Piedmont Cotton Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 1218 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

0
In the Matter Of PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 10-C-1962.-Decided September 30, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 9, 1947, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel 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
Intermediate Report attached hereto.' Thereafter, exceptions to the
Intermediate Report were filed by the Respondent, the Union, and
counsel for the Board. A brief in support of exceptions was filed
by counsel for the Board. The Respondent's request for oral argu-
ment is hereby denied, as the record adequately presents the issues and
positions of the parties.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions 3 and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the hnctmgs, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications and
additions.
"Section 8 ( 1), (3), and ( 5) of the National Labor Relations Act, which the Trial
Examiner found were violated, are continued in all respects here material in Section 8
(a) (1), 8 (a ) ( 3), and 8 (a) (5) of the Act as amended by the Labor Management
Relations Act, 1947. -
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 -man panel consisting of Chairman Herzog
and Members Houston and Reynolds.
3 Respondent has excepted to the failure of the Trial Examiner to dismiss the complaint
because of the Union' s non-compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. Such
non-compliance does not preclude adjudication of complaint cases which arose prior to the
amended Act Matter of Marshall and Bruce Co, 75 N. L R. B. 90. Furthermore, the
Union is in full compliance with these provisions at this time.
79 N. L. R. B., No. 157.
1218
PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS 1219
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Union repre-
sented a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit,' and that
the Respondent's conduct, fully set forth in the Intermediate Report,
constituted an unlawful refusal to bargain collectively, within the
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent's shut-
down of its plant from May 30 to June 10, 1946, constituted an in-
tegral part of the Respondent's conduct in refusing to bargain with
the Union. At that time the Union was the only designated statu-
tory representative of the employees, with whom the Respondent was
obligated to bargain under the Act. The Respondent's arbitrary and
unilateral determination, under the circumstances here present, to shut
down the plant was the very antithesis of collective bargaining and
was calculated to destroy the effectiveness of the Union as the em-
ployees' bargaining representative. Indeed, as the Trial Examiner
found, "In its attempt to dispense with the intervention of the Union,
so that the Respondent might fix wage rates and other conditions of
employment on its own terms and particularly to force the execution
of Form 10 as a prerequisite to raising.the price of its product, the Re-
spondent threatened to, and did, close its plant, thus throwing many
of its employees out of work."
2. On the basis of the findings in paragraph 1 and the record as a
whole, we are convinced that the shut-down also constituted, as alleged
in the complaint, an independent violation of Section 8 (3) and (1)
of the Act. It is clear from the record that the Respondent inten-
tionally used the shut-down and resultant lay-off as a means of dis-
couraging membership in the Union and of interfering with the em-
ployees' right to bargain collectively through a representative of their
own choosing. This purpose was openly evinced, in part, by the Re-
spondent's notices that the Union was responsible for the shut-down,
and that the plant would remain closed until the Respondent could
make a profit "without interference from national labor leaders linked
together with Government officials."
The Respondent's defense, that the shut-down was due to eco-
nomic compulsion arising out of the fact that it had given the em-
ployees a wage increase and was later unable to obtain governmental
approval of a price increase for its products, is without merit. The
Respondent adduced no statistical or other convincing evidence that
4 Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we shall exclude watchmen from the unit found appro-
priate watchmen, in the absence of evidence of actual duties, will be assumed to perform
the usual duties of such employees and will be excluded from a production and maintenance
unit notwithstanding agreement of parties. Matter of American Zinc Company of Illinois,
77 N. L. R. B. 56.
1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in fact it was not economically feasible to continue operations under
the existing conditions. In any event, whatever economic stress the
Respondent was then experiencing was the product of its own unfair
labor practices and a part of its strategy to discourage adherence
to the Union. The wage increase granted by the Respondent in
March 1946, which disturbed the then existing relationship between
the Respondent's wages and prices, constituted unlawful unilateral
action calculated to interfere with or defeat the Union's attempt to
bargain collectively with respect to the then existing wage demands.
