Premier Worsted Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 985 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of PREMIER WORSTED MILLS and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 344CA-44.Decided August 30, 1949
DECISION-
0
AND
ORDER.
On April 26, 1949, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his In-
termediate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed? The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the following additions :
1. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that by (1) interrogating its
employees concerning what was said and who was present at union
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three -member panel [ Chairman Herzog, and Members Houston and
Murdock].
a The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner 's denial of its motion to strike from
the complaint all allegations of violations of Section 8 (a) (1) because a bill of par-
ticulars with respect to such allegations , which the Trial Examiner had ordered to be
filed, was not received by the Respondent until the day after it was due . The bill of partic-
ulars was put in the mail on January 27, 1949, the date designated by the Trial Examiner,
and was received by the Respondent the following day, which was 13 days before the
hearing began . In these circumstances we do not believe that the Respondent was preju-
diced by the 1-day delay in receiving the bill of particulars , and the Trial Examiner's
ruling is hereby affirmed.
Nor is there merit in the Respondent 's contention that it was prejudiced by the fact
that the issues litigated involved places , dates , and persons not referred to in the bill of
particulars . The record shows that all the facts and issues introduced by the General
Counsel were fully litigated by the Respondent and that at no time during the hearing
did the Respondent claim surprise or ask for a postponement.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 175.
985
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meetings., (2) engaging in surveillance of union meetings,3 (3) threat-
ening to close the plant or otherwise deprive employees of employment
if the Union came in, and (4) promising benefits to employees in re-
turn for renunciation of the Union, the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.'
Although. the Respondent admits most of the acts of surveillance as
found by the Trial Examiner, it contends in its exceptions that there
is no proof that any of its employees were intimidated or coerced there-
by, and that in such circumstances this condud cannot be found viola-
tive of Section 8 (a) (1). There is no merit in this argument. The
Board has held that secret surveillance interferes, restrains, and
coerces employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the,
Act.5 A fortiori the type of surveillance presented here, the existence
of which is known to the employees, exerts a coercive influence.6 And
as we have noted on many occasions, surveillance, like interrogation
and similar conduct, is illegal without regard to whether it succeeds in
its purpose.
2. Although the Trial Examiner noted the following statements
in his Intermediate Report, he made no specific findings with respect
to- them. We find the statements below, all of which are amply sup-
ported by the record, to be separate independent violations of Section
8 (a) (1) :
(a) A few days prior to March 31, 1948, O'Neal was - conversing
with employee Mildred Rogers about Byrd's union activities. O'Neal
said Byrd was "going out of here" and Rogers replied, "I didn't know
you could fire people for joining the Union." O'Neal answered, "We
can't fire them for joining the Union, but there are so many other
things that we can fire thein for." This statement contained. a frank
admission that pretexts would be employed to rid the plant of union
adherents and was clearly coercive.
(b) Again, on March 31, O'Neal and employee Nellie Fulcher were
discussing the discharge of Byrd. When Fulcher asked O'Neal what
he fired Byrd for he told her, "Well, she is all the time running around,
running her mouth and not tending to her work. There are some more
of them going out of here if they don't leave the Union alone." Ful-
3 Although the Intermediate Report is not clear in this respect , we do not regard the
incident of Pulley's visit to Hilda Merkerson ' s home on September 5, 1947, as an instance
of surveillance or otherwise a violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
4 Like the Trial Examiner we find that Shockley, Chandler , Simpson , Pulley , Sanders,
and O ' Neal, the individuals who engaged in these acts, are supervisors within the meaning
of the Act, as amended , and that the Respondent is responsible for their unlawful conduct.
5 Matter of Virginia Electric & Power Co., 44 N . L. It. B. 404.
6 Matter of Schramm and Schmieg Company, 67 N. L . It. B. 980 ; Matter of Raybestos-
Manhattan, Inc., The Raybestos Division, 80 N. L . It. B. 1208.
PREMIER WORSTED MILLS 987
cher said she didn't know he could fire anyone for joining the Union
and O'Neal replied, "I can't, but I can fire them for talking the Union."
(c) In a conversation with Julia Bolling about 2 weeks before her
discharge, supervisor Pulley asked Bolling how her sister Hilda
Merkerson, was coming along with the Union. Pulley told Bolling
that the Respondent would not tolerate a union and would move the
machinery back North. Bolling said she didn't think the Respondent
could do that and Pulley replied, "They can run the stock out in two
weeks and they will do it."
(d) Pulley also engaged Ethel Allen in conversation about the Union
a few days before her discharge on April 28, 1948. Allen told Pulley
she had heard she was going to lose her job on account of the Union
and that she minded her own business and wished others would do the
same. Pulley said, "Well, I ain't got a thing to do with that; that is
up to Mr. Chandler. If the Union comes in down here the mill will
close down."
(e) At some time before her discharge, Vivian Gilligan and some
other employees in the mending room were talking about the Union
when Sanders, the mending room supervisor, was present. Sanders
stated that the plant would not operate if a union were organized, that
the Respondent would move the machinery back North, and that she
would discharge every employee who joined the Union as soon as she
knew who they were.
