Piedmont Shirt Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 313 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter 'of PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY and AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA _
Case No. C-2486.-Decided April 30,1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
'Upon complaint issued pursuant to charges duly filed by Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America , herein called the Union,
against Piedmont Shirt Company, herein called - the respondent, a
hearing was held before a Trial Examiner in Greenville , South Caro-
lina, from November 16 to 20, 1942 , in -which the Board, the re-
spondent , and, the Union participated by their representatives. The
Board has reviewed the rulings the Trial Examiner made on motions
and objections to,the admission of evidence and finds that, no preju-
dicial errors were committed . The rulings, are hereby affirmed.
On January 8, 1943, the Trial Examiner,issued his Intermediate
Report, finding that the respondent had engaged in violations of the
Act. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report- and a brief were there-
after , filed by the respondent. Oral argument was held before the
Board on April 8, 1943. Upon our consideration of the entire rec-
ord, we affirm and adopt the findings of the Trial Examiner, except
insofar as • they are inconsistent with our findings and conclusions
hereinafter set forth.
The record is clear and we are convinced that, except as herein-
after noted, the respondent engaging in the unfair labor practices as
found by the Trial Examiner . In August 1937 the Union filed a
charge; alleging that the respondent had discriminatorily discharged
employee Marie Hestor. After some negotiations the proceeding was
settled by the respondent reinstating her. Thereafter , on Septem-
ber 30, 1937, the respondent posted on the plant bulletin board a
notice which , after stating the rights of the employees to self-
organization, provided :
However , the Piedmont Shirt Company does not permit any
solicitation. or organization to go on, on our premises.
`49 N. L. R. B., -No. 39.
313•
314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
Therefore, we wish to serve notice on all workers that no solici-
tation in regard to labor organization or affiliations will be' per-'
mitted on these premises and the penalty for violation by any
employee will mean their immediate dismissal.
Early in 1939, following the issuance of an Intermediate Report
in which the respondent was found to have violated the Act with
respect to two Employees Associations at its plant, the members of
one Association evicted from the plant a number of'union employees,
prevented. their return to work, and threatened to evict others sus-
pected of being union members. Upon the filing of a charge by the
Union with respect to' the evicted employees, the parties entered into
a settlement agreement and stipulation, on the basis of which the
employees were reinstated with partial back pay and an order was
entered by the Board directing the respondent to cease and, desist
from engaging in certain unfair labor practices and to disestablish
the Associations. Notwithstanding the provisions of the 1937 notice,
above' set forth, calling for immediate dismissal of employees for
engaging in union solicitation or organization on company premises,
the respondent did not dismiss the employee members of the Asso-
ciation who were guilty of effecting the evictions, nor did it disci-
pline them in any respect.' Moreover, the record indicates that the
Association members enjoyed complete freedom in their above-
described conduct during the entire period from the evictions to the
execution of the settlement agreement.
In September 1939 an employee member of the Piedmont Shirt
Workers Union 2 collected dues inside the respondent's . plant ^;,In .a,
letter to the Board's Regional Director the Union complained that
the respondent's acquiescence in this activity and in the discussion of
union affairs upon company time' and property was in violation of
the terms of the aforementioned Board order. 'Following an inves-
tigation by the Regional Office, the employee engaged in collecting
dues was instructed to do so outside the door of the plant. As in
the case 'of the evicting 'employees, however, the respondent neither
discharged nor disciplined this employee. At this time'the respond-
ent, 'at the suggestion of the Regional Office, posted a notice in the
plant prohibiting the "collection of dues in behalf of any labor or-
ganization, on company time or property," under penalty of being
"disciplined," and further providing that: I I
-, " The . respondent contends that the settlement agreement did. not provide for.,disci-
plinary action against the offending employees. However, the respondent's failure to dis-
cipline these employees was 'not charged as an unfair labor 'practice . Consequently, the
settlement agreement neither barred the respondent from taking disciplinary action nor
condoned its failure to do so. -
2 The record reveals no further information relative to this organization , ' except that it
Is uo longer in existence.
PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY - 315
Employees inust not discuss union affairs on company time
or 'property. Any employee violating this instruction will be
disciplined.
During the first half of 1942 the Union, in the course of a mem-
bership drive; 'distributed a number of circulars among the em-
ployees. Thereafter Shepard Saltzman, the respondent's president,
addressed the employees assembled in the plant during working hours
on April 14 and July 20, 1942, allegedly for the purpose of correct-
ing'misleading statements appearing in the circulars. During the
course of these speeches Saltzman disparaged the Union; charac-
terized the circulars as "a pack of lies and propaganda"; intimated
that the Union was intimidating the employees into joining, and was
making "fools" of them ; minimized and misrepresented the Union's
campaign promise of a $2-a-week wage increase by flatly telling the
employees that only the Government could grant a larger -minimum
wage; and made it perfectly clear that no useful purpose would be
gained by, joining the Union. While it appears that the circulars
may have contained some inaccuracies," they were of a type and con-
tained statements generally used by unions in membership campaigns.
Like the Trial Examiner, we find that President Saltzman took ad-
vantage of the occasions to disparage the Uniol4 and its legitimate
functions, and that his statements, were plainly intended to discour-
age the employees from joining the Union and thereby deprive them
of the benefits of collective bargaining 4,
During the latter part of August and early part of September the
campaign for union members was renewed. Employees James
Watkins, Heyward Roach, and Horace Bates of the cutting depart-
ment, and Viola Edwards and Bernie Godfrey of the sewing depart-
ment, in varying degrees promoted the Union among the other em-
-ployees in the plant, both during and outside of working hours. On
September 7,1942, the above-named employees reported for work wear-
ing union buttons for the first time, a fact which aroused some com-
ment among the employees. The work was interrupted to some extent
durink^the morning by the fact that the employees were on the lookout
for a Labor Day parade which was expected to pass by the plant.
3 One circular, particularly assailed by Saltzman, stated that the respondent had raised
the retail prices of its shirts to $1 95 and $2.45, without granting a corresponding raise
in wages to its employees. The respondent introduced into evidence clippings from news-
papers advertising the sale of its shirts at that time for $1 75 and $2.
4 Matter of National Mineral Company and Chrome Furniture, Handlers and Miscel-
laneous Craft Union, No. 658, etc., 39 N. L. It. B 344, at 365, enf'd 12 L. R. R. 122 (C. C. A.
7). See also N. L. R B. v. Stone, 125 F. (2d) 752, at 756 (C. C. A. 7), enf'g as mod. Mat-
ter of Norman H. Stone, et al. and International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union,
Box and Carton Local #415, 33 N. L. R. B. 1014, where the Court stated : "Of course we
assume that when the respondents were assailed, as they were by union letters, they natu-
rally felt an urge to reply. The campaign then being conducted, however, was not one
between the Union and respondents. It was a contest toward which they should have
maintained a strictly neutral attitude."
316 DECISIONS OE: NAATION,AL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon observing some cutting=room employees grouped together in
a discussion during, working hours on the morning of September 7,
President Saltzman summoned a few cutting department employees
and learned from them that the employees were discussing union mat-
ters, and that Watkins, Roach, and Bates' were the ringleaders.
Throughout the clay Saltzman summoned additional cutting-depart-,
ment employees and interrogated them as to whether. they had been
approached by all or any of these three employees concerning the Unioii
on company time or property, and obtained signed affidavits, prepared
in his office, from virtually all of them to that' effect. Later during
the same day Saltzman noticed Viola Edwards and Bernie Godfrey
talking to other employees in the sewing department. He thereupon
repeated the above-described procedure in the sewing department and
likewise obtained a number of affidavits with respect to the union',
activities of Edwards and Godfrey.
The Trial Examiner found that in obtaining these affidavits Saltz-
man failed to remain within the reasonable limits of his inquiry and
utilized this inquiry further to coerce 'and intimidate the employees
With' reference to their union affiliations. We agree and so find. - Thus,
Saltzman discussed with one employee the procedure for withdrawing
from the Union, and suggested writing a letter to that 'effect to the
Union 5 he inquired of another employee whether her mother knew
she belonged to the Union. One of the affidavits s contained statements
to the-effect that the affiant was tricked into joining the Union and'
had already requested a withdrawal of his signed card, and then went
into detail concerning his reasons for having joined the Union. Only
a small portion of this affidavit was devoted'to the fact that the affiant'
had been solicited by Watkins and Roach at the plant.
- The next day, September 8, Saltzman summoned Watkins, Roach,
and Bates and told them that they were discharged "for soliciting mem-
bership for the Union during company time and on the premises of
our company." Later in the day Godfrey and Edwards were dis=
charged, allegedly for the violation of the rule forbidding the discus=
Sion of union affairs on company time or property. Before discharbin g
Bernie Godfrey, Saltzman questioned her about her union affiliation
and inquired whether she had signed a card in the plant or at the
union meeting the night before. When Godfrey replied that she was
a member of the Union and had signed a card at the meeting, Saltzman'
wanted to know who had solicited her to join. Godfrey stated that-she,
had been invited by Viola Edwards, whereupon Saltzman inquired as
At least two other employees withdrew from the Union after Saltzman conferred with
them in his office.
e Only two affidavits were introduced into evidence , but a number of employees testified
that they signed such affidavits.
''PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY 317
to the number who attended the meeting. He further asked her if
she knew,that she could not get a job anywhere else if she were a union
member. Saltzman spoke in a similar vein to Viola Edwards. He
interrogated her as to her reasons for joining the Union, told her he
believed she had been "mislead" and "persuaded" into joining, and
asked her if she did not see newspaper headlines stating that strikes
cause trouble and "are just rackets." He also inquired as to the at-
tendance at the meeting the night before, and asked if the Union had
a majority or expected to get a majority of the employees in the plant;
He further told her that she could not get a job any place if he dis-
charged her for talking union in his shop. To Horace Bates' plea
for reconsideration Saltzman stated that he was sorry it happened,
but "this Union was one thing I-could not tolerate."
The, Trial Examiner found that the discharges were ostensibly
under the protection of the 1937 notice prohibiting solicitation under
penalty of dismissal, but that, in view of the respondent's failure to
discipline the Association members in 1939 for their more aggravated
form of union, activity, the rule was, not intended to be applied and
in fact was not applied to all employees alike, and that in the instant
case was used as a subterfuge to discourage membership in the. Union.
The respondent contends, however, that the employees were dis-
charged for engaging in union activity on company time and property
in violation of the 1939 notice, and that such activities, seriously inter-
fered with production. We are of the opinion that it is immaterial
upon which notice the respondent relied. It is significant that, while
the 1937 notice calls for "immediate dismissal," the 1939 notice pro-
vides only for "discipline." Under these circumstances , it is reason-
able to infer that the 1939 notice contemplated a retention of the
employee status with punishment by way of temporary lay-off or
reprimand, especially in the absence of prior violations. Hence, 'a
summary discharge for union activities was not protected by the 1939
notice.' If the respondent intended to invoke the 1937 rule, then un-
doubtedly its application to the five union members was discriminatory
in view, of the respondent's failure to enforce the rule 'against the
Association members who were guilty of a more aggravated form of
union activity in evicting the union members in 1939, and against the
employee who was collecting dues for the Piedmont Shirt Workers
Union in September 1939.
Nor is there any merit to the respondent's contention that the
activities of the five union employees caused a serious decline in pro-
,duction.7 'The' record shows, and we find, that similar declines in
4 The record shows that these activities consumed no more time than other permissible
conduct in which the employees generally engaged ; that union discussions were carried
on without work interruptions; and that a majority of the specific instances of solicitation
occurred during the lunch periods , before and after working hours, and in the rest rooms.
318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAT-IO'NS, BOARD
production occurred on occasions before these employees began their
organizational activities, and also after 'their discharge when the
respondent introduced new machinery and production methods.
In any event, the record is clear, and we find, that in discharging
the five'union, members the respondent was moi;iyated neither by a
desire to enforce the 1937 or 1939 rule nor to,'remedy a decline in
production. In his speeches to the employees in April and July 1942
President Saltzman openly opposed the Union's organizational cam-
paign and sought to discourage the employees from joining the Union.
That the respondent's true motive was further to discourage union
membership and to prevent the successful organization of its plant
may reasonably-be inferred from the nature of the statements and
inquiries which Saltzman addressed to the employees from whom he
sought affidavits concerning the union activities of the discharged
employees, from, the contents of the affidavits, and from the nature
of the statements, inquiries, threats, and warnings which Saltzman
addressed to the employees at the time of their discharge. This is not
to say that an employer may not lawfully enforce reasonable rules
forbidding union activities, merely because they were less stringently
enforced in the past. This is especially so in these tunes of grave
national emergency when it is essential that the employees exert
every effort to obtain maximum production. But the Act is violated
where, as here, -the record shows that the enforcement of the rule
is used as a subterfuge to cloak an unlawful motive. Upon the entire
record, we find, as did the Trial- Examiner, that the respondent dis-
charged Watkins, Roach, Bates, Edwards, and Godfrey because of
their union affiliation 'arid activities in order to discourage union
membership and to destroy the Union.
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent violated the Act
through the disparaging union statements of President- Saltzman in
his speeches of April 14 and July 20, 1942, his coercive and intimidat-
ing statements to the employees from whom he sought affidavits, and
his cquestioning of the discharged employees regarding the activities
of the Union and threatening statements to some of them; and
through the anti-union statements of Foreman Edwards and his in-
quiries concerning a ,union meeting. We agree and find that the
totality of the respondent's activities, as evidenced by the above-
mentioned conduct of President Saltzman and Foreman Edwards,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced the respondent's employees in
the exercise 'of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent refused" to employ
Clyde Cureton on or about December 31, 1937, and again in March,
.Tune, and August, 1942, because of his union membership and activ-
ities. We do not agree. We believe that the evidence is insufficient
PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY 319
,to warrant a-fielding of discrimination against. Cureton, particularly in
view of the fact that not until July 3, 1942, was,a charge filed alleging
discrimination for the 1937 .refusal to employ him, that there is no'
,cohxvincing , evidence. or circumstances to show that the respondent
knew that Cureton Was an active,union member'in 1942, and that on
-the first two occasions in 1942 Cureton merely filed an application
.blank, with the respondent's office girl. Accordingly, we shall dismiss
,the complaint insofar as it relates-to Cureton.a
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent refused, to employ
Eugene Cowart on June 30, 1939, and thereafter, because of his union
,membership and activities. Cowart; a member of the Union since
1937, was discharged by. the respondent on April 4, 1939, during the
period when the Association members were evicting union members
from the plant, as related above. At the time of his discharge he was
_a short-knife cutter. The Union filed a -charge against the respondent
_on his behalf. The April 18, 1939, settlement agreement above referred
to provided, among other things, that '-Cowart shall-be placed upon
a preferential list and shall be given first opportunity for employment
on the work in which he Was engaged at, the time of his lay=off .. .
[and] that no other outside worker, may be employed to perform either
this class of work or any other work which would permit the distribu-
tion among other employees of the work to which Cowart may be
entitled." Cowart was at no time thereafter offered, reemployment,
although he applied to Superintendent Abrams in August 1939, and
to Foreman Edwards in the spring and August of 1942.
The respondent contends that it was under no obligation to offer
Cowart reemployment under the agreement, for the following reasons :
(1) at the time when the respondent considered reemploying_Cowart
it knew that lie was then employed by the Nuckasee Company at higher
wages; (2) Cowart did not apply for reemployment within a reason-
able period of time after the execution of the agreement; (3) he was
subsequently discharged by the Nuckasee Company for cause, and the
agreement did not contemplate reemployment unless he maintained
himself as a competent short-knife cutter; and (4) the agreement only
prohibited the respondent from hiring "outside workers" or additional
workers as short-knife cutters, and no outside workers were employed
as short-knife cutters or to replace those transferred to short-knife
cutting or to replace those transferred to short-knife cutting subse-
quent to Cowart's discharge.
The foregoing contentions are without merit. The respondent
attempts to shift to Cowart the affirmative obligation imposed- upon
The Trial Examiner also found that the respondent did not violate Srction 8 (4) of the
:Act in refusing to hire Cureton on and after April 1942, as alleged in the complaint. We
agree and so find.
320, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,it by the agreement. The provision that "Cowart shall be placed upon
,a preferential list and shall be given first opportunity for employment"
clearly contemplates an offer -of employment by the respondent when
available., Such obligation is not fulfilled until the respondent has
made an offer for Cowart to act upon, regardless of whether Cowart
has better employment elsewhere or was discharged for cause else-
where. Furthermore, since Cowart's discharge the respondent has
hired a number of new employees in the cutting department. At the
same time employees in the department were transferred from other
jobs to short-knife cutting. At least three short-knife cutters volun-
tarily left their jobs during this period and were reinstated upon
-application., Despite these periodic vacancies in short-knife cutting,
the' respondent never' offered employment- to Cowart. Moreover, the
respondent admitted training employees as short-knife cutters and
-transferring them' from other jobs to cutting. 'Like the Trial Exam-
iner, we find that the respondent adopted this method 'of filling short-
knife cutters' vacancies as a subterfuge to avoid', reemploying Cowart,
contrary to the provisions of the agreement, and that the respondent
,refused to hire Cowart on June 30, 1939,9 and thereafter, because of
his union membership and activity. -
THE' REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices. We will therefore order the respondent to cease and
,desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action which we find
will effectuate the policies of the Act. • •
We have found that ,the respondent discriminatorily discharged
James Watkins, Heyward Roach, Horace Bates, Viola Edwards, and
Bernie Godfrey because of their,union membership and activity in
order to discourage union membership and to destroy the Union., We
Have also' found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire of Eugene Cowart by refusing to employ him because of his
union membership and activity.. In order to effectuate the purposes,
and-policies of the Act, we shall order the respondent to offer Watkins,
,Roach, Bates, Edwards, and Godfrey immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions, and to Cowart
immediate employment to the same or substantially equivalent position
to which he would have been hired on June 30, 1939, as provided for
in the settlement agreement above referred to, without prejudice to
O The Trial Examiner 's finding as to this date was based upon the fact that June was
the first month in which new employees were hired in the cutting department after the
April 18, 1939 , agreement . Since the actual . day of the first hiring in June is not disclosed
.by the record ,, the last , day of- the month is used. we agree with ' this determination and
so find. - - ) - ' • •
PIEDMONT SIURT 'COMPANY 321
the seniority and other rights and privileges of the six, named em-
ployees. We shall also order the respondent to make them whole for
any loss of pay each has suffered by reason of the respondent's dis-
crimination;'by payment to each of a sum of money he or she normally
would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to
the date of the offer of reinstatement and employment, less the respec-
tive net earnings of each during that period. 0
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is'a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire of Eugene Cowart, and.
