Respondent Couch, which annually ships goods valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 to points outside West Virginia, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of upholstered chairs and sofa beds; and Re-
1 The above companies will be referred to as Respondent Mattress , Respondent Wood-
working, Respondent Couch, and collectively as the Respondents
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman Farmer and
Members Peterson and Rodgers].
8 Respondent Mattress similarly owns other companies located in five other States.
111 NLRB No. 149.
NATIONAL MATTRESS COMPANY 891
spondent Mattress sells management services, such as auditing, financ-
ing, and the ordering of supplies and raw materials for Respondents
Woodworking and Couch. Respondents Woodworking and Couch
occupy and use the same building, showroom, and office facilities ; their
employees, who perform work for both companies, are supervised by
one plant manager; and J. F. Edwards, the president of each com-
pany, is in charge of the labor relations policies of all three companies.
Under the foregoing circumstances, and the entire record, we find
that the three companies constitute a single integrated enterprise and
are for purposes of determining jurisdiction, a single employer.' As
the total out-of-State sales of the three companies exceed $50,000, we.
find that the Respondents are engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to as-
sert jurisdiction herein'
2. The Trial Examiner found that Respondents Woodworking and
Couch, as alleged in the complaint,' did not engage in any independent
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. We agree with the Trial
Examiner that the Respondents did not violate the Act by engaging
in interrogation and threats of economic reprisal concerning union
activity, because this conduct involved statements between supervisory
employees and there is no evidence that such statements were com-
municated to any employees.
3. Contrary to our dissenting colleague's opinion, we agree with the
Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondents did not violate Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. Like the Trial Examiner, we find
that the record as a whole does not contain sufficient probative and
affirmative evidence to support the inference of unlawful motivation
on the part of the Respondents in discharging the employees named
in the complaint.
In accordance with the foregoing, we shall dismiss the complaint in
its entirety.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBER PETERSON, dissenting in part :
I cannot agree with that portion of the majority's decision which
sustains the Trial Examiner's finding that the discharges of April 6,
1953, were economically necessary and that the mass discharge of
4 Metco Plating Company, 110 NLRB 615 ; Marvel Roofing Products, Incorporated, at al ,
108 NLRB 292.
5 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481.
Although the complaint refers to Respondent Mattress to show certain commerce fac-
tors and the integrated nature of the operations of all three companies , it does not allege
that Respondent Mattress committed any unfair labor practices . We shall therefore dis-
miss the complaint as to the latter company. For the reasons stated in our discussion of
the jurisdictional issue, we hereby find that Respondents Woodworking and Couch consti-
tute one employer , as indicated in the complaint, for the purposes of establishing the
ufair labor practices allege2 therein.
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
April 24, 1953, was due to "personal animosities," unrelated to the em-
ployees' concerted or union activities.
In February 1953, Respondents' president, Edwards, hired H. Bruce
Lansaw as plant manager for the Woodworking and Couch operations.
To improve production methods, Lansaw soon embarked on a plan
which included revision of the production lines and style changes of
some products. The changes required the closing of the plant for a
few days and on March 9, 8 employees 7 were laid off and on March
10, 6 employees 8 were also laid off. ByMarch 23, all employees were
recalled except Billup, Martin, Booth, and Brumfield; the latter two
refused to return to work, having obtained employment elsewhere.'
On April 6, the Respondents notified six employees 10 that their serv-
ices were no longer required, without clearly assigning a specific rea-
,on for their termination. On April 24, discharge letters were sent to
the remaining 11 employees," stating that they had not adjusted them-
selves to the changed operations.12
The Respondents contend in their brief that Manager Lansaw was
solely responsible for the discharges of April 6 and 24 and that the
discharges were "brought on by a running feud between Bruce Lansaw,
the Manager, on one hand, and his employees on the other hand." It
is true that the latent anxieties of the employees over Lansaw's antici-
pated personnel policies reached a climax on March 9 and 10 when
Lansaw laid off two groups of employees. While these layoffs may
well have been economic in nature, they nevertheless caused the em-
ployees to band together for their mutual aid and protection.
Thus, on March 9, when the first group was laid off, the employees
.concertedly protested to Lansaw by threatening to "stick together and
... walk out" and were successful in having the scheduled number
of layoffs reduced. At that time it was decided among the employees
to seek out a union for more protection against Lansaw. Accordingly,
on March 10, before going to work, the employees met with a union
organizer on a street near the plant and tentatively decided not to go
to work in order to perfect organization at the union office. While this
7 Billup, Brumfield, Martin, Johnson, W. Stephens, Whited, O. Stephens, and Null.
8 Booth, Angles, Skeens, Cooksey, Fraley, and J S. Adkins.
e Billup and Martin are listed as complainants ; Booth and Brumfield are not
10 Johnson and W Stephens ; and Billup, Martin, Brumfield, and Booth who were never
recalled Johnson was recalled on March 12 and was again laid off on March 16.
11 Whited, Angles, Skeens, O. Stephens, Cooksey, Fraley, P. E. Adkins, J. A. Adkins, Null,
Dirton (who was first hired on April 16), and Leadmon. Angles and Fraley are not listed
as complainants P E Adkins was on sick leave during the March 9 aid 10 layoffs and
returned to work on March 16.
13 In summary, there were approximately 19 employees on the payroll before the March
layoffs, including Foreman Leadmon and some female employees who were not affected
thereby ; and after the April 6 discharge, there remained 13 employees, including 2 female
employees, who were not discharged on April 24. Of the 17 employee3 discharged on April
6 and 24, 13 are named in the complaint as having been discriminated against. The
parties stipulated that on and after April 1, Leadmon was not a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act.
NATIONAL MATTRESS COMPANY 893
discussion was going on, Duckworth, the Respondents' office manager,
walked by on his way to the plant and noticed the assembled group
of employees with a stranger. Foreman Leadmon, who had joined the
employees in the discussion with the union representative, returned to
the plant and was asked by'Duckworth "What was going on, if [the
stranger] was a union man." Leadmon replied that he was and that
the employees were trying to organize a union. Duckworth thereupon
phoned Lansaw and told him that the employees had met outside the
plant with a person he presumed was a union official. Lansaw then
phoned the Respondents' president, Edwards, at home and related this
incident. Edwards called the plant to speak to Duckworth, but Lead-
mon answered the phone. Edwards asked what was going on and
Leadmon told him that the men were trying to organize a union. Ed-
wards replied, "You know how I feel about a Union. The minute a
majority sign a union card I will close it up, that damn place up, so
close that air can't get in." 13 Duckworth returned to the office and
Leadmon handed him the telephone. Later that morning, Edwards
again spoke to Leadmon on the telephone and discussed the possibility
of getting the employees together for a meeting with Edwards. Lead-
mon told Edwards that the employees felt that they were being pushed
around, treated like dogs, and wanted some kind of protection and
Edwards replied that the men did not need a union. Leadmon asked
one of the employees to round up the rest of the employees for a
meeting with Edwards for 10 a. in. At this meeting, Edwards ex-
plained that in view of the proposed changes in the plant, it would
be necessary to lay off some employees, but that everyone would be
called back to work and no one would be laid off permanently. Ed-
wards further added that he did not need an "outsider" to help him
run his business. In my view, Edwards was referring to the union
organizer who had earlier met with his employees.