(f) On another occasion Shockley, the plant superintendent, en-
gaged employee Gilligan in conversation prior to her discharge, say-
ing, "Vivian, I heard you went to the Union meeting Saturday night."
Although Gilligan's answer was not responsive to the inquiry ,7 Shock-
ley's question was clearly a form of interrogation with respect to an
employee's union activities prohibited by the Act.s
THE REMEDY
The Respondent's illegal activities, including the discriminatory dis-
charge of employees Byrd, Allen, Bolling, and Gilligan, go to the very
heart of the Act and indicate a purpose to defeat self-organization of
its employees. We are convinced that the unfair labor practices com-
mitted by the Respondent are potentially related to other unfair labor
practices proscribed and that the danger of their commission in the
future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past.
The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order
7 Gilligan replied , "why should anyone tell you that I went to the Union meeting when
you were there snooping around yourself
8 See hatter of Llbbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, 63 N. L. R. B. 1.
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is coextensive with the threat. Accordingly, in order to make effective
the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate the
policies of the Act, we shall, in accordance with the recommendations
of the Trial Examiner, order the Respondent to cease and desist from
in any manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed by
the Act .9
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Premier Worsted
Mills, Raleigh, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees by dis-
charging employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment;
(b) Engaging in surveillance of union meetings;
(c) Threatening to close the plant if the employees seek union
representation ;
(d) Interrogating its employees concerning their union member-
ship, activities, or sympathies or those of their coworkers, or in any
other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organ-
izations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, CIO,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, and to refrain from any or all such activities except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Ida Byrd, Ethel Allen, Julia Bolling, and Vivian
Gilligan immediate and full reinstatement to former or substantially
equivalent positions,"' without prejudice to seniority or other rights
and privileges;
0 May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S . 376; N. L. R. B. v. Entwistle Manu-
facturing Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C. A. 4) ; Matter of Tri-State Casualty Insurance Co., 83
N. L. R. B., No. 126.
10 In accordance with the Board 's consistent interpretation of the term , the expression
"former or substantially equivalent positions " is intended to mean "former positions
PREMIER WORSTED MILLS 989
(b) Make whole Ida Byrd, Ethel Allen, Julia Bolling, and Vivian
Gilligan for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
Respondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of
them of a sum of money equal to the amount which she normally
would have earned as wages during the period from the date of her
discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less
her net earnings 11 during such period;
(c) Post at its plant in Raleigh, North Carolina, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 12 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Fifth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ; and
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply with the foregoing recom-
mendations.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that we will suspend opera-
tions or take any other economic reprisal if Textile Workers
Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, suc-
ceeds in organizing our plant.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employees in their
self-organizational activities on behalf of Textile Workers Union
of America, CIO, or any other labor organization.
wherever possible , but if such positions are no longer in existence , then to substantially
equivalent positions ." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch , 65 N. L. R. B. 827.
11 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, which could not have been incurred but for the unlawful discrimination and the
consequent necessity of seeking employment elsewhere . Matter of Crossett Lumber Com-
pany, 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 . Republic Steel
Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Ap-
peals, there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words,
"A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in any manner as to
their union activities or in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self -organization, to join or assist the above-named union or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Ida Byrd, Ethel Allen, Julia Bolling, and
Vivian Gilligan immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any
seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed and
make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination.
All our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming
members of the above-named union or any other labor organi-
zation except to the extent that this right may be affected by an
agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended
Act. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of
any such labor organization.
PREMIER WORSTED MILLS
Employer
Dated------------------------ By------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. George L. Weasler , for the General Counsel.
Messrs. Bailey & Holding , by Mr. I. M. Bailey, Mr. Clem B. Holding and Mr.
J. Ruffin Bailey , of Raleigh , N. C., for the Respondent.
Mr. Bruce E. Davis and Mr. J. B. Hurt , of Charlotte , N. C., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, herein
called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board?
I The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to as the Gen-
eral Counsel , and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
PREMIER WORSTED MILLS 991
by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), issued a
complaint, dated January 4, 1949, against Premier Worsted Mills,' herein called
the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein
called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge and notice of hearing were
duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges that the Re-
spondent : (1) on or about November 26, 1947, and thereafter, by its officers,
agents, and supervisory employees interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees by (a) urging, persuading, and warning its employees to refrain
from assisting, becoming or remaining members of the Union ; (b) ques-
tioning its employees concerning membership in and activities on behalf of the
Union, (c) keeping under surveillance the organizational activities of its em-
ployees and of the Union, (d) threatening its employees with loss of employment
and other forms of reprisal should the Union succeed in its organizational efforts,
and (e) threatening its employees that the Raleigh plant would be closed down
should the Union succeed in its organizational efforts; (2) discharged Ida Byrd
on or about March 30, 1948, Julia Bolling on or about April 28, 1948, Ethel Allen
on or about April 28, 1948, and Vivian Gilligan on or about May 10, 1948, and
has since failed and refused to reinstate them, because they joined or assisted
the Union or engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; and (3 ) by said
acts and conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent admitted the jurisdictional allega-
tions of the complaint, but denied commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Raleigh , North Carolina, from Feb-
ruary 8 to February 11, 1949, inclusive, before the undersigned Trial Examiner.