thereby discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. 'By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of Heyward Roach,. James Watkins, Horace Bates, Viola Edwards,
live net earnings of each during that period.")
and Bernie Godfrey, thereby discouraging membership in Amalgam-
ated Clothing Workers of America, the respondent has engaged in
and is' elgaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning 'of -
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of, the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the•meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section' 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.,
. 6. By refusing to employ Clyde Cureton on and after December
1937 the respondent did not engage in an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) and (4) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Piedmont Shirt Company,
-30 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, 'incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining'work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which • would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
-of, Crossett ' Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
toa; Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2590, 8 N.4 L R. B. 440 ^, Monies received
for work performed upon Federal , State , county, municipal , or other work -relief projects
' shall be considered as earnings .' See Republic Steel Corporation d. N. L. R.-B., 311 U. S. T.
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Greenville, South 1Carolina,-its officers, •ageiits; successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated-Clothing-Workers
of America, or any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
criminating in regard to their, hire and tenure of employment or any
terms or conditions of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise°of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-, __
resen"tatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid oi- pro'-
tection,"as guaranteed in Sectibn'7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative'action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) - Offerimmediate employment to Eugene Cowart'at the, same
or substantially equivalent position to which lie would'have been em-
,ployed on June 30, 1939, had the respondent not unlawfully refused
to hire him; -
(b)' M',ke whole Eugene Cowart for any loss of pay he has suffered
by'reason of the respondent's discrimination against him, by payment
to him of a slim of money equivalent to the amount he normally would,,
have earned as wages from June 30, 1939, to'the date of the offer'-''ot-
employment, less his net earnings during such period;
(c) Offer to' Heyward Roach,-James `Watkins, Horace Bates, Viola
Edwards, and Bernie Godfrey immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially 'equiValent' positions without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges;
(d) Make whole Heyward, Roach, James Watkins, Horace Bates,
Viola Edwards, and Bernie Godfrey for any loss of pay they have
'suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them,. .
'by payment to each of a sum of money equivalent to the amount he
or she would normally have earned as wages from September 8, 1942,
to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during such period;
(e) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Green-
ville, South Carolina, and maintain for a, period, of at least sixty, (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b)
of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action
set forth in paragraphs 2 i(a)','(b), (c)',' and (d),of this Order; and
(3) that the, respondent's employees are, free to become or remain mem-
bers - of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of -America, or any other
labor organization, and that the respondent will not discriminate
k
PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY 323
against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf
.bf^that, organization;
(f) 'Notify'the Regional Director for the Tenth Region within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT • I6 FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the, complaint
with respect to Clyde Cureton be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. 31am,ion A. Proaoell,, for the Board _
Messrs.-C. Graaeille 1Pljc:he, Thomas F. lPofford, and Alfred F. Baigess, of
Greenville, S C, for the respondent.
Mr. Carl F. Albrecht, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon, a third amended charge duly filed on October 3, 1942, by the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, herein called the Union, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Tenth
Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated October 24, 1942, against
Piedmont Shirt Company, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affeetnng commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (4) and Section 2 (6) and (7), of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act. Copies of
the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and .
the Unioiii:
.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance,
that the respondent: (1) refused to employ Clyde Cuncton on or about April
1938. March 4, 1942, April 1942, and at all times thereafter, and refused to employ
Eugene Cowart on or about April 18, 1939, and at all tines thereafter, because
they joined and assisted the Union or were suspected of having done so, or
engaged in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection; (2) refused to
employ Clyde Cuieton on and after April 1042, because "a charge was filed in
his behalf with the National Labor Relations Board"; (3) discharged, or laid
off George Campbell, Heyward Roach, James Watkins, Horace Bates, Viola
Edwards„ and Bernie Godfrey in September 1:;42 and has since refused to re in-
state them because they joined or assisted the union or were suspected of having
done so, or engaged in concerted activities for mutual protection; and, (4) by
the foregoing acts, and by disparaging the Union, by questioning, advising, and
warning its employees concerning the Union and membership therein and in
various other manners specified in the complaint, the respondent interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
- The respondent filed its answer dated November 4, 1942,- admitting the alle-
gations concerning the nature of its business,activities but denying all other allega-
tions of the complaint.
Pursuant 'to notice, a hearing was'held from November+l6 to November 20, 1942,
at Greenville. South Carolina, before J J. Fitzpatrick, the undersigned Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the
respondent were.reprdsented by counsel,, the Union by an organizer. All par-
ticipated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to exam-
ine and cross -ex amnine'witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
531647--43-vol. 49-22
1
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the conclusion•of the hearing the undersigned: granted, without objection;-a
motion by Board's counsel to dismiss the allegation in the complaint as to the
.discriminatory discharge or lay-off of George Campbell- and motions to conform
the pleadings to the proof. At that time also the respondent moved to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety for the reason that no proof had been adduced to sustain
the allegations of unfair labor practices. The motion was taken under advise-
ment and is hereby denied. At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the
Board and'for the respondent presented oral arguments on the record. The par-
ties were also advised of their right to file briefs with the undersigned upon the
-close of the hearing. No briefs have been filed.
Upon the entire, record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, o
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Piedmont Shirt Company, a South Carolina corporation, is en-
gaged in the manufacture of men's shirts and sportswear. It owns and operates
plants in Greenville and Greenwood, South Carolina. It operates a plant at
Tampa, Florida, and it owns a plant at Abbeville, South Carolina, presently
leased to other operators. During the first 6 months of 1942, the respondent man-
ufactured merchandise of the approximate value of $1,300,000, approximately 95
percent 'of which was shipped to points outside South Carolina During the same
period the respondent purchased material and supplies of the approximate value
•of $600,000, approximately $500,000 thereof being . purchased-from poinfs-outside
:South Carolina. This controversy involves only' the Greenville, South Carolina
plant. The respondent admitted that it is engaged in business which substantially
affects interstate commerce?
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of -America is a labor organization affili-
ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership
,employees of the respondent.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRAGTICES
A. Background
The Union or its predecessor, the Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
herein called T. W. O. C., has been more or less active in the respondent's Green-
ville plant, since at least the summer of 1937. The respondent has, in the past,
had. numerous charges against it lodged with the Board by the Union, :or the
T. W.'• O. C., dating back to 1937 and involving general acts of intimidation-
and coercion, discriminatory discharges, domination of a labor organization
-and permitting uniun employees to be ejected from and kept out of the plant
-by anti-union employees. In connection with the domination charge, a hearing
was held. The other charges with two exceptions were settled by reinstatement,
posting notices, etc The first case arose in 'August 1937 on a, charge' filed
by T. W 0 C. which involved the alleged discharge of one Marie Hester. After
1 Campbell did not appear at the hearing or'testify . I He is with the United States armed
forces . , •
R
The finding as to commerce is based upon a stipulation of the patties and the admis-
sions in the respondent's answer.
-PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY 325
some negotiations with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, the respond-
ent reinstated her, the exact date of reinstatement not being shown. However,
on September 30, 1937 , the following notice was posted on the official bulletin
'board and has remained there at all times up to the time of the hearing.'
Notice to All Employees :
According to the clauses of the National Labor Relations' Act, every
worker `has the right of free self organization ; or the right to join or
form any Union . The employer has no right to discuss or 'encourage any
worker to join or become a member of any particular Union or to discourage
their joining with any particular Union.
The Management of this factory proposes to abide by the law.
However, the Piedmont Shirt Company does not permit any solicitation
or organization to go on, on our premises.
Therefore, we, wish' to serve notice on all workers that no, solicitation
in regard to labor organization or Union affiliations will be permitted on
these premises and- the penalty for violation by any employee will mean
their immediate dismissal.
PIEDMONT S HIRT COMPANY,
HARRY S. ABRjMs, Supt.'