The record shows that Lansaw deeply resented the concerted action
taken by the employees in protest against his present and anticipated
personnel policies. In an interoffice memorandum to Edwards dated
March 9, Lansaw described in some detail the employee grievances,
the protest meeting of the employees, and the manner in which he
broke up the meeting and won "this round." He described Leadmon
as the ring leader of a "clique more deadly than any Union organiza-
tion could possibly be" and stated in effect that because of the "episode"
involving the protesting activity of "your so called loyal employees,"
he intended to replace "every blasted one of them (with minor ex-
13 On or about March 1, 1953, after a partition was built in front of the plant to keep
employees from entering the building before working time, Leadmon advised Edwards that
the employees had talked of forming a union because of their resentment over the parti-
tion, which was one of Lansaw 's innovations and which was characterized by the em-
ployees as a "dog house ." Edwards replied that he would close the plant if the employees
were successful in forming a union.
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ceptions) with [his] very own hand picked willing and appreciative
workers." Lansaw carried out this replacement plan to the letter by
discharging all employees on April 6 and 24 and, as the minor excep-
tion, offering reemployment to two of them.
It is apparent that the "feud" adverted to by the Respondents and
the "personal animosities between Lansaw and the employees," which
the Trial Examiner relies upon to justify the mass discharge of April
24, directly involves the employees' grievances against Lansaw and
their resultant concerted activity for mutual aid and protection. The
concept that management, whether for personal or economic reasons,
may retaliate against employees for engaging in legitimate concerted
activity like that here involved, runs counter to one of the fundamental
principles of the Act.14 To permit an employer to discharge employees
simply because their legitimate concerted activity resulted in a "feud"
or created "personal animosities" would effectively nullify the right
of self-organization as guaranteed under the Act.
I am satisfied by the record as a whole that Lansaw viewed the
concerted activity of March 9 as an unwarranted interference with his
managerial prerogative and firmly resolved to penalize the employees
by discharging virtually the entire complement. It is reasonable to
believe that Lansaw felt more compelled than ever to discharge the
working force when he learned that their concerted activity had fur-
ther progressed to the point of seeking protection through the Union.
The discharge letter of April 24, the joint effort of Edwards and
Lansaw, indicate that it was in furtherance of a reprisal plan against
self-organization. It stated that under certain conditions the dis-
charged employees were capable but they had not adjusted them-
selves to the "new operations." The production reorganization insti-
tuted by Lansaw did not require skills different from those possessed
by the dischargees. While the employees raised certain grievances,
no showing was made that they were not doing a competent job. The
reasonable inference, therefore, is that the vague charge of lack of
adjustment had reference to the established determination of the em-
ployees to exercise their right to act concertedly whenever, in their
opinion, the "new operations" adversely affected their employment
and working conditions. I accordingly would find, contrary to the
Trial Examiner, that Lansaw effected the mass discharge of April 24
in order to penalize the employees for their concerted and union activ-
ity and to enable Lansaw to operate the plant free from the impact
of employee self-organization.
14 See N. L R . B v. Southern Silk Mills , Inc, 209 F. 2d 155 (C. A. 6 ), cert. denied 347
U S. 976 (spontaneous walkouts and temporary work stoppages to protest excessive heat
in plant ) ; Kitty Clover, Inc. v. N L R B , 208 F. 2d 212 (C A. 8) (leaving work in mass
to seek interview with employer concerning a grievance ) ; N. L. R. B. v. Globe Wireless,
Ltd, 193 F. 2d 748 (C. A. 9) (leaving job to protest discharge to fellow employees for
nondiscriminatory reason ) ; N. L. R. B. v. Kennametal, Inc., 182 F. 2d 817 (C. A. 3) (en-
gaging in work stoppage during working hours to secure higher wages).
NATIONAL MATTRESS COMPANY 895
Nor could I agree with the Respondents' contention at the hearing
and the Trial Examiner's finding that the April 6 discharges were due
to a legitimate reduction in force because of operational changes. The
discharge letter failed to give such a specific explanation for the dis-
charge and the evidence adduced at the hearing fails to convince me
that the fluctuating production conditions at the plant warranted a
permanent separation of these employees. Under all the circumstances,
I would find that the group discharge of April 6 was not due to any
economic need for a reduction in force, but rather constituted the ini-
tial step in the unlawful scheme to retaliate against the employees.
Inasmuch as Manager Lansaw was given the authority to and did
effectuate the discharges in question for an unlawful reason, the Re-
spondents' violation of the Act is established regardless of Edwards'
motive or knowledge in generally approving Lansaw's action. In any
event, the record shows that at all times Edwards was fully apprised
of the grievances against Lansaw and the resultant concerted and
union activities of the employees; he also knew of Lansaw's determi-
nation to discharge the employees for that reason. Consequently,
when Lansaw requested Edwards' approval of his decision to dis-
charge the entire working force on the unfounded claim that the nien
were not cooperating with him, Edwards must have recognized this to
be the consummation of Lansaw's unlawful retaliation plan. More-
over, that Edwards himself was illegally motivated in permitting
Lansaw to effectuate the discharges is revealed by Edwards' statements
on two occasions that if the employees organized he would close down
the plant and his ready acceptance of Lansaw's extraordinary deci-
sion to discharge the entire force.
Upon the entire record I would find, contrary to the Trial Examiner
and the majority, that by discharging Billup, Martin, W. Stephens,
Johnson, Leadnion, Whited, Skeens, Null, P. E. Adkins, J. S. Adkins,
Cooksey, 0. Stephens, and Dirton, the Respondents discriminated
against them so as to discourage concerted and union activity and
thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced them in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act; and I would recom-
mend the usual order of reinstatement and back pay.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges having been filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 505, AFL, herein called the Union, a com-
plaint and notice of hearing having been issued and served by the General Counsel,
and an answer having been filed by National Mattress Company, National Wood-
working Company, and National Couch Company, herein collectively called the Re-
spondents and individually called at times Respondent Mattress or Mattress, Re-
spondent Woodworking or Woodworking, and Respondent Couch or Couch, the
hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a)
(1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1947, herein called the Act, by the Respondents was held before W. Gerard Ryan,
the duly designated Trial Examiner at Huntington , West Virginia.
At the hearing full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine wit-
nesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues , to argue orally upon the rec-
ord, and to file briefs , proposed findings, and conclusions was afforded all parties.
The General Counsel' s motion to conform the pleadings to the proof in matters not
of substance , respecting spelling and minor matters , was granted . At the conclu-
sion of the hearing the General Counsel participated in oral argument . The Re-
spondents waived oral argument and filed a brief.
