Rockland-Bamberg print Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1977

231 N.L.R.B. 305 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

ROCKLAND-BAMBERG PRINT WORKS, INC.
Rockland-Bamberg Print Works, Inc. and Machine
Printers and Engravers Association of the United
States. Cases 11 CA-6461 and 11-CA-6568
August 11, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND WALTHER
On March 31, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Morton D. Friedman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge to the
extent consistent herewith.
We do not agree with the Administrative Law
Judge that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act by discharging Paul Mitchem.
Although Paul Mitchem was hired by Respondent
in March 1974 as a printer, he had no previous
experience as such, was paid less, and was considered
an apprentice. He was laid off in December 1974.
When he was recalled in August 1975, he was
reimbursed for the expense of moving back to
Bamberg. In early December 1975, Mitchem request-
ed a raise, but Respondent denied the request
without explanation.
A campaign to organize Respondent's printers
began in late spring 1975. The petition was filed on
October 24, 1975, and an election was held on
December 18, 1975, which the Union won, four votes
to one. Two days following the election, printer
James Harter, who had served as Respondent's
observer, was promoted to supervisor.' In early
January 1976, Mitchem revealed to Harter that he
had voted for the Union. On March 9, 1976,
Mitchem was issued two written reprimands. The
first reprimand, for low production, had originally
been prepared and signed by Willard Wood, superin-
tendent of printing, but was retained by Wood until
March 9, when it was given to Harter to sign and
issue to Mitchem. Mitchem refused to sign this
reprimand, insisting that he was printing cloth as fast
as his machine would allow. The second reprimand
concerning 4,000 yards of "out of fit" cloth which
Mitchem had printed, was also prepared without
For these reasons, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that an
intelligent guess could be made as to which of the five printers voted against
the Union.
231 NLRB No. 51
consultation with Harter, Mitchem's immediate
supervisor. Mitchem signed this reprimand.
On May 11, 1976, a continuing streak in a pattern
that Mitchem was printing caused Mitchem to stop
his machine four separate times and show the
streaking to Harter. The first three times Harter
examined the streak, he concluded it was caused by
"missing backfill," an absence of a starchy substance
applied to the cloth to aid the printing process. Since
"missing backfill" is a defect in the cloth, rather than
a printing error, Harter instructed Mitchem to
resume printing. After resuming printing, Mitchem
ran about 8,000 yards of cloth and, upon noticing
that the streak had worsened, stopped the machine
and sent for Harter. This time, Harter concluded that
the streak was caused by vibration of the "doctor
blade," a part of the machine which cleans the
printing roller so that ink may be applied evenly. On
Harter's instructions, Mitchem adjusted the doctor
blade and the balance of the cloth was properly
printed. On May 17, 1976, Respondent discharged
Mitchem, giving as the reason the 8,000 yards of
streaked cloth which Mitchem had printed. The
streaking rendered the yardage substandard and
caused Respondent substantial financial loss.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that
Respondent discharged Mitchem for his union
activity. He so found, despite the facts that Mit-
chem's only union activity was voting for the union 5
months prior to his discharge and Mitchem had
ruined a total of 12,000 yards of cloth. We disagree.
The Administrative Law Judge found animus from
Respondent's preelection 8(a)(1) conduct. However,
the bare fact that Respondent, prior to the election,
engaged in coercive conduct against employee Roy
Hannon, an active union supporter, does not,
without more, establish that Mitchem's discharge 5
months later violated Section 8(a)(3).
Because Respondent recalled Mitchem and reim-
bursed him for his moving expenses, did not give a
reason for denying his request for a raise, and
presented no evidence to show that Mitchem's work
was unsatisfactory prior to the election, the Adminis-
trative Law Judge concluded that Respondent
considered Mitchem a satisfactory employee up until
the election. We agree. We fail to see, however, how
Mitchem's satisfactory performance before the elec-
tion can give rise to an inference that his discharge
for unsatisfactory performance 5 months after the
election was motivated by his limited union activity.
Certainly there is no evidence that Respondent
tolerated, before the election or at any other time,
printing errors similar to that for which Mitchem was
discharged.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
From the fact that Mitchem revealed his union
vote to Harter in early January 1976, the Administra-
tive Law Judge found both Respondent's knowledge
of Mitchem's union activity and the beginning of
Mitchem's problems. But as indicated earlier, it
appears, as the Administrative Law Judge in fact
concluded, Respondent knew how Mitchem voted
from the day of the election. The Union won the
election by a vote of four to one and Harter,
Respondent's election observer, was promoted 4 days
thereafter. Mitchem in fact testified that Harter
responded to his admission by stating he knew how
he had voted.
The Administrative Law Judge further inferred
discrimination from the manner in which Mitchem's
two reprimands were prepared. He found the timing
of the reprimand for low production peculiar in that
it had been prepared by Wood almost a month
earlier. He also found it significant that Harter,
Mitchem's immediate supervisor, was not consulted
concerning either reprimand. But there is no evi-
dence that this procedure was unusual. In fact, the
Administrative Law Judge accepted Respondent's
assertions that it had previously discharged employ-
ees without prior warnings and for lesser offenses
than Mitchem was accused of. In brief, there is no
evidence of what Respondent's procedures or criteria
were for issuing reprimands. Absent such evidence
that Respondent had procedures from which it
deviated, we are reluctant to infer a discriminatory
motive from the manner in which the reprimands
were issued.