In 1939 and for sometime prior thereto, the respondent's white employees
were, organized under the name Piedmont Shirt' Company White Employees As-
sociation. The colored employees were, at the same time , organized under the
name Piedmont Shirt Company Colored Employees Association. On charges
filed by, the Union in 1938 the Board issued a complaint against the respondent
charging it among other things, with violating the provisions of Section 8 (2) of
the Act with respect to these two labor. organizations. On April .18"1939, after
a hearing before a Trial Examiner in February 1939 and following the issuance
of his Intermediate Report, a settlement stipulation. was entered into by all
parties, on the basis of which the Board issued its order directing,that certain
remedial action be taken by the respondent'
The latter part of March or first part of April 1939, members of the' White
Employees Association evicted five employee members of the Union and prevented
their return to work for a number of days. „On April 4, 1939, the Union filed a
charge alleging that the respondent
subsequent to and during a hearing of the National Labor Relations Board,
which concluded on February 24, 1939, warned its employees against, engaging
in activities on behalf of the Amalgamated Clothing Woikers of America,
urged its employees to withdraw their memberships in the said Amalgamated,
questioned members of and sympathizers with said Amalgamated concerning
3 On occasion the notice would be torn down but was promptly replaced by another copy.
Early in 1942 the respondent moved from rented quarteis to its own building in Green-
ville The above notice was posted and maintained in the new plant
4 The Board ordered the respondent to : (1) cease acid desist from : '(a) interfering with
its employees ; (b) dominating the two Employees Associations ; (c) checking off dues for
the two Associations; (d) allowing either of the Associations to use the respondent's facili-
ties or its employees to make loans to or collect loans from association members ; and (e)
permitting the Associations to meet upon the respondent 's premises or use the respondent's
facilities in transacting business ; ( 2) withdraw all recognition from the two Associations
as representatives of its employees and completely disestablish them , and post notices of
compliance Iii the Matter of Piedmont Shirt Company and Amalgamated Clothing Work-
ers of America, 13 N L It B. 14 , Case No. C-1227 ' On June 13 , 1939, the respondent
posted in its plant notice of the terms of the order and its compliance therewith.
I
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its, activities, and incited its employees to riot against members of and.
sympathizers with said Amalgamated . . . On or about March 27, 1939. . .
did incite its employees, and members of .the Piedmont Shirt Company
(White) Employees Association to riot and permitted said rioting employees
to physically eject certain members of and/or sympathizers' with the said
Amalgamated from the company's plant. Said company has refused and is
refusing to give'[five named employees protection in the plant and is refusing-
thereby to permit them to work . . . because of their membership in and/or
activities on behalf of said Amalgamated.
On April 4, 1939, the .respondent discharged `Eugene Cowart who immediately
reported the fact to the Union with the result that a charge was also filed on his
behalf. '
On April 11, 1939, the respondent and the Union entered into a settlement
agreement, augmented by a supplemental agreement, on April -18, whereby the-
Union withdrew the last two charges above referred to in consideration of the-
reinstatement of the five evicted employees, the payment to each of them of one
week's earnings and the respondent's agreement that
i
Eugene Cowart shall be placed upon a preferential list and shall be given
first opportunty for employment on the work in which he was engaged at the
time of his layoff on April 4, 1939. It is further agreed that no other outside-
worker may be employed to perform either this class of woikor any other
work which would permit the dictt ibution among other employees of the woa k
to which Cowart may be entitled.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the 1937 notice above quoted, with reference
to dismissal',for'engagili .:iii-unioir solicitation or organization on the company'
premises, no disciplinary action was taken against those who participated in the
e^ictrons, nor did the settlement agreement provide for any such action.
In September 1939 a complaint'was made by the Union that the respondent was
violating the terms of the Board's order in Case C-1227 in that the respondent was
permitting the collection of dues for a labor organization known as the Piedmont
Shirt Workers.Unions and that-some of the enij)loyees were discussing union
affairs on company time and property The Board's Regional Office at Atlanta
made an investigation, as a result of which, the respondent, at the suggestion of
the Regional Office, posted the following notice: '
Complaints have been made to' the management by the' Tenth Regional
Office 'of the Labor Board at Atlanta' that ,The Piedmont Shirt V^rorkers
Union is collecting dues or loans on company time and property in violation
of the National Labor Relations Act. For this reason, the management
wishes to notify its employees that.
1. There must be no collection of dues in behalf of any labor organization,
on company time or property. Anyone violating this instruction will be
disciplined.
2. Employees must not discuss union affairs on company time or property.
Any employee violating this itistrnction will be'drsciplined
3. The management lakes this occasion to reiterate its purpose of abiding-
by the stipulated order heretofore entered into between the company and the
L The Piedmont Shirt Workers Union came into existence in the Greeuville-plant in 1!13:)_
It ceased to function after that year. .
1
PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY 327
National Labor Relations Board, copies of which have heretofore been
posted for the iiispection of the employees.
PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY
By: SHEPARD SALTZMAN, Piesident.e
B. Interference, restraint, and cocicion
During the spring of 1942, the Union, in the course of a membership drive,
,distributed circulars among the respondent's employees stating in effect, among
other things, that: (a) higher wages had been secured in other shirt factories
through the Union's efforts; (b) although the respondent's business had-expanded
and it had increased its profits by raising the retail prices of its shirts it had not
raised its employees' wages proportionately. On April 14, Shepard Saltzman,
the respondent's president and treasurer, made a speech to the employees wherein
he maintained that the statements contained in the Union's circulars were mis-
leading. In the course of his remarks Saltzman said:
You are being told that:
1. That the Piedmont Shirt Company is attacking the 40 hour week which
is granted to you by law.
2. That the conditions of your work are,unfair and that they, could be
better.
3. That the wage rates in the shirt industry are being raised all over the
United States.
4. That if you join up with some outside union that your minimum wages
will be $18 per week instead of $16 per week,'
5. That the price of Wing shirts now being sold at retail are $195.each
and $245 each, and inasmuch as our prices have been raised so substantially,
why has not your salary been raised?
The purpose of my speaking to you today is to explain to you and to
examine with you very carefully these above statements. The people who
are sending these letters to you have a right to say anything they may want
td'say to you, but it is evident that they, ought to tell the truth. Are they
.doing it? No They make everything sound like the truth, but they'do not
tell the real truth, the actual truth, nor do they act fair in the manner that
they-go abort making these statements.
Saltzman then denied that the respondent was attacking tbe,40 hour week. He
explained that there was agitation by "a great many people" who wanted the
work week extended to 48 hours so that the armament program could be increased,
but ,that it had iiothing to do with shirt manufacturing. He then added :
Is this the way these outside- influences who are sending you these circu-
lars are explaining it to you? No, they are twisting this whole business
around to make you believe that the Piedmont Shirt Company is fighting to
destroy your rights under the 40 hour week If you have gained this im-
pression from the circulars you have received, don't you believe this because
it is only a pack of lies, and propaganda to induce you to do something which,
as an American citizen, you have a right to do yourself according to your own
way of, thinking It is only being done to make you distrust [the respondent]
and also its management.
On the second point Saltzman went into considerable detail to explain provisions
the respondent had made for healthful, sanitary and pleasant working conditions.
As to the third point that rates of pay were being raised all over the country
This notice was thereafter also kept posted in the new Greenville plant.
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the shirt industry, Saltzman said, "this is not altogether true.", He admitted
a small recent hourly raise "per section" among two of the respondent's largest
competitors but explained that a section was made up of from 5, to 12 people and
that the raise was very nominal per employee. He then added. "It is certainly
nothing to make a big fuss about. However, these expert circular senders use
this as a means of misleading all other plants-and make-every employee-believe
that this is five cents per hour per person." He referred to the Union's contention
that all of the employees of a competitor made a weekly wage of $25 00 per week,
and said: "This is not true and, is only meant to mislead you." He admitted
a few employees in the competitor might make that amount, but asserted that
the average was about the-same as the respondent paid.
Saltzman then referred to the 4th point
Statements have been made to you if you want to join some kind of an
outside association that you would definitely get a minimum of $18 per week
instead of the minimum of $16 per week which we are paying you. Whether
you join an outside association or union or listen to these outside influences
or not, you still will not receive a larger minimum unless this larger minimum.
is granted by the United States Government under the Wage and Hour Law.
No outside influences or union of any kind has any power to set any minimum
rate for the employees. It is therefore untruthful for them to make the,
statement that you can make a larger minimum than you are now getting.
By clippings taken from newspapers published throughout the country, and
which clippings were passed among, the employees at,the meeting, Saltzman
demonstrated that the advertised retail price of the respondent's shirts in.
1942 was less than that stated in the Union circulars. After commenting on
the rapid growth of the respondent' s business and its prominent place in the
community Saltzman asked the employees to show "confidence" in the manage-
ment. He then added :
Please remember, and I want this to be specifically understood by each
and everybody here, that I am not preaching against any union nor-about
your .joining -any' union.. You have a right under the law of the United
States to join any, union of your own choosing which you may see fit.