After the close of the hearing the parties stipulated that the record be corrected
in certain respects and the General Counsel also moved to correct the record with
respect to his citation of cases in oral argument to which motion there has been no
opposition . The record is therefore corrected in accordance with the stipulation and
the motion . The stipulation and the motion are made part of the record as Triat
Examiner's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 , respectively . It should be noted further that cer-
tain pages of the record are misnumbered . Pages 372 , 373, 374 , 375, and 376 have
to be read 372, 374, 375, 373, 376 . There are also two pages in the record num-
bered 516.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents are corporations duly organized under and existing by virtue
of the laws of the State of West Virginia and have their principal offices and places
of business in Huntington , West Virginia . Respondent Mattress is engaged in the
sale of management and sales services to other corporations , including Respondents
Woodworking and Couch ; Respondent Woodworking is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of wood box spring frames and chair frames ; and Respondent Couch is en-
gaged in the manufacture and sale of upholstered chairs and sofa beds.
Respondent Mattress owns all the stock ( except qualifying shares) in Respondent
Woodworking and Respondent Couch. James F. Edwards , president ; C. W. Wild,
vice president and treasurer ; and E. C. Ghrist , secretary , constitute the officers and
boards of directors for the Respondents . They are also the officers and directors
for National Steel Products Company and Huntington National Mattress Company
both of Huntington , West Virginia, and both wholly owned subsidiaries of Re-
spondent Mattress . In addition Respondent Mattress has wholly owned subsidiary
corporations in Albany, New York; Cincinnati, Ohio; Saginaw, Michigan; Jasper,
Alabama; Tyler, Texas; and Youngstown, Ohio. The answer admitted that Re-
spondent Mattress and Respondent Couch are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act but denied that Respondent Woodworking is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act . The answer as amended admitted the allega-
tions in the complaint as amended that National Steel Products Company is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act; that from October 1, 1952, through
September 30, 1953 , Respondent Woodworking manufactured and sold products
valued in excess of $50,000 to National Steel Products Company in Huntington,
West Virginia ; and during the same period National Steel Products Company pro-
duced and caused to be shipped from its West Virginia plant to points outside the
State of West Virginia products which exceeded $50,000 in value. It was stipulated
that for the same period Respondent Woodworking produced and caused to be
shipped to points outside the State of West Virginia goods valued between $21,000
and $22,000. It was further stipulated that for the same period Respondent Wood-
working produced and sold to Respondent Couch products worth $33,446.09.
In Brooks Wood Products, 107 NLRB 237, Brooks Wood Products was a Michi-
gan partnership which annually sold about $223 ,000 worth of goods to its sole cus-
tomer Plymouth Wood Products, also an independent Michigan partnership.
Plymouth in turn did all its business in the State oP Michigan and sold about 70
percent of Brooks products to the Budd Company and the Kelsey-Hayes Wheel
Company both located in Michigan and both doing a very substantial interstate
business . Plymouth bought and took title to all products bought from Brooks,
but Plymouth directed Brooks to make direct deliveries to Budd and Kelsey-Hayes.
Annually at least $49 ,000 worth of Brooks ' products were used in packing and crat-
ing goods for out-of-State shipments by the Budd Company and Kelsey -Hayes used
directly in interstate commerce as much as 20 percent of the $84,000 worth of
Brooks' products which it received. The Board held that it would not effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in the case because Brooks and its only
customer Plymouth are entirely intrastate and, as Brooks' business is not once but
NATIONAL MATTRESS COMPANY 897
twice removed from interstate commerce , the volume of their business is immaterial.
The Board however stated that Brooks would have been clearly covered by the
Board's past jurisdictional policy with respect to firms doing business with companies
engaged in interstate commerce , if Brooks had sold to either Budd or Kelsey-Hayes
in amounts exceeding $50,000 annually . In the case at bar, unlike the Brooks case,
Respondent Woodworking sold directly to National Steel Products Company goods
valued in excess of $50,000 and National Steel Products Company, during the year
in question , produced and shipped from its West Virginia plant to points outside
the State products which exceeded $50,000 in value. Accordingly since it is ad-
mitted that Respondent Woodworking for the year in question (1) produced and
shipped to points outside the State of Michigan goods valued between $21,000 and
$22,000; (2) sold to Respondent Couch products valued in excess of $33,000;
and (3) sold to National Steel Products Company goods valued at more than
$50,000 and that National Steel Products produced and shipped in interstate com-
merce goods valued at more than $50,000, I find the Respondent Woodworking is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that the purposes of the
Act will be effectuated by asserting jurisdiction over it. I further find that the Re-
spondent Mattress and Respondent Couch are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act (as has been conceded) and that the purposes of the Act will
be effectuated by asserting jurisdiction over them.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers,
Local No. 505, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleged and the answer denied that in violation of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act Respondents Woodworking and Couch interrogated employees con-
cerning their knowledge of union activity; advised and informed employees that
Respondents would close their plants as soon as employees would sign a union card;
and granted wage increases and wage adjustments for the purpose of forestalling
and discouraging employees from joining the Union. The complaint as amended
further alleged and the answer as amended denied that on or about certain specified
dates Respondents Woodworking and Couch discriminatorily laid off, suspended, or
discharged certain named employees and since those dates have failed and refused
to reinstate them to their former or substantially equivalent positions because of
their concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection , in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.'
A. Uncontroverted matters
Employees Robert Billup, Leroy Brumfield, and Carnie Martin were laid off on
March 9 and never recalled; Dora Johnson was laid off on March 9, recalled on
March 11, laid off on March 16, and not thereafter recalled; Wilson Stephens was
laid off on March 9, recalled on March 23, and discharged on April 6; Oral Whited
was laid off on March 9, recalled on March 12, and discharged on April 24; Oscar
Stephens was laid off on March 9, recalled on March 16, and discharged on April
24; Chester C. Null was laid off on March 9, recalled on March 23, and discharged
on April 24; Allie Booth was laid off on March 10 and was not thereafter recalled;
Floyd Angles was laid off on March 10, recalled on March 12, and discharged on
April 24. He was offered reinstatement and returned to work the next working day
without loss of time, and continued to work thereafter ; Elmer Skeens was laid off
March 10, recalled on March 12, and discharged on April 24; Roland Cooksey was
laid off on March 10, recalled on March 16, and discharged on April 24, James
Fraley was laid off on March 10, recalled for 1 day on March 16, then recalled on
March 23, and discharged on April 24; Jennings A Adkins was laid off on March 10,
recalled on March 23, and discharged on April 24; P. E. Adkins was on sick leave
from March 6 until he returned to work on March 16 and was discharged on April
24; Paul Dirton and Clifton R. Leadmon were discharged on April 24, neither having
lost any time prior to his discharge . Six employees (Billup, Brumfield, Martin,
1 The names and dates specified were : Robert BilIup, Carnie Martin, and Wilson
Stephens on or about March 10, 1953 ; Dora Johnson , on or about March 16 , and Clifton
Leadmon , Oral D. Whited, Elmer Skeens , Chester C Null , Jennings A Adkins, Roland
Cooksey , Oscar Stephens , Paul Dirton , and P E . Adkins on or about April 24, 1953 All
dates hereinafter mentioned refer to the year 1953 unless otherwise stated.
