Roxboro Cotton Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1359 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

ROXBORO COTTON MILLS 1359
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is
.engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not refused to bargain within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
r(5) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
ROXBORO COTTON MILLS and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,
CIO. Case No. 34-CA-017. January 30, 1950
Decision and Order
On July 18, 1951, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Interme-
diate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Labor Man-
agement Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that the Re-
spondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act and consequently recommended dismissal of the
allegation of the complaint alleging the discriminatory discharge of
J. Arthur Yarboro. To this recommendation and certain other por-
tions of the Intermediate Report the General Counsel filed exceptions
and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed its statement of objec-
tions and exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner to
the extent, and with the additions and modifications, indicated below.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating its employees concern-
ing the Union. Specifically we rely upon the following instances, re-
cited by the Trial Examiner, none of which was denied : Assistant
Superintendent Morrell's prolonged questioning of Newton Yarboro,
plus his questioning of Charlie Snow, Nat Paul, and Ralph Harris;
Overseer Reuben Yarboro's questioning of George Anderson ; and
Foreman Beacham O'Bryant's questioning of Marion Ogle.' We also
1 The Trial Examiner referred to three occasions when O'Bryant questioned Ogle.
Actually there were two occasions-O'Bryant's inquiry of Ogle about who went to Durham
for the Union followed immediately employee Wilbur's remarks.
97 NLRB No. 201.
1360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
note uncontradicted testimony of John Dunn that his foreman, Rufus
Snead, asked him after he told Snead he had gone to a union meeting,
what he thought about the Union, and of Clifton Truelove that Night
Superintendent Gilliam, in May 1950, asked him if anyone had
brought him "a [union organizing] book"-instances not recited by
the Trial Examiner.
We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by engaging in surveillance of union ac-
tivities; in addition we find that the Respondent fostered the impres-
sion that it was engaging in surveillance 2 In making these findings
we rely upon Newton Yarboro's credited testimony that Assistant Su-
perintendent Lester Morrell told him in their prolonged interview on
May 22, 1950, that he had observed the employees leaving the union
meeting in Durham 2 days before; as well as the corroborative cir-
cumstances-related by-Newton Yarboro and undenied-that Morrell
and Supervisor Gilliam passed him and some of the others in a car
going in the same direction on the return trip from Durham the day
of the meeting; as well as the uncontradicted testimony of J. Arthur
Yarboro (also referred to herein simply as Arthur Yarboro) that
Supervisors Baxter Dunn and George Gilliam were present when
employees congregated near the mill the morning of the meeting and
that Dunn persistently questioned him as to his destination. In addi-
tion we note the uncontradicted testimony of James Paul that "around
the middle of the year" his foreman, Beacham O'Bryant,s said that a
union might make it harder on the employees and volunteered infor-
mation that there was going to be a union meeting at Marion Ogle's
house.4
Also in agreement with the Trial Examiner we find that the Re-
spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by threats to discharge its
employees for union activity, to shut down the plant if it became
unionized, to assign more difficult work if union' activities were pur-
2 See Ozark Hardwood Company, 91 NLRB No. 234; Tennessee Egg Company , 93 NLRB
No. 141, Harold W. Baker Company, 71 NLRB 44, 53
8 On that portion of O'Bryant's comments to James Paul to the effect that "the union
would not do any good," we base no 8 (a) (1) finding.
4 Because of Morrell's denial that he said he had observed the employees leaving the
Durham meeting , the Respondent excepts to the finding of a violation based upon a
combination of this alleged statement and circumstantial evidence . However, we find no
reason to reject the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that Newton Yarboro was a truthful
witness , and that Lester Morrell-in those portions of his testimony concerning the May
B2 interview wherein he differed from Newton Yarboro' s version-was to a significant
degree a confused and unreliable witness. Not only did Morrell show marked confusion
in his testimony concerning the company house Yarboro occupied, but, concerning the
alleged list of names of union adherents , he changed his previous emphatic denial : "No,
sir, I had nothing in my hands when I was talking with him," to "No sir , I didn't have
any kind of papers in my hand, I don' t think." With the Morell -Yarboro credibility issue
resolved , we think the circumstantial evidence indicating actual surveillance cannot be
overlooked.
ROXBORO COTTON MIILI6 1361
sued, and conversely, by promising to refrain from assigning such
work if union activities were abandoned. In this connection we note
the Trial Examiner's resume-section 3a of the Intermediate Re-
port-of Assistant Superintendent Morrell's unprecedented and
lengthy interview of Newton Yarboro on May, 22, 1950, which ad-
mittedly had to do with the current union organizing campaign and
was still in progress as the shift changed and employees passed Mor-
rell's office window. Concerning the text of Morrell's remarks on this
occasion, we note, in addition to the Trial Examiner's summary,
Yarboro's specific testimony that Morrell told him there were jobs
at the mill that he and Annie Yarboro, his wife (also employed at
the mill), couldn't-handle, but if he would "go out of" the Union, he
wouldn't have to do any of those "hard jobs"; as well as Morrell's
warning that the Union couldn't help Yarboro if he should fail, for
example, to grease a bearing, which Morrell could use "as an excuse
to fire" him and "there would not be anything anybody could do
.about it." We also note Arthur Yarboro's uncontradicted testimony-
briefly referred to in the Intermediate Report-that Lester Morrell
spoke to him at his work, while the machines stood idle "about half
an hour," telling him they didn't need a union in the mill and com-
menting : "Look at Danville; people up there are perishing on account
of the union; if we get one down here we will be doing the same thing,
you will be doing the same thing and I will be doing the same thing,
and all of the rest of them will go hungry around here." Not men-
tioned by the Trial Examiner was an instance which occurred shortly
after the May 20 union meeting in Durham, and the first instance
when, according to Arthur Yarboro, Overseer Paylor spoke to him
about the Union. Yarboro testified that Paylor came to him in the
mill and said they didn't need a union. Asked why, Paylor said : "If
we had a union here there would be a man standing out here with a
stop-watch, and if you didn't do all I told you, all I would have to
do would be to tell.my shop steward and he would, and I would [sic]
fire you." 8
c Asked about this instance , Payler denied that he ever discussed the Union with Arthur
Yarboro at all, testimony which he later changed. We credit Yarboro.
Another instance , which. we do not make the basis of a finding of violation , was not
mentioned by the Trial Examiner . However, it also indicates Paylor's unreliability as a
witness. Arthur Yarboro testified that Overseer Paylor brought a political election peti-
tion on behalf of the Respondent 's president into the picker room. Yarboro asked over-
hauler James whether the petition had anything to do with the Union , was cautioned
to be more quiet so Paylor wouldn ' t hear, and said it wouldn 't "make much difference,
he know'd it anyway." Whereupon Paylor came around one of the picker machines and
asked Yarboro to sign, and "right after" that threatened to fire Yarboro if he kept talking
union in the mill . Paylor at first denied recollection of this occasion and denied that he
asked Arthur Yarboro to sign the petition, but finally admitted approaching every em-
ployee in the room to sign He denied that he ever told Yarboro not to talk "union" in
the mill ; it is not clear , however, whether he meant this to apply only to working time.