The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel, and the
Union by its representatives. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties. At the close of the General Counsel's case, the Respondent moved to
dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. The motion was denied. The Respon--
ent renewed its motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the case. Ruling on the
motion was reserved. The motion to dismiss is disposed of as hereinafter indi-
cated. The General Counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof, as to
names, dates, and other minor variances. The motion was granted over the
Respondent 's objection.
All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs or proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law, or both. None of the parties have filed briefs with
the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent was incorporated under the laws of the State of Rhode Island
on January 23, 1907. It operates a plant at Raleigh, North Carolina, where it is
2 The complaint erroneously named the Respondent as Premier Worsted Mill. The
correct name , as above, was stipulated by counsel at the hearing.
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in the manufacture of worsted fabrics. During the period of 12 months
before the date of the hearing herein, the Respondent purchased raw materials for
its Raleigh plant, amounting in value to approximately $900,000. A substantial
amount of said raw materials was purchased, transported, and delivered from and
through the States of the United States, other than the State of North Carolina,
to the Raleigh plant. During this same period, approximately 100 percent of the
Respondent's finished products was shipped from its Raleigh plant to places lo-
cated outside the State of North Carolina. The Respondent employed approxi-
mately 325 production workers at the times material herein.
The Respondent admits in its answer that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization which admits
to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Respondent's supervisory employees
Joseph M. Shockley is superintendent of the Respondent's Raleigh plant,
Lawrence W. Chandler and a Mr. Simpson are next in line of authority under
Shockley, with supervision over the Yarn Department and the Dyeing Depart-
ment, respectively. It is undisputed that Shockley, Chandler, and Simpson are
supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act.
Ralph Pulley, Mildred Sanders, and John O'Neal are classified by the Respond-
ent as "section men," and the evidence conclusively shows that they are super-
visory employees within the meaning of the Act. At the times material herein,
Pulley supervised about 20 employees on the first shift in the Spinning Depart-
ment, a subdepartment of the Yarn Department ; Sanders supervised between
30 and 35 members ; and O'Neal supervised between 75 and 85 employees on the
second shift in the Yarn Department. Pulley fixed or repaired machinery, as-
signed jobs and gave work orders to employees, permitted employees to take time
tiff when they requested it, recommended and obtained wage increases for em-
ployees, and at times recommended the discharge of employees. Sanders taught
mending to learners, performed mending work herself, recommended the dis-
charge of employees, permitted employees to go home if they were sick, discussed
snd advised with Shockley concerning employees' rates of pay, and made reports
-on the amount of sewing employees performed on cloth. O'Neal's duties were
substantially the same as Pulley's, excepting that it appears that O'Neal was in
complete charge of the second shift, as Chandler usually left the plant at about
F6 p. m.' It appears that none of these three employees had the power to hire
or fire employees. However, they at times notified employees of their discharge.
.Although all three of these employees were paid on an hourly rate basis, the
record indicates that their wages far exceeded the wages of the employees
under them.
3 The hours of the second shift were from 2: 45 to 10 : 45 p. in. In the case of Pulley,
it appears that he consulted with Chandler before permitting an employee to take a leave
of absence. O'Neal, however, acted on his own responsibility when Chandler was not at
the plant.
PREMIER WORSTED MILLS 993
The Respondent contends, in effect, that Shockley and Chandler gave all work
orders to Pulley, Sanders, and O'Neal ; that these three employees in turn trans-
mitted the orders to the employees under them ; that employees were not permitted
time off without the approval of Shockley and Chandler; and that none of the
three had any authority to recommend discharges, wage increases, or any other
change in the status of employees. In fact, from the testimony of Shockley in
this connection, which the undersigned does not credit, it would appear that
Pulley, Sanders, and O'Neal were at most messengers for the transmittal of
orders to employees, with no responsibility or authority of their own whatso-
ever. The testimony of Pulley, Sanders, and O'Neal, however, conclusively shows
not only that they at times had the authority, without consulting Shockley or
Chandler, to assign work to employees and to permit them to take time off, but also
that they effectively recommended changes in the status of employees. Pulley
testified credibly that he had recommended discharges and wage increases and
that his recommendations were followed. Sanders testified, in substance, that
she reported to Shockley if an employee performed unsatisfactory work, and that
she gave him her opinion in the matter of wage increases and discharges. More-
over, the evidence discloses that the employees regarded Pulley, Sanders, and
O'Neal as their supervisors ; requests for wage increases or time off customarily
were made to them, and not to Shockley or Chandler.