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Johnson, Booth, and Wilson Stephens) each received a form letter dated April 6
addressed to him which read:
At the meeting Mr. Edwards held at the plant the afternoon of March 10, it
was explained to you that the operations of National Couch and National Wood-
working Companies for the past several years had not been profitable, making it
necessary for a complete change in our plant operations. To facilitate this it
was advisable to close our plant for revision of our complete operations, adding
new machinery, changing our old machinery, changing our entire plant layout,
reviewing the cost of all items which we manufactured, eliminating certain ones
and adding new ones. At that meeting it was explained to all employees that
as soon as these changes had been brought about we would call back those
employees whose qualifications were such that they could perform their duties
on the new items and new production methods.
The management has made a careful study of the personnel involved, and I
regret to advise you that, at least for the present, your services are no longer
required at National Woodworking. We know you are a capable, loyal worker
and will be very pleased to give you the highest of recommendation and help
in any manner possible to place you in new employment. There is a possibility
that after we once get into production we will again want you to join our organi-
zation, if you are available, but I feel this is so indefinite that in fairness to
you we owe you this letter severing your association with the company to enable
you to attempt to place yourself to better advantage. Should we at a later
date need you and you are not available, we will fully understand. I regret the
necessity of having to write this letter. I am,
Very truly yours,
H. BRUCE LANSAW,
Plant Manager.
Eleven employees (Whited, Angles, Skeens, Oscar Stephens, Cooksey, Fraley,
P. E. Adkins, Null, Jennings A. Adkins, Dirton, and Leadmon) each received a form
letter dated April 24 addressed to him, which read:
Mr. Edwards held a meeting at the plant the afternoon of March 10 and it
was explained to you that the operations of National Woodworking and Na-
tional Couch for the past several years had not been profitable, making it neces-
sary for a complete change in our plant operations. Our plant was closed for
revision of these operations and to add new machinery, reworking our old ma-
chinery, changing our entire plant layout, reviewing the cost of all items which
we were manufacturing, eliminating certain ones and adding new ones.
At that meeting it was explained to all employees that we would call back
those employees whose qualifications we felt were suited to perform their
duties on the new items and under the new production methods. You were
called back to work, thinking that you did qualify and that your work would
be satisfactory under the new management and new methods. You were given
a pay increase from [the hourly increase set forth varied with the individual]
as an incentive for production.
The management is sorry to advise you that your services are no longer re-
quired at National Woodworking, as we do not feel that you have adjusted
yourself to our new operations. Your check in full, including today, April 24,
we are herewith handing you. Under certain conditions we know that you are
a capable employee and will be pleased to give you a good recommendation
and help in any manner possible to place you in new employment. I regret the
necessity of having to advise you of your severance with the company and hav-
ing to write this letter.
Very truly yours,
H. BRUCE LANSAW,
Plant Manager.
On March 23, Null received an hourly pay increase of 25 cents when he returned
to work. On April 16, Skeens was given an hourly pay increase of 15 cents; and
Leadmon and Legg were given hourly pay increases of 25 cents.
Angles was discharged by the letter of April 24 (Friday) and that evening was
offered reinstatement. He returned to work without loss of time on Monday April
27. Cooksey and Null were offered reinstatement later but declined. Fraley has
not been reemployed.
From the testimony of all the witnesses it is apparent that Lansaw had the un-
happy faculty of being unable to get along not only with the employees but with
management. When he arrived in the middle of February 1953 to assume his duties
NATIONAL MATTRESS COMPANY 899
as production manager for Respondent Woodworking and Couch his reputation had
preceded him. Rumors had reached the men that he was a slave driver and one
hard to get along with . The employees had heard from outsiders that he was going to
fire the whole force and bring in his own men . Leadmon testified that Lansaw threat-
ened the men saying , "I will push you this way , I will push you that"; or "You will get
the hell out of here"; and that he was always trying to hurry the men saying, "Do it
faster-I want you to run when I order you to-I am going to run this place and I
don't need no help in running it. Everybody 's going to dig in and work for me or out
he goes." Skeens testified that he had observed Lansaw pushing the men around and
ordering them to speed up their work which resulted in dissatisfaction on the part of
Lansaw because he could not drive them and make them run; and on the part of the
employees because he attempted it. Duckworth , the office manager, testified that
Lansaw had rebuked him to his face. Edwards testified that he was dissatisfied
with Lansaw and criticized him in his speech before the assembled employees on
March 10 where he referred to Lansaw as overzealous , a little hysterical , and hot-
headed . The Respondents ' brief aptly described the situation as a running feud
between Lansaw and the employees.
B. The issues
The material issues presented here are whether Leadmon was a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act from the time Lansaw arrived as new manager of the plant
in the middle of February until April 1; whether the Respondents through Lansaw
and Edwards promised the employees who were laid off or to be laid off because
of the proposed changes in the plant that all of them would be recalled and no one
would lose his job; whether the wage increases violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act as having been made as part of the Respondents' plan designed to discourage
and forestall union organization, and whether the discharges of April 6 and April
24 were violative of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
C. The General Counsel's case
It has been stipulated that Clifton R. Leadmon was not a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act on and after April 1, 1953. From approximately July 1950
until H. Bruce Lansaw was hired as general manager for the Woodworking and
Couch plants on or about February 11 or 12, 1953, Leadmon was a supervisor. The
General Counsel contends that from the arrival of Lansaw until April 1, Leadmon
was not a supervisor. The Respondents contend that Leadmon continued to be a
supervisor until April 1.
Leadmon testified that on or about February 12, Carter W. Wild, vice president
and treasurer of the Respondents, told him that Lansaw would be the new manager
beginning the next day; that Leadmon had done an excellent job as foreman for
Woodworking and they wanted him to continue in that job. Wild also offered him
an increase of 7 cents per hour and told Leadmon he would have a job as long
as the company was there. Leadmon testified that when Lansaw arrived in February
Leadmon was foreman but working on the bandsaw full time, 9 hours per day,
because the handsaw operator was ill; and that after Lansaw came, Leadmon worked
about 7 hours a day on the handsaw because the regular operator was still ill. Lead-
mon testified that he had instructed employees as to what they were to do but after
Lansaw came, Lansaw "more or less" took over the supervising. Leadmon testified
that when Lansaw arrived in February, Leadmon had authority to hire and fire and
although Wild had told Leadmon he would continue as he had previously, Lansaw
was continually supervising and Leadmon never had occasion to hire or fire. Lead-
mon also testified that pursuant to the orders of Lansaw he helped the employees set
up their saws, instructed them, and worked with them on the saws doing different
duties. Leadmon continued to testify that before he did anything he received orders
from Lansaw at all times. Employee Elmer Skeens testified that Leadmon was fore-
man until April and that all the employees looked to Leadmon as their leader.