James recglled the petition, Yarboro's connection wish, the incident , and Paylor 's presence
close by.
1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated=
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act and thereby Section 8 (a) (1) when,,
on June 8, 1950, it discharged William Raynor on the flimsy pretext
that he violated a no-smoking rule. However, we do not subscribe
to the Trial Examiner's finding that permission to leave the building-
outside of which smoking was admittedly unobjectionable-may be
implied in the circlunstances. Rather we find, as more fully detailed
herein, that Raynor's precipitate discharge was so unreasonable as
to make inescapable the conclusion that it was motivated by his known
union activities.
Longhurst is a small community comprised largely of the company
village of 90 to 100 houses. Raynor operates a small store about
200 feet from the mill gate and apparently the only other store is
the company store. As stated in the Intermediate Report, Raynor
had worked for the Respondent "all his life" and at the Longhurst
mill for the 8 or 9 years before his discharge. He testified that his
store is open for business after he leaves work at 3 p. m.; that em-
ployees congregate there; that during the month before he was dis-
charged, he got 8 or 10 employees to join the Union when they came
into the store; 6 that the union organizers would stop at the store
"about every time they would come up there" ; that during the month
before his discharge he kept the union leaflets they left on the counter
in his store; 7 that he discussed the Union with his foreman, Jim
Grover, while he was still at work ; and that a day or two after he
joined the Union he was discharged.
Regarding the discharge incident, Raynor testified that he had
decided to discard his leaking grease bucket and replace it with a
paint bucket from the trash pile near the mill gate; and, as he got
outside, he started to light a cigarette, whereupon Lester Morrell
called him and asked him if he "didn't know it was against the rules
to be out." Although Raynor explained why he was out, Morrell
told him to go and report the incident to Reuben Yarboro, the overseer
on that shift. This Raynor did." Yarboro asked him what he was
To indicate that Raynor could not have been active in the Union the Respondent in its
exceptions refers to Rayner's inability to recall the names of any of those he secured as
union members. We attach no significance to this as it is notable on this record that other
employee witnesses exhibited a marked reluctance in their testimony to name any but
known leaders in the Union.
° The Respondent introduced the testimony of employee Paul Williams , who sometimes
stayed at the store for Raynor in the latter 's absence , that be saw no leaflets in the store
and did not know of Raynor ' s connection with the Union until after Raynor was discharged.
When asked whether he knew four specific union organizers , however, he admitted that he
did not and that he wouldn't have known whether some of the people he saw in Raynor's
store were organizers or not. Williams also testified that he hadn ' t joined the Union and
did not know who had
6 Raynor testified that although he went immediately to Reuben Yarboro's office, Lester
Morrell preceded him there ; that Overseer Paylor was talking with Yarboro at the time ;
that Morrell went in ; and that he , Raynor , had to wait outside until both Paylor and
Morrell left. Morrell and Yarboro denied that Morrell came immediately to see Yarboro ;
ROXBORO COTTON MILLS 1363
doing, but when told, his only answer was : "I am going to have to
let you go." Whereupon he gave Raynor "his time" and indicated
the reason was "for smoking."
According to Raynor, he had always asked permission to leave the
hill on previous occasions and it had been granted, but as to this
occasion he testified, without modification, on cross-examination : "I
don't know whether I mentioned it, asked Jim [Grover] before I went,
or told him when I come back, I don't know which it was, I wouldn't,
say." We note that Morrell testified : "I believe he [Raynor] said
something about getting permission from Jim Grover that day, but
I can't say, I believe he said `I spoke to Jim Grover something about
it.'" Yarboro testified that Raynor did not claim he had permission.
As Grover did not testify, the point was not clarified. However, we
think the significant fact is that Yarboro made no effort to find out
whether Raynor had been given permission to leave the mill before
he discharged him.a
There is no question on this record that smoking outside was un-
objectionable if it did not interfere with the employee's work or if the
employee had permission to go outside. The Respondent admitted
that Raynor was a satisfactory employee of some years' standing, and
introduced no convincing evidence to show that he had ever violated
rules before. In these circumstances his precipitate discharge, with-
out inquiry, for violation of an alleged no-smoking rule is totally
unconvincing.
That the Respondent had knowledge of Raynor's "union connection
or activity" is vigorously denied-this despite Raynor's uncontra-
dicted testimony that he had discussed the Union with his foreman,
Grover, and despite the Respondent's manifold opportunities to ob-
Paylor was not asked about it Yarboro didn't "remember" that Paylor was in his office
but finally said . "If he [Morrell] was in there he didn ' t say anything about the smoking,
but I don't recall him being in there " we believe Raynor
It was Morrell ' s version that he later came in to see what Yarboro had done about the
matter, and would have been just as well satisfied if Yarboro had merely reprimanded
Raynor.
9 Reuben Yarboro ' s testimony that he saw no necessity for making an inquiry and that
Raynor did not claim to him that he had a legitimate excuse impresses us as equivocal-the
more so in view of Morrell ' s preceding Raynor to Reuben Yarboro ' s office Nor do we find
convincing Reuben Yarboro ' s testimony that he had warned Raynor "once " about "going
out smoking . . . the two together ," without being able to identify the occasion . Raynor
testified that he had been told not to leave the mill without permission once-the first day
he went to work at the plant over 9 years before. The Trial Examiner requested that any
relevant rules posted in the plant at the time of the discharge be brought to the hearing, but
the record contains no further reference to the matter
We note also that Reuben Yarboro asked whether he had ever fired anyone else for
smoking outside , named two employees and said he always fired anyone for that, but then
said that he would give a warning "depending on the excuses they have "
On this question of warnings we further note that Overseer Paylor , who was talking with
Yarboro just before Raynor 's discharge , gave this example when asked about the purpose of
making memoranda concerning employee misconduct : "well , if I caught a man on the
outside smoking , I would give him warning and make a memorandum of it . . If he had
done this thing say three times, we would discharge him if it consistently went on."
1364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.serve the union activities at the only other store in the village. In
addition it is clear from the testimony of Morrell that the union cam-
paign was discussed at overseers' meetings shortly after it started, and
specific reference made to union leaflets, some of which Raynor said
he kept in his store.10 We find that the Respondent's actual reason
for discharging Raynor upon the pretext of unauthorized smoking
was his own interest in and his sponsorship of union activities by
.others at his store where mill employees were accustomed to con-
gregate 11 By the discharge of Raynor on June 8, 1950, the Respond-
ent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of his employment
in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, thereby violating Section
,'8- (a) (1) of the Act.
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the termination of
Newton Yarboro's employment on August 4, 1950, because of his in-
ability and refusal to perform work for which he was not physically
.suited constituted a constuctive discharge in violation of Section 8 (a)
(3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Specifically, we find that his assign-
ment to "roving" and his resultant discharge constituted discrimina-
tion in regard to the terms and conditions of his employment within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3).
As found by the Trial Examiner, Newton Yarboro had worked for
the Respondent over a 20-year period and the Respondent had previ-
ously supplied him with suitable work.12 Yet, on June 23, 195013-1
month after Morrell's lengthy and coercive talk with Newton-the lat-
ter was assigned to "roving," a job calculated to aggravate his physical
weakness from a previous hernia operation.14 Despite the contrary
contention in Respondent's exceptions, we find unconvincing Overseer
10 We do not discredit , on the testimony of Williams alone ( see footnote 7, above ), Raynor's
testimony that he did have union leaflets on the counter in his store.