Whether it is a good union or a bad union, whether it is a good thing
for you or a bad thing for you is left entirely up to you to decide. All
I wanted to do is to keep any union, regardless of which union it may be,
from telling.you a pack of lies and to make you believe things are true when
they are definitely not true and' when they are being misrepresented to-
you. Nobody has any right to come in to destroy your morale and to in-
timidate you into joining any kind of organization by reason of telling
you a lot of falsehoods or by making statements and impossible promises
that they cannot perform.
On July 20, 1942, Saltzman gave another talk to the employees about the
respondent's business and its history. In the course of his remarks be again
referred to the Union circulars as follows :
With [in] recent weeks, a great many of our employees have received
circulars from a union, in which certain statements have been made.
Those statements are not true, and again this union continues to de-
liberately exaggerate, to lie, and to try to confuse you by misstatement, of
facts. I am going to reply to some of them now.
PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY 329'
Saltzman then-said that the statement in one circular that the respondent's
-employees-had to eat in its cafeteria was a "deliberate lie" and that the con-
tention of the Union that the respondent's profits "have been tremendous" was
untrue. He continued:
In the same bulletin, the Piedmont Shirt Company was accused of firing
employees because they signed cards in the union. Do not allow this
union' to make fools of you. This statement is certainly not true, because
if this statement were true, they could, go [to] the National Labor Re-
lations Board and cause us to close our business. This is against the labor
laws, and you know that the statement the union is making in this respect
is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, they are now trying to make charges
against us because we refused to hire a boy who worked for us seven years
ago and who was discharged by us because he was a rotten worker and
- would not take orders from his superiors. They are making the accusation
that we will not hire him because he is an organizer. This charge has no
foundation of fact. In other words, they do this to put us in a bad light
and'give us bad publicity.? Remember when a union gives a company bad
publicity, they also give bad publicity to the people who are employed by
this company.
Saltzman branded as a "mis-statement" the contention of • the Union that the
respondent was increasing its rates because the Union was organizing. In, this
connection Saltzman observed:
There is no union in the world that, could make me, your employer, fair
minded or decent in this respect. I happened to be born that way and I
intend to remain that way. What they are trying to do is to brand me
as a man who abuses his help and who refuses to pay them reasonable
compensation for their work and who does not have the interest of his
employees at heart.
In commenting upon the piece rate advances that had been granted Saltzump
told the employees that there had been no recent request by the employees
for advances. He then added : "nor am I one bit afraid of any outside influence
that might have been attempted to have me make these advances." Near the
conclusion' of his speech Saltzman said :
I am not giving you advice as to whether you should join this or any,
other union. I am not against unionism if it were conducted in- an honor-
ableand decent way, but I am going to,.fight to the best of my ability the
constant lies, the dirty underhanded methods they are using to confuse
my people, and whenever I catch them making misstatements of facts, I
will be here to answer them truthfully, and you can be your own judge as to
what is being said of the management of the Piedmont Shirt Company.
Both the Apiil and July talks by' Saltzman to the employees were prepared
'speeches and appeal in the record. In both instances, the respondent's president
went'far beyond answering allegedly misleading propaganda, and took advantage
of the occasion to disparage the Union and its legitimate functions.
On September 8, the respondent discharged James Watkins, Howard-Roach,
Horace Bates,-Bernie Godrey and Viola-Edwaids; allegedly because they engaged
in union activities and solicited union membership on company time and property
7 This statement of Saltzman obviously refers to the case of Clyde Cureton. As found
in III-D , Cureton was not discharged , but left the respondent 's employ in 1936 to take a
position with another concern
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATiO1S BOARD
in- violation of a coinpany rule.! For a week or more prior to-the discharges;
a volunteer committee consisting of the five employees, named above were active
in promoting interest in the Union among the employees and securing members
To that end, about the 1st of September a supper was held in a local restaurant
for some of the employees, at which a representative of'the Union spoke. The
day of the evening on which the supper was held, Foreman Toy Edwards of
the cutting department, asked Watkins, according to the'latter.,if'hct,was going
to the union meeting that night; that when Watkins replied in the affirmative
Edwards asked him if he was a member of the Union, and when Watkins
replied that he was a member, Edwards cautioned Watkins not to say anything
about the conversation and added: "If we are going to have a union, why
don't we get a good union?" Edwards admitted the conversation but at first
denied the above version. - Later in his testimony lie admitted that the talk
-vas "partially" about the Union, and that,he asked Watkins if lie was going to
a supper, but added that at the time he did not know it was a union supper.
Edwards further admitted that about this time he had conversations with one
or two employees about unions and they may have told him what employees
were members of the Union. Edwards denial is therefore not credited, and it
is found that he made the statements substantially as testified to by Watkins
About September 15, a week subsequent to therdisch':urges, Saltzman sent for
Watkins and asked him if Mrs Newman 0 had anything to do with his joining
the Union or trying to organize the employees, and added that he believed Wat-
kins had been persuaded into joining the Union 10
After the discharges on September 8, Horace Bates while waiting for his pay
check asked Saltzman if 'he could not continue to work for the respondent.
According to Bates, Saltzman answered : "I am sorry it happened, but this
union is one thing I cannot tolerate." Saltzman admitted this talk but denied
the above quoted statement. In view of Saltznian's anti-union attitude as
nerein appears, his denial is not credited and it is found that lie made the state-
ment substantially as testified to by Bates.
Prior to her discharge on September 8, Saltzman sent for Bernie Godfrey
and questioned her in his office relative to Union activities in the plant.
Relative to this interview Godfrey testfied in substance: that Saltzman inquired
if she was a member of the Unions and, on receiving an 'affirmative answer,
asked her if she had signed, a card at 'the plant or at the union meeting the
night before; that she responded that she had joined at the meeting whereupon
Saltzman asked who had solicited her to sign the card ; that when she answered
that she had been invited to the meeting by Viola Edwards, Saltzman wanted
to know who and how many were at the meeting; and she had answered about
25. During the interview, according to Godfrey, Saltzman said to her : "did you
know that "you could not get a job anywhere else if you were a union' inember?"
The same day Saltzman talked to Viola,Edwards about her union activities'
in the plant. According to Edwards, Saltzman told her that he believed she
had been "misled" and "persuaded" into joining the Union ; he asked her why,
she had joined and she explained that it was because she wanted higher wages;
Saltzman then said that she had never asked him for a raise and she answered
9 The circumstances of these discharges are fully discussed in subdivision III-C, infra.
9 Mrs . Newman was a torelady for the respondent who had recently left its employ.
"This finding is based on the testimony of, Watkins and the admissions of Saltzman.
Saltzman testified that at the time he was checking on whether the disturbance "even
among the supervisors" was emanating from Newman and Superintendent Abrams, both
, of whom had recently left the respondent 's employ, and that he asked Watkins if Mrs.
Newman had put him up to "conduct union activities , and to do the things that hurt the
.company."
PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY 331,
that she did, not, think,it. would do, any..good Saltzman then asked-if she did-
not see the big headlines in the newspapers where "strikes, cause trouble-
they.are just rackets ;" she responded that she had seen the headlines and "they
maybe right or they may be wrong, but in some companies when they strike-
they strike for something that they wish to accomplish"; Saltzman then asked
her how many had attended the meeting and if the Union had a majority or
if it ever expected to get a majority in the respondent's plant . During the
interview Saltzman also said, according to Edwards. "I hate to see you go
because you can't get a job any place else if I fire you for talking union in
my shop."
Saltzman denied the above testimony of Godfrey and Edwards. He testified
that he confined his questioning of Godfrey to ascertaining whether shei had
talked about the Union or had been solicited to join on company time and
property. lie denied asking Edwards her reason for joining the Union or stat-
ing that she had been misled. He admitted that during the course of the talk
Edwards told him she had joined the Union because she was not making enough
money and that he had called her attention to the fact that, she had never
made a, personal complaint to him. Saltzman denied making the reference
about "strikes" and "rackets" attributed to him by Edwards, but later admitted
there was a discussion about strikes and that Edwards defended the right to
strike. He testified in this connection : "I thought she-was trying to get me
to join the Union." Ruby Dill, Saltzman's secretary, corrobol ated him as to
these interviews, but denied that he said anything in reference to strikes or
rackets. About the same time Saltzman questioned a number of other em-
ployees about union activities in the plant and dictated to Dill affidavits which
the employees afterwards signed. Dill corroborated Saltzman that in all these
interviews Saltzman confined his questioning to activities in the plant. How-
ever, there is testimony herein credited from other employees interviewed at
that time by Saltzman, to the effect that Saltzman's questions went beyond
inquiries about union -activities in the plant." Furthermore, no affidavit was
prepared for Edwards and the latter's testimony is credited that the secretary
was -.not, present during her entire interview with Saltzman.' In the light of
these facts and because of the inconsistencies of Saltzman's testimony, the
undersigned does not credit his denials. It is found that he made the statements
substantially as testified to by Godfrey and Edwards. N
The undersigned finds that by the disparaging union statements of President
Saltzman to the employees on April 14 and July 20, by his questioning of Wat-
kins, Bates, Godfrey, Edwards, and other employees in September 1942, regard-
ing the activities of the Union, by his statements to Godfrey and Edwards that
they could not get a job elsewhere, and by the questioning of Watkins by
Foremen Toy Edward in September 1942, about a union meeting, and, Edwards'
disparaging union reference, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
C. The September 8, 1942 discharges
As heretofore found, the respondent in September, 1937, posted in its plant a
notice prohibiting solicitation or organization on behalf of unions on its premises..
