Proximity Print Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1938

7 N.L.R.B. 803 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of PROXIMITY PRINT WoRKS and TEXTILE WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
In the Matter of PROXIMITY PRINT WORKS, Or PROXIMITY MANUFAC-
TURING COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Cases Nos. R-486 and C-571, respectively. Decided June 9, 1938
Cotton Textile Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: persuading
employees to refrain from joining or to resign from union ; questioning employ-
ees regarding union activhy ; intimidation-Investigation of Representatives:
controversy concerning representation of employees: majority status disputed
by employer-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: piece-rate and hourly
production employees, exclusive of watchmen and clerical and supervisory
employees ; similarity of skill, wages, hours, and working conditions ; functional
coherence-Election Ordered
Mr. Samuel M. Spencer, for the Board.
Brooks, McLendon, cfc Holderness, by Mr. L. P. McLendon, and
Stern ct Stern, by Mr. S. J. Stern, of Greensboro , N. C., for the
respondent.
Mr. C. G. Shaw, of Greensboro, N. C., for the Union.
Mr. Arnold R. Cutler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed by the Textile Workers Organ-
izing Committee., herein called the Union, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein. called the Board, by Bennet F. Schauffler, Re-
gional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), issued
its complaint dated November 29, 1937, against the Proximity Manu-
facturing Company, Greensboro, North Carolina, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section
8 (1), and Section 2 (6) and (7), of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. With regard to the unfair
labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the respond-
803
804 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent, by intimidating employees at its Proximity Print Works plant,
herein called the Print Works, by permitting its agents and em-
ployees to solicit members of the Union to give up their membership
therein, and by other acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees at the Print Works in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
On November 29, 1937, copies of the complaint and accompanying
notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties. On December
4, 1937, the respondent filed a motion asking that, in advance of
the hearing, the Union and the Board be required to furnish a bill
of particulars as to the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
On December 6, 1937, the respondent filed an answer to the com-
plaint admitting that it is engaged in interstate commerce generally,
but denying that it is so engaged in so far as the operations of the
Print Works are concerned, denying that it had engaged in the alleged
unfair labor practices, and asking that the proceedings be dismissed.
On October 8, 1937, the Union filed with the Regional Director a
petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of the respondent at its Print
Works and requesting an investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On November 10,
1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and
Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for
an appropriate hearing upon clue notice. On the same clay, the Board
acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), and Article
II, Section 37 (b), of the Rules and Regulations, ordered that the
two cases be consolidated. On November 29, 1937, the Regional
Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly
served upon the parties. In its motion of December 4, 1937, the
respondent moved that the representation case be dismissed, or,
if not dismissed, that the Union and the Board be required to furnish
a bill of particulars on the question of representation.
Though not on the date specified in the notice, but with all parties
present, a hearing on the complaint and petition was held on Decem-
ber 16 and 17, 1937, at Greensboro, North Carolina, before J. M.
Brown, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The
Board and the respondent were represented by counsel. The Union
was represented by its subregional director. All parties participated
in the hearing. 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 commencement of the hearing, coun-
sel for the respondent made several oral motions and a written motion
similar in effect to the notion of December 4. 1937. Al the respective
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 805
close of the complaint and representation- cases counsel for the
respondent moved that each case be dismissed on the ground that the
evidence showed that no labor dispute existed with respect to em-
ployees at the Print Works. These motions, including the motion of
December 4, 1937, were denied by the Trial Examiner. During the
course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made numerous rulings on
other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner, and finds that
no prejudicial errors were committed. With the exception noted in
Section III, the rulings are hereby affirmed.
On April 11, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate
Report finding that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
and Section 2 (6) and (7), of the Act. On May 3, 1938, the re-
spondent filed its exceptions to the Intermediate Report. In its
exceptions, the respondent requested that it be permitted to file a
brief and present oral argument before the Board. On May 4, 1938,
the respondent filed an affidavit of one Eli Craven.