The Respondent then well knew that such a wage increase would neces-
sitate price relief, which could only be obtained by the Union's con-
currence in the Respondent's application to the Office of Price Admin-
istration. Yet with full knowledge that the Union would not concur,
pending negotiations on other wage issues, the Respondent neverthe-
less put the wage increase into effect and thereby created the very
economic need now relied upon to justify its curtailment of opera-
tion. Then, rather than bargain with the Union in an effort to elimi-
nate this self-induced crisis, the Respondent elected to use its eco-
nomic power by shutting down the plant and laying off' its employees
to force its employees either to abandon the Union or to acquiesce
in the Respondent's prior refusal to bargain collectively with their
representatives.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Piedmont Cotton
Mills, Egan, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union
of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
as the exclusive representative of all employees at the Respondent's
Egan plant, excluding watchmen, office and clerical employees, over-
seers, second hands, and all other supervisors, in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment;
(b) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, by dis-
charging and refusing to reinstate any of its employees, by shutting
down its plant, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their
employment;
PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS 1221
(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 Textile Workers, Union of
America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or
any other labor 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 pro-
tection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds,
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Textile Workers
Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, as the exclusive representative of all employees at the Re-
spondent's Egan plant, excluding watchmen, office and clerical,
employees, overseers, second hands, and all other supervisors, in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment;
(b) Offer D. J. Norred immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to.
his seniority or other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole D. J. Norred for any loss of pay he has suffered by-
reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to the amount that he normally would have earned
as wages during the period from the date of his discriminatory dis-
charge to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his.
net earnings during said period;
(d) Make whole all its employees for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of the discriminatory shut-down of the plant,
from May 30 to June 10, 1946, by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to the amount that he normally would have earned as
wages during the period of the shut-down, less his net earnings
during said period;
(e) Post at its mill, copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix A." 6 Copy of said notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
" In the event that this Order is enforced by a Circuit Court of Appeals there shall be
inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER" the words , "DECREE OF THE
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
809095-49-vol. 79-78
1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notice is not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
AI'PENDIx A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist TEXTILE- WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. • '
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and-
full reinstatement to their former or substantially 'equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the 'discrimination. '
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the, above-
named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of
pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment,
and if an understanding is reached, *embody such understanding
in a signed agreement. ' The 'bargaining unit is: All employees
at the Egan plant, excluding watchmen, office and clerical em-
ployees, overseers, second hands, and all other supervisors.
The employee to be reinstated is D. J. Norred. '
We will make whole all employees for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the discriminatory shut=down of
the plant from May 30 to June 10, 1946, by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to the amount each' normally would.
have earned as wages during the period of the shut-down, less
his or her net earnings during said period.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not dis-
PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS 1223
criminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
Employer.
Dated ------------------------ By ---------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-Any of the above -named employees presently serving in the
armed forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after
discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. M. A. Prowell, for the Board.
Mr. John Wesley Weeks, of Weeks and Candler, of Decatur, Ga., for the re-
spondent.
Mr. Ray E. Young, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed on May 8, 1947, by Textile Workers Union of
America, CIO, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia), issued a complaint dated June 13, 1947, against Piedmont Cotton Mills,
herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent : (1) since on or about October 1, 1945, has refused to bargain
collectively with the Union, although it represented a majority of its em-
ployees in an appropriate unit; (2) on or about November 14,1946, terminated
the employment of D. J. Norred, and has at all times since failed and refused
to reinstate him, for the reason that he joined and assisted the Union and
engaged in concerted activity with other employees for the purposes of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid or protection; and (3) by the above acts, and
by granting unilateral wage increases to its employees, by advising employees
that it was impossible to work with the Union, and by circulating a petition
discrediting the Union and its officials, respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
Copies of the complaint, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly
served upon the respondent and the Union. On July 14, 1947, the respondent filed
an answer in which it admitted certain allegations of the complaint, but denied
-that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices.
1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on July 14, 15, and 16, 1947, at Atlanta,
Georgia, before Horace A. Ruckel, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were-
represented by counsel and the Union by an organizer. Full opportunity to-
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues, was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the
Board's case, the Trial Examiner denied a motion by the respondent to dismiss-
the complaint This motion was renewed at the conclusion of the hearing at
which time ruling thereon was reserved. It is disposed of by the recommenda-
tions hereinafter set forth. A motion by counsel for the Board to conform the
pleadings to the proof in formal matters was allowed. Counsel for the Board
and the respondent waived the opportunity to file briefs and/or proposed find-
ings of fact or conclusions of law with the undersigned.