On February 8, 1939, just prior.to the first hearing, Superintendent Abrams in a
ss H. E. Prickett. a witness for the respondent, testified that he discussed with Saltzman
how he might withdraw from the Union and that Saltzman suggested writing the Union a:
letter to that effect. Virginia Farr testified that Saltzman asked he if her mother knell,
she belonged to the Union. Saltzman admitted that this testimony of Farr was correct.
,332 , 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
talk to the employees called their attention to and read the provisions of this
notice. He then added -
Now the reason I have read these paragraphs to you is because of the
fact that during the past few weeks I have reports from' the various super-
visors that such Union activity is being conducted on our premises. I am
hesitant about discharging anyone, firstly, because' l want to make sure that
any worker accused of such activity can be proven guilty by actual proof
and also because our actions might be misinterpreted by others. Therefore
I want to caution you again to please cooperate with us in this request, and
do not attempt to conduct any kind of organization on the premises of
the factory.
'The following October, at the request of the Board's Regional Office, the re-
spondent posted an additional notice in its plant prohibiting the collection of
dues or the discussion of union affairs on company time and property under
penalty of disciplinary action. About January 1942, the respondent moved into
new quarters and reposted the notices. %
There has never been a rule that forbids all conversation among the em-
ployees during working hours and, generally, such conversation has been' per-
mitted within, reasonable bounds. From time to time, the foremen and foreladies
have found it necessary to reprimand some employees individually and others as
a group, against wasting time in this manner. Such admonitions have been limi-
ted to conversations in general and none have been definitely aimed at conversa-
tions-concerning the Union. However, the union activities were, mach in the,
foreground throughout the summer of 1942; especially in July, August, and
early September. James Watkins, Heyward Roach, and Horace Bates, of the
-cutting department and Viola Edwards and Bernie Godfrey, of the sewing depart-
ment 12 had constituted themselves a voluntary union, organizing committee and
during this period, actively promoted the Union among the other employees
while in the plant both during working hours and at lunch periods as well,
as, just before starting and just after finishing work. There is no evidence that
the subject matter of their various conversations came to the attention of the
foremen or others connected with management although it is difficult to assume
they had no such knowledge. They did observe an undue amount of talking
and warned the employees against wasting time. No,one mentioned a prohibi-
tion as to discussing union matters.
_ Beginning about the middle of August 1942, the unit of production by employees
in the cutting department began to seriously decline. By the first week in Sep-
tember, it was only about two-thirds of normal and President Saltzman became
concerned over its interference with deliveries under a contract for Army shirts on
which the respondent was, then working. This 'decline corresponded with the
period of greatest activity among the union members and the time when the Union
was most under discussion among the employees , but Saltzman did not, so far as
the record discloses, take up the matter of lowered production with his foremen-
with a view to correcting it. However, on the morning of September 7, he observed
several of the cutting room employees 'grouped together, in a discussion during
working hours and made some inquiries of several employees concerning the
general subjects being talked about. On being told that the Union was the subject
and that Watkins, Bates and Roach were promoting the Union, he called in most of
the employees in the cutting room, obtained affidavits that Watkins, Bates and
1' The cutting and sewing made up the principal departments in the plant . There:were
about 30 employees in the cutting department and approximately 325 in the sewing
department. - .. , , , "1 + -
PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY 333
Roach had discussed the Union with the respective affiants at various times in the
past, and then called in Watkins, Bates and Roach and, after telling them he had
no interest in their union affiliations, called their attention to the long standing
rule against discussing union affairs on company time or property, and discharged
them. Later in the day, he repeated the proceeding with reference to Viola
Edwards and Bernie Godfrey in the sewing department.
These discharges were ostensibly under 'the protection of the notice of 1937
heretofore referred to, but in invoking this rule, and in interviewing the employees
relative to the activities of the dischargees, Saltzman warned some that union
members could not get jobs elsewhere, suggested to another the proper procedure
to follow in resigning from the Union and inquired of another whether her mother
knew of her union membership. He failed to remain within the reasonable
limits of his inquiry and, it is found, utilized this inquiry to further coerce and
,intimidate his employees-with reference to their union affiliations.
The respondent contends that the discharges of the five named employees
were solely because they engaged in union activities on company time or property
in violation of the 1937 notice, which had remained posted at all times. In the
absence of demonstrated antipathy to the Union and with a history of equal
application of the rule to all employees at all times, such it contention would
have merit but in the instant case it is found that the notice on 'which the
respondent relies was not intended to be applied and in fact was not applied
to all employees alike. The anti-union history of the respondent since 1937 has
heretofore been recited. It has been shown that as late as July 20, 1942, Saltzman
indulged in an attack on the Union in a speech to the employees and that he
has, at all times, resented and resisted all organizational efforts by the Union
among his employees On the other hand, in March and April, '1939, while the
rule against union activities was still comparatively new, and had specially
been called to the attention of the employees the preceding February by Abrams,
he took no action when the Association members disrupted his plant by evicting
some of his Union employees. This was a more aggravated form of union activity
than any indulged in by those who now are the subjects of this controversy.
Since this 1939 eviction, no occasion has arisen, so far as the record discloses,
which might call for the invocation of the rule, but the disparity between the
treatment of the Association members in 1939, when no discipline was applied,
and the discharges here involved leads to the conviction that the'rule was posted
to apply only to the members of the Union and that it was applied, 'riot as a fixed
and general rule, but as a convenient method of ridding the plant of the five most
active exponents of the Union. It is accordingly found that the notice relied
upon by the respondent was never posted or maintained in good faith as a general
plant rule for universal application; that in the instant case it was-used as a
subterfuge.to accomplish the discharge of the five named employees and each of
them was in fact discharged on September 8, 1942, because of his affiliation with
and activity on behalf of the Union and to discourage membership in the Union"
The undersigned therefore finds that by the discharges on September 8, 1942, of
James Watkins, Heyward Roach, Horace Bates, Bernie Godfrey and Viola
Edwards and the subsequent refusal to reinstate them, the respondent has
discriminated in regard to, their hire and tenure of employment, 'thereby dis-
couraging membership in the Union, and has interfered with, restrained and
coerced its employees in the ekercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
13 Matter of Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., and Brotherhood of Railroad Traininen,
27 N. L. R. B., 193.
334 IDECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D The refusals to employ Clyde Cifreton and Eugene Cowart
The complaint alleges•that the respondent refused to employ Clyde Cureton
and Eugene Cowart because they joined or assisted, or were suspected of having
joined•or assisted the Union. -
Clyde Cureton was first employed by the respondent in 1931 as a cuff presser
and after three or four months he was laid off when that type of work was
discontinued. After several months the respondent sent for Cureton and employed
him as a spreader in the cutting department until the spring of 1933 when, to
reduce expenses, he was again laid off. About 6 months Liter he was put to
work again as a spreader but after several weeks was laid off to make room for
hn older man who had returned to work. After a lapse of four to seven months
Cureton left another position and returned to work for the respondent, at the
request of Ray Todd, foreman of the cutting department. He worked until April
1936 when he quit to take another job with another local shirt manufacturing
concern at an increased rate of pay." At the time he quit the respondent
Cureton was working in the, sewing -department as a match-up-cutter.
Cureton joined the Union in the spring or summer of 1937 and has been active
therein since"that time 15
Late in 1937 or early in 1938,18 while Cureton was working at the Nuckasee
Manufacturing Company,14 Foreman Todd met him and asked him what he was
doing. Cureton replied that lie was short knife cutting, whereupon Todd asked
if he would like, to work for the respondent. Cureton answered that he would
like to do so providing he was paid more money than he was then earning at
Nuckasee. Todd then suggested to Cureton that he talk to Superintendent
Abrams.`
Shortly thereafter Superintendent, Abrams sent for Cureton and had at least
two conferences with him. Although Abrams' testimony implies that the dis-
cussion at these conferences had to do with Cureton's qualifications it is also
found, as testified by Cureton, that Cureton's requirement for a higher wage rate
14 Todd testified that he discharged Cureton in 1 936 because he did not perform the work
to the best of his ability, for "foolishness" and because Cureton stayed away from work
occasionally . - Because of inconsistencies this testimony of Todd is not credited . As above-
appears when Cureton left the respondent in 1936 he was not working under Todd in the
cutting department. Also Todd testified that after he fired Cureton the latter returned
to work for the respondent on two or three occasions The record is clear and the under-
signed finds that Cureton never worked for the respondent after he left its employ in 1936
Furthermore , Cureton's testimony is credited that in the summer of 1942 Todd denied to
a representative of the Board's Office; in Cureton's presence, that he had tired Cureton in
1936 and offered to give Cureton employment at the Dixie Shirt Company where Todd was
general foreman Todd's explanation that all he said to the Board ' s representative was
that he did not fire Cureton foi union activities is not credited.