On May 19, 1938, pursuant to permission granted by the Board,
the respondent presented oral argument before the Board in support
of its exceptions to the Intermediate Report and to the various rul-
ings of the Trial Examiner. At the same time, by consent of the
Board, the respondent filed its brief which the Board has considered.
The Board has also considered the exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and finds them to be without merit. In its exceptions the
respondent made several motions, including a motion to reopenI the
case. These motions are hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in both cases, the Board makes the
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE 13USINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of North Carolina with its office and place of business at
Greensboro, North Carolina. It is engaged in the manufacture of
cotton goods consisting of denims, khakis, and various printed
fabrics.
The respondent operates at Greensboro, North Carolina, several
plants, where the cotton is spun and woven into denim, and the
Print WWrorks, at which gray goods 1 (or cloth woven from un-
bleached or undyed yarns, as they-come from the loom), manufac-
I See Matter of Martin Dyeing and Finrshinq Company and Federation of Dares, Fin-
ishers, Printers and Bleachers of Anrei ica, 2 N L R B 403, Matter of Bradford DUeinq
Association and Textile 1VorAers Organizing Committee of the C 1 0, 4 N L R B 604
806 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tured at the other plants of the respondent, are bleached, dyed,
printed, and finished into khakis and printed goods. From the time
the gray goods arrive at the Print Works until they are finished,
inspected, and made up into the bolts which go out as the finished
product, the operations are practically continuous.
The respondent obtains its raw materials, consisting primarily of
cotton, and other supplies from various States including Louisiana,
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas. The
respondent ships more than 50 per cent of its finished products to
points outside the State of North Carolina.
In 1936, the respondent manufactured approximately 36,000,000
yards of cotton goods, valued at approximately $4,000,000. The en-
tire output is sold through a dry goods commission house, the con-
trolling interests in which are identical with those of the respondent.
The commission house has its offices in Ndw York City and Greens-
boro, North Carolina.
II. T21E ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting
to its membership all piece-rate and hourly production employees of
the respondent at the Print Works, excluding watchmen and clerical
and supervisory employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Sometime during the month of June 1937, C. G. Shaw , the sub-
regional director for the Union , began an active organizational cam-
paign among the employees of the respondent at the Print Works.
To aid him in this campaign Shaw had the use of his own assistants
and an organizational committee set up among the workers.
The Union contends that at about the time it began its campaign,
the superintendent of the Print Works , H. A. Barnes , held a special
meeting of all the supervisory employees at the Print Works.2 G. W.
Wells, one of the supervisory employees , stated that this meeting was
held sometime around June 1, 1937. Barnes and two supervisory em-
ployees, John Green and C. B. Frazier , testified that such a meeting
was called , but stated that it was held during the latter part of April
or early part of May. Despite the conflict in the testimony as to the
time of the holding of the meeting , it is evident that a meeting of
the supervisory employees was held. The respondent contends, how-
2 Respondent testified that a second meeting was held for those supervisory employees
who did not attend the first. Also, some few who did not attend either of the meetings
were approached personally.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 807
ever, that Wells was not present at such meeting. In support of its
contention the respondent, subsequent to the hearing, submitted an
affidavit of one Eli Craven,3 a supervisory employee, who stated that
neither during the first 6 months of 1937, nor during the 10 years he
was employed by the respondent, did he attend any meeting in
Barnes' office at which Wells was present. This affidavit is vague and
lacks specific reference to the meeting in question. In further sup-
port of respondent's contention, Green testified that he did not see
Wells at the meeting in Barnes' office. On the other hand, two of the
respondent's witnesses, Frazier and Barnes, were not at all certain
that Wells was not there. Barnes testified that this was the only
meeting to which he called all his supervisory employees. He admit-
ted that there was no reason why lie should have excluded Wells, who
was a supervisory employee, as all the supervisors were called. In,
view of the lack of definiteness in the affidavit, the testimony of
Barnes, the doubtful testimony of Frazier, and the positive testimony
of Wells that lie was present, the weight of the evidence supports the
contention that Wells was present at the meeting.