On September 17, the respondent filed with the Trial Examiner a written-
motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Union had not complied
with, and does not intend to comply with, Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the
Labor-Management Relations Act, requiring the filing of certain affidavits. The
motion to dismiss is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Piedmont Cotton Mills is a Georgia corporation having its principal place of
business and plant at Egan, Georgia, where it is engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of textile products. The respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business, causes and has continually caused in excess of 20 percent
of the cotton, parts, and supplies, used by its Egan plant, valued at more than
$400,000 annually, to be purchased, delivered, and transported in interstate-
commerce from and through States of the United States other than the State
of Georgia, to its Egan plant, and causes and has continuously caused in excess
of 90 percent of the textile products produced, sold and distributed by it, and
valued in excess of $750,000 annually, to be delivered and transported in inter-
state commerce to, through, and into States of the United States other than the
State of Georgia.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED,
Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of
the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges, and the respondent's answer admits, that the following
described unit constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining: all employees. at the Egan plant, including watchmen, but excluding
office and clerical employees, overseers, second hands, and all other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, and otherwise
PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS 1225
effect changes in the status of employees , or effectively recommend such action.
The undersigned finds that the above unit insures to employees of the respondent
the full benefit of their right to self -organization and to collective bargaining,
and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act.
2. The representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
On February 23, 1945, the Board certified the Union as the representative of
all employees of the respondent in the unit described above. The complaint alleges
that the Union therefore has been, and now is, the exclusive representative of all
.such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. The
respondent's answer, however, neither admits nor denies that the Union is now
.such exclusive representative, but calls for "strict proof" thereof. Inasmuch as at
no time during protracted negotiations between the parties, hereinafter more
fully set forth, did the respondent raise any question as to the representative
status of the Union, and in view of the long-standing policy of the Board to
treat a certification of a bargaining representative in such circumstances as valid
until rescinded or superseded, the undersigned finds that the Union has been
.since February 23, 1945, and now is, the exclusive representative of all employees
in the appropriate unit for the purposes of dealing with the respondent in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
-tnent.
3. The refusal to bargain ; other interference, restraint, and coercion
On June 6, 1945, the respondent and the Union entered alto a contract whereby
the former recognized the latter as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
respondent's employees, established a grievance procedure, set up a system of
seniority, granted a form of union security, and provided for certain wage adjust-
ments. The contract by its terms, was to run for one year from date, and was
thereafter automatically renewable except that either party might terminate
it upon 30-day notice.
On the same date the parties signed a wage stipulation by which the respon-
dent agreed to accept and to abide by the terms of a directive order of the
National War Labor Board concerning- wages, and to negotiate and arbitrate
the establishment of certain peg-point wage rates and their application and
distribution among various categories of labor. On July 7, and again on July 21,
1945, the Union submitted to the respondent a peg-point wage proposal and
requested a meeting. It does not appear from the record whether such a meet-
ing took place. On September 14, however, the Union wrote T. W. Tift, the res-
_pondent's president, requesting a "continuation" of the negotiations concerning
the peg-point wage scale, pursuant to which a meeting was arranged for the
middle of October. Another meeting arranged for November 6 was canceled
because of Tift's absence from the city. On November 19, the Union again wrote
the respondent requesting a meeting and a meeting was finally held on Decem-
ber 11, in the respondent's offices. The parties were unable to reach any agree-
ment on the peg-point wage rates at this meeting, and, as a result; on December
13 the Union advised the chairman of the Southern Textile Commission of the
War Labor Board, that a dispute existed between the respondent and the Union.
On January 27, 1946, the Union wrote the respondent setting forth a wage
proposal , in reply to which the respondent , on February 8, stated that it was
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
impossible to grant the proposal and that unless a reduction in wages then being
paid could be effected the respondent would have to close its mill. The respon-
dent's letter ended by stating that it was a "sad day" for the employees and for
the respondent when the former voted for the Union as their bargaining
representative.
On March 8, D. B. Summers, mill superintendent, called to his office Sanders,
president of the plant local, and Bessie Garrett, its secretary-treasurer, and
asked them to sign Form 10' on behalf of the Union so that the employees
might receive a 121/2 percent wage increase which Tift had decided upon. San-
ders and Garret, according to the latter's credible and uncontradicted testimony,
refused to do so, stating that such authority lay only with the Union. Summers
then declared that the respondent was going to raise the wages without Form 10
On March 12, -1946, the respondent posted a notice in the plant stating that
it had received permission from the O. P. A to revise prices on its products,'
and announcing a general wage increase of 121/2 percent effective as of March 8-
This action was taken without any prior conference with the Union, or any
notice to it that such action would be taken, and at a time when the Union was
still endeavoring to adjust its wage controversy with the respondent.