Finally, the Administrative Law Judge found the
circumstances surrounding Mitchem's discharge
pretextual since he found that Mitchem continued to
print the streaked cloth only after Harter, on three
occasions, instructed him to do so. He found that
Harter, like Mitchem, was incapable of distinguish-
ing streaks due to "missing backfill" from streaks
caused by the "doctor blade," and concluded that
Harter, in ordering Mitchem to resume printing,
either failed in his duty as a supervisor or sought to
create a reason for discharging Mitchem. Yet,
Mitchem's inability to determine the cause of the
cloth's streaking made him at least as responsible for
printing it. And it is therefore just as plausible that
Respondent, faced with 8,000 yards of badly marred
cloth, for which Mitchem and Harter were jointly
responsible, chose to discharge the inexperienced
printer, who had ruined 4,000 yards of cloth 2
months earlier, rather than the supervisor.
The only evidence which supports the finding that
Mitchem's discharge violated Section 8(aX3) is that
Respondent demonstrated union animus prior to the
election and its knowledge of Mitchem's vote.
However, any inference of discrimination which rises
therefrom is certainly rebutted by the fact that
Mitchem, who was not an active supporter of the
Union, was discharged 5 months after the election,
when he spoiled a large quantity of cloth. Nor, as is
frequently the case where pretext is involved, did
Respondent give shifting or contradictory reasons for
the discharge. In short, the discharge is too remote in
time from the campaign and the election and
Mitchem's dereliction of duty too serious for us to
conclude that Mitchem was discharged in violation
of Section 8(a)(3). Accordingly, we shall dismiss this
allegation of the complaint.
AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW
Substitute the following for the Administrative
Law Judge's Conclusion of Law 4:
"4. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act in discharging Paul Mitchem."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Rockland-Bamberg Print Works, Inc., Bamberg,
South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively threatening any employee with
eviction from company-owned housing because of
any employee's support of Machine Printers and
Engravers Association of the United States, hereinaf-
ter the Union, or any other labor organization.
(b) Coercing employees by interrogating them with
regard to their union desires and beliefs by stating
the Respondent would be aware of who was
supporting the Union, and by threatening any
employee with reprisals unless the employee casts an
unmarked ballot in an election, and by informing
any employee that such employee will not be sorry if
the employee stops assisting the Union, and by
soliciting any employee to abandon support of the
Union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of their rights to form, join, or assist or be recognized
by Machine Printers and Engravers Association of
the United States, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, or to engage in other concerted
activity for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activity.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
306
ROCKLAND-BAMBERG PRINT WORKS, INC.
(a) Post at its plant at Bamberg, South Carolina,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges the unlawful removing
from Company-owned premises of Roy Hannon, the
unlawful discharge of Paul Mitchem, or any other
alleged violations of the Act not found by the
Administrative Law Judge.
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten any of our employees
that they will be removed from company housing
in order to induce said employees to cease
supporting Machine Printers and Engravers
Association of the United States, or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any manner threaten our
employees that in any election conducted by the
National Labor Relations Board we will know
how such employees have voted.
WE WILL NOT coerce our employees by inform-
ing them that they will not be sorry if they help
stop the above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT ask any of our employees to
abandon their support of the said Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in the National
Labor Relations Act, which are:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help a union
To bargain collectively through a repre-
sentative of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any and all these things.
ROCKLAND-BAMBERG
PRINT WORKS, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MORTON D. FRIEDMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Orangeburg, South Carolina, on
September 2, 3, and 27, 1976, upon a complaint issued by
the Regional Director for Region 11 of the Board on June
17, 1976, which complaint was based on a charge filed in
Case II-CA-6461 by Machine Printers and Engravers
Association of the United States, hereinafter called the
Union, on February 25, 1976, and a charge filed in Case
I l-CA-6586 by the Union on May 24, 1976. The
complaint, in substance, alleges unlawful threats, interroga-
tions, and promises of benefit in violation of Section 8(aX1)
of the Act; 1 the discriminatory removal from company-
owned housing of one employee and the discriminatory
discharge of another employee in violation of Section
8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. In its duly filed answer, the
Respondent, while admitting certain allegations of the
complaint, denies the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
At the hearing herein, the parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to present evidence, and to make
oral argument. Oral argument was waived. Counsel for the
General Counsel and the Respondent have filed briefs.
Upon my observation of the witnesses, and upon due
consideration given to the contentions and arguments
contained in the briefs filed by the parties, and upon the
entire record in this case, I make the following:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, named in the complaint as Rockland-
Bamberg Industries, but corrected at the hearing to
Rockland-Bamberg Print Works, Inc., hereinafter called
the Respondent or the Company, is a South Carolina
corporation with its plant located at Bamberg, South
Carolina, where it is engaged in the finishing and printing
of textile materials. During the 12-month period immedi-
ately preceding the issuance of the consolidated complaint
herein, a representative period, the Respondent purchased
goods and raw materials for its plant in Bamberg, South
Carolina, from points directly outside the State of South
Carolina of a value in excess of $50,000. During the same
period, the Respondent shipped from the said plant
I An additional allegation of unlawful interrogation was permitted by
amendment to the complaint at the heanng herein.
307
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
directly to points outside the State of South Carolina
products of a value in excess of $50,000.
It is admitted, and I find, that the Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted, and I find, that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. Introduction
At the outset, it should be noted that, basically, the
resolution of the issues presented by the pleadings and
contentions of the parties herein depends on the disposi-
tion of the credibility issues presented by the testimony of
the witnesses for General Counsel and the Respondent and
certain documentary and other evidence.
The Union began to organize the Respondent's textile
printers in approximately May or June 1975 after a visit to
W. James Reese, vice president of the Union, by employee
Roy Hannon, a textile printer and two other printers who
asked Reese about the possibilities of their being represent-
ed by the Union. As a result of this meeting, an
organization campaign ensued, and the Union filed a
petition for representation on October 24, 1975, as a result
of which an election was held on December 18 of that year.