As to what transpired at the meeting, there is likewise a conflict
between the testimony of Wells and the other witnesses. Wells testi-
fied that Barnes "mentioned about reading in the papers, hearing of
organized labor, such as the C. I. O. and the A. F. of L. and then
went ahead and says there wasn't any use of the company going into
the trouble of informing us about the union, as they had before;
that we understood that the company was against the union in their
plant." Wells further testified that the superintendent said "some-
thing to the effect that it was up to us, as it was up to the group
he was talking to, to help keep the union out." Barnes denied mak-
ing such statements and testified that the meeting, which was held
soon after the Act was declared constitutional, was called for the pur-
pose of advising the supervisory employees regarding the future
policy of the respondent towards unions. Though Barnes stated the
attitude of the respondent theretofore had been that it "did not need
so-called labor unions in our community," at this meeting he told
the supervisory employees that thenceforth the respondent and its
supervisory employees were to maintain a neutral attitude toward all
labor unions, not having anything to do with them "one way or
the other." Both Green and Frazier testified to the same effect as
Barnes.
It is clear from a survey of the activities at the respondent's plant
subsequent to the meeting of the supervisory employees that neither
the respondent nor its supervisory employees maintained a neutral
8 Also referred to as Ely Griffin.
106791-38-vol. V11-52
808 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
position. Indeed, the evidence shows clearly that the respondent
and its supervisory employees waged an active campaign against the
Union. Under such circumstances, the respondent's claim as to the
nature and purpose of the meeting of supervisory employees cannot
be accepted.4
D. J. Welborn testified that during the spring of 1937, at which
time he was a supervisory employee, he was called into Barnes' office
and was told by him that the respondent felt the same then as it had
theretofore "about the union." The testimony of Welborn was not
shaken during cross-examination and was not contradicted by the
respondent.
Two employees in the machine shop, J. R. Morrison and Banner
Bishop, each testified that during the month of June 1937, follow-
ing the above meeting, he was approached during the working hours
by Green, the foreman of the machine shop, and warned by him
about belonging to the Union. Daniel Meetz, another employee in
this department, related a similar incident with respect to Green,
but the record does not indicate when it occurred. Morrison also
testified he was questioned by Green about the C. I. 0. on other
occasions. Green denied making these statements or any similar
to them. The clear weight of the evidence supports the testimony
of the three employees.
The record also discloses evidence of considerable antiunion activ-
ity during the week of September 19, 1937. Wells testified that dur-
ing that week Sidney Cone, overseer of the packing department and
also described as "boss of the print works [and] office." asked him
to take a vote among the employees in the packing department to
find out how many of them belonged to the Union. Wells testified
he started to do this but Cone came back and told him to drop it.
Greer, an employee, testified that he was approached by Cone during
the same week. Greer further testified : -
He asked me, how did the boys seem to be satisfied in the
nacking department . . . and he asked me, was there any union
in there, and I hesitated, and I didn't answer. He said, from
that he should not ask me. He wanted to call all the boys
4 The general attitude of the respondent towards the Union may be gleaned from the
-following c'oss-examination of IT F. Greer, an emplovee, by counsel for the respondent:
Q (Bv Dir McLendon ) Mr. Greer, do you know what I mean by the word
"meddler"')
A We call that folks that talk too much
Q Yes , peop'e who butt into other people's business.
A I understand that
Q And you know who that kind of fellow is?
A Yes
Q I will ask you if there are not a lot of meddlers who hang around the Prox-
imity Punt W'oiks, who do not work for the company, who have no knowledge of its
business, or the working conditions, but who have undertaken to give you advice
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 809
together and make a speech so he got them all together and
made a speech , and spoke about the gold brick.