This unilateral action was promptly protested by the Union which, on March
14, wrote the respondent stating that because of its dereliction in this respect the
Union would refuse to join in the filing of a Form 10 statement, and reiterating
its desire to negotiate a wage adjustment which would include retroactive pay
in connection with the peg-point wage rate On the same day, the Union wrote
the National Wage Stabilization Board, enclosing a copy of its letter to the
respondent, advising that board of the Union's contract with the respondent,.
and of its current negotiations with it, and announcing that until such negotia-
tions were concluded the Union would not join with the respondent in filing
Form 10.
On May 3, 1946, within the time provided for in the contract, the respondent
notified the Union of its intention to terminate the agreement on June 6, stating,
however, that it would be glad to meet with the Union's representatives to,
discuss the provisions of a new contract. On May 13, the Union wrote the
United States Department of Labor, notifying it that a dispute existed between
the Union and the respondent and requesting that a strike vote be taken in
compliance with the Smith-Connally Act. A copy was sent the respondent. On
the following day, May 14, the respondent wrote the Secretary of Labor en-
closing a Form 10. With reference to the absence of the Union's signature on
this form, the respondent stated that if, as a result thereof, the Wage Stabiliza-
tion Board should refuse the respondent authority to charge band "A" prices-
under O. P. A. regulations, the respondent would have to shut down its plant.
The respondent further requested a ruling on the possibility of obtaining "Band
A" prices in the absence of signature by the Union, and informed the Department
that its contract with the Union expired on June 6 and that the respondent had
already notified the Union that it did not intend to renew its contract "for just
such reasons as those mentioned above," going on to state that "there is no
living with the CIO and it is either divest ourselves of any CIO interest and
' Form 10 was an application for wage adjustment which stated among other things,
whether or not there was a union in the applicant's plant If such was the case, it was
required that the application was countersigned by the Union as a condition precedent to
the processing of the application.
2 The record is silent as to how such permission was obtained without the Union's
signature on Form 10.
PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS 1227
continue in business, or slowly go into bankruptcy We have no objection to
organized labor or collective bargaining but we simply cannot get along with
this CIO crowd."
The Department of Labor replied on May 17, returning the respondent's copy
of Form 10 and stating it as the rule that signature by the Union was necessary,
and that in any event, since the wage increases were put into effect on March 8
and proper application on approval to the Board prior to April 18, the respondent
had waived its right in seeking such approval from that board.
On March 24, the respondent addressed a letter to its employees in which the
respondent set forth its controversies with the Union from the former's point of
view. The respondent then went on to threaten that it would shut down its
plant on May 30, which was the deadline for obtaining the Union's approval for
a wage increase, and for the obtaining of "Band A" prices which the respondent
sought. Pertinent excerpts from this letter are as follows :
*
The management acted in good faith in putting this wage increase into
effect but now finds that the Union's national officers have refused to ap-
prove the wage increase. The deadline for our "Band A" prices without
the approval of the Union is May 30th, 1946, and unless the Union iinum,edi-
ately approves Form #10 Application it will be necessary for us to close
the mill on May 30th, 1946, because we cannot pay "Band A" wages and get
"Band B" prices.
Our contract expires with the Union on June 6th, 1946. After that data
we believe the National Wage Stabilization Board will grant our 12%%
wage increase as at that time we will have no contract with the Union.
We regret exceedingly that we will be unable to operate the mill during the
period of the contract from May 30th, to June 6th, 1946, without the Union's
signature to Form #10 application.
A little over a year ago your President stated to you that if you voted
for the CIO to be your bargaining representative it might mean bankruptcy
of the mill and your job. He stated that it had happened in a number of
other places-it might happen here, and he asked that you not let it hap-
pen to you. The situation is now most serious and we respectfully ask
that you keep your sense of equilibrium, your good judgment, and work
closely with the management.
We hope, that it will not be necessary to shut the plant down indefinitely
but if the Union is successful in their strike vote they can shut the plant
down-but management will have to start it up again.