When the employees found that their timecards had been pulled on March 9, as
hereinafter detailed, they turned to Leadmon for an explanation
On or about March 1 or 2, Leadmon discussed with Edwards the subject of a
partition that was being built to keep the employees out of the building before they
went to work. Leadmon testified That Lansaw was also present and Leadmon told
Edwards the men resented so much the building of the partition that they were
talking of joining a union. Leadmon testified that Edwards replied that Leadmon
knew how he (Edwards) felt about a union; and Lansaw added that he (Lansaw)
344056-55-vol 111-58
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had no use for a union in the shop which he "run." Leadmon testified he had
learned from Edwards in prior conversations (the last having been in July 1950)
how he felt about a union when Edwards had "violently objected" to a union being
formed in Woodworking and Couch, and during the conversation on March 1 or
2, Edwards told Leadmon that if the majority signed union cards he would close the
plant.
Leadmon testified that on March 9, he arrived at the plant before 7 a. m., and
found a group of Woodworking employees who demanded to know why their time-
cards had been pulled. Leadmon testified that he assured them he did not know
but would try to find out. He continued to testify that about 7:05 a. m., when
Lansaw arrived, he asked Lansaw why the timecards were not in the rack and Lansaw
replied, "Oh, yes, I wanted to talk to you fellows about that." Leadmon testified
that Lansaw explained to the employees that he wanted to change the style of the arm
and it would be necessary to lay off some employees temporarily until the changeover
to cutting a new style arm could be made. Leadmon testified that the employees
then told Lansaw they were suspicious that he had come there to get rid of them;
but Lansaw told them none would be laid off permanently and those laid off would
be recalled as soon as he had worked out the new style for the arms. Leadmon
testified that he pointed out to Lansaw there was work to be done by some of the men
whose cards had been pulled and Lansaw agreed to keep those employees. Leadmon
testified that Billup, Wilson Stephens, and Carnie Martin were laid off that morning.
Employee Dora Johnson testified that he had been working as repairman in the
Couch plant and was laid off at noon on March 9. Johnson testified that on that
same afternoon while riding in employee Whited's automobile, Johnson suggested that
they get a union organizer; and they telephoned to the union office and arranged for
a union representative to meet them the next morning.
Leadmon testified that the next morning, March 10, a few minutes before 7 o'clock,
several employees met on the sidewalk about a block away from the plant with H. P.
Dillon, a representative of the Union. He testified that those who attended the
meeting were Clifton R. Leadmon, Elmer Skeens, Roland Cooksey, Chester C. Null,
Dora Johnson, Robert Billup, Carnie Martin, Oscar Stephens, Wilson Stephens, Paul
Dirton, and Adkins. While Leadmon did not testify whether it was Jennings A.
Adkins or P. E. Adkins who was present, Dora Johnson testified that it was J. A.
Adkins who was present. Leadmon testified that while they were talking there,
Lloyd Duckworth, the office manager for Woodworking and Couch, walked past and
looked in their direction. Leadmon testified that at the meeting they agreed to hold
a further meeting with Dillon at 2 o'clock that afternoon and also agreed not to re-
port that day for work.2 Leadmon continued to testify that Duckworth was in the
office when he arrived at the plant, whereupon Duckworth asked him what was going
on and "if it was a union man?," to which Leadmon replied in the affirmative and in-
formed Duckworth the men were trying to organize a union. According to Leadmon,
Duckworth then telephoned to Lansaw that the employees had met outside with a
gentleman whom he presumed was a union official, possibly for the purpose of organ-
izing a union. Leadman testified that after Duckworth talked with Lansaw, Duck-
worth went outside the office to the Couch plant and asked Leadmon to watch the
telephone; and that while Duckworth was away, Leadmon answered the telephone
when Edwards telephoned and asked for Duckworth. Before Duckworth came on the
telephone, Edwards asked Leadmon what was going on and he told Edwards the men
were trying to form a union. According to Leadmon's testimony, Edwards replied,
"You know how I feel about a union. The minute the majority sign a union card
I will close ;t up, that damn place up, so close that air can't get in it," and added, "I
don't give a damn whether any of you have a job or not." Leadmon fixed the time
of that telephone conversation as between 7:15 and 7:30 a. m. Leadmon testified
that at that point Duckworth returned to the office whereupon Leadmon handed the
telephone to him and left the office. Later Leadmon was recalled to the office by
Duckworth and testified that he discussed with Duckworth and Leadmon the possi-
bility of getting the employees together for a meeting with Edwards. Leadmon tes-
tified that he then told Edwards the men felt they were being pushed around, treated
like dogs, and wanted some kind of protection; that Edwards then praised the men
and said he liked all of them. Leadmon testified that Edwards said that they did not
need a union down there.
Later that same day, Edwards talked to the assembled employees of Woodworking
and Couch at the plant. All the witnesses agree that he explained to the employees
2 The employees did not meet with Dillon that afternoon and there is no evidence of any
further concerted activity in the record, beyond the meeting with Dillon in the morning
and remaining away from work on March 10
NATIONAL MATTRESS COMPANY 901
that in view of the proposed changes in the plant , it would be necessary to lay off some
employees . Leadmon testified that Edwards told the employees of the necessity to
close the plant for changes but that everyone would be called back to work and no
one would be fired or laid off permanently . Employee Elmer Skeens testified that
Edwards told the employees that he had not hired Lansaw to fire any of them; that
no man will lose his job ; that they were only trying to get it on a paying basis. Em-
ployee Dora Johnson testified that Edwards said he would give his guarantee that no
one would be laid off or discharged . Leadmon further testified that in the course
of his remarks, Edwards told the employees that he did not need an outsider to help
him run his business . Skeens testified that Edwards said "we don 't need any outside
help to come in and show us how to run our business ." Dora Johnson also testified
that Edwards remarked he did not need outsiders to come in to run his business.
Following Edwards' speech to the employees on March 10 , 6 employees were laid
off on March 10 in addition to the 8 employees who had been laid off on March 9.
Some of them were recalled at various periods, as detailed above; and by letter dated
April 6 , 6 employees were notified that their employment was terminated . Four of
those six employees (Billup , Martin , Johnson, Wilson Stephens ) are named in the
complaint as having been discriminatorily discharged . Others were recalled on
March 11 , 12, 16 , and 23 , and work continued until at the end of the day's work
on April 24, 11 employees were discharged , 9 of whom are named in the complaint
as having been discriminatorily discharged . Thus of 17 discharges occurring on
April 6 and April 24, 13 are named in the complaint and 4 not included for some
reasons already stated.