11 Whether the Respondent actually knew of Raynor's joining the Union just before his
discharge is unimportant as "the law is clear that the discharge of a nonunion member is
none the less discriminatory when it is motivated by a belief , or even a suspicion , of union
membership , activity , or sympathy " Boreva Sportswear, Inc., 73 NLRB 1048, 1065 , citing
N. L. R. B. v Vincennes Steel Corp ., 117 F. 2d 169 (C. A. 7).
11 Uncontradicted was Newton Yarboro's testimony that when he returned from his hernia
operation several years before and told the Respondent he couldn ' t do the work he had been
doing, Reuben Yarboro sent for him after a few weeks and gave him work he could do ;
also his testimony that Reuben Yarboro did not make him take some pulleys up the steps
earlier in 1950 when Newton told him his side was sore.
Testimony by Reuben Yarboro that Newton had done the roving job without complaint
after his operation was not a convincing refutation as Reuben could not recall when this
occurred or for how long a period.
13 Apparently due to a typographical error , the Intermediate Report places this transfer
to roving as occurring June 13 -
14 The Trial Examiner found that the roving job involved placing bobbins on high, moving
frames; the Respondent excepts on the ground that the bobbins are put on stationary
shelves. The record does not clearly show which is correct , but it is not denied that the
job involves the repeated lifting of objects over the employee ' s head, as well as bending
down to get now bobbins from the bottom of boxes approximately a yard and a half high.
Testimony for the Respondent that another employee with a hernia had no difficulty
with the roving job is not persuasive in the circumstances We note that this employee
.testified that he felt no strain from his hernia and,had never been to a doctor about it.
ROXBORO COTTON MILLS 1365
Reuben Yarboro's bare statements that, although he did not doubt his
nephew's sincerity in complaining that the job caused his side to hurt,
there was "nothing he could do about" the assignment because he
needed Newton on roving and could not shift other employees.15
Unquestionably the Respondent had moved quickly in attempting to
stop the union campaign, immediately warning Newton Yarboro of
harder jobs he and his wife might be assigned if they continued their
union activity. The discriminatory discharges of Raynor and Arthur
Yarboro 16 followed on June 6 and June 14, and then, on June 23, New-
ton's assignment to roving. Finally, when Newton's discharge oc-
curred some weeks later, the same hardship theme Morrell had stressed
to Newton in May was repeated by Overseer Yarboro. Asked whether
Newton's wife would be retained as an employee, the overseer, accord-
ing to Newton's credited testimony, said : "I am going to put her to
work just like I did you." In these circumstances we find that New-
ton Yarboro's known union activity and affiliation were the reason
for the discrimination against him, and that this discrimination in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act, actually oc-
curred when he was assigned to the job of roving, from which assign-
ment his ultimate refusal to do the work and his dismissal followed as
a foreseeable and premeditated result.
4. The complaint alleges that J. Arthur Yarboro was discrimina-
torily discharged on June 14, 1950. The Respondent denied this in
its answer, alleging at the hearing that Yarboro's discharge was for
cause-specifically, as testified by Respondent's president, "for con-
tinuous and flagrant disregard of instructions with respect to the
lap scale in the picker room." The Trial Examiner found no dis-
crimination within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, with
which conclusion we do not agree.
Yarboro testified that he joined the Union at Durham in May 1950;
that he signed up 15 or 16 employees as members, either at his home
where he held several meetings, or on the street; that he passed out
leaflets in the village; and that he accompanied union organizers on
their rounds in the village and assisted them. Overseer Paylor, who
discharged him, admitted knowledge of his union membership.17
Arthur was a brother of Newton Yarboro whom the Respondent had
promptly attempted to dissuade from union activities, and it was he,
15 We note uncontradicted testimony that he, Newton Yarboro, furnished Overseer Reuben
Yarboro with a doctor's certificate to the effect that he was "not able to do that kind of
work."
15 See paragraph numbered 4 of this decision, below
17 Paylor' s testimony concerning knowledge of union activities in general was exceed-
ingly vague , but asked whether the first time he learned about the Union was when Arthur
Yarboro "reported " that he belonged , Paylor said : "I don't recall whether I had heard
it before that time or not."
We credit Arthur Yarboro 's testimony that Paylor told him no union was needed right
after the May 20 meeting . See footnote 5 above
986209-52-vol 07--87
1366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Arthur, whom Baxter Dunn so persistently questioned on the morn-
ing of May 20.
Yarboro had performed a variety of jobs for the Respondent over
a period of 25 years."' For the last 10 months of his employment he
had worked as a picker tender on the first shift. His duties involved
"doffing" the mill's five picker machines every 6 or 7 minutes as each lap
of cotton came through-that is, removing the "filled laps" from the
machine-weighing and marking each lap, and resetting the machines
with the lap pin for another cycle. Cotton absorbs moisture and the
record indicates that setting the lap scales to reflect the moisture con-
tent accurately is important to the smooth operation of the Respond-
ent's production process: Yarboro testified that he checked the setting
of the lap scales each time he weighed a lap, and that he had been com-
plimented on his work in keeping the scales set properly by Paylor "9
According to Yarboro, Paylor customarily visited the picker room
once or twice a. day-although occasionally he let a day go by-and
checked whether the_lap scales were set with the regain indicator; 20
that about the last week in May, Paylor began checking three or four
times a day; and that on June 14, Paylor checked five times within
an hour and then called in Yarboro and discharged him. Yarboro
further testified that during the first two of these five accelerated
checks he was out of the room getting a drink of water 21 and upon
his return found Paylor with his hand on the scales; that the scales,
which had been right when he left, were off anywhere from one-fourth
to one-half pound when he returned, and that Paylor appeared startled
at Yarboro's reappearance. He described the last three of these accel-
erated checks* as consisting simply of Paylor's coming into the room,
looking at the scales, and walking out. After the fifth occasion,
Paylor had Yarboro summoned to his office. According to Yarboro,
Paylor started writing out his "time" and said : "Do you remember
'e Yarboro admitted that during this long period he had quit three or four times, been
laid off twice for staying off, but discharged only once for not doing a job right. Ad-
mittedly the Respondent has no policy against hiring people who have been "fired" by it_
After his June 14 discharge , the subject of this charge , Superintendent W. W. Morrell,
who testified that he was not consulted about Yarboro 's discharge , got Yarboro a job
with a contractor in the area.
19 Yarboro 's testimony that Paylor likewise commented on Yarboro's good work to Tuck,
the fixer , was stricken by the Trial Examiner on his own motion . Tuck testified later
but was not asked about the incident.
20 Paylor testified : "The regain indicator is the instrument that indicates the moisture
content of the cotton ; and normally cotton contains 7% moisture and the correct weight of
the lap is set at normal regain. For instance , you are running fifty pounds, you would set
the regain at 7% and anything under that would be abnormal and unless adjustment is
made of it , you would have that variation in the finished product. If you are making a
fifty-pound lap and the regain is normally 7%, it would weigh fifty pounds."
n Yarboro testified that he took one of these drinks before and one after eating his
lunch. Superintendent W. W. Morrell testified that a picker tender has no regular lunch
hour but is supposed to eat in the picker room-as Yarboro did-because the machines, due
to fire hazard , should be left unattended for only brief periods. Short absences to get a
drink or go to the rest room are anticipated.