Various witnesses testified as to the so -called "gold brick" speech
by Cone. They testified that the speech, delivered to the employees
of the packing department, was to the effect that the employees
should hear both sides of the question , that some of the employees
were buying "gold bricks," that some would get them, probably
already had them, that some would hold them, and that some would
throw them away. The witnesses stated that they understood
"gold bricks" to refer to union cards. A. C. Paschal, a packing
department employee, testified that later the same night Cone stated
to him that "some new help might go into a, thing like that," but
that the "older help had nothing in it." Paschal construed Cone's
statement to be in general reference to union cards.
The respondent contends that the purpose of the speech was only
to explain a notice posted on September 20, 1937, cutting the work-
week from 5 to 3 days, due to a decrease in orders. Barnes offered
as a possible explanation for the reference to "gold bricks" the fact
that, as the employees were going on a shorter workweek, Cone
might have been advising them "to be careful how they spend their
money, not to buy things that they don't need." It is significant that
the respondent did not call Cone as a witness to explain his speech
or to deny his acts and statements made before and after it.
About September 20, 1937, C. G. Shaw, the union, organizer, con-
ferred with Cone and asked that the Union be recognized as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the respondent's employees
at the Print Works. Bill Smith, an employee of the finishing de-
partment, testified that while he was at work at his machine on a
day following this' conference, he was approached by Barnes who
said, "Bill, . .. why did you all have to have a representative to go
out and see Mr. Cone? .. . Y You know nothing ever comes up in
the mill that we don't try to straighten out and if you come to me I
have always been fair with you and you should have come to me
about it." This conversation was not denied by the respondent.
Smith also testified that on September 24, while getting some sup-
plies in the jig room, lie was approached by the overseer of that
department, J. Al. Stanley, was questioned by'him about the Union,
and was told that the C. I. O. never had, and never would, do any
good. Stanley denied making these statements. Millard Gregory,
an employee in the jig room, testified that on the same clay he was
approached by Stanley, who stated that he could not let "the C. I. O.
fellows work but 3 days-3 weeks out of the month," and who asked
him whether he belonged to the Union. Stanley denied making these
statements and testified that, following the decrease in business, as
810 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
part of the plan by the respondent to equalize the work among a,lL'
the employees and to give a preference to married nien, he told Greg-
ory not to report for work that week, adding that "some of the C. I. O._
fellows might kick."
Wells testified that on September 21, 1937, he saw a group of seven-
employees,5 none of whom were supervisory employees, go into the
office of W. S. Thornburg, the assistant superintendent of the Print
Works. He also testified that he overheard Thornburg say to this;
group : "We have got to think up some excuses." Inasmuch as Wells
was not absolutely certain that it was Thornburg who made such a
statement, the Trial Examiner excluded this part of Wells' testimony.
We feel that such testimony should have been admitted and the ruling
of the Trial Examiner is hereby accordingly reversed. A number
of witnesses testified that at the close of each day's work at the Print_
Works the seven inen were seen talking to the employees. Frank
Hinson, an employee in the finishing department, testified that on
September 23, 1937 - during working hours, he was approached,by
Frank Thornburg, one of the group of seven, who asked if he belonged'
to the Union, suggested that he turn in his union card, and advised'
him that if he did so a good word would be put in for him. Worth
Smith, an employee in the bleaching department, testified that on
October 7, 1937, cluing working hours, he was approached by Ronny
Everage, another of the seven, who asked him to turn in his union.
card and advised him that if he did so to "come back and tell Mr.
Barnes or Walter Thornburg."
Thy Cobia, an apparent leader of the group of seven, was the-
only member of the group who testified. He denied that a meeting-
of the group was ever held in W. L. Thornburg's office and stated
that his acts were entirely voluntary and without knowledge of the-
management. It is significant in this connection to note that Cobia,
though employed in the engraving department, went freely about-
the other departments of the Print Works in his efforts to induce-
employees to surrender their union cards. Cobia testified that on-
one occasion the respondent cautioned him not to leave his work
during working hours. It is also significant in evaluating the-
weight to be given Cohia's testimony to note that, though voluble on
his dislike of unions; he had an almost complete lapse of memory
as to the numbers of cards each member of the group was instru-
mental in obtaining, despite the fact that the cards were turned over
to him by each of the members for ultimate disposition.