The General Counsel also called as his witness Howard Bruce Lansaw,3 above
referred to. Lansaw testified on direct examination , cross-examination , and then on
redirect examination , the General Counsel , claiming surprise , impeached him as
a witness , on the basis of an affidavit received into evidence which was dated October
16, 1953 ( 3 weeks prior to his testimony ). Careful examination and comparison
of Lansaw 's testimony with the statements contained in his affidavit , contradictory
in many material aspects , reveal him to be a witness wholly unreliable . It is impos-
sible to select certain parts from his testimony and affidavit as true and to disregard
other parts . For example , he testified that after discussion with the men on March
9 concerning the layoffs of that date the men were in perfect harmony with his view-
point and he was very happy about it and so informed Edwards in a written inter-
office communication on that date . If we look at that memorandum we find that
Lansaw wrote on the evening of March 9 , "I am, after this morning's episode with
`your ' so-called loyal employees , replacing every blasted one of them ; ( with minor
exceptions ) with `my' very own hand picked willing and appreciative workers. .
Lansaw testified that Edwards in his speech to the assembled employees on March 10
informed them that in all probability some would not be recalled after the layoffs
because they would not fit into the operation because of their lack of speed and other
reasons. Yet in his affidavit Lansaw set forth that when he spoke to the employees,
he confirmed Edwards' statement to the men that all the employees who were laid
off would be recalled; and Lansaw made that statement to the men to pacify them
and to prevent them from joining a union . In his affidavit Lansaw set forth that
after they had met with the union representative he resolved to discharge all of them.
In his testimony he admitted that he had arrived at the conclusion to replace them on
March 9 which was the day before they met with the union representative. In his
affidavit he stated that all the discharges were for discriminatory reasons, that the
wage increases were given to disguise the fact that they were being discharged for
meeting with the union representative ; and that two separate discharge dates were
settled upon so that it would be less suspicious to have the firings take place at two
different times, rather than one wholesale firing. When asked if the pay raises did
have anything to do with the union aspect, Lansaw testified the raises were part of
his plan to appease and keep the remaining employees happy; but in his affidavit
Lansaw stated that the wage increases were given not as an incentive to increase
production but to disguise the fact that they would later be discharged . Lansaw
testified further that , pursuant to Edwards ' direction to take the matter of granting
wage increases up with Attorney Bagley, he consulted Bagley who inquired if the
proposed increases were in any way connected with the union activity and that Lan-
saw assured him there was no such connection . Without detailing further discrep-
ancies between his testimony , the prior affidavit , and the written memorandum, it is
sufficient to conclude that Lansaw was a thoroughly discredited and repudiated wit-
ness. In addition to the foregoing , sufficient in itself to show that Lansaw is un-
worthy of belief , there is credited testimony from Bagley and Edwards to the effect
3 At times eri one on sly referred to in the record as LansaI.
902 DECISIONS OF,NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Lansaw, when interviewed by Bagley in preparing this case for hearing, emphat-
ically denied that there were any discriminatory reasons violative of the Act involved,
in the discharges; that Bagley then prepared a proposed affidavit incorporating the
information which Lansaw had given to him; that later Lansaw failed to execute such
proposed affidavit unless Edwards first paid a sum of money which Lansaw claimed,
and Edwards denied, was owing to him; that upon Edwards' refusal to pay Lansaw
threatened that unless he settled the claim he (Lansaw) would make it rough for the
Company at the meeting scheduled for the next day with the Board representative;
that Edwards in no uncertain terms refused the demands of Lansaw for executing
the affidavit; and that thereafter Lansaw executed the affidavit in evidence and gave
it to the General Counsel. The foregoing, in addition to his demeanor as a witness,
constitute the reasons why I wholly discredit him as a witness. I am using the affi-
davit solely for the purpose of impeaching the witness.4
D. The Respondents' defense
The Respondents offered the testimony of Wild, Duckworth, and Edwards to sup-
plement Leadmon's testimony that Wild had complimented him on or about Febru-
ary 12 on the excellent job he had done as foreman and stating that they wanted him
to continue on that job and had given him an increase of 7 cents per hour, promising
that Leadmon would have a job as long as the Company was there. Wild testified
that he told Leadmon in the presence of Lansaw, that Leadmon was to continue in
his present capacity as foreman and that he continued as foreman until March 3 1.
Duckworth testified that Leadmon continued as foreman until April and that he
continued to place intercompany orders through Leadmon as he had in the past-
Edwards told Leadmon that his position as foreman would in no way be affected
by the hiring of Lansaw; that he expressed his appreciation to Leadmon and assured
him that as long as he would cooperate and work with Lansaw he had no fear as
far as his position was concerned.
Edwards did not contradict the testimony of Leadmon with reference to the con-
versation held on or about March 1 or 2 in which Leadmon testified that he told
Edwards the men were so incensed over the building of the partition that they were
talking about forming a union; and Edwards' statement that if the majority ever
signed union cards he would close the plant.
Duckworth testified with reference to March 10 that he came to work about 6:30
that morning and noticed the employees congregated on the outside of the building;
that he entered the office and Leadmon was in the office; that he asked Leadmon
what seemed to be the trouble and Leadmon replied that the prior evening the em-
ployees met at his home and discussed what they might do about Lansaw; that
Leadmon told him he had come to work early that morning in an effort to get the
men to go to work. Duckworth testified further that he did not know the person
(Dillon) with whom the men were talking outside the plant as he had never seen
him before; and is sure that Leadmon did not tell him that the person was a union
organizer. Duckworth testified further that he then telephoned to Lansaw inform-
ing him that he had talked with Leadmon and that Leadmon said he had come to
work early that morning to get the men to come to work; and admitted that he told
Lansaw that there was a stranger meeting with the employees
Edwards testified that Lansaw telephoned to him before 7 o'clock on the morning
of March 10, following which Edwards telephoned to the plant and Leadmon
answered the telephone. Edwards testified hat he told Leadmon in that conversa-
tion that he understood the men were congregated on 14th Street and there was some
question whether they were coming to work; that Leadmon replied they were con-
gregated, that he had talked to them, and was going to try to get them to work.
Edwards testified further that Leadmon did not say that there was a union organizer
among the group of employees and did not mention the word union in his conversa-
tion on the telephone that morning. Edwards testified that he told Leadmon he was
thoroughly disgusted with the operations of the plant from every standpoint and
denied using the profane language attributed to him by Leadmon.5 Mrs. Joan Ed-
wards, the wife of Edwards, testified that she was present while Edwards talked on
the telephone to Leadmon and Duckworth and did not hear Edwards mention the
word union or union organization She reported that Edwards in substance told
Leadmon to talk with the men to see if they would go back to work and that Edwards
said he would come down to talk to them; that Edwards told Duckworth that Lead-
4 N. L. R. B. v. Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere Co , 185 F. 2d 285 (C A. 2), cert denied 342
U S 812
6 Leadmon's testimony as to that language appears in the record at page 103.
NATIONAL MATTRESS COMPANY 903
anon would try to get the men to return to work and Edwards would be down later
to talk with them; that he told Duckworth that he would inform him as to the time
he would be there but in the meantime Duckworth was not to say or do anything
until Edwards had talked to the men.