The Union won the election by four votes for the Union
and one for the Respondent. At that election, which was
held on December 18, 1975, Roy Hannon acted as the
observer for the Union and James Harter, then a rank-and-
file printer, acted as observer on behalf of the Company. It
should be noted that there were five printers employed by
the Respondent at the time of the election. Several days
after the election, on December 22, 1975, Harter was
promoted to the position of printer-supervisor.
It should also be noted that the Respondent did not
hesitate to inform its textile printer employees that it was
opposed to their unionization. It was uncontroverted that
during December 1975, before the election, meetings were
held by Company President Dan Moore with the printers
at which Moore pointed out the disadvantages of the
Union. He stated that the Company opposed the Union
and would do anything legally possible to keep out the
Union. In addition to these meetings, a Mr. Leaderman,
the Respondent's board chairman, also told the printers
that he definitely did not want a union in the plant and he
would do everything legally possible to stop the Union. 2
2 None of the foregoing are alleged as violations of the Act and I make
no findings with regard thereto. They are cited only for the purpose of
establishing company attitude toward unionization.
3 The above from credited portions of the testimonies of Hannon,
Clinkscales, and Moore. Although both counsel for General Counsel and
counsel for the Respondent argued that the other witnesses should be
discredited, there is nothing inconsistent in the testimony of either the
Respondent's witnesses or the testimony of Hannon as above cited.
However, I do not credit the denials of Moore and Clinkscales of what
Hannon had related with regard to his fears and what he testified to with
The foregoing represents the atmosphere and the
conditions in the plant and the city of Bamberg at the time
during which the events alleged as being violative of the
Act took place.
2. The unlawful activity
Sometime during early to middle December 1975, Roy
Hannon requested a meeting with the Respondent's vice
president, Marshal M. Clinkscales. The request was
granted and as a result a meeting between Hannon,
Clinkscales and the Respondent's president, J. Dan Moore,
took place in Moore's office. After Clinkscales asked
Hannon what was bothering the latter, Hannon told Moore
and Clinkscales that he, Hannon, thought that Clinkscales
and Moore believed that Hannon was the leader of the
union movement in the Respondent's plant. Hannon had
requested the meeting at the urging of his wife who had
informed him that the company officials could not
approach him about the Union, but that Hannon, himself,
could make such an approach. Evidently, also, Hannon
had heard from others in the town and from his wife, that it
was believed that company officials thought Hannon was
the leader of the union movement in the plant among the
printers. He informed both Moore and Clinkscales of this
at the outset of the meeting and informed them that he was
not the leader. Nevertheless, despite these denials of union
leadership, one of the two, either Moore or Clinkscales,
told Hannon that he could either stop the union movement
or bring it in, that it was up to him. Hannon then told the
officials that he had no ability to stop the union movement
by reason of the fact that some of the printers had worked
for other companies which were unionized and knew the
benefits that unionization would bring. At that point,
Clinkscales told Hannon that if the latter did stop the
Union from coming into the plant he would not be sorry.
Hannon also told the two company officials that he knew
of other places where union ringleaders were fired for their
adherence to the Union after an election. At this point,
Moore who was quite upset by this statement said "It was a
damn lie; he did not know what happened elsewhere, but
that it was not going to happen here." 3
As noted above, the election took place on December 18,
1975. However, the day before the election, December 17,
Roy Hannon's wife, Mary Lou, who worked at the
Bamberg city hall, had a conversation with the mayor of
Bamberg, Virgil Hicks. Hicks informed Mrs. Hannon that
he and company officials were upset over the filed union
petition for an election because they were all concerned
about the Union possibly coming into a small town like
Bamberg. Hicks had evidently also heard talk to the effect
that people in the town and the company officials thought
regard to the statements made by Moore and Clinkscales. Neither do I
credit Hannon with regard to the alleged statement by either Moore or
Clinkscales that they did not need a third party and that the printers could
sit down with the Respondent's officials and resolve the problems on their
own. I do not credit Hannon in this respect because it was only after leading
questions and prompting by the General Counsel that Hannon testified to
this effect. With regard to the foregoing credibility resolutions, I note the
evidentiary rule that it is not uncommon to believe some, and not all, of a
witnesses' testimony. N.L R.B. v. Universal Camera Corp., 179 F.2d 749, 754
(C.A. 2).
308
ROCKLAND-BAMBERG PRINT WORKS, INC.
that Roy Hannon was the leader in the union movement
among the printers in the Respondent's plant.
By reason of the foregoing, on December 17, Mrs.
Hannon telephoned Clinkscales at the latter's office. She
told Clinkscales that she had heard a rumor that her
husband, Roy, was the leading man in the union movement
and that this was not true; that each man was on his own.
During the conversation she told Clinkscales that she did
not know how her husband would vote; that her husband
had informed the other men that he had nothing to do with
the way they voted. During the conversation, also, with
regard to the voting, Clinkscales said that it was a very
serious matter over which he had lost lots of sleep. 4
Clinkscales also said to Mrs. Hannon, "You are fixed up
mighty nice out there and I would hate to see anything
happen to it." This, evidently, although somewhat vague,
undoubtedly referred to the home that the Hannons were,
at that time, renting from the Respondent.
As the conversation went on, Mrs. Hannon told
Clinkscales, in discussing the ballot that it was a secret
ballot and no one would know how each man had voted.
This was in support of her protestations that her husband
was definitely not a union leader. Clinkscales replied to this
statement with regard to the secret ballot, "In a group as
small as this, we will know."