During the 25 years that I have been President of the Mill we have
never been closed on account of labor trouble. Your President of this mill
is not going to work in turmoil and discord. He has no grievances with
any employee in the plant, union or non-union, but it is simply impossible
to work with the organization you have selected to do your bargaining.
He regrets to advise that he cannot conscientiously renew the contract.
Should we be successful in our efforts to keep the plant open on June
7th, 1946, the date following the expiration of our contract with the Union,
application will be made to the National Wage Stabilization Board for.ap-
proval of a 65¢ per hour minimum wage, 3¢ an hour additional for the second
shift, 50 additional for the third shift, time and a half for all over eight
1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hours in any one day , time and a half for the sixth day worked, double
time for the seventh day , six regular holidays each year, and one week's
vacation with pay. [Italics supplied.]
'On May 28 the respondent posted a notice in the mill , in part as follows :
In view of the complications that have arisen , there is nothing for the
Piedmont Cotton Mills to do but to close the mill indefinitely , or until such
time arrives that more favorable legislation to management will be passed
that will make your jobs more secure and permit management to make a
profit, without interference from national labor leaders linked together
with Government officials.
We suggest that each and every one of you begin to look out for a
;permanent position elsewhere . We will continue to run the plant until
all stock is run out and will make no discrimination between union and
non-union workers.
We are closing down until further notice and your respective overseers
will notify you when your job is terminated . [ Italics supplied.]
The threat contained in the above letter and notice was made good on May
•30, when the mill was shut down in large part and a majority of the employees
-laid off On the day of the shut-down Sanders and Garrett were again called
to Summers ' office, where Tift was present . Garrett, in response to, an inquiry
by Summers , again told Tift that the local officers of the Union had no authority
to sign Form 10, upon which the following conversation took place :
Q. What did he [Tift] say?
A. Well , he said it was one hell of an organization ; he said that he
had never heard of such a thing in his life. He said he had paid that
money in good faith ; said he had a full understanding with Mr. Summers
with Form 10 there to do it. I said, "Mr . Tift, I don ' t know why because
Mr. Summers knew better than that."
He said, "I paid that money in good faith," and , he said "you people
took my GD money," and he said, "you are going to pay back every GD
cent of it."
Well , he really said it only he said it in plain English . Mr. Swords you
know that , you were in there and heard it
On June 6, the day on which the contract with the Union expired , the respond-
ent posted a notice to its employees in part as follows :
WE HAVE TODAY RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE OFFICE OF
PRICE ADMINISTRATION TO OPERATE ON "BAND A" PRICES, UN-
DER THE 12-2% WAGE INCREASE WHICH WE PUT INTO EFFECT
ON MARCH 8TH, 1946.
THE PLANT WILL RESUME OPERATIONS ON MONDAY, JUNE
10TH , 1946, ON THE SAME BASIS AS TO HOURS AND WAGES AS
WHEN CLOSED.
You will find posted in the mill the new schedule of rates which we will
ask the Wage Stabilization Board to put into effect as of Monday, June
10th, 1946: These new- rates. amount to approximately 171/2%, or 5% more
than the requirement of the Office of Price Administration . We feel that our
employees are entitled to know the rates of which we are asking approval
by the Wage Stabilization Board . If you find those rates satisfactory we
believe it would be helpful in getting more prompt approval by the Board if
PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS 1229
the employees would also petition the Wage Stabilization Board. These-
rates are comparable to other cotton manufacturing plants in this area, and
are much higher than the average through the state.
At present we will continue paying the wages paid prior to our shutdown!
on Monday, May 27th, but as soon as we receive approval from the Wage
Stabilization Board of the new rates they will be immediately put into
effect, and we will ask that they be made retroactive to June 10th, 1946.
[Italics supplied.]