With reference to the contents of his speech to the assembled employees on March
10, Edwards testified that he explained to the employees that in view of the proposed
changes in the plant it would be necessary to lay off some employees and that when
certain changes had been effected at the plant some jobs would be eliminated; that
those employees qualified to perform the operations on the new production line sched-
ule would be recalled. He testified further that he stated to them that the manage-
ment had observed a number of qualified, capable, and efficient employees; and that
deadbeaters and drones were not only costing management money but were ad-
versely affecting the capable and efficient employees. Duckworth testified that Ed-
wards explained to the employees why it was necessary to close the plant to make
some changes in order to put both companies on a profitable basis; that some employees
would have to be laid off and that it was for management to determine which employees
would be kept on the job as all of the employees would not be qualified to do certain
types of labor such as moving heavy equipment during the time the changes were
being made. Duckworth did not testify concerning whether Edwards said all of
those laid off or only some would be recalled. Angles who testified concerning other
subjects of Edwards' speech was not questioned as to whether Edwards said the lay-
offs would be permanent or temporary or whether there was a promise to recall all
of them.
With respect to that portion of his speech in which reference was made to "out-
siders," Edwards explained that he used the term in connection with his statements
outlining the position of management and the position of the employees, that man-
agement had the right of determining and selecting those employees to be laid off for
business reasons and that management did not need the help of the employees in ar-
riving at its decision as to those to be laid off while the plant was closed.
The Respondents introduced into evidence an interoffice communication written
on a National Mattress Company form by Lansaw on the evening of March 9, ad-
dressed to the attention of Edwards and Wild which read in part as follows:
I have definitely decided, today; to do exactly what I intended to do on the
second day I entered this plant. Close this plant! I knew this was the only way
this mess could be straightened out. I have laid off several of the employees in
the woodworking dept., keeping only a skeleton crew to clean up the remaining
materials which have been out. My plans were made Saturday and Sunday as
follows. .
I am, after this morning episode with "your" so called loyal employees, re-
placing every blasted one of them; (with minor exceptions) with "my" very
own hand picked willing and appreciative workers... .
With respect to the economic condition of Respondents Woodworking and Couch,
Edwards testified that for the past several years they have been losing money to which
in part he attributed inefficient management, inefficient production methods, and
probably some inadequate and antiquated machinery. In January 1953, Edwards
was looking to employ someone with some experience to take over as production
manager of the two companies. Lansaw was hired in February after discussions
with Edwards, and the Respondents entered upon a plan which included a revision of
the production lines, style changeovers of some products being manufactured, in-
creasing the rate of pay for production employees, and other changes. On or about
March 10, the plant was closed for several days, the exact period being undisclosed
in the record. Duckworth testified that the plant changes started about February 20
and continued to about March 15, with the majority of the changes made after March
9. He testified further that after the complete changes were put into effect produc-
tion seemed to pick up and go smoothly, but within a period of a week, production
began to slacken. Duckworth explained that the increase in production referred to
was only the normal production that they had not been getting because of the inter-
ruptions resulting from the changes while being made. Duckworth testified that after
the plant changes had been made, it was easier for the employees to assemble their
work, but other than the fact that it was easier to reach for something the operations
were the same. He continued to testify that a new machine was added (an edger or
jointer) which was electrically operated instead of hand operated as the old one had
been; an additional roller conveyor was added, and on the woodworking side of the
plant there were some slight rearrangement of the machines.
Edwards testified that with reference to the discharges on April 6 that it was not
necessary to recall all of those previously laid off. Edwards testified on the basis
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of company records that on March 6 there were 19 production employees and on
April 7 there were 13 production employees on the payrolls.
In his testimony Edwards testified that he was not consulted by Lansaw as to which
employees had been selected for layoffs or discharges and denied that the Respondents.
had acted from any discriminatory motives violative of the Act.
Edwards testified further that during April he pointed out to Lansaw that the
production and efficiency that had been expected from the new program had not
been forthcoming but that labor costs instead of being lower were higher than before.
Edwards testified that Lansaw attributed this to lack of cooperation and team work
on the part of the employees whom he claimed were just deadbeating on the job,
trying to make a fool out of Lansaw. Edwards testified that Lansaw's solution for
the problem was to discharge all the employees and start all over again. When
Edwards pointed out that there were some qualified, capable, and efficient employees,
Lansaw insisted that he could not separate the wheat from the chaff but once they
all had been discharged, Lansaw would start rebuilding his labor force by reemploy-
ing 1 or 2 who Lansaw was reasonably sure were not in the clique of uncooperative
and anti-Lansaw employees. Edwards testified that he could not say whether or not
he had seen a list of all the employees laid off by Lansaw on April 24; that Lansaw
had sent the list of those to be laid off on April 24 to Edwards' secretary; but that
Edwards approved the mass layoff upon Lansaw's statement to him that such a layoff
was the only way to correct the conditions at the plant, inasmuch as he could not
separate the wheat from the chaff, since he had no way of knowing who those em-
ployees were who were opposed to him (Lanshaw) and his policies. Edwards testi-
fied that the subject of increasing hourly rates of pay was not specifically discussed
with Lansaw but that Edwards had approved generally such increases as proposed
by Lansaw when he outlined his proposals for improving the companies' position
before Lansaw was hired in a preliminary interview.
Conclusions
I have entirely disregarded Lansaw's testimony and his prior affidavit for reasons
already set forth, in arriving at my conclusions herein. There is one item of evidence,
however, that I accept which is Respondents' Exhibit No. 1-F, the interoffice memo-
randum from Lansaw to the attention of Edwards and Wild, dated March 9, as re-
flecting the true state of Lansaw's mind and written before the opportunity arose
for him to attempt to capitalize on this proceeding coming to hearing.
The General Counsel's theory of the case is that the Respondents violated the Act
by interrogating employees concerning their knowledge of union activity, advising
them the Respondents would close their plants as soon as employees signed a union
card; granting wage increases and wage adjustments for the purpose of forestalling
and discouraging employees from joining the Union; and by unlawfuly discharging
and thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate them to their former or substantially
equivalent positions. Briefly stated, the theory is that having learned that the em-
ployees had met with a union representative on March 10, the Respondents then
determined to discharge all such employees; that on April 6, four were unlawfully
discharged and the balance of those who attended the meeting were discharged on
April 24, including P. E. Adkins and others who did not attend the meeting. The
theory also includes that the wage increases were part of Respondents' plan to dis-
guise its true purpose and that the reasons given by the Respondents for the dis-
charges on April 6 and April 24 were not the real reasons but made only to lend a
color of legality to what were discharges violative of the Act.