At that point the conversation ended, quite probably
because Clinkscales had another telephone call which he
had to answer. However, a short time thereafter, on the
same day, Clinkscales telephoned Mrs. Hannon and a
second conversation between the two ensued. During that
conversation, Clinkscales told Mrs. Hannon that he had
been thinking that if Roy Hannon placed an unmarked
ballot in the ballot box that he would be voting "No," but
that in reality this would be a vote against the Union. In
reply, Mrs. Hannon stated that she had not thought of
that.5
I find and conclude that in stating to Hannon that the
latter would not be sorry if he helped stop the Union and
stating to Hannon that Hannon had it within his power to
do so, the Respondent by Marshal Clinkscales and J. Dan
Moore, threatened Hannon and solicited him to abandon
his support of the Union and, thereby, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
I further find and conclude that the remark by Clink-
scales, during the telephone conversation between Mrs.
Hannon and Clinkscales on December 17, to the effect that
the Hannons were very comfortable out there, adverting, of
course, to the home they rented from the Respondent, and
that Clinkscales would be very sorry if anything happened
to it, constituted a threat that if Hannon did not abandon
his allegiance to the Union his tenure as a tenant of the
Respondent might be ended. Although there was no direct
4 It is logical to belive that Clinkscales stated this to Mrs. Hannon in
view of the fact that Hicks had told Mrs. Hannon that the company officials
were concerned about the unionization of the pnnters.
· All of the foregoing from credited portions of the testimony of Mrs.
Hannon. I was much impressed by Mrs. Hannon's demeanor on the witness
stand as she testified. Furthermore, her answers to questions put to her by
the Respondent's counsel on cross-examination did not in any way
contradict her testimony on direct and, additionally, she freely admitted
that she was told by Major Hicks that company officials had not talked to
her husband about the Union and that the Company could not approach
her husband about the Union. This, in response to questioning on cross-
reference in this remark to the rented premises, under the
circumstances herein, as hereinafter related, this remark
could not have been directed toward anything but
Hannon's tenancy of the Respondent's property.
Additionally, I find that the remarks by Clinkscales to
the effect that in such a small group of employees (five) the
Respondent would know how the employees voted,
constituted a threat of possible reprisal against Hannon
and other voters. This constituted an additional violation
of Section 8(aX I) of the Act.
However, I have heretofore found that the alleged
interrogation of Hannon by Clinkscales as to why the latter
felt employees needed a third party and that the matters
could be ironed out between the printers and the Respon-
dent, did not occur, at least in the context in which it was
related by Hannon in his testimony. Accordingly, I shall
recommend dismissal of that portion of the complaint.
B. The Alleged Discriminatory Eviction of Roy
Hannon
Roy Hannon acted as observer for the Union at the
election on December 18, 1975. Additionally, the Union, as
noted above, won the election in a five-man unit by four to
one. At the said election, as noted above, James Harter,
although then a rank-and-file employee, acted as observer
for the Respondent. Within a few days thereafter, in fact,
on December 22, Harter was made a supervisor in the
printing department on the second shift. Accordingly, by
reason of the fact that Harter, one of the five printers, acted
as an observer, an intelligent guess could be made as to
which four of the printers voted for the Union and which
one voted against it.
On December 31, 1975, Respondent's vice president
Clinkscales wrote Hannon a letter asking him to vacate the
company house in which Hannon and his wife resided.
That letter also stated that this was the last of the
company-owned houses which had remained unsold, that
the Respondent had a buyer and would appreciate it if
Hannon would vacate within 30 days.
The house which the Hannons at that time were renting
from the Respondent at $80 per month was first purchased
by the Respondent along with other houses a few years
before the events herein when the Respondent sought to
induce key personnel to move to Bamberg for the purpose
of supervising the operation of the plant. The house had
been rented to Hannon when the latter was a supervisor.
However, in 1974, Clinkscales, in a visit to Baltimore,
where the chairman of the board of directors of the
Respondent was located, discussed the disposition of the
homes for a number of reasons. The first was that the
Respondent's basic business was not real estate and,
examination, supports the testimony of Roy Hannon to the effect that he
was told by his wife that the company officials could not approach Hannon.
but he could approach the company officials. In fact, Mayor Hicks'
testimony supports this portion of Mrs. Hannon's cross-examination.
Moreover, the mere fact that Mrs. Hannon did not tell her husband about
the conversation with Clinkscales until several days after the election does
not render her testimony any the less believable. This is so, because
Hannon, as noted below and above, acted as observer for the Union at the
election which was to take place the day after Mrs. Hannon spoke to
Clinkscales on the telephone. It is logical that Mrs. Hannon did not want to
upset her husband with regard to this conversation at the time.
309
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
additionally, the key personnel that it had desired to move
to Bamberg were now in that area and, moreover, most of
them seemed to be willing to purchase the houses in which
they resided. Additionally, the Company, at that time, and
soon thereafter, was in somewhat of a financial bind and
the sale of the homes would provide some much needed
cash. Accordingly, the sale of the homes was approved by
the chairman of the board of directors and Clinkscales
began to liquidate the houses, most of which were
purchased by the key personnel occupants. The sales began
as early as sometime in 1974 and by the time of the events
herein, the last remaining company-owned house was the
home occupied by Hannon who was no longer a supervi-
sor.