Accordingly, the undersigned is convinced and finds that Pulley, Sanders, and
O'Neal were at all times material herein supervisory employees within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. Background ; surveillance of union meetings
On September 5,1947, Clyde Jenkins, a representative of the Union, called at the
home of Hilda Merkerson, an ex-employee of the Respondent, in order to obtain
her help in organizing the employees. About 20 minutes after Jenkins left her
home, Pulley also called on her. Merkerson told Pulley the purpose of Jenkins'
visit. An organizational meeting of the Union was held at Merkerson's home on
September 13. This meeting was attended by two employees of the Respondent
and by three representatives of the Union, including Jenkins.
Starting at some time in February 1948, meetings of the Union were held at
the Carolina Hotel in Raleigh. The meetings were held on Saturday nights,
beginning at about 7 p. in. Except for the first few meetings, they were held
each week. By letter dated March 25, 1948, the Union notified the Respondent
that it represented a majority of employees and requested recognition. The Re-
spondent did not acknowledge the letter. On March 26, the Union petitioned
the Board for an election.
At various times, starting in April 1948, and thereafter, Shockley, Chandler,
Simpson, Sanders, and O'Neal, parked in automobiles at or near the entrance of
the Carolina Hotel during meetings of the Union. At times they were together
or in pairs and at other times they were alone. Shockley testified that after
receiving the letter from the Union claiming that it represented a majority of
employees he stationed himself near the hotel on five or six separate occasions
so that he could find out by observing the number of employees attending the
meetings whether or not the Union actually did represent a majority. He testi-
fied that Simpson and Chandler were with him on at least one of these occasions.
On April 17, Bruce Davis, Assistant State Director of the Union, observed Shock-
ley near the hotel. He told Shockley that he had heard that Shockley was watch-
ing the meetings and warned him against further surveillance.
A number of employees testified that they saw the above supervisors parked
near the hotel. Except in the case of Sanders, their testimony in this connection
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is uncontradicted. Sanders testified that she never did go to the Carolina Hotel.
Vivian Gilligan and Ethel Poole testified credibly that they saw her at the hotel.
The undersigned was not impressed with Sanders as a witness. She was evasive
in her answers, particularly when questioned concerning her duties. Therefore,
her testimony in this connection is not credited.
The undersigned finds that the Respondent, by keeping meetings of the Union
under surveillance, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees.
3. Actions and statements of supervisors
John O'Neal'
Robert Denton worked on the second shift under the supervision of O'Neal, On
or about March 31, 1948, O'Neal told Denton, "it would be best to let it (the
Union) alone," and that the employees would be without jobs if the Union or-
ganized the plant.
Ethel Poole worked under O'Neal's supervision. On April 1, O'Neal said to
Poole, "who told you that every boss in this mill belonged to the Union? . . .
A man told me that his wife told him that she heard you say it in the bathroom."
Poole denied the accusation and said, "I understood the Union was a secret."
O'Neal replied, "Well, there is getting to be too much of this Union around here.
Everybody that has joined the Union better get out of it, because if that Union
comes in here, we are going to close this mill down . . . there is not one
person in here that we can't do without." Poole told O'Neal that she did not
belong to the Union.' O'Neal then said, "Well, if you do or don't, all that does
belong to the Union will lose their jobs, because they will certainly close this
mill down before they will let the Union come in here." About 10 days later
O'Neal told Poole, "You have not ask me for a raise, Mrs. Poole, and you need a
raise. You are a hard worker. I have learned you can really work. . . .
when you get out of the Union and get one more person out, I am going to give
you your raise and give you your woman back who has been helping you put up
bobbins."
Swannie Mitchell worked on the second shift under O'Neal. On April 1, O'Neal
told Mitchell, "when you have joined this Union you have automatically fired
yourself; and if you know any of the women or girls have joined it ask them
to get out of it, because I hate to do what I have to do." O'Neal asked Mitchell
why the employees joined the Union. Mitchell replied that the wages were low.
About 1 week later, O'Neal told Mitchell that he had caused three employees to
join the Union for the specific purpose of learning how many employees had
become members.
Mildred Rogers worked on the second shift under O'Neal. She joined the
Union on May 15. On May 24, Rogers while at work wore a button designating
her an adherent of the Union. Near the end of the shift she stopped one of her
two spinning frames in order to sweep the alley. O'Neal asked her why she had
stopped the frame, and Rogers gave him her reason. O'Neal replied, "Well,
since you have joined the Union, I am not paying you to stop off those machines ;
and if you are going to continue working here you have got to keep those
machines running."
Edna Johnson worked on the second shift under O'Neal. On or about April
2, 1948, O'Neal said to Johnson, "If you do or if you don't belong to the Union,
if they get the Union in the will the mill will close down." He further told
° O'Neal appeared as a witness, but did not deny any of the statements attributed to
him by witnesses for the General Counsel.
6 Poole was a member of the Union at the time of the above conversation.
PREMIER WORSTED MILLS 995
her that all employees who joined the Union would be discharged, that it would
be hard for them to find jobs and that she should tell this to the other employees.