The Respondents' defense is that they deny that they had any knowledge of the
meeting by the employees with the union representative on March 10; that prior to
March 9 it had been decided to lay off some employees and that accordingly 8 em-
ployees were laid off on March 9; that the 6 discharges on April 6 consisting of 5
who had been laid off on March 9 and 1 who had been laid off on March 10 were
necessary in view of the fact that thereafter only 13 employees were needed to carry
on operations; and the discharges of April 24 occurred because of Lansaw's insistence
to Edwards that the only solution to Lansaw's problems was to discharge them all and
recruit a new working force.
On the basis of the entire record,6 I find that Leadmon was a foreman and super-
visor within the meaning of the Act until April 1, 1953. His position as foreman
and supervisor was confirmed by Edwards, Wild, and Duckworth. Leadmon's testi-
mony that Lansaw "more or less" took over the supervising is an admission that he
9 When I refer to the entire record in these conclusions I do not include Lansaw's testi-
mony nor his affidavit
NATIONAL MATTRESS COMPANY 905
continued at least with part of his supervisory duties. There is no evidence that his
authority as supervisor was rescinded by Edwards or Wild before April 1. It is the
existence of the right to supervise which determines whether one is a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act and not whether such authority is exercised. Further
• support for this finding will be found in the testimony of Dora Johnson that Leadmon
told him on March 16 about quitting time that he need not come back in the morn-
ing. While Lansaw had already told Johnson before quitting time that he was laid
off, nevertheless the statement by Leadmon to Johnson is consistent with his position
of supervisor.
The sole evidence in the record to prove the allegations in the complaint that
Respondents Woodworking and Couch interrogated employees concerning their
knowledge of union activity, and advised and informed employees that the Respond-
ents would close their plants as soon as employees signed union cards is contained in
the conversations between Leadmon and Duckworth, and Leadmon and Edwards,
as testified to by Leadmon. Since such statements and interrogations were, as I find,
made to Leadmon during the time he was a supervisor, and since there is no evidence
that such statements were communicated to any employee, I find that they do not
constitute violations of the Act.
On the basis of the entire record I find that the Respondents had knowledge of
the sentiment , at least by some employees , for a union as communicated by Leadmon
to Edwards and Lansaw on or about March 1. I further find on the credited testi-
mony of Leadmon that the Respondents knew on March 10 that several employees
had met with a representative for the Union for the purposes of joining the Union.
I further find that when Edwards told the employees on March 10 that he did not
need an outsider or outsiders to help him run the business it is unnecessary to decide
whether he referred to the Union or to the employees. Even if he had referred to
the Union as an outsider who was not needed to help him run the business, such
statement would be protected free speech under Section 8 (c) of the Act; since I find
iio threat nor promise of benefit expressed or implied in that utterance I further
find on the credited testimony of Leadmon, Skeens, and Johnson that Lansaw on
March 9 and Edwards on March 10 told the employees that layoffs for a temporary
period were necessary but that all would be recalled and no one would be discharged.
Turning to the consideration of the discharges on April 6 of those employees who
had been until then in layoff status for varying intervals since March 9, the record
shows that on the evening of March 9 (before the meeting of the employees with the
representative of the Union on March 10 ) Lansaw notwithstanding his statement in
the morning that all would be recalled had made up his mind to discharge all the
working force with few exceptions. The question presents itself what happened after
March 10, when Edwards promised there would be no discharges, to account for the
discharges on April 6. The General Counsel contends that they were slated to go
as a result of their concerted activity on March 10. The Respondents contend that
by April 6 it was known that they could operate with 13 production employees in-
stead of 19. It must also be remembered that 8 others who had been laid off on
March 9 and 10, were recalled and worked (except Johnson who was recalled and
worked from March 11 to March 16, inclusive) until their discharges on April 24.
With reference to the circumstances surrounding the discharges on April 24, it is
noted that the form letter of April 24 contained some statements which did not
apply to all the dischargees . For instance , Leadmon and Dirton had not been laid off
prior to April 24, yet the form letter recited that they had been recalled to work.
Angles received a form letter discharging him but he was offered reemployment that
same night which he accepted.
I am persuaded by Edwards' testimony that he approved Lansaw's proposal to
discharge 17 out of 19 employees on April 24 as a way out of Lansaw's personal
difficulties with the men . In so doing , I do not accept as true that the men were
deadbeating on the job and uncooperative towards Lansaw I accept Edwards' testi-
mony that that is what Lansaw offered as an excuse when he was trying to find a
plausible reason to explain why he had not lived up to Edwards ' expectations as a
production manger.
I find there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that the wage increases
were given for the purpose of forestalling and discouraging employees from joining
the Union.
Viewing the situation in its entirety, I conclude that the General Counsel has failed
to prove by the required preponderance of evidence that the discharges of the em-
ployees on April 6 and April 24 resulted from their concerted activity of which the
Respondents had knowledge . I find that the discharges of April 6 were economically
necessary and the mass discharge on April 24 resulted solely from the personal ani-
mosities between Lansaw and the employees , and that Edwards approved Lansaw's
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proposal to solve his difficulties , real or imagined , by discharging all the employees
as Lansaw had resolved to do on the evening of March 9. Accordingly , the complaint
should be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2
( 6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. The Respondents have not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and "(3) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
OAK FLOORING COMPANY, INC. and UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 11-CA-739. March 10, 1955
Decision and Order
On October 28, 1954, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer issued his
Intermediate 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. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and sup-
porting briefs, and the Respondent requested oral argument. The
request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record and the
briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions
.of the parties.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made 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 briefs, and the entire record in the
I On December 29, 1954 , the Respondent filed a motion asking the Board to reopen the
record to receive certain documents , and to give consideration to the record as so enlarged
and enter such orders as may be appropriate. On January 6, 1955, the General Counsel
filed an answer opposing the granting of the motion.
The documents in question include correspondence relating to a request made on Decem-
ber 14, 1954 , after the expiration of the Union 's certification year, by Wade E. Vannoy, Jr.,
-on behalf of some of the Respondent 's employees , for a decertification election in the unit
involved herein , and a representation petition filed by the Respondent by letter dated
December 24, 1954. The Board 's records in Case No . 11-RM-36 show that the Respondent's
petition was dismissed by the Regional Director on January 3, 1955, and that on February
9, 1955, the Board , on appeal , sustained the Regional Director 's ruling. The Board's
records further show that on January 24, 1955 , Joe Lawrence , one of the Respondent's
employees , filed a petition for a decertification election in the same unit ( Case No.
11-RD-55) This petition was dismissed by the Regional Director on January 31, 1955;
and on March 7, 1955 , the Board , on appeal, sustained the Regional Director 's ruling.
As the documents offered by the Respondent have no bearing upon whether the Respond-
ent unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union during the certification year, we agree
with the General Counsel that they are immaterial to the issues in this case . Accord-
ingly , the Respondent 's motion to reopen the record is hereby denied.
111 NLRB No. 152.