When the planned liquidation of the residential house
properties was initiated, Clinkscales informed Mayor Hicks
of Bamberg, who, in addition to being mayor, was in the
building and lumber business and, to some extent,
evidently, also had connections in real estate sales. Hicks,
in 1975, probably in the summer of that year, began to
build a dental office in Bamberg for a young dentist who
was then in the Army and stationed somewhere outside the
State. However, Ernest Jeffords, the dentist's father,
resided in Bamberg and was supervising, along with Hicks,
the building of the dental office and, in addition, was
seeking living quarters for his son, Dr. Jeffords, and the
latter's wife when Dr. Jeffords would be released from
active Army duty. In discussing the matter, some time
before the election among the Respondent's printers, Hicks
informed the senior Jeffords that there was a house
available, the said house being the home occupied by the
Hannons on Lacey Street in Bamberg. Hicks then made
contact with Clinkscales and asked the purchase price and
was told that the same would be $22,000. This information
was relayed by Hicks to the senior Jeffords who then, in
turn, notified his son with regard thereto. Thus, the matter
was discussed before the date of the election at which
Hannon acted as the Union's observer. After the election,
on or about December 22, 1975, Dr. Jeffords informed his
father that he would purchase the house and the father
passed the information on to Mayor Hicks who then told
Clinkscales that there was a definite commitment to
purchase the premises. It was upon the receipt of this
information that Clinkscales sent the letter to Hannon
dated December 31, 1975, requesting the Hannons to
vacate the premises within 30 days.6
Approximately a week after the sending of the letter,
Clinkscales had a conversation with Hannon and asked
him what his intentions were with regard to the request for
Hannon's moving from the company-owned house. Han-
6 All of the foregoing from uncontroverted testimony of Clinkscales,
Moore, Mayor Hicks, and Leonard Jeffords, the father of Dr. Jeffords and
the testimony of Dr. Jeffords, himself. All of the foregoing testimony was
uncontroverted and I was especially impressed with Dr. Jeffords who had
no ax to grind with regard to the entire matter and whose testimony was the
most likely to be completely objective for that reason. He was in no way
connected with the mill operated by the Respondent and in no way
connected with Mayor Hicks, except insofar as the latter was the contractor
who built Dr. Jeffords' office. If the testimony were only that of Clinkscales
and Moore. I would have doubts as to its validity. However, in view of the
testimony of Mayor Hicks, and both of the Jeffords, I find their testimony
believable and I credit it.
7 Although Hannon testified to a different version of the conversation
non expressed surprise and Clinkscales explained to him
that he had not offered the house for sale to Hannon
because he was under the impression, from earlier
conversations with Hannon, that the latter was having a
difficult time making ends meet by reason of the fact that
Hannon was purchasing property elsewhere and, also,
because Hannon had complained that living expenses in
Bamberg had risen so high that it led Clinkscales to
presume that Hannon would be unable or unwilling to
purchase the premises. 7
In any event, inasmuch as Hannon had difficulty finding
another place to reside, the Respondent, which formerly
had leased a house from another owner, in turn, requested
that Dr. Jeffords move into this rented house on Pine Street
in Bamberg until such time as the Hannons could find
other, suitable quarters. Dr. Jeffords consented to this
arrangement and he and his wife moved into the house on
Pine Street. In the meantime, however, Clinkscales had a
second conversation with Hannon and suggested that the
latter could move into the house on Pine Street which was
then occupied by Dr. Jeffords on a temporary basis so that
the Jeffords could take possession of the house they were
purchasing from the Respondent and which the Hannons
were then occupying. Additionally, Clinkscales informed
Hannon that the rental on the Pine Street house was $70 a
month, $10 less than the rental of the Lacey Street
premises, and, also, inasmuch as the Respondent was
renting that house from a third owner, the owner might be
willing to make the renting arrangements directly with
Hannon in the event that Hannon did not want to deal
with the Respondent. However, the Hannons refused this
offer. Finally, in a somewhat desperate move by the
Respondent, after the charge in this instant proceeding was
filed, and after Hannon had evidently retained an attorney,
the Respondent, through Clinkscales and Moore, asked
Jeffords if he would be willing to give up his contract of
purchase on the Lacey Street premises occupied by the
Hannons so that the premises could be offered to Hannon
for sale. Again Dr. Jeffords cooperated and was willing to
relinquish his right to purchase the premises on Lacey
Street.
Thereafter, Clinkscales and Moore presented to Hannon
a written option to purchase the Lacey Street premises for
the same purchase price as was offered to Dr. Jeffords. This
was rejected by Hannon. Eventually, Hannon did find
other quarters and he and his wife moved out of the
premises but not until after a notice to vacate had been
issued by a local court official.8
There is no question but that at least on and after
December 18, 1975, the date on which Hannon acted as
stating that the complete explanation from Clinkscales was merely a
statement to the effect that "a deal was a deal," in this instance I credit
Clinkscales over Hannon by reason of the fact that the conversation as
related by Clinkscales is more logically related to the events which thereafter
occurred.
8 All of the foregoing from credited testimony of Clinkscales. The events
related were not refuted in any way by Hannon who sat in the hearing room
during the testimony given by Clinkscales with regard to the housing matter.
Significantly, counsel for the General Counsel did not put Hannon back on
the stand in rebuttal, although Hannon in the first instance had not testified
to any of this matter except to the effect that he was told by Clinkscales that
"a deal was a deal." Inasmuch as much of what Clinkscales testified to was
also to some extent supported by testimony of Dr. Jeffords, whom I have
310
ROCKLAND-BAMBERG PRINT WORKS, INC.
observer for the Union at the Board-conducted election
among the Respondent's printers, the Respondent had full
knowledge that Hannon, if not the leader in the union
movement, was a strong supporter of the Union. Addition-
ally, as noted above, Harter having acted as the observer
for the Respondent at the election, it could easily have
been reasoned by the Respondent that Hannon voted for
the Union. Accordingly, in view of the admitted antiunion
attitude expressed by the Respondent's officials, the
suspicion is immediately raised that the sale of the house to
Jeffords and the request for Hannon to remove therefrom,
and his ultimate removal, were in reprisal for Hannon's
union activity and that such reprisal constituted discour-
agement of union membership in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
On the other hand, as I have heretofore stated, the
unrefuted credited testimony of Clinkscales and Moore, as
supported by Mayor Hicks, Dr. Jeffords, and his father
Leonard Jeffords, would indicate that the house which was
occupied by the Hannons was, indeed, the last of the series
of homes which the Company once purchased and was, for
good economic reasons, now liquidating. Indeed, the
credited testimony shows that a number of the occupants
of these homes had purchased the same over a period of
time from 1974, the date on which it was decided to
liquidate the property, until December 1975, when the
Hannons' house remained the last unsold company
housing property. Moreover, there is no doubt that Dr.