About June 10, O'Neal went to Johnson's home. He attempted to get her and
her sister to resign from the Union. He told them that the plant would not
operate if organized by the Union, and that if the male employees did not get
out of the Union, they would "be found cut up somewhere, and nobody would
know who done it."
Tula Johnson and Nellie Fulcher worked on the second shift under O'Neal.
While they were discussing the discharge of Ida Byrd, O'Neal approached them
and said, "Haven't you all heard about the mill's closing down on account of the
Union coming in and throwing over 700 workers out of their jobs? If the Union
comes in out here this mill will be closed down." He further told them that
the plant would be sold but would still be run by the Respondent under another
name.
On May 24, Fulcher wore a union button in the plant. She said to O'Neal, "I
heard you were going to fire me because I was distributing buttons down here."
O'Neil replied that lie was not going to discharge her as he thought that Edna
Johnson had brought the buttons to the plant, and that he was going to dis-
charge Johnson and Mrs. Cameron for soliciting employees to join the Union.
At the time of this conversation or later the same day, O'Neal wrote Fulcher's
name down on a piece of paper. He then asked employee J. C. Ridders, who
worked near Fulcher, if he had a union button. Ridders took three or four
buttons out of his pocket and pinned one on his clothing. O'Neal then wrote
Ridder's name on the paper under Fulcher's.
The undersigned finds that by the above actions and statements of O'Neal
the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees.
Lawrence Chandler and Joseph Shockley
As related above, employee Robert Denton worked under O'Neal on the second
shift. At some time during the first week in April 1948 , Chandler told Denton,
"If all ( employees ) joined the Union but two the mill still would not run."
At some time between May and July 1948 , Shockley came to Mildred Rogers'
place of work and warned her to keep her boy off the Respondent ' s premises.'
He then said , "Do you like to spin?" Rogers replied, "Sometimes I do, and
sometimes I don't . . . I don 't think I am treated right. I don't think I
get enough money." Shockley told her, "Mrs. Rogers, I am going to see you
and some more of the ladies in the village out begging bread within two months
if they don ' t have other means to support themselves."
Marion Pace worked on the second shift. She joined the Union about May
1, 1948, and attended a meeting at the Carolina Hotel on or about May 22. As
she and employee Margaret Goodwin left the meeting, they saw Shockley, Simp-
son, and Chandler parked in a car near the hotel . Goodwin went to the car and
said to Chandler , "I don't want you to be mad with me. I haven't joined the
Union ; I just went to see what it was all about." Chandler replied that he was
not there to spy on anyone.
6 Denton testified credibly concerning the above conversation. Chandler denied talking
to Denton about the Union. His denial is not credited.
' Rogers' son distributed union leaflets on or near the Respondent's premises shortly
before the above conversation. As related above, Rogers wore a union button in the plant
on May 24.
8 Rogers testified credibly and without contradiction to the above conversation. Shockley
testified that he warned Rogers about her son, but did not deny the other statements attrib-
uted to him by Rogers.
857829-50-vol. 85-64
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the following Monday while she was at work, Chandler came to Pace and
asked her to go to the store. Goodwin, Shockley, and Simpson were present in
the store. Chandler said to Shockley, "These are two nice girls, and I know
neither one of them is for the Union." Shockley asked Goodwin and Pace what
J. B. Hurt, a representative of the Union, had said about wage rates at northern
mills. He also asked them to name the employees who had attended the meeting.
When Pace refused to name the employees, Shockley said he would not press
them for the information, but that he would appreciate it. Chandler asked
Goodwin and Pace if they would be satisfied if he put them on "four sides"
and gave them a raise. Pace agreed, and she was immediately put on the new
job. The following day, she wore a union button in the plant. She was then
put back to her old job of doffing, and did not get the promotion.'
The above statements of Chandler to Denton and of Shockley to Rogers
clearly are, in my opinion, implied threats of reprisal for adherence to the
Union. In the case of Pace, Shockley, and Chandler attempted to learn from
her the activities of the Union and the names of employees who attended the
meeting. The offer of a promotion was an attempt to dissuade her from
joining the Union. When she wore a union button the following day, she was
demoted in reprisal. Accordingly, the undersigned Duds that the above actions
and statements of Shockley and Chandler constitute interference, restraint,
and coercion.
B. The discharges
Ida Byrd: Byrd worked for the Respondent on and off from August 1943 until
March 31, 1948, the date of her discharge. Her last period of employment
started about March 1946. She worked on the second shift under O'Neal.
Byrd joined the Union in September 1947. She solicited employees to join
the Union outside the plant and before her discharge she attended two meetings
of the Union at the Carolina Hotel.
At some time in February 1948, an employee in the spinning room became ill and
Byrd was ordered to take his place. At the end of the shift she said to O'Neal,
"Next time you have a job let me know ahead of time." O'Neal replied, "You
haven't worked any yet. Wait until the Union gets in."