ROXBORO COTTON MILLS 1367
last week when your scales were off a 1/4 pound ?" to which Yarboro
answered, "No, and you don't either," and Paylor then said : "Well,
that is what I am going to discharge you for." Then ensued Yarboro's
remark quoted by the Trial Examiner : "I told him if he wanted to
work for a crooked company just work for a s. o. b. like him and he
would be working for one." Whereupon Yarboro picked up his dis-
charge slip and left. The reason for discharge specified was : "Did
not keep lap scales adjusted to regain."
Paylor's version of Yarboro's discharge includes testimony that
Yarboro was an "average" employee and a denial that he had ever
complimented him upon his work. Paylor also testified that four or
five checks a day of the lap scales was customary with him at all times,
but that he checked even more frequently during the 2- to 3-week
period before Yarboro's discharge because, as it happened, the pickers
were then being overhauled. In fact, he testified that he couldn't
have come into the picker room "any less" than four times on June 14,
but denied that he came in five times within an hour. In explanation
of Yarboro's testimony about touching the scales, Paylor testified that
he always reset them when he found them wrong, and that he found
them wrong about six times during said period. He also testified that
he found them wrong the last time he checked on the day of the dis-
charge, which was the second time that day, but that instead of adjust-
ing them then, he called in Yarboro and discharged him for that in-
stance of neglect as well as previous instances.
Testimony offered for the Respondent as to the required frequency
of checking the lap scales shows the absence of any set rule. The
Trial Examiner found the standard of performance to be an exact
adjustment at all times. The record does not support such a finding
and we do not adopt it. Paylor testified at one point that a check every
15 minutes "would take care of most any change that could come
about." On redirect he spoke of checks frequent enough to set the
scales "exactly" with the indicator "at all times," but this was at vari-
ance with his testimony about 15-minute intervals, as well as with
earlier testimony of his that the discrepancy would have to exceed-
one-fourth pound to make any difference. Superintendent W. W.
Morrell, who has charge of the Roxboro as well as the Longhurst Mill,
testified that a check every 15 minutes would be sufficient and that he
didn't think the indicator would move in 5 or 10 minutes "if you
turned the river into the picker room." Asked what a check only
"once a day" would mean, he replied "serious trouble ... because it
does fluctuate some in a day." The checks which Yarboro said he made
each time he weighed laps were at 6- or 7-minute intervals. Time of
weighing was concededly the essential time for adjustment.
1368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In crediting Paylor's rather than Yarboro's version of these in-
cidents, the Trial Examiner made no reference to the demeanor of
either witness-as to which it is our policy to attach great weight 22
Actually he did not discredit Yarboro as a witness; and we note that
he had credited him in connection with the 8 (a) (1) violation. But
he concluded that the contention that "fraud" was practiced upon
Yarboro by Paylor was not sustained by a preponderance of the
evidence; hence the discharge was not discriminatory. Whether the
Respondent's conduct toward Yarboro constituted fraud, we do not
attempt to say, but we cannot, after a careful examination of this
record, adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion as to discrimination.
We find, on the contrary, that the prima facie case of discrimination
made out by the General Counsel showing that the Respondent took
deliberate steps to find fault with Yarboro because of his known union
activities and to discharge him on a mere pretext, has not been over-
come by the Respondent's evidence tending to show that the discharge
was for cause.
Not only was Paylor's testimony unsatisfactory as to the standard
of performance required of Yarboro, but also as to the extent Yarboro's
performance deviated in the 2- to 3-week period prior to his discharge.
He stated that he found the scales off about six times during that
period, Yet he was specific as to the extent of the discrepancy in
only two instances: The last time when he claimed it was one-half to
three-fourths of a pound, and some earlier time when it was "a little
over a pound" off. His previous testimony indicated that a variation
of one-fourth pound or less would make no difference and that really
only a pound variation would be "substantial." z3 We think it signifi-
cant that Paylor had no recollection of the discrepancy in four of the
six instances complained of, and that in only one of the six was the
discrepancy "substantial" by his own standards.
The direct result of weighing laps improperly is that farther down
the production process a spinning frame stoppage may occur. This
would not happen until "several" days after the actual weighing, but
we note that Paylor admitted that he made no attempt to see whether
such stoppage occurred during the several weeks of intensive checking
of Yarboro's work preceding his discharge.
Still dealing with Paylor's testimony, we note that it was also un-
satisfactory with respect to the warning given Yarboro. Yarboro
22 Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544, 545, and cases there cited.
23 Later in his testimony he was more conservative and said that one-half a pound varia-
tion would make subsequent "work run bad ." A 7- to 8-pound variation of the scales from
the indicator was the greatest Paylor could recall ever having occurred at the mill in a
12-hour period . He testified that a 5-pound variation without adjustment of the lap scales
would make the lap weight incorrect by approximately 10 percent.
ROXBORO COTTON MILLS 1369
testified that Paylor during this period threatened several times to
let him go if he didn't keep the scales right. Although Paylor spe-
cifically denied this and testified that he told Yarboro only once that
he "would have to do something about it" if the scales weren't set
properly, when asked to place the occasion on which he warned Yar-
boro, Paylor was unable to do so at all, even to the extent of saying
it was 1 week before he discharged him or 2 weeks before. He testified
that he never told Yarboro he'd have to discharge him "the next time"
they were off, or if it happened "two more times."
Assuming that Paylor did not set the scales wrong on occasion
during this period-as Yarboro had some reason to suspect-it is
obvious that the picker overhauling furnished a splendid opportunity
for close scrutiny of and probable objection to the work of an em-
ployee whose union activities were well known and whose brother had
already been vigorously warned against union activities. But the de-
viations of which the Respondent complains and for which it specif-
ically discharged Yarboro, do not-on Paylor's testimony-impress
us as sufficiently serious to have motivated the discharge. On the
contrary they impress us as inconsequential, particularly when we
note important testimony of Respondent's witness Tuck-evidence
not mentioned by the Trial Examiner-that he "never caught [Yar-
boro's] scales wrong" during all the months of Yarboro's work in the
picker room.24
We think it apparent that, in making his finding that Arthur
Yarboro's discharge was not discriminatory within the meaning of
the Act, the Trial Examiner not only misconceived the nature of the
duty to keep the scales and indicator in adjustment, and hence attached
unwarranted significance to alleged instances of deviation cited by
Paylor, but placed undue reliance upon certain additional instances
of alleged neglect of duty not mentional by the Respondent at the
time of discharge. These were : Mismarking laps,25 spending time
24 Tuck, a fixer on the first shift , testified that he spent a considerable part of his time
in the picker room and that it was part of his job to observe whether the lap scales were
properly adjusted and the laps weighed. The Trial Examiner referred only to Tuck's
testimony concerning an instance when Yarboro failed to weigh a lap at all , and credited
him in that respect. Testimony of James, the head overhauler , that Yarboro failed to
weigh laps several times during the period just before Yarboro's discharge was also credited
by the Trial Examiner . However, as both Tuck and James testified that they merely
cautioned Yarboro but did not report to Paylor , we conclude that Yarboro 's failure to
weigh a lap or laps on occasion , not only was not specified as a reason for his discharge,
but could have played no part in the decision to discharge him.