On June 21, representatives of the Union and the respondent net together and
renewed their discussion with respect to peg-point wage rates and a general!
wage increase. No agreement, however, was reached. On June 27, the respond-
ent posted in the plant another notice setting forth, among other matters, a
letter which the respondent on the same day wrote the National Wage Stabili-
zation Board protesting the latter's refusal to authorize "Band A" prices, and'
setting forth the respondent's determination to effectuate the wage raise, pre-
viously announced, even though not accompanied by a corresponding increase in.
the price of respondent's product. The notice was in part as follows:
TO THE EMPLOYEES OF PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS :
We were sorely disappointed upon receiving a letter on June 25th, from,
the Wage Stabilization Board refusing to process our Form #10 Appli-
cation for the wages posted on our bulletin boards. To their letter we
replied as,follows:
"We are today in receipt of your letter of June 21st, addressed for the
attention of Mr. R. G. Brumby, returning Form #10 Application dated
June 12th, unprocessed, due to the arbitrary rules fixed by the NWSB :
This is the third time our Form #10 Application has been returned un-
processed. We will continue to pay the wage established by us on March
8th, which required no approval by your board under Executive Orden
provided no price relief was asked for. We will be forced to charge
"Band B" prices to abide by your arbitrary rules.
"You have discriminated against the Piedmont Cotton Mills by approv-
ing the wages of every other mill in this vicinity, thus permitting them
to charge "Band A" prices. Our mill is no different in wage scale than,
those other mills and we should be permitted to charge the same prices.
* * * * * * *
"This will be the last letter you will receive direct from us and the last
application you will receive from us. We will put the pressure' direct on.
Washington through the press and public opinion. We are sending a,
copy of this letter to the press and if they do not publish it we will put it
in as a paid advertisement."
In spite of the refusal of the Wage Stabilization Board to approve these
Wages because the Union would not sign our application, the Piedmont
Cotton Mills wishes to announce to its employees that it will pay these
rates, anyway, beginning Monday of this week, June 24th, instead of
June 10th.
It might be a long hard fight in the courts before the Piedmont Cotton
Mills will recover, its money but we do not want our employees to suffer
due to the discrimination that has been made against them by the Wage
Stabilization Board.
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
No further meeting between representatives of the respondent and the Union
with reference to a new contract took place until in August . In that month
the suggestion of the respondent , contained in the posted notice of June 6, that
the employees themselves petition the Wage Stabilization Board for a wage
raise, was adopted by certain of the employees in the plant , notably Sanders,
who in June had been replaced as president of the local by D. N . Norred, who
it alleged in the complaint was discriminatorily discharged . The petition was
to the effect that the 121/2 percent increase unilaterally promulgated by the re-
spondent the previous June, should be approved . This was, of course, in deroga-
tion of the stand taken by the Union.
On September 6, 1946, while the Union was still seeking to arrive at an
agreement on wage rates , the respondent for the second time unilaterally and
without consultation with the Union instituted a wage raise , this time in the
amount of 5 cents an hour. A notice announcing the increase reads as follows:
TODAY THE NATIONAL WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD OF WASH-
INGTON HAS RENDERED A DECISION APPROVING A 5¢ ACROSS
THE BOARD INCREASE IN WAGES, WHICH MAY BE REFLECTED IN
THE NEW PRICE OF GOODS EFFECTIVE TODAY.
THE PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS , MINIMUM WAGE HAD BEEN 65¢
PER HOUR . THIS RULING PERMITS US TO ADVANCE WAGES 5¢ AN
-HOUR, MAKING OUR MINIMUM WAGE 70 ¢ AN HOUR ; IN ADDITION
WE ARE GOING TO OFFER 3¢ PER HOUR BONUS FOR FULL ATTEND-
ANCE OF ALL HOURS SCHEDULED BY DEPARTMENTS IN WHICH
THIS OPERATOR WORKS.
The final meeting between representatives of the respondent and the Union
to discuss wage rates was held on November 13, 1946 . At this meeting the Union
suggested that an arbitration committee be appointed in an attempt to resolve
the differences between the parties, and the respondent agreed to submit the
names of members of the committee . No such submission was ever forthcoming.
Conclusions
The undersigned does not find it necessary to pass upon the contention of
the Board that the abortive negotiations between the respondent and the Union
pertaining to the peg -rate raise constituted , of itself, a failure to bargain on the
part of the respondent . He finds, however , that the respondent's course of action,
viewed as a whole, amounted to such. The wage raise of 121/2 percent in March
1946, and ,another of 5 cents an hour in September, were both made unilaterally
by the respondent without consultation with the Union , during a period while
the Union was attempting to negotiate a wage scale with the respondent. The
attempts of the Union to reach an agreement were paralleled by a course of
action by the respondent which was designed to undermine the authority of
the Union and bring its accredited representatives into disrepute . By calling
the local officers of the Union into the office where it attempted to persuade them
to ratify a wage increase already decided upon, in return for the execution of
Form 10, the respondent went behind the back of the Union in derogation of
its obligation to bargain with its accredited representatives and with them only.