"For a short while in 1941 Cureton worked as a part time organizer for the Union.
At the time of the hearing lie was its temporary organizer.
le The record fails to disclose the exact date.
17 A Greenville concern also engaged in manufacturing cotton goods,
This finding is based upon Cureton 's testimony . Todd did not deny the testimony
specifically, but in this respect testified as follows :
' A. He [Cuieton] was working at the Nuckasee,Manufacturing Company and he came
back to me and he was hanging around in the
I
a fternoon and I ran hint out,one afternoon
and then he came back again.
Q: Did he apply for a job again?
A. Yes, sir. -
Q. Did you give him any work?
A. I told hint I might later on, but I did not during my time there That the foreman
"ran him out" and on Cureton ' s return the same afternoon promised him a job is rejected
as incredible. '
PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY 335
than he was earning was also discussed At the last conference Abrams, agreed
to hire' Cdret'on at the higher rate and told him he would let him know in a few
days when to start work While they were talking in Abrams office President
Saltzman came in. During the discussion that followed it was brought out that
Cureton was a brother of Marie Hester, an employee of the respondent" A day
or two thereafter when Cureton called he was informed that the respondent had
decided not to hire him.
The respondent- contends that Cureton was not hired because investigation
developed that lie had some trouble with Foreman Todd and was not a good
worker. Abrams testified that after Cureton had left his office Saltzman cau-
tioned Abrams to check Cureton's record as a worker and "that was the end of
the conversation."" Saltzman, however, testified that, after Cureton left,
Abrams asked Saltzman if he knew anything about Cureton and that he replied
that he could not remember anything except that Cureton was not satisfactory
•i and had been-in some kind of argument or trouble with Foreman Todd, and that
lie told Abrams to inquire of some of the older workers about Cureton before
hiring him. So far as the record discloses Abrams made no inquiry of '.Dodd
about any "trouble" the latter had with Cureton, but there is credible evident(
that Abrams made inquiries about Cureton of at least one of the older workers.
Eugene Cowart who at the time was working for the respondent, and who
had previously worked with Cureton, testified that in the fall of 1937 in response
to inquiries front Abrams lie told Abrams that Cureton was a-good cutter arid
that he thought that Cureton was a union member.' Abrams testified that he
did not "recall any such conversation" and denied lie ever asked Cowart if Cureton
was a union member. In view of Saltzman's instruction to Abram to inquire
about-Cureton,.the denial is 'not credited and it is found that the conversation
took place substantially as detailed by Cowart " After' his last interview with
Abrams above detailed Assistant Forelady Katherine Johnson ' adv=ised Abrams
not to hire Cureton because lie had had some' previous trouble with Todd but
that she did not know the nature of the trouble. As heretofore found, Cureton
had not previously been discharged by Todd but quit his job So far as the
record discloses no further investigation was made relative to Cureton's record
or qualifications. It is clear that Todd considered Cureton competent when
lie told him to speak to Abrams. Abrams regarded Cureton's qualifications
adequate and was willing to pay him the increased wage The respondent's
claim that Cureton was not hired because he was a poor worker is rejected and
found to be a pretext.
The then new superintendent, Abrams, was satisfied as to Cureton's qualifica-
tions and arranged to hire him. When it developed that Cureton was the
brother of Marie Hester who had been reinstated to her job after a charge of
discriminatory discharge had been filed, and was a union member himself,
Abrams lost all interest in Cureton. Thereafter he used the alleged trouble
with Todd as a pretext for not hiring hirrr. It is found that the respondent
refused to employ Cureton on or about December 31, 1937,22 because,of his mem-
bership in and activities on behalf of the Union.
1D Marie Hester was discharged by the respondent about July 30, 1937 A charge was
thereafter filed that she had been discharged because of her membership in the Union. She
was later reinstated at the request of the Board's Regional Office
2° Abrams had become a member of the respondent's staff a short time previously.
21 This testimony was received only as background and to show knowledge of union niein-
beislnp but not in support of any allegations of interference in the complaint
Johnson was president of the Piedmont Shirt Company (white) Employees Associa-
tion in February 1939 At the time of the hearing she was it foielady for the respondent.
21Cureton testified that lie was refused employment late in 1937 or early 1938. The
respondent's witnesses testified that it was in late 1937 In the absence of evidence of a
more specific date, the last day in--1937 is used.
A
•336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter, Cureton continued his employment with the Nuckasee Manufac-
turing Company until March 4, 1941,,when he was discharged allegedly because
of poor work and failure to make production.. On January 24, 1942, the Union
filed charges against the Nuckasee,Manufacturing Company alleging that Cure-
-ton's discharge was, discriminatory. After an investigation by the Regional Office
the charge was withdrawn in,the spring of,1942 without prejudice.
On March 4, in June and again in August, 1942, Cureton applied for work in
the respondent's plant. The respondent at these times knew that Cureton was
`a Union member and active therein. He was told there was no work for him
but that he would be sent for when needed. He has not since been- offered
"employment. 'As heretofore found Cureton had experience as a spreader and a
short knife cutter. The record clearly discloses and it is found that during the
year 1942 the respondent hired spreaders and cutters. • On July .3, 1942, the
Union filed its charge in the instant case alleging the discriminatory refusal
to employ Cureton in March and June 1942. While the Regional Office was in-
vestigating this charge thereafter, -Abrams telephoned Nuckasee and asked
McNamara, -the foreman of the cutting department, why Cureton had left its
employ. He was told that Cureton's work was unsatisfactory'
In the oral argument the respondent attempted to justify the refusal to employ
Cureton in 1942 on the ground that he had previously been discharged by Nuckasee
for unsatisfactory work and that under the circumstances the respondent was
,under no obligation to hire a an ,with, such a record. This contention could
apply in any event, only to the refusal to employ Cureton after July 1942 because
it was not until that time that the respondent definitely ascertained the reason"
for Cureton's discharge by,Nuckasee. The respondent had already refused to
employ Cureton in March and June 1942. Obviously at the time -of the investi-
^gation the respondent was looking for,a reason to explain its failure to employ
Cureton. The respondent refused to employ Cureton in 1937 because of his union
,activities.. His record thereafter remained, good. It is found that the conten-
tion that Cureton was not employed in 1942 because he was discharged by
.Nuckasee was a subterfuge; that the real reason was his membership and activity
In .the Union. The undersigned therefore finds that the respondent has dis-
criminated in regard to the hire and. tenure of employment of Clyde Cureton,
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, and interfering with,
restraining, and coercing .its employees,in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
The complaint also alleges that the respondent has engaged in and'is engaging
.in unfair -labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of the Act by
refusing to employ, Cureton on and after April 1942, because a charge had been
filed with the Board on his behalf. ,
As above found, the respondent knew that such a charge had been filed. But
before that time the respondent had refused to. employ Cureton because of his
union membership and activity. There is no evidence that the respondent would
have employed him after April, 1942, in the absence of the charge, or that the
respondent's determination not to hire him\was increased by the 'filing of the
,charge. In the absence of any such evidence it is found that the respondent's
discriminatory refusal to employ Clyde Cureton was ' notin violation of Section
8 (4) of the Act.w -
,. 21•McNamara testified that Cureton was a very good we, her, but that 2 or 3 months before
his discharge ;lie was put on a new and unfamiliar operation, that ,t'was after this change
that Cureton's production fell down. Although there is no evidence that Abrams was given
these details when he inquired, it is a justified inference herein found that Abrams secured
them from McNamara.
?5 Of. Hawk & Buck Company, Inc., and United Garnient 'Workers of America, etc.; 25
N. L. R. B. 837 at p. 847. . •
I
` PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY 337
Eugene Cowart: Cowart was, first employed by respondent as a short knife-
cutter at its Greenville plant in August 1937. Two or three maths later, he
became a member of the Union In 'March 1938. at his own request, he was trans-
'ferred to the Abbeville plant where he remained until June 1938 when the cutting
room was shut down He returned to Greenville and in August 1938, was reem-
ployed at the Greenville plant. After three weeks of this latter. employment, he
quit.