5Iby (also appeared in the record as Irby ) Cobia, Webb Mahafi, Ronny Everage , Henry
Thornburg , Frank Thornbuig , Walter Martindale , and Robert Murray ( also appeared in,
the record as Meyer).
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 811
In view of all the facts and the failure of the respondent to call
as witnesses W. L. Thornburg or any members of the group of
-seven except Cobia, we are constrained to conclude that the solicita-
tion of the employees to give up their union membership was insti-
gated by the respondent and carried on in its behalf.
On November 26, 1937, several articles pertaining to the C. I. O.
appeared in the " Textorian," a weekly newspaper which M. W.
Heiss, its editor, testified was owned by various Cone interests. It
is clear from the record that the Cone interests control the re-
spondent. The masthead of this newspaper lists the names of the
various plants of the respondent, including the Proximity Print
Works, and bears a seal-like mark of the controlling interests with
the inscription " Cone Fabrics-Seal of Service." The newspaper is
distributed free of charge to employees of the respondent. One of
the articles reported a purported speech delivered on November 9,
1937, by a high official of the State of Ohio relating to the steel-
strike situation in that State which had commenced in May of that
year. The tenor of the speech may be gathered from the following
excerpts : " The [steel] companies advanced one argument which I
could not answer. They took the position that a written contract
would bind them, but would not bind the C. I. O. leadership .. .
Some of the most vicious of the C. I. O. leaders are known com-
munists . . . Their philosophy is not the elevation of American
labor, but it is violence, civil war, and revolution . . . There was
one band of some two thousand men [C. I. 0.] from Akron alone
who attempted an armed invasion of Youngstown with blood in their
eyes and violence on their lips." The other article purported to be
a reprint of an editorial from the "American Wool and Cotton Re-
porter." This editorial, printed in type much larger than that
used in the other columns of the newspaper and under the heading
"Aspinook Company Will Liquidate," told the story of a certain
cotton mill which was engaged in operations similar to those of the
Print Works. The story was to the effect that the mill, though in a
precarious financial position, had nevertheless. continued to operate
until the C. I. O. had begun an organization drive; and that there-
after the operations of the mill were so obstructed by the newly
formed C. I. O. union and its affairs that the management was com-
pelled to liquidate the plant.
The analogy which the employees at the Print Works undoubtedly
were expected to draw is obvious. In effect, the employees at the
Print Works were informed that, if the C. I. O. were successful in
its organizational- activities, the security of their jobs would be af-
fected. Under the circumstances, the articles undoubtedly served to
D
812 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
intimidate the employees at the Print Works in connection with a free
choice of bargaining representation and the respondent must be
charged with such intimidation.
We find that the respondent, by virtue of the acts above set forth,
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees at the Print
Works in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR 1'RAC'IICES UPON CO_ll JI ERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent engaged in various unfair labor
practices we shall, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, order
the respondent to cease and desist from in any manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing its employees at the Print Works, and
to take certain affirmative action, all as more particularly hereinafter
described.
VI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On September 20, 1937, at a meeting of the organizing committees
of the Union, the subregional director of the Union, Shaw, was re-
quested to confer with the management of the Print Works for-the
purpose of entering into a collective bargaining agreement. Pur;
suant to this request, at a conference held soon thereafter between
Shaw and the 'respondent, which was represented by Cone, Shaw
claimed the Union represented a majority of the employees at the
Print Works and requested the respondent to recognize the Union as
the representative of the employees at the Print Works for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining. The respondent refused to accept such
claim without proof. The Union, both at the conference and at the
hearing, refused to reveal the names of its members for fear _of
possible reprisals, and requested that an election be held among
the employees at the Print Works to determine the question of
representation.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the respondent at the Print Works.