Jeffords did, indeed, signify his desire to purchase the
premises some time on or about December 21, 1975,
because the matter had been related to him before that
date and on December 21 he had telephoned his father
accepting the offer of the Respondent to sell him the house
for $22,000. Nor is there any doubt that Dr. Jeffords
needed a home in Bamberg or that Mayor Hicks was
anxious to obtain the same for him inasmuch as Bamberg,
a fairly small community, was in need of a dentist.
Additionally, if the Respondent, through Clinkscales and
Moore, had decided to visit reprisal upon Hannon for his
union activity by requesting his removal from the premises
rented to him by the Respondent, it is doubtful that the
Respondent would have gone to the extent that it did go to
either see to it that the Hannons were housed in the Pine
Street property then under lease to the Respondent, and
temporarily occupied by Dr. Jeffords and his wife or, to
finally request Dr. Jeffords to remove himself from the
picture and to forego his right to purchase the Lacey Street
premises so that the same could be offered for sale to the
Hannons.
As stated above, in view of the 8(aX1) violations
heretofore found, and the Respondent's expressed animosi-
ty toward the unionization of its textile printers, the
suspicion becomes rather strong that, perhaps the sale to
Dr. Jeffords was a form of reprisal against Hannon.
Nevertheless, I find and conclude that the sale to Dr.
Jeffords was, indeed, the last of a series of sales by the
Respondent and even assuming Clinkscales could have
offered Hannon the first rights to purchase the premises,
his explanation of his reasons for not offering the premises
heretofore found to have given his testimony in a most objective and
believable manner, I credit Clinkscales under all of the foregoing
circumstances.
for sale to the Hannons, in the first instance, remains
unrefuted, and in view of all of the facts, I find the reasons
to be valid. Accordingly, I conclude, ultimately, that
although the situation gives rise to suspicion, suspicion is
not proof. Therefore, I conclude that the General Counsel
has failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible
evidence that the removal of the Hannons from the
company-owned premises was discriminatory, and in
reprisal for Hannon's union activity. I further conclude,
therefore, that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act by its actions in this instance.
C. The Discharge of Paul Mitchem
Mitchem had been engaged in the textile printing
industry before coming to work for the Respondent in
March 1974. However, in his early experience in the
industry, he had acted as a backtender, an assistant on the
textile printing machine who watches the rolls of cloth after
they are printed and stands in back of the machine to
check the rolls and assists the printer. The particular
machines on which Mitchem had worked as a backtender
in his earlier employments were Rice Barton machines, the
same type and make of machine on which he worked at the
Repondent's plant after March 1974. When he was hired in
March 1974 Mitchem worked as a printer rather than as a
backtender. However, inasmuch as he had not worked
before as a printer, he was considered to be a learner or an
apprentice.
In December 1974, Mitchem was laid off by Respondent,
presumably for lack of work. He was rehired in August
1975 after being informed by a representative of the
Respondent that he was again needed. However, at that
time, he was living approximately 165 miles from Bamberg,
South Carolina, and Respondent evidently saw sufficient
promise in him, and was pleased enough with his earlier
work as an apprentice printer to pay the expenses to move
his trailer home from the distant area back to Bamberg.
That he was considered a satisfactory employee before the
election of December 18, 1975, is evident from the record
inasmuch as the Respondent did not produce evidence, nor
was there any testimony, that Mitchem was not performing
up to the performance standard that was required of him in
view of his rather limited experience as a printer on a Rice
Barton machine.
Shortly before the election, Mitchem spoke to Willard
Wood, superintendent of printing, who told Mitchem that
the latter could go in to anybody's print shop and run a
machine if he voted right. Also, in December 1975
Mitchem requested of President J. Dan Moore if he was
not entitled to a raise. Although Moore made him no
promises, he did not say that Mitchem was not deserving of
a raise because of substandard work or anything to that
effect.
Shortly after the election, although Mitchem had not
been particularly active in the organization of the printers,
he and former employee, now supervisor Harter, who were
at that time close personal friends, were drinking beer in
Mitchem's trailer. This was at approximately the beginning
311
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of January 1976. On that occasion, while they were
drinking and talking, Mitchem informed Harter, who was
by then Mitchem's supervisor on the second shift, that he,
Mitchem, had voted for the Union. It was after this
information was given to Harter that Mitchem's problems
seem to have begun.
Thus, on March 9, 1976, Mitchem was given a reprimand
or a written warning dated February 4, 1976, which was
allegedly initiated by Harter and Wood, and signed by
Wood on February 4, 1976, but not signed by Harter until
March 9, 1976, or approved by President Moore until
March 10, 1976, to the effect that Mitchem's production
has continued to be substandard as compared to the
employee on the first shift, who was less experienced than
Mitchem, but produced much more printed cloth than did
Mitchem during the same comparable period of time.