In February 1939, he again applied at the Greenville plant for employment and
was told by Superintendent Abrams that he would be notified "if anything opened
up.", On or about March 1, 1939, lie was put to work by Abrams as a short knife-
cutter. On April 4, 193.9, he was discharged and has not again been reemployed
by, the respondent. . ,
It was during the last. days of March and the early days of April 1939 that
the members of Piedmont Shirt Company White Employees Association evicted
certain of.the union member em'plovees During the morning of April 3, Harry
Drummond, a machine cutter, with several employees, came to Cowart in the
plant, told him some of the girls in the sewing room had reported having seen
him go into the union office and that he, Drummond, "had orders to throw" Cowart
out of the plant. Cowart denied having been in the union office whereupon Drum-
mond told him that if it happened again he would have to "throw" Cowart out._
The next day;' Paul Johnson, a cutter who worked with Cowart, had occasion
to talk with Abrams about getting tickets to a Textile Exposition. On his return,
to the cutting table, Johnson immediately reported to Cowart that Abrams had
accused them; Johnson and Cowart, of talking with a Union organizer in an up-town
cafe and that he (Johnson) had denied the accusation 2d About two hours later,
Alex Cooley, then the foreman of the cutting room discharged Cowart with the
,statement that he- thought Johnson could handle Cowart's work. Cowart left
the bdildingimmediately, reported the discharge to the Union. and shortly there-
after returned' to get his pay. On his return;. Abrams and Cooley attempted to,
induce him to sign a statement that on taking his employment be knew ft was=
to be temporary. Cowart refused to do this. The Union promptly filed a charge-
with the Regional Office alleging this was a discriminatory discharge.
Following the April 18, 1939, agreement of the respondent with the Union,,
heretofore referred to, under which Cowart was placed in a preferential position
as to employment, he was at no time offered reemployment although at all trans
available and with his whereabouts known to the respondent. In November 1939,
Cowart inquired of Abrams about work but was told there was none available.-
In the spring of 1942, he again ,applied and was told by Toy Edwards, foreman
of the cutting department, that there was no opening at that time but that he
would be notified when one occurred. In Angust 1942 Cowart again called with
the same result. During this period Cowart worked for the Nuckasee Manu-
facturing Company in Greenville from December 8, 1939, until March 23, 1941,
when he was laid off.
It is the respondent's contention that Cowart was entitled to preference only
when it hired additional short knife cutters and that it had done no such hiring
since April 1939. Actually, beginning in June, 1939. and at frequent intervals
thereafter, the respondent hired a number of new employees in its cutting defart-
inent. While these men were not hired as short knife cutters, they took the places
of, other men in the department who had moved up to the short knife job. Also,
at least three of the short knife cutters quit their jobs during this period and
were reinstated on application, but during the interne no offer was made to-
Cowart.
"The hearsay quality of this evidence is recognized. However, in view of the imme-
diately following discharge of Cowart , it is given consideration.
:338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In,early/ 1940,, Abrams had an.,opening. which Cowart ,was entitled to.•fi11, but
.did not offer it to him, on the theory that since Cowart was then otherwise em-
ployed the respondent was under no obligation to observe the preference provi-
sions of the April 18, 1939 agreement. It is thus also the contention of the
respondent that its obligation to Cowart was nonoperative so long as he had other
.employment. On this, Abrams was advised to the contrary by the respondent's
counsel when the 1940 opening developed, but he elected to disregard the advice
.and ignored Cowart.
It will be noted that the April 1939 agreement with the Union provides that
-Cowart was to be given "first opportunity for employment on the work in. which
he was employed" and that outside workers would not be hired to perform either
this class of work or any other work which would permit distribution of work
Cowart could perform. Training inside workers to take over the job previously
done- by Cowart,and then, replacing the•atrainees,with newly hired men is a clear
breach of the terms and spirit of the agreement. , It is found that this was adopted
as a subterfuge to avoid reemploying Cowart, contrary to the provisions of the
agreement, because of his union affiliation. -
As to the contention that the respondent was relieved of responsibility under
the agreement when Cowart found other employment, the subject has been passed
on by the Board adversely to the contention of the respondent so frequently that
the continuing character of the responsibility and obligation to offer employment
to him, when available , is or should be well known to all . It was Cowar£'s privi-
lege to refuse the offer, but the respondent 's obligation has not been fulfilled until
Jt has made the offer. It is found that this ignoring the obligations of the agree-
went in the face of advice to the contrary from its attorney, was likewise because
.of Cowart 's.,union affiliations.
From all of the circumstances the undersigned finds that the respondent,
although it had jobs available, refused to employ Cowart on June 30,' 1939, and
thereafter because of his Union membership,and activity., It is further found
that by such acts the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Eugene Cowart thereby discouraging membership in a
labor organization and interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the sights 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 con-
nection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,' and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstrueting
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it.has been found,that the respondent has engaged in certainunfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that the respondent cease and desist-therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire
of Clyde Cureton and Eugene Cowart in order to discourage membership in the
Union. This discrimination took the form of a refusal to hire. The first refusal
to hire Cureton occurred on December 31; 1937. The first charge involving Cureton
was filed July 3, 1942, and alleged a refusal to hire him on March 4, 1942. It was
June was the first month new employees were hired', in the cutting department after
the April, 1939. agreement As the actual day of the first hiring in June does not appear
the last day of the month is used. •
PIEDMONT SHIRT' COMPANY 339
not until October 3, 1942 that a,charge was filed alleging a discriminatory refusal to
hire Cureton "about April, 1938". No explanation appears for the failure to file
a charge with respect to the earlier refusal to hire until the year 1942. It•will
be recommended in order to effectuate the policies of the Act that the respondent
offer, employment to Cureton and Cowart and make them whole for any loss of
pay each may have suffered as a result of the respondent's refusal to hire them,
by the payment to each of them of'a sum of money equal to the amount which
Cureton would have earned as wages from March 4, 1942 (the date of the second
refusal to employ him) and Cowart would haver earned as wages from June 30,
1939, to the date of the offer of employment, less his net earnings,28 during such
period. It has been further found that the respondent discharged Heyward
Roach, James Watkins, Horace Bates, Viola Edwards and Bernie Godfrey, thereby
discouraging membership in the Union. It will therefore be recommended that
the respondent offer to the five named employees immediate reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions or any other available positions for
which they are qualified, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
rrivileges, and that the respondent make them whole for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reasons of their discharges, by payment to each of them of a semi
of money equal to the amount which he would have earned as wages from
September 8, 1942, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings
during such period.
From the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case,
the undersigned makes the following : -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire 29 of Clyde Cureton and Eugene Cowart
and thereby discouraging membership in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Hey-
ward Roach, James Watkins, Horace Bates, Viola Edwards and Bernie Godtre3,
thereby discouraging membership in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4 By interfering with, restraining,,and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6 By refusing to employ Clyde Cureton on and after April 1942, the respondent
did not engage in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (4)
of the Act.
By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining wo'k and working else-
where than for de respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Ci ossett Lumber Company and United Biotherliood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica,,Luniber and Sawmill Workers Union,'Local 2,590, 8 N L R. B 440. Monies received
for work performed upon Federal. State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects
shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v N L. R B., 311 U. S. 7.
29 See Matter of Mountain City Hill Company and Baking and Confectionery Workers'
International Union, etc., 25 N L.R B, 397 at p. 451.
531647-43-vol. 49-23
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS -
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent , Piedmont Shirt Company , Green-
ville, South Carolina , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
'(a) Discouraging membership in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, or any other labor organization of its employees , by discharging any of
its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights to self-organization , to form , join , or assist labor
organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose . of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed -id Section 7 of the Act.
2. Tdke the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer immediate employment to Clyde Cureton and Eugene Cowart at the
same or substantially equivalent positions at which they would have been
employed on December 31, 1937, and June 30 , 1939 , respectively , had the re-
spondent not unlawfully refused to hire them ; _
(b) Make whole Clyde Cureton and,Eugene Cowart for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the respondent's refusal to hire them , by paying
to each of them a sum of money equal to that which Cureton would normally
have earned as wages from March 4, 1942 30 and Cowert would normally have
earned ' as wages from June 30, 1939 to the date of the offer of employment, less
his net earnings 81 during such period ;
(c) Offer to Heyward Roach , James Watkins, Horace Bates , Viola Edwards
and Bernie Godfrey immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions for which they are qualified, without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights and privileges ;
(d) Make whole Heyward Roach , James Watkins , Horace Bates , Viola Ed-
wards and Bernie Godfrey for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
of the respondent 's discrimination against them in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment, by payment to each of them respectively of a sum of
money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages- from
September 8, 1942, to the date of the offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings
during such period ;
(e) Post immediately in conspicuous places in and around its plant in Green-
ville, South Carolina , and maintain for a period of at least sixty ( 60) consecutive
days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: ( 1) that the
respondent will not engage , in the conduct from which it is recommended that
it cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a) and ( b) of these recommendations; (2)
that the respondent will take the affirmative actions set forth in paragraph 2 (a),
(b), (c) and ( d) of these recommendations ; ( 3) that the respondent 's employees
are free to become or remain members of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee
because of membership in that labor organization;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region within ten (10) days
from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent
has taken to comply therewith
31 See The remedy, supra.
81 See footnote 28, supra.
PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY 341
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that the .respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the 'meaning
of Section 8 (4) of the Act.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from receipt
of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies the said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
`Labor Relations' Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take, the
action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28,
1L''42, any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of
the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article
II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Shoreham Building, Wash-
ington, D. C, an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such' exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he
relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should ahy party desire permis-
sion to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to^
the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case
to the Board.
J. J. FITZPATRICK,
Trial Examiner.
Dated January 8, 1943.
i