Shortly before March 31, O'Neal approached employee Mildred Rogers' place
of work. She asked him what he thought about the Union. O'Neal looked over
toward Byrd, and said that people such as Byrd were the only ones who wanted
a Union, that they never made decent money or had a decent job before they
were employed by the Respondent, that he would bet that Byrd was making
more money then than she ever had, and that Byrd was "going out of here."
Rogers then said, "Mr. O'Neal, I didn't know you could fire people for joining
9 Pace testified credibly to the above facts. Goodwin and Simpson did not appear as wit-
nesses. Chandler testified that Shockley told him that Pace had been to his office crying
because she had been told that she would have to pay $25.00 if she did not join the Union
right away ; that he told Pace to go to the store ; that Pace related her troubles concern-
ing the Union ; that Goodwin was present ; that Shockley told her that she did not have
to pay $25.00, or join the union. Shockley testified substantially the same as did Chandler
in this respect. Shockley further testified that later Pace came to him "crying again,"
stating that she had deceived him since she already was a member of the Union and that
she was sorry for it. The testimony of Shockley and Chandler in this connection does not
seem plausible and is not credited by the undersigned. It is noteworthy that Chandler
testified that Goodwin was present in the store. Her presence is not explained by
Shockley's and Chandler's version of the incident.
PREMIER WORSTED MILLS 997
the Union." O'Neal replied, "We can't fire them for joining the Union, but there
are so many more things that we can fire them for." 30
When Byrd came to work on March 31, she discovered that her time card was
missing from the rack. She reported this fact to O'Neal and he told her to go
back to the rack and look again. When she returned, he discharged her. He
stated that the yarn had been mixed and that he had been called to the plant
at 7 a. in. Byrd denied mixing the yarn. O'Neal replied that he was going
to put a stop to "so much talking," that employees were hurrying to finish their
work so that they could talk, and that Byrd had been "talking too much." n
During the night of March 31 and after Byrd had been discharged, O'Neal had a
conversation with employee Nellie Fulcher. He went to her place of work and
said, "I fired one . . . Mrs. Byrd." When Fulcher asked him why he had fired
Byrd, he told her, "Well, she is all the time running around, running her mouth
and not tending to her work. There are some more of them going out of here if
they don't leave the Union alone." Fulcher said that she did not know that he
could fire anyone for joining the Union. O'Neal replied, "I can't but I can fire
them for talking the Union."
Conclusions
The Respondent contends that Byrd was discharged because she mixed yarn
during the shift on March 30. The Respondent's contention is rejected. The
remarks of O'Neal to Byrd, Rogers, and Fulcher conclusively prove that Byrd
was discharged because of her adherence to the Union. Moreover, Byrd testified
credibly that she did not mix the yarn, and that there had not been any com-
plaints about her work before March 3112
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent discharged Byrd on March 31, 1948,
because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union.
Ethel Allen and Julia Bolling: Allen and Bolling both worked as spinners on
the first shift. Their supervisor was Ralph Pulley. Allen started work for the
Respondent in June 1943. Bolling was employed by the Respondent on February
8, 1946. Both were discharged on April 28, 1948.
Allen joined the Union in September 1947. On a number of occasions she
discussed the Union with other employees while at work. About 5 or 6 days before
April 28 she had a conversation with Pulley. When Pulley approached her
spinning frames, she said to him, "Look here, Ralph, I have heard that there is a
rumor going around that I was going to lose my job on account of the
Union . . . if I lose my job on account of the Union I am going to be mad. I
attend to my own business; and I wish other folks would attend to theirs." Pulley
10 Rogers was not a member of the Union at the time of the above conversation. Rogers
testified credibly and without contradiction to the above conversation. As related above,
although O'Neal appeared as a witness, he did not deny any of the statements attributed
to him by witnesses for the General Counsel.
11 Byrd testified that she had discussed the Union with other employees while in the plant.
Byrd's time card was introduced in evidence. The following notation initialed by Chandler
is on the card : Discharged, Speeder yard found mixed 3/31/48, 7 : 00 a. in.
Chandler's testimony concerning the discharge is contradictory. It is, therefore, not
credited. At first, he testified that in the morning he "called John O'Neal to come down and
see if he knew anything about it (mixed yarn)"; and that he (Chandler) told Byrd of her
discharge. Later, Chandler testified that O'Neal reported the mixed yarn when he called
at Chandler's home; that he (Chandler) "came right down" ; and that he did not remember
if he told O'Neal to tell Byrd that she was discharged or if he told her himself.
12 Byrd testified that at some time before Christmas 1947, she had an altercation with her
husband while at work, and that O'Neal warned her not to fight.
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
replied, "Well, I aint got a thing to do with that; that is up to Mr. Chandler.