Mitchem refused to sign this on March 9 when it was
presented to him and his remarks, which were placed on
the written warning, were that he did not feel as though he
was holding back on production and felt that he ran the
production as fast as possible when the pattern permitted
him to do so. Although Wood testified that he had verbally
warned Mitchem and held back until he was sure that
Mitchem's production did not improve after having given
Mitchem repeated verbal warnings, it is significant that
Harter was not asked to sign this warning until March 9,
1976, although he was the immediate supervisor of
Mitchem. 9
Again, on the same day, March 9, Mitchem was
presented with a second written warning which had been
signed by manager of printing, Bill Jones, and by Willard
Wood, of which Harter knew nothing and which was
signed by Mitchem because Mitchem had printed 4,000
continuous yards of what was called "out of fit cloth" on
which was printed a pattern called Pink Faith. Mitchem
admitted that he had done this and did sign the reprimand.
However, on the written warning or reprimand Mitchem
did state that he did not realize that he had run that many
bad yards of goods.
Again, although Jones and Wood sought to explain the
peculiar circumstance of Harter's not knowing about this
particular "out of print" matter, I find their explanation to
be unsatisfactory, in view of the fact that Harter, as
Mitchem's immediate supervisor, and as part of his duty
with only two machines operating on the second shift,
would certainly have been aware of the fact that 4,000
yards of material were printed "out of fit," inasmuch as he
admitted that he visited each machine a number of times a
shift. It would seem reasonable that Harter would have at
least been instructed or questioned as to why this much
cloth could have been badly printed, even assuming that
Mitchem, as the printer on the machine at that time, may
have been primarily responsible for the operation of the
machine and to see that the printing of the cloth was being
properly applied. Thus, the explanation for Harter's not
being consulted appears to be contrived.
9 I do not credit Wood's testimony to the effect either that he had been
given repeated warnings or that he had made out the wntten warning on
February 9 but had held back in order to see if Mitchem's production
improved.
The final incident which preceded Mitchem's discharge
on May 17, 1976, occurred on May 11, 1976. On that day
Mitchem was running, on his Rice Barton machine, a
printing style known as No. 36 Blue Doris. The Doris
pattern, printed on white cloth, consisted of blue flowers of
various sizes with smaller purple or lavender flowers and
green leaves. There were also several different shades of
blue in the blue flowers. Accordingly, the printing on that
machine at that time required the use of several different
colors. However, as the printing proceeded, Mitchem
noticed that there were several small vertical green streaks
in the cloth. He immediately stopped his machine and
Harter was called over. This was at about 3:30 p.m. A
patch of the cloth was shown to Harter, Harter examined
the cloth and told Mitchem to continue running the
machine inasmuch as it was the opinion of both Mitchem
and Harter that these marks were caused by lack of what
was commonly termed "backfill." Backfill is a starchy
material which is applied to the back of the cloth in the
finishing process before the cloth is printed in order for the
printing ink to take properly and for the purpose of even
distribution of the printed pattern. In any event, since both
Harter and Mitchem agreed that these marks were caused
by missing backfill, a defect in the cloth where the backfill
had not been fully applied, Harter decided that there was
nothing that could be done and instructed Mitchem to
proceed with the printing on that particular roll. Accord-
ingly, Mitchem began running his machine again.10
After starting up his machine again and running it for
approximately one half hour, Mitchem saw that the streaks
were still present. Therefore, he stopped his machine, went
to the back of the machine where the cloth had already
been printed, cut off a patch, and sent Hiott to get Harter.
Harter came to the machine, again in the presence of Hiott,
and after looking at the cloth and looking at the patch told
Mitchem again to print the cloth inasmuch as the streaks
appeared to have been caused by missing backfill and not
by any other defect in the printing process.
Upon the foregoing order from Harter, Mitchem again
ran his machine for approximately another half hour and
still noticed the streaks. He again stopped the machine,
again cut off a patch and took it to Harter. Harter came to
Mitchem's machine and looked over the cloth. After
examining the patch with the streaks, Harter agreed with
Mitchem that it was caused by missing backfill and that
nothing could be done. He thereupon told Mitchem to
continue to run his machine.
After Mitchem ran the machine again for the fourth
time, he ran about 8,000 yards of cloth and then, that roll
having come to an end, started a new roll. After running
the new roll of cloth for approximately 500 yards, or
thereabouts, Mitchem noted the streak, in fact, noted that
it had become even worse. Again he stopped the machine
and cut off a patch, showing it to fellow employee John
Shelton who advised Mitchem that the latter had better
inform Harter. Harter took one look at the patch after
Mitchem took the patch into Harter's office and came back
O1 From credited testimony of Mitchem and John Hiott, who was present
during the conversation. In this particular instance, Harter's testimony did
not differ materially from the testimony of Mitchem and Hiott.
312
ROCKLAND-BAMBERG PRINT WORKS, INC.
with Mitchem to the machine. This time Harter stated that
the streak was caused by chattering of the doctor blade, a
part of the machine which cleaned off the roller so that the
ink could be applied evenly. It is evident that when the
doctor blade is not properly set or has a nick or becomes
loose, the chattering effect is caused as the machine
operates and the printing rollers turn. Harter then told
Mitchem to repair the blade, which Mitchem did. He then
replaced the blade in the machine and again operated. The
balance of the cloth for that evening was properly printed,
although there were still some marks remaining therein
from missing backfill."