4
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 813
VII. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate , and substantial
relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
VIII. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union took the position that all piece-rate and hourly produc-
tion employees of the respondent at the Print Works, exclusive of
watchmen and clerical and supervisory employees , should be consid-
ered as the appropriate unit. The respondent , on the other hand,
contended that the appropriate unit was either a plant unit compris-
ing all the plants of the respondent or craft units based on the skill
required in the various departments . No evidence was introduced
by the respondent to sustain either of its contentions other than to
point out that the Print Works was dependent on the other plants
for the gray goods and that different degrees of skill were required
in the various departments of the Print Works.
The record discloses that the skill required of, as well as the wages
paid to, and the hours and working conditions of, all the production
employees at the Print Works, exclusive of watchmen and clerical
and supervisory employees , were substantially the same. Further-
more, the operations of the Print Works are such that, although the
plant is divided into departments , all function coherently in the com-
pletion of each single piece of goods . Under these circumstances,
we are of the opinion that the unit sought by the Union is appro-
priate.
We find that the piece -rate and hourly production employees of
the respondent at the Print Works, exclusive of watchmen and cler-
ical and supervisory employees , constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to
employees of the respondent at the Print Works the full benefit of
their right to self -organization and to collective bargaining and
otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
Ix. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
During 1937, the respondent employed at the Print Works between.
412 and 536 employees . At the hearing the Union claimed 281 em-
ployees of the respondent at the Print Works were members of the
Union. As stated above, the Union refused to reveal the names of
814 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its members for fear of possible reprisals." It requested that an elec-
tion be held among the employees at the Print Works to determine
the question of representation.
We find that the question which has arisen concerning represen-
tation can best be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot.
At the hearing the Union requested that the pay roll immediately
preceding October 8, 1937, the date of the filing of the petition, be
used for determining eligibility to vote, and the respondent has
made no objection. We conclude, under the circumstances, that
those eligible to vote in the election shall be the employees within the
appropriate unit employed by the respondent at the Print Works,
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding October 8, 1937,
excluding those who have quit or been discharged for cause between
such date and the date of election.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes
the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organiza-
tion, within the meaning of Section 2 (5), of the Act.
2. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees at the Print Works in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), of the
Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7), of
the Act.
4. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the respondent, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7), of the Act.
5. All piece-rate and hourly production employees of the respond-
ent at the Print Works, excluding watchmen and clerical and super-
visory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of- the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Proximity Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees at the Proximity Print Works in the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 815
exercise of their rights to self -organization , to form, join or assist
labor organizations , to bargain collectively through. representatives of
their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action , which the Board finds will "
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in each department of
the Proximity Print Works, and maintain for a period of at least
thirty ( 30) consecutive days , notices stating ( 1) that the respondent
will cease and desist as set forth in paragraph 1 of this order; and
(2) that the employees of the respondent at the Proximity Print
Works are free to join or assist the Textile Workers Organizing Com-
mittee , or any other labor organization of their own choosing;
(b) Notify the Regional Director of the Fifth Region in writing
within ten ( 10) days from the date of this order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as
amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the
Board to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with
Proximity Print Works, of Proximity Manufacturing Company,
Greensboro, North Carolina, an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted within twenty (20) days from the date of this Direction,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fifth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules
and Regulations, among all the piece-rate and hourly production em-
ployees of the respondent at the Print Works who were employed by
the respondent during the pay-roll period next preceding October 8,
1937, excluding watchmen and clerical and supervisory employees and
those who have quit or been discharged for cause between such date
and the date of election, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by Textile Workers Organizing Committee for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining.
816 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[SAarE TITLE ]
AMENDMENT TO DIRECTION OF ELECTION
June 21, 1938
On June 9, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Decision, Direction of Election, and
Order in the above-entitled proceeding. The Direction of Election
provided that "an election by secret ballot shall be conducted within
twenty (20) days from the date of this Direction, under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region."
At the request of the Regional Director we shall postpone the elec-
tion for the present.
The Board hereby amends its Direction of Election by striking out
the words "within twenty (20) days from the date of this Direction"
and substituting therefor the words "at such time as the Board may
in the future direct."