26 This was a single occurrence of mismarking , admitted by Yarboro , although he testified
that he placed the mismarking laps on the "right" pile and hence the mismarking could have
caused no harm. Paylor himself testified that this incident played no part in the discharge ;
Superintendent W. W. Morrell testified that he had heard nothing of it until a week before
the hearing ; and employee Marston-who, at Paylor's request, counted the mismarked
laps-that he himself couldn 't tell whether a lap was mismarked or not. None of this
testimony was mentioned by the Trial Examiner.
1370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
away from his job talking,26 and displaying "a belligerent and abusive
attitude towards his employer" 27-contentions which, as developed
in this record, we consider too belated for consideration in determin-
ing whether Yarboro was the object of discrimination on June 14,1950.
We think that the real reason for J. Arthur Yarboro's discharge on
that date was not his failure to keep the lap scales adjusted, which
was a mere pretext, nor the additional reasons urged at the hearing,
which were obvious afterthoughts, but his well-known union affilia-
tion and activity. Hence, we find that the Respondent discriminated
in regard to the hire and tenure of Arthur Yarboro's employment in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, thereby violating Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act. -
The Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor
practices set forth above, we shall order that it cease and -desist there-
from and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
2e Paylor 's account of Yarboro ' s absences in the card room talking , when his machines had
"knocked off" and needed attention , was general in terms. He finally said that this occurred
on "more than one occasion ," and that "on one occasion" he spoke to Yarboro about staying
away from his work Although Paylor referred to keeping notes of serious infractions and
testified that he considered failure to keep the machines running without Interruption
serious, he admitted that he made no specific note of any of these Instances , which, again, he
Identified as occurring during the 2- to 3 -week period before Yarboro ' s discharge . Later he
testified that no memoranda were made before Yarboro 's discharge.
Apparently the drinking fountain , if not located In the card room, was nearby , and one
employee admitted that at that season of the year he 'turned to the drinking fountain about
twice an hour . That Yarboro would make frequent trips there is understandable. We do
not believe that the corroborative testimony of several witnesses that Yarboro did do some
talking In the card room during the period , and that overhauler James found his machines
knocked off on one occasion which he did not report to Paylor-testimony emphasized by the
Trial Examiner-sustain the Respondent 's contention that the conduct complained of was
a causal factor in the discharge.
27 Paylor and Tuck both testified that Yarboro , when corrected about his work simply said
"all right", and Paylor went so far as to say that It "appeared to" him that Yarboro wanted
to do his work "right". Apparently neither had any complaint to make of his attitude
toward management . James' testimony about an instance of cautioning Yarboro not to let
the pickers stand Idle and Yarboro 's angry rejoinder about not caring whether he was fired-
credited by the Trial Examiner-was the only instance James recalled and he testified that
he had not mentioned it to Paylor up to the time of the hearing , but only to Tuck . In fact
there is no evidence that any objectionable attitude on Yarboro 's part was communicated
to Paylor , who, incidentally , claimed to have discharged Yarboro without consulting Lester
Morrell, his immediate superior.
The other two instances of Yarboro 's boasting that he didn 't care whether he was fired-
to John Dunn and Frank Guill as detailed by the Trial Examiner-are understandable in a
period when Yarboro was so acutely aware that his work and activities were subject to
abnormal scrutiny . Inasmuch as Paylor apparently had no knowledge of these Instances
when he discharged Yarboro and made no complaint in connection with the discharge that
Yarboro's attitude was in any way disruptive of discipline ( Paylor specifically testified that
"disorderly conduct . . . played no part In the discharge"), we find that Yarboro's
chance remarks were not a motivating factor in the discharge but were seized upon as an
afterthought by the Respondent to bolster its case.
Inasmuch as we have not relied upon the statements attributed to a union organizer at a
union meeting to the effect that employees should get themselves fired, to which the Geneial
Counsel objected as hearsay , nor upon the General Counsel's rebuttal testimony, we do not
pass upon his exceptions In this regard.
ROXBORO COTTON MILLS 1371
We shall order that employees William Raynor and J. Arthur Yar-
boro, as to whom it has been found that the Respondent discriminated
with regard to the hire and tenure of their employment, be offered
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions,28 without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and that the Respondent make each of them
whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equivalent
to that which he would have earned as wages since the date of his
discharge to the date when the offer of reinstatement is made, less his
net earnings.29 In accordance with our usual practice the period from
the date of the Intermediate Report herein to the date of this Decision
and Order will be excluded in computing the amount of back pay
due J. Arthur Yarboro, as the Trial Examiner did not recommend
reinstatement or an award of back pay as to him. We shall order
that employee Newton Yarboro, as to whom it has been found that the
Respondent discriminated with regard to the hire and tenure and
terms and conditions of his employment, be offered immediate and
lull reinstatement to a position suitable to his physical condition,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
that the Respondent make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by
-reason of the discrimination against him, -30 by payment to him of a
sum of money equivalent to that which he would have earned as wages
since the date of the discrimination against him to the date when the
offer of reinstatement is made, less his net earnings.31 Back pay shall
be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the
Board in the case of F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289. Earnings
in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liabil-
ity for any other such period. We shall also order that Respondent
make available to the Board upon request payroll and other records
in order to facilitate the checking of the amount of back pay due.
Due to the character and scope of the Respondent's unfair labor
practices as revealed herein, it appears likely that these and other
similar practices may be continued in the future. Therefore we shall
order that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
.of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2s The Chase National Bank of The City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
,65 NLRB 827.
29 Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440.
80 Apparently Newton Yarboro, while on the "roving" assignment, continued to draw his
previous higher pay as a fixer. However, it does not appear from this record whether he
suffered any loss of pay for the days he was forced to be off during the assignment because
of pain in his side
Crossett Lumber Co., footnote 29, above.
1372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusions of law numbers 1, 2,
and 5, amend his conclusion number 3, and reject his conclusion number
4. In lieu of his conclusions numbers 3 and 4, we reach the following
conclusions of law :
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of William Raynor and J. Arthur Yarboro, thereby discouraging
membership in Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, the Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and has, by this same
conduct, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure and terms and
conditions of employment of Newton Yarboro, thereby discouraging
membership in Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and has, by this
same conduct, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent Roxboro Cotton
Mills, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their interest in or
adherence to Textile Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor
organization; or threatening its employees with economic reprisal for
such adherence; or promising its employees benefits for refraining
from such adherence; or engaging in surveillance or fostering the
impression of engaging in surveillance of any union activities of its
employees.
(b) Discouraging membership of its employees in Textile Workers
Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, by discrimi-
nating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment in any manner whatsoever.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
ROXBORO COTTON MILLS 1373
labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers of America,
CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and
to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act,
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
,effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to William Raynor and J. Arthur Yarboro immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and make them whole in the manner set forth -in the section
entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them.