On another occasion it inspired the circulation of a petition designed to circum-
vent the Union with respect to its refusal to execute Form 10. Such appeals to
employees - over the heads of the Union 's bargaining representative , have been
PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS 1231
uniformly held by the Board and the courts to constitute a refusal to bargain!
The respondent's apparent purpose throughout was to arrive at a wage scale
other than that which the Union sought and, if necessary to that end, to re-
nounce its contract with the Union. It was respondent's privilege under the
contract to terminate the contract within the period fixed therein, but it was
not its privilege to bargain with anyone other than the Union's representatives
either before or after its expiration, so long as tile'Union remained the accredited
representative of the respondent's employees.
In its attempt to dispense with the intervention of the Union, so that the
respondent might fix wage rates and other conditions of employment on its
own terms and particularly to force the execution of Form 10 as a pre-requisite
to raising the price of its product, the respondent threatened to, and did, close
its plant, thus throwing many of its employees out of work.
The respondent, by the course of conduct set forth above, failed and refused
to bargain collectively with the Union and thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
B. The discriminatory discharge
D. J Norred was employed by the respondent on March 11, 1946, and was put
to work by Swords, overseer of the carding and spinning room, as au extra hand
on the second shift, from 3 p in. to 11 p. in. As an extra hand Norred ' s duties
were manifold , but consisted in large part of operating the slubber and long
draft machine . About 4 or 5 weeks after his employment a third, or night, shift
was instituted , and Swords asked Norred if he would be willing to work on
this shift as slubber and long draft operator , stating that he wanted a steady
man on whom he could depend for this work Norred replied that he preferred
to be on the day shift because he was afraid that when business fell off the
third shift would be discontinued and he would find himself out of work. Swords
assured Norred, according to the latter 's uncontradicted testimony which the
undersigned credits , that if such a thing came to pass the respondent would
take care of Norred on the first or second shift. On this condition , Norred agreed
to go to work on the third shift.
On June 15, Norred replaced Sanders as president of the local in the plant,
and participated in the meeting on June 21 with the respondent ' s representatives,
to discuss the Union 's wage demands . On the evening of November 19, 6 days
after the final meeting between representatives of the parties as related above,
Edwards, night superintendent , called Norred at his home and told him not to
report for work that night because the third shift was being closed down.
Norred came to the mill the next day and talked with Swords who told him
that he did not know when the night shift would be reinstated , but that when
it was Norred could come back to work . Norred, according to his further
uncontradicted and credible testimony, reminded Swords of the condition upon
which Norred had transferred to the third shift-that in such a contingency
the respondent was to take care of him on the first or second shift-and reminded
Swords that there were two or three slubber tenders on the other shifts who
had been hired subsequent to the time Norred was employed but who were
8 See N. L. R. B . v. Crown Can, 138 F. ( 2d) 263 (C C. A 8) enforcing 42 N. L R. B.
1160, cert den., 321 U. S. 769; N L. R B. v. Hall Stores, 140 F (2d) 924 (C. C. A. 5),
enforcing 49 N. L. R. B, 184 ; Idaho Potato Growers v . N. L. R. B , 144 F . ( 2d) 295
( C. C. A. 9 ), enforcing 48 N. L. R. B. 1084 , cert. den , 323 U. S 769.
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
being retained-a statement which is supported by the record. Swords termi-
nated the conversation by saying that the third shift was down, and that "soy
far as I know now, you just haven't got no job."
Swords was not called as a witness. Summers, the only witness called by the
respondent, admitted that when the third shift was laid off the employees
who had been transferred from the second shift to the third shift were, with
the exception of Norred, transferred back to the second shift, and new em-
ployees who had been hired to take their places on the second shift were laid off.
Conclusion
The undersigned is not impressed with the reason assigned by the respondent
for Norred's discharge. It is not disputed that when Norred was transferred
from the second to the third shift, he objected on the ground that if the third
shift should be discontinued he might find himself without a job, and that
the respondent met Norred's objection by. a promise to take care of him on the
first or second shift if the third shift was discontinued. Swords was not
called as a witness, and no attempt was made to explain the respondent's
failure to transfer Norred back to the second shift as Swords had promised.