If the Union comes in down here the-mill will close down." "
Bolling joined the Union on or about September 5, 1947. She discussed the
Union with a number of employees, while at work and outside the plant. She
attended about five or six meetings of the Union at the Carolina Hotel. About 2
weeks before her discharge, Pulley came to her place of work and asked her how
her sister, Hilda Merkerson, was coming along with the Union" Bolling told him
that she did not know much about it. Pulley then stated that it would not do
Merkerson any good to try to organize the Union as the Respondent would not
tolerate the Union, and that the Respondent would move the machinery back
North. Bolling said that she did not think the Respondent would be able to do
that. Pulley replied, "They can run out the stock in 2 weeks, and they will
do it." At some time before her discharge, Bolling told Pulley that she was a
member of the Union.
On April 28, 1948, a few minutes before the end of the shift, Chandler dis-
charged both Allen and Bolling, allegedly for discarding waste yarn in the bath-
room. He told them that he had set a trap and that the waste had come from
their frames. Allen and Bolling denied the charge. Bolling twice asked to be
confronted with the person who had accused her. Chandler refused, saying, "You
would lie to them just like you are lying to me."
Shortly after April 28, O'Neal approached employees Edna Johnson and Tille
Blake while they were talking. He said, "If you get the Union in you will have a
Negro boss." 15 He then asked Johnson if she recalled that Allen was discharged
for carrying waste into the rest room. When Johnson said that she did , O'Neal
said that Allen had said that she "felt like kicking herself for ever messing with
the Union."
Conclusions
The Respondent contends that Allen and Bolling were discharged for discard-
ing yarn waste in the rest room. In this connection the Respondent adduced
evidence showing that the amount of waste depended on the efficiency of the
operator of a spinning frame, that operators were reprimanded if they made too
much waste, and that waste had a value of approximately $1.10 per pound.
Chandler testified that Shockley told him that too much waste was being made,
that the maid who cleaned the rest room complained about waste being discarded
there, that he asked an employee by the name of Moore to try to find out who was
responsible, and that a few days later Moore told him that Allen and Bolling had
left waste in the rest room 13
The undersigned rejects the Respondent's contention and finds that Allen and
Bolling were discharged because of their membership in and activities on behalf
of the Union. Pulley knew that they were adherents of the Union. Further,
Bolling attended a number of meetings of the Union. As related above, Shockley,
Chandler, and O'Neal kept the meetings under suveillance. With this in mind,
O'Neal's statement to Johnson concerning Allen's discharge is significant. From
all the evidence it conclusively appears that the Respondent sought ways and
13 Allen testified credibly and without contradiction, to the above conversation. Pulley
appeared as a witness, but did not deny the statements attributed to him by witnesses for
the General Counsel.
14 It has been related above that Pulley called at Merkerson's home on September 5, 1947.
Bolling was present at her sister's home at the time.
11 Johnson and Blake were talking about Negroes riding with white persons on a bus before
O'Neal made the above statement.
10 Moore did not appear at the hearing as a witness.
PREMIER WORSTED MILLS 999
means to discharge adherents of the Union, upon one pretext or another. This
determination of the Respondent was announced by O'Neal in conversations with
employees, related and found above. Accordingly, the undersigned does not
believe that Allen and Bolling discarded waste, as contended by the Respondent,
or that they were discharged for cause.
Vivian Gilligan: Gilligan was employed by the Respondent from March 1947
until her discharge on May 10, 1948. She worked as a mender under Sanders.
As related above, there were between 30 and 35 employees in the mending room.
Gilligan joined the Union on September 5, 1947. She solicited all of the menders
and some employees in the weaving room to become members of the Union, and
succeeded in getting almost all of the menders to join. Her solicitations took
place during working hours in the rest room and in the mending room. She at-
tended all but a few of the Union's meetings. Several of the meetings attended by
her before her discharge were under surveillance by Sanders, Simpson, Shockley,
and Chandler.
At some time before her discharge she and some other employees were discuss-
ing the Union. Sanders was present and said that the plant would not operate if
organized by a union, that the Respondent would move the machinery back to the
North, and that she would discharge every employee who joined the Union as
soon as she could discover them."
Shockley came to Gilligan's place of work at some time before her discharge,
and said, "Vivian, I heard you went to the Union meeting Saturday night." Gilli-
gan replied, "Why should anyone tell you that I went to the Union meeting when
you were there snooping around yourself?" Upon being asked by Shockley who
had told her that, she said, "A lot of us saw you." Is
While Gilligan was at work on May 10 and shortly before the end of the shift,
'Sanders sent for her. Sanders told her, "Vivian, we have been timing you girls
when you went to the bathroom, and it has been amounting up to an hour a day,
and I am going to have to fire you." Gilligan replied, "Miss Sanders, you are
not firing me because I go to the bathroom ; you are firing me because I belong
to the Union. . . . Everything was all right until Mr. Shockley went to snoop-
ing around at the Union meetings." Sanders told Gilligan that she did not know
that Gilligan was a member of the Union. Gilligan then went to the office where
she met Shockley. Upon being asked by him the reason for her discharge, she
told him that Sanders had discharged her for going to the rest room too often.
Shockley left the office. When he returned he told an office employee to make
out Gilligan's time. Gilligan then told him that he was discharging her because
she belonged to the Union.