Although Harter testified that the first three times that he
visited the machine upon the request of Mitchem, he went
only to the middle of the machine and did not go to the
front of the machine since all he was looking for was
missing backfill. However, each time he was shown a patch
of cloth so that, even assuming the truth of Harter's
testimony that he did not go to the front of the machine on
the first three occasions on that evening, he could no more
distinguish between missing backfill streaking or streaking
caused by chattering of the defective doctor blade than
could Harter. Additionally, his excuse that he only went to
the middle of the machine and not to the front conflicts
directly with the testimony of Mitchem who, although,
perhaps not as articulate as Harter or Respondent's other
witnesses, impressed me as having made every effort to be
as truthful as possible under the circumstances and to
recall as accurately as he could the events of the evening.
The record establishes, and I find, that from an
examination of portions of the material on the rolls that
Harter printed that fateful evening, there were major
defects in the cloth caused, in some instances, by lack of
backfill and in other instances probably by chattering.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that the yardage which
was claimed to have been ruined that night or, at least
devalued in regard to its ability to be sold as first class
cloth was, indeed, poorly printed cloth which resulted in
substantial loss to the Respondent.
On the following day, Thursday, March 12, when
Mitchem reported to his second shift job, he was called to
the office of President Moore and told by Moore that he
was suspended until the following Monday. The following
Monday, May 17, when Mitchem reported for work, he
was sent to the office and was given three checks and
discharged.
The Respondent argues that Harter did not see any
chatter marks on the night in question until Mitchem's last
visit to Harter's office. This argument is based almost
entirely on Harter's testimony. However, I find the
testimony of Mitchem, Hiott, and Shelton, to be more
accurate. While I conclude that there was substantial loss
to Respondent resulting from most of the cloth that was
printed by Mitchem on that evening, I am equally
convinced that Harter failed either in his duty as a
supervisor to find the real cause of the streaks on cloth
printed on Mitchem's machine or purposely let it go in
order to substantiate a previously agreed-upon plan to rid
the Respondent of Harter, a known union adherent, whose
I All of the foregoing from credited testimony of Mitchem as supported
by the testimony of Hiott and Shelton.
discharge could cause, or substantially contribute to, a
breakup of the unit of printers considering that the unit
consisted of only five printers.
While I accept the testimony of Respondent's officials
that Respondent has, in the past, discharged individuals for
lesser faults and without any previous written warnings, I
cannot help but repeat, as noted above, the peculiar
manner and the timing of the giving of the warnings on
March 9 to Mitchem, one of which had been held back
from February 4 and the other of which Mitchem's
immediate supervisor, Harter, had no knowledge until it
was presented to Mitchem. I also note that Mitchem was
still, basically, an apprentice and not an experienced
printer and, that although it may well be true that the
printer is primarily responsible for the quality of the
printing of the textiles run through his machine, it is
equally true that the same consistent quality can evidently
not be expected of an apprentice as a long-term, experi-
enced printer. Moreover, to repeat, Harter himself could
not or would not distinguish between chatter marks and
backfill streaks.
Additionally, not mentioned above, Union Vice Presi-
dent Reese, who had many years of experience printing on
the same make and type of machine as was used by
Mitchem on the night in question, testified as an expert,
and I find truthfully, that it is often difficult to tell the
differences between the various types of imperfections
caused in the printing process. I have considered also, in
reaching the conclusions that I do, that until the election
and until Mitchem told his former friend, Harter, that he
had voted for the Union, there was no fault found with any
of-Mitchem's work. In fact, Mitchem had been recalled by
the Respondent after layoff and his move back to Bamberg
had been paid for by the Respondent, which would
indicate that Respondent was anxious to put back to work
a valued, although somewhat inexperienced, employee.
I have taken into consideration the fact that on cross-
examination Mitchem at one point seemed to admit that he
knew the difference between a streak caused by chattering
and a streak caused by missing backfill. However, in view
of the fact of the inability of Harter to make the distinction,
I do not place great weight upon Mitchem's seeming
admission in view of all of the other facts which I have
related and considered above.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that although Mitchem
did, indeed, contribute in some measure to the spoilage of a
large quantity of cloth which he ran on his machine on the
night of May 11, 1976, I further conclude that this spoilage
and omissions on Mitchem's part were utilized as a
pretextual device by the Respondent to rid itself of a union
adherent for the purposes hereinabove stated. Therefore, I
further find and conclude that the discharge of Mitchem
was discriminatory, that the prior warnings were part of the
buildup to the pretext, and that, by the discharge of
Mitchem, the Respondent was seeking to discourage
adherence to and membership in the Union, and thereby
violated Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act.
In doing so, I, of course, have taken into consideration
the Respondent's animosity toward the Union as evi-
313
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
denced by its protected statements as well as by the activity
which I have heretofore found to have been violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.' 2
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found, as set forth above, that the Respondent
has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, set forth below, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent by threats has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend
that the Respondent cease and desist from.
It having been found that the Respondent discriminato-
rily discharged employee Paul Mitchem, it is recommended
that the Respondent offer Mitchem immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges.
In addition, I shall recommend that the Respondent
make Mitchem whole for any loss he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him by payment to
12 I have also given some weight to the decision of the South Carolina
Employment Security Commission decision of August 5, 1976, finding that
him of a sum of money equal to that which he would
normally have earned from the date of his discharge, less
net earnings during said period. Backpay shall be comput-
ed with interest on a quarterly basis in the manner
prescribed by the Board in F W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX)(1) of the
Act.
4. By discharging Paul Mitchem by reason of his
support of the Union because he voted for the Union, the
Respondent has discouraged and is discouraging member-
ship in the Union and is thereby engaging, and has been
engaging, in unlawful conduct within the meaning of
Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act.
5. By causing the removal of Roy Hannon from the
premises rented from the Respondent, the Respondent has
not discriminated against Roy Hannon and has not
violated Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Mitchem was discharged without fault on his part. Respondent was
represented by counsel in that proceeding, but did not present evidence.
314