(b) Offer to Newton Yarboro immediate and full reinstatement to
a position suitable to his physical condition, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole in the
manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy" for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimina-
tion against him.
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and the
right of reinstatement under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent's Longhurst, North
Carolina, plant copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Ap-
pendix A." 32 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for at least sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
82 In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words : "A Decision and Order," the words : "A Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order."
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CHAIRMAN IiERzoG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT question our employees concerning their member-
ship in and activities on behalf of TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of employment
or assignment to more difficult work, nor threaten to close the
Longhurst plant, if they become or remain members of the
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor
organization, or engage in concerted activity.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
by promising not to assign difficult work if they resign or refrain
from becoming members of TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
or any other labor organization, or engage in concerted activity,
and we will not keep under surveillance, or foster the impression
that we are keeping under surveillance, the concerted activity of
our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist TEXTILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL OFFER to William Raynor and J. Arthur Yarboro im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, and to Newton Yarboro immediate and full
reinstatement to a position suitable to his physical condition,
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of our unlawful conduct.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of TEX-
TILE WORKERS UNION OFi AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organiza-
ROXBORO COTTON MILLS 1375
tion, or to refrain from so doing, except to the extent that this right
may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3)
of the amended Act. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any
such labor organization.
RoxBoRo COTTON MILLS,
Employer.
By ----------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
By reason of a charge filed on June 6, 1950, a first amended charge filed on
July 6, 1950, a second amended charge filed on August 11, 1950, and a third
amended charge filed on March 19, 1951 , by Textile Workers Union of America,
CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region ( Baltimore, Maryland)
issued a complaint dated April 12, 1951, against Roxboro Cotton Mills, herein
called the Respondent,' in which it was alleged that the Respondent engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Sections 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) and 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136 , herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint and a bill of particu-
lars furnished by the General Counsel alleges in substance that ( 1) the Respond-
ent during the months of May and June 1950 , and continuously thereafter,
interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by interrogation , surveillance , and threats of
economic reprisal or force or promise of benefit concerning their concerted activi-
ties on behalf of the Union; and (2 ) the Respondent did on June 8, 1950, June 14,
1950, and August 4, 1950, respectively , discriminatorily discharge its employees,
William Raynor, J, Arthur Yarboro, and Newton Yarboro because of their mem-
bership in and concerted activities on behalf of the Union for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
The Respondent filed an answer admitting that it was engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act, and that the Textile Workers Union of America,
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act , but denied all allega-
tions that it has at any time engaged in unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice to all parties, a hearing was conducted at Roxboro, North
Carolina , on April 30 , May 1 and 2, 1951 , before the undersigned Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial ' Examiner . The General Counsel and the Re-
spondent were represented by counsel and a representative of the Union was also
present at the hearing . All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
' Sometimes called the Company.
1376 • DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to
the issues involved. At the hearing the Respondent made an oral motion to
dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the Union had failed to comply with
the requirements of Section 9 (h) of the Act in that the officers of the CIO had
not filed non-Communist affidavits. Taking judicial notice of the Board's records
and administrative determination that the filing requirements of Section 9 (h)
had been complied with prior to the filing of charges and the complaint in this
case, the motion was denied.
A motion by the Respondent to dismiss paragraph VI of the complaint for
vagueness and ambiguity was also denied. Paragraph VI reads as follows:
Respondent, by its officers, agents and supervisory employees, while en-
gaged in the operations described above in paragraphs I, II and III, did dis-
charge the employees, and each of them, whose names are listed below, on
or about the date appearing opposite their respective names, and has at all
times since on or about said dates failed or refused to reinstate said em-
ployees, and each of them, to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions because of their real or suspected sympathy with, membership in or
assistance to the Union or because they or others engaged in, or were sus-
pected of having engaged in, concerted activity with other employees of the
Respondent for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection :
William Raynor, June 8, 1950.
J. Arthur Yarboro, June 14, 1950.
Newton Yarboro, August 4, 1950.
A motion to conform the pleadings to the proof was granted without objection.
Oral argument by counsel for all parties was waived. The parties were ad-
vised of their right to hile written briefs and proposed findings of fact and con-
clusions of law. No written briefs have been filed by either party.
Based upon the entire record and observation of the witnesses in the case, I
make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Roxboro Cotton Mills is a North Carolina corporation , having its principal
office and place of business at Roxboio , North Carolina . It operates a cotton
mill at Roxboro and one at Longhurst , North Carolina , and is engaged in the
manufacture of cotton yarns. Only the Longhurst plant is involved in this case.
During the year immediately preceding April 15, 1951, the Respondent purchased
raw materials valued in excess of $100,000, more than 50 percent of which was
purchased , shipped, and received from points outside the State of North Carolina.
In the same period the Respondent sold finished products valued in excess of
$100,000, and shipped more than 50 percent of these products outside the State
of North Carolina . The Respondent admits, and I find therefore , that it is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, admitting to membership employees of the
Respondent.
ROXBORO COTTON MILLS
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introductory information
1377
There are four principal issues in this case, viz:
(1) Did the Respondent by the acts and Conduct of its officials and super-
visors interfere with , restrain , and coerce its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act?
(2) Did the Respondent discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of em-
ployment of William Raynor to encourage or discourage membership in the
Union?
(3) Did the Respondent discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of em-
ployment of Newton Yarboro to encourage or discourage membership in the
Union?
(4) Did the Respondent discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of em-
ployment of J. Arthur Yarboro to encourage or discourage membership in the
Union?
Having denied all allegations of unfair labor practices in the complaint, the
Respondent contends that the acts and conduct of its supervisors did not con-
stitute interference , restraint , or coercion of employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act . It contends that William Raynor was dis-
charged for willful violation of a company rule in that he left his place of em-
ployment without permission and smoked a cigarette outside the building. It
further contends that Newton Yarboro was not discharged , but that he volun-
tarily quit his employment . It also contends that J. Arthur Yarboro was dis-
charged for cause in that lie deliberately disobeyed the instructions of his su-
periors and was guilty of insubordination , inefficiency , and neglect of duty in
his employment.
B. Interference , restraint , and coercion
1. The concerted activities
In March 1950 , Newton Yarboro, Ballard Puryear , and an employee named
Grover went to Henderson, North Carolina , seeking information concerning the
Union . The union representative was absent from his office but they arranged
for him to be apprised of their mission. Thereafter Newton Yarboro received
a letter from the Union calling for an interview in Durham , North Carolina. In
company with three other employees , Newton went to Durham and conferred
with union representatives with -respect to initiating an organizational cam-
paign at Longhurst . The efforts of the employees to form a labor organization
progressed throughout the month of April , and in the early part of May became
obvious to officials and supervisors of the Respondent . Organizational meetings
were held at the homes of Arthur Yarboro, Ballard Puryear , Paul Grover, and
others. Union organizers frequented the store of William Raynor, about 100
yards outside the gate of the Longhurst cotton mills, soliciting and receiving ap-
plications for membership in the Union . Raynor permitted his store to be used for
the distribution of union literature and cooperated with the organizers in solicit-
ing and accepting applications for membership . Newton Yarboro and Arthur
Yarboro distributed leaflets, arranged for meetings , went around the village with
the union organizers , and solicited support 'for and membership in the Union.
The organizational campaign culminated in a visit to the union hall in Durham,
North Carolina , on May 20 , 1950 , by a group of eight employees , for the purpose
of perfecting an organization and obtaining necessary books and supplies.
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employees attending that meeting were Newton Yarboro, J. Arthur Yarboro,
Ballard Puryear, Buck Harris, Ralph Harris, Nathan Redmond, Lillie Martin,
and Annie Bell Yarboro.
2. Surveillance by the Respondent
Preparatory for departure to Durham, on Saturday morning, May 20, 1950,
the aforesaid group of employees assembled in front of the company store at
Longhurst. There they were observed by George Gilliam, night superintendent
of the Respondent, and Baxter Dunn, yard overseer and deputy sheriff. Baxter
Dunn approached Arthur Yarboro and inquired where he was going. Arthur
evaded the query by saying that he might go to a ball game. A few minutes later
Dunn again inquired where he was going, and Arthur replied that he might
go to the Durham ball game or to the Longhurst game, and then walked away.
Then for the third time, Dunn inquired which ball game he was going to. George
Gilliam was standing nearby when these inquiries were made'
That same afternoon after visiting the union hall in Durham, the group was
returning to Longhurst in two separate automobiles. George Gilliam and Lester
Morrell (assistant superintendent) passed them on the road going in the same
direction. On the following Monday in a captive interview, hereinafter discussed,
Lester Morrell told Newton Yarboro that he saw all of them leaving the union
hall in Durham.
3. Interrogation of employees
a. By Lester E. Morrell , assistant superintendent
On Monday, May 22, 1950, Lester E. Morrell instructed Reuben R. Yarboro
(overseer) to send Newton Yarboro to his office at 1: 30 p. m. Upon his
arrival, Morrell latched the door and remonstrated with him for more than 2
hours. Newton was interrogated concerning his grievances against officials of
the Respondent and union activity. In the course of the interview, Morrell re-
hearsed their boyhood days together, expressed his opposition to the Union,
stated that the mill would be closed down if a union came in , produced a
written list of supposedly union adherents and threatened to fire all of them if
it took 3 years to do it. He mentioned some of the harder jobs in the mill and
promised that Newton would not be required to perform those jobs if he aban-
doned the Union. Morrell recounted that Newton had been preferentially favored
with a four-room house by the Company on account of his family, and he also
enumerated some of the things that might be cause for Newton's discharge. He
asked Newton if they were going to have a union why they didn't get a good
one like the AFL instead of the CIO. He also told Newton that his best friends
had squealed on him . While the interview was in progress , the 3 o'clock shift
in the mill ended, and a large number of employees passed to and fro along the
street immediately outside and clearly visible from the office windows.
At the conclusion of the interview, Newton Yarboro told Mr. Morrell that
be would pray over the matter and give him an answer ; but he never did.
With respect to the purpose and subject matter of the interview, the testimony
of Lester Morrell was to some extent corroborative of Newton Yarboro, but he
denied possession of the list of names and threats to fire anyone. He also denied
having said that Newton's best friends had squealed on him. While on the
witness stand Morrell became quite confused in his testimony with respect to the
facts and dates about procuring the company house for Newton Yarboro. When
2 Neither Baxter Dunn nor George Gilliam appeared as a witness to deny the foregoing
testimony of Arthur Yarboro.
ROXBORO COTTON MILLS 1379
it became apparent that some of his testimony did not fit into the pattern of other
established dates and circumstances , he found it necessary to materially change
and correct some of his prior statements.
Lester Morrell also interrogated other employees concerning the Union. Charlie
Snow (a sweeper ) credibly testified that Morrell spoke to him when he came
out of the cottonhouse beside the railroad and inquired how the Union was get-
ting along. About 1 week later he asked Snow who was getting up the Union.
When Snow denied any knowledge of it, Morrell inquired whether he thought a
union was needed at the mill. Then he informed Snow that Newton Yarboro
and his wife and some veterans were getting it up.
Morrell also inquired of Nat Paul (a frame runner) whether he had heard
anything about a union going around here, and told him he was old enough to
make up his own mind. On another occasion, Morrell spoke to Ralph Harris
(a spare hand) near the elevator and inquired whether he knew anything about
the Union, and whether he though it a good thing to have. Morrell also told
Arthur Yarboro that people up at Danville were perishing on account of the
Union, and that the people here would go hungry if the Union came in.
b. By Reuben R. Yarboro (overseer).'
When Newton Yarboro left the office of the assistant superintendent on the
afternoon of May 22, 1950, his overseer uncle (Reuben R. Yarboro) endeavored
also to persuade him to abandon the Union. The overseer told him that a union
was not needed, that he was losing friends on account of it, that his best friends
had squealed on him, and that it would be the best thing he could do to give
it up.
George Anderson (an oiler) credibly testified that Reuben R. Yarboro called
him back to his office on one occasion and inquired what he knew about the
Union. When he denied knowing much about it, the overseer said "Well, I
thought me and you were better friends than that-you would not do anything
like that."
c. By J. Beacham O'Bryant (foreman)
Marion Ogle ( a fixer ) credibly testified that on more than one occasion J.
Beacham O 'Bryant questioned him about the Union . At one time he was ap-
proached at the water fountain and asked whether anyone had solicited him
to become a member. At another time O'Bryant inquired whether he knew
who it was that went to Durham about the Union. On another occasion a non-
supervisory employee (Jennings Wilbur) inquired, in the presence of O'Bryant,
what union book his name was on. Thereupon the foreman began inquiring
as to what he knew about the Union, and said he would be laid off if he did not
take care of his job as a fixer.
James Paul ( a spare hand ) credibly testified that Foreman O 'Bryant spoke
to him about the Union two or three times ; said it would not do us any good,
and might make it harder on us. He also volunteered information that there
was going to be a union meeting at Marion Ogle 's house.
C. The discriminatory discharges
1. Discrimination against William Raynor
Prior to his discharge on June 8, 1950 , William Raynor was employed by the
Respondent at the Longhurst mill for approximately 9 years. He previously
3 Both Newton Yarboro and J . Arthur Yarboro are nephews of Reuben R. Yarboro.
1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
worked for the same people at the Orange cotton mills practically all of his life:
His duties at Longhurst included the oiling and greasing of machinery on the third
-shift. When off duty he operated a small store near the mill gate, where the'
aforesaid union activities were carried on. He joined the Union on June 6, 1950,
and within 2 days thereafter was discharged by the Respondent for alleged viola-
tion of a company rule. At that time the Respondent had no written rules for the
guidance of employees, but relied upon verbal instructions by its supervisors to
promote safety, discipline, and efficiency among the employees. Employees were
instructed not to leave their work without permission, and smoking was prohib-
ited inside the mill because of the fire hazard. Smoking on the outside was not
prohibited, provided employees did not leave their work without permission to
smoke. During waiting periods the doffers and others went outside to smoke,
and no objection was ever raised by the management in such circumstances.
William Raynor was familiar with the verbal instructions of his supervisors, and
customarily obtained permission to leave the building for any purpose. His fore-
man readily granted permission for him to perform errands in connection with
his job.
On June 8, 1950, Raynor found that his grease bucket was leaking, and started
to the trash pile immediately outside the gate to procure a replacement. He did _
not recall whether he first spoke to his foreman (Jim Grover) about it' When
Raynor stepped off the outside platform into the mill yard, he lighted a ciga-
rette, and was spied by Lester E. Morrell, the assistant superintendent. Raynor
was carrying the leaky grease bucket in his hand, and explained his mission to
get another bucket from the trash pile. Morrell reproached him for smoking
and instructed him to report to the overseer, Reuben R Yarboro. Raynor obeyed
the instructions and explained to the overseer what had happened s Based upon
Raynor's version of the incident and without investigation into the gravity of his
offense, Reuben R. Yarboro discharged him forthwith. Later that afternoon when
Morrell inquired of Reuben R. Yarboro as to what action was taken in the case,
the overseer informed him that the man had been discharged.
Reuben R. Yarboro credibly testified that he had no complaints against Raynor
but inasmuch as he had been previously warned, the discharge was made effective
solely because he walked into the office and told him that Mr. Morrell caught him
smoking on the outside. The overseer gave no consideration to the fact that
Raynor was engaged in an errand to facilitate the performance of his work, and
has admitted that if Raynor had permission to go outside the building that smok-
ing alone would not be a violation of the company rule.
In November following Raynor's discharge, Lester E Morrell instructed the
supervisor of the mill village (C D. Miller) to offer Raynor employment as a
carpenter, but Raynor declined to accept that job.
2. Discrimination against Newton Yarboro
Prior to the termination of his employment on August 4, 1950, Newton
Tarboro had worked for the Respondent more than 20 years, having been first
employed at the age of 14 years. He performed such jobs as sweeper, spooler,
doffer, and also worked in the dye house. For approximately 10 years he worked
as a fixer, and at termination was classified as a spare hand. In the course of
his employment he incurred an injury which required an-operation for hernia.
Thereafter, he was not able to perform heavy duty, but the Respondent retained
him in its employ and provided work that he was capable of performing. When
* Grover did not appear as a witness to affirm or deny that he granted permission.
5 Morrell testified that he made no report whatever to the overseer.
ROXBORO COTTON MILLS 1381
called for an interview concerning his union activities by Lester E. Morrell on
May 22, 1950, Newton Yarboro was engaged in overhauling machinery , cleaning
heads, rollers , pulleys, fans , motor bearings , etc. The duration of that job
was 3 or 4 months , and continued approximately 1 month , following the inter-
view. Immediately after the interview , Reuben R. Yarboro ( overseer ) warned
Newton Yarboro that it would be the best thing for him to do to give up the Union.
On July 13, 1950, the overseer transferred Newton Yarboro to a job known
as "rovin." That job required him to reach above his head and place filled
bobbins on fast moving spinning frames more than 6 feet above the floor.
He found difficulty in keeping up with the work , and the continuous operation
caused pain in his side. By reason thereof he frequently stayed away from work,
and informed the overseer and foreman of his inability to satisfactorily perform
that job. He requested other duties. Having procured a physician 's certificate
describing his limitations , he presented it to Reuben R . Yarboro. The overseer
promised to find other work for him (if possible ), but failed to do so. Arguments
arose, and the overseer threatened to fire him for failure to keep the spinning
frames supplied with bobbins . Finally on August 4, 1950 , Newton Yarboro
stopped work and refused to perform the "rovin" job any longer . His foreman
reported the incident to the overseer , and Newton Yarboro was informed that
no other job was available for him. Thereupon the overseer inquired whether
be wanted to quit work . Following a remonstrance, the overseer called him
to the office and paid him off. Thereby , Newton Yarboro's employment with
the Respondent was terminated . Upon inquiry whether he could retain the
company house in which he was residing , the overseer said he would find out
about that later . Upon further inquiry whether his wife would be retained
in the employment of the Respondent , the overseer said "I am going to put her
to work just like I did you."
Reuben R. Yarboro testified that he had no doubt of his nephew ' s sincerity
about his physical condition , but there was just nothing he could do about it
because he did not have any other work for him to do.
D. The discharge of J. Arthur Yarboro
At the time of his discharge on June 14 , 1950, J. Arthur Yarboro had worked
for the Respondent at intervals over a period of approximately 25 years. He
performed a variety of jobs such as sweeping , spooling , rovin, doffing, etc.
He was presently classified as a spare hand and was employed in the picker
room of the Longhurst mill in the operation of five cotton lapper machines.
The function of the picker room was to process loose cotton into laps prepara-
tory to carding and spinning . From the opening room the loose cotton was car-
ried to the picker machines by means of an exhaust fan. Both short staple and
long staple cotton is utilized by the Respondent in the fabrication of yarn.
When short staple cotton is being run through the picker machines , the fixer
customarily hoists a yellow flag at the machines and thereupon it is the duty of
the operator to mark the cotton laps with yellow chalk . When long staple cot-
ton is being run, a green flag is raised and the operator marks the laps with
green chalk From the markings by the operator the difference in staple length
is determined when the laps are carried into the carding room for further
processing . The operator was also required to accurately weigh each lap as it
came off the picker machine. Humidity materially affects the weight of cotton,
and for that reason the Respondent provided scales equipped with a moisture
register or indicator . It was the duty of the operator to keep his scales set
exactly with the indicator at all times, and thereby allowance would be made
for the moisture content of the cotton laps when weighed.
986209-52-vol. 97--88
1382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the month of May 1950, J. Arthur Yarboro marked some of the cotton
laps with the wrong colored chalk, and thereby confused long staple cotton with
the short staple. His overseer (E. E. Paylor) warned him that such a mistake
might cause serious trouble and instructed him to be more careful in the future.
During the same month Paylor reprimanded J. Arthur Yarboro for leaving his
work to talk with other employees in the carding room. Machinery was being
overhauled in the picker room during the first 2 weeks in June 1950, and Overseer
Paylor spent considerable time in supervision of the work. He frequently visited
the picker room and made a practice of checking the scales and indicator for
accuracy. Two or three times each week he found the scales not properly
adjusted with the indictor, and complained to J. Arthur Yarboro that he was not
weighing the cotton laps properly and failing to keep the scales and indicator
together. He warned Yarboro that if he failed to keep the scales and indicator
adjusted he would lose his job. On June 14, 1950, the overseer twice in the
same day found the scales and indicator out of adjustment. Thereupon, he
called J. Arthur Yarboro to his office and discharged him.
Because of the persistent checking of the indicator and scales by the overseer
and other complaints and remarks made by him, Yarboro was convinced that he
was being treated unjustly because of his union activities, and suspected that a
trap was being set to bring about his discharge. J. Arthur Yarboro testified that
at the time of his discharge "I told him if he wanted to work for a crooked com-
pany just work for a s. o. b. like him and he would be working for one." He
used the words "son of a bitch."
It was noticeable to other employees that J. Arthur Yarboro was spending
some time away from his work and talking to other employees in the carding
room. J. A. Marston (a spare hand) observed him there each day talking with
other employees at work. Willie J. Walker (a card grinder) complained to