Norred had worked as an extra hand for several weeks on the second shift
before being assigned to the slubber and long draft machine, and was acquainted
with various types of work. Admittedly, he was ail efficient and reliable-
employee.
Norred was chosen president of the plant local in June, after he had been
assigned by Swords to the third shift. The undersigned believes that this
activity in behalf of the Union was the real reason for the respondent's failure
to transfer Norred back to the second shift when the third shift was terminated.
He finds that the respondent, by discharging Norred, has discriminated in regard
to his hire and tenure of employment and has interfered with, restrained and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
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 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 practices;
affecting commerce, including threats to shut down its mill and shutting down
its mill, which, when taken together with the other facts and circumstances
above set forth, demonstrate a hostility toward the Union and a determination
to undermine it as a bargaining agent of the respondent's employees, the-
undersigned will recommend that the respondent cease and desist therefrom
and from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. He
will further recommend that the respondent take certain affirmative action
which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate
PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS ° 1233
unit. The undersigned will recommend that, upon request, the respondent
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees in an appropriate unit in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment
It has been found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged D. J.
Norred, thereby discouraging concerted activities by its employees. In order
to effectuate the policies of the Act it will be recommended that the respond-
ent offer Norred immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and that the respondent make him whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned
as wages from the date of his discriminatory discharge to the date of the
respondent's offer of reinstatement less his net earnings 4 during said period.
Finally, because of its widespread hostility to the efforts of its employees to
organize, as demonstrated by this record, indicating an intent to interfere
generally with the rights of the employees as guaranteed by the Act, the
undersigned will recommend that the respondent cease and desist from in any
ether manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in their
right to self-organization.'
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. All employees at the respondent's Egan plant, including watchmen, but
excluding office and clerical employees, overseers, second hands, and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
and otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend
such action, at all times material herein constituted and now constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Textile Workers Union of America was, on February 23, 1945, and at all
times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all employees in such
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a)
of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America
as exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate, unit, the respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of D. J.
Norred, thereby discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of America,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged
4 See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. R. B. 440, 497-498.
" See May Department Stores v. N. L. it. B., 326 .U. S. 376, aff 'g as modified , 146 F. (2d)
66 (C. C. A. 8), enf'g 53 N. L R. B. 1366.
1234 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
7. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, Piedmont Cotton Mills, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees at the respondent's Egan plant, including watchmen,
but excluding office and clerical employees, overseers, second hands, and all
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, disci-
pline, and otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively
recommend such action, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment ;
(b) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of America by dis-
criminatorily discharging and refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist:Textile Workers Union of America, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees at the respondent' s Egan plant, including watchmen,
but excluding office and clerical employees, overseers, second hands, and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
and otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recom-
mend such action, in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment;
(b) Offer D. J. Norred immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges ;
(c) Make whole D. J. Norred for any loss of earnings he may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages
but for the discrimination against him, 'in the manner set forth in the section
entitled "The remedy" ;
(d) Post at its mill, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A."
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, shall be
PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS 1235
posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by
it for sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by other material;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent
has taken to comply therewith
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10 ) days from the
date of the receipt of the Intermediate Report the respondent shall notify said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent
to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22 , 1947, any party may,
within twenty ( 20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations,
file with the Board, Rochambeau Building , Washington 25, D. C., an original
and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the
Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding ( including
rulings upon all motions or objections ) as he relies upon, together with the
original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within
the same period , file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the
Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of excep-
tions and/,or briefs , the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon
each of the other parties. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers
filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As
further provided in said Section 203.46, should any party desire permission
to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing
to the Board within ten ( 10) days from the date of service of the order
transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions, recommendations and recom-
mended order herein contained shall , as provided in Section 203.48 of said
Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, con-
clusions and order , and all objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
HORACE A. RUCKEL,
Trial Examiner.
Dated October 8, 1947.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, or any
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
.of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
,pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
,to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
.them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other
conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is : All employees
at the Egan plant, including watchmen, but excluding office and clerical
employees, overseers, second hands, and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, and otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action.
The employee to be reinstated is:
D. J. Norred
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
.organization.
PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS,
Employer.
Dated----------------------- By------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed
-forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed
forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
the altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.