Conclusions
The Respondent contends that Gilligan was discharged because she spent too
much time in the rest room. In this connection both Sanders and Shockley
testified at length. In substance, they testified that some of the employees in
the mending room were spending considerable time in the rest room ; that Shockley
asked Sanders to keep a record of the time that employees spent there; that
Sanders on several occasions "way back" warned the employees in this respect ;
that Shockley also warned some of the employees ; that on different occasions
11 Gilligan testified credibly and without contradiction that Sanders made the above
statements.
38 Gilligan testified credibly to the above conversation. Shockley, in effect, denied the
statements attributed to him by Gilligan by testifying that he did not talk to Gilligan
about.the Union. His denial is not credited.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shockley timed the employees while they were in the rest room ; that Sanders'
record showed that Gilligan spent on an average of 5 minutes per day more than
other employees in the rest room; that Sanders warned Gilligan 3 or 4 days:
before her discharge that she stayed in the rest room too long ; and that after
Sanders started keeping a record and warned the employees, some of the em-
ployees cut down their time in the rest room, but Gilligan and other employees
did not.
The Respondent's contention is rejected and the undersigned finds that the
Respondent discharged Gilligan because of her membership in and activities on.
behalf of the Union. Gilligan testified credibly that she did not spend any more
time in the rest room than the other employees did, and that Sanders did not
warn or reprimand her in this connection 19 Shockley and Sanders heretofore
have been found not to be reliable or credible witnesses. Moreover, from their
own testimony it appears that other employees in addition to Gilligan did not cut
down their time in the rest room after Sanders allegedly maintained a record,.
and that Gilligan was the only employee discharged for this reason at the times.
material herein.
It is undisputed that Gilligan was the most active employee in the mending
room on the Union's behalf. Shockley's conversation with her shortly before her
discharge shows that he was concerned about her activities. For all of these
reasons and upon consideration of the entire record, I am convinced and find.
that the Respondent did not discharge Gilligan for cause.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent as set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of Respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
The undersigned has found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of Ida Byrd, Julia Bolling, Ethel Allen, and
Vivian Gilligan. Therefore, it will be recommended that the Respondent offer
them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiv-
alent position 20 without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and that the Respondent make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them, by payment
to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have
19 Gilligan testified that about 5 or 6 months before her discharge Sanders warned the
employees about spending time in the rest room.
20 In accordance with the Board ' s consistent interpretation of the term , the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position " is intended to mean "former position wher-
ever possible , but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equivalent
position ." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N. L. R. B. 827.
PREMIER WORSTED MILLS 1001
earned as wages from the date of such discrimination to the date of the offer
of reinstatement, less her net earnings 21 during said period.
It has also been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain acts of
interference, restraint, and coercion, in violation of the rights guaranteed em-
ployees under Section 7 of the Act. Because of the Respondent's unlawful con-
duct and the underlying attitude of opposition to the purpose of the Act revealed
thereby, the undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor practices found are
closely related to,the other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and
that a danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the
course of the Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purpose of the
Act may be frustrated unless the order of the Board is coextensive with the
threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of
Section 7, to prevent the recurrence of unfair labor practices and thereby to
minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus to
effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will also recommend that
the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in any other manner, in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Ida Byrd, Julia Bolling, Ethel Allen, and Vivian Gilligan, thereby discouraging
membership in Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the Respondent, Premier Worsted Mills, its agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of America, CIO,
or any other labor organization by discharging or refusing to reinstate 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 employ-
ees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or any other labor
21 Matter of Crossett Lumber Co., 8 N. L. R. B. 440, 497-498.
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such
activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Ida Byrd, Julia Bolling, Ethel Allen, and Vivian Gilligan im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
position 22 without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole Ida Byrd, Julia Bolling, Ethel Allen, and Vivian Gilligan
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's dis-
crimination against them, by payment to them of sums of money equal to the
amounts determined in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The remedy"
above;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in Respondent's establishment
at Raleigh, North Carolina, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appen-
dix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Office of the
Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representatives,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing within
twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that, unless the Respondent shall within twenty
(20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, notify said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respond-
ent to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may,
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file
with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six
copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate
Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all
motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies
of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period, file an
original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immedi-
ately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing
the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements
of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions of the
record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeo-
graphed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all
papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85.
22 See footnote 20, supra.
PREMIER WORSTED MILLS 1003
As further provided in said Section 203.46 should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the
Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 26th day of April 1949.
JOHN H. EADIE,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL offer the following named individuals immediate and full em-
ployment at the same or substantially equivalent position to which they
would be employed, without prejudice to the seniority or other rights or
privileges they would have enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against.them :
Ida Byrd Ethel Allen
Julia Bolling Vivian Gilligan
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor or-
ganizations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and
to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of Textile Workers
Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organization. We will not discrimi-
nate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
PREMIER WORSTED MILLS
Employer
Dated ------------------------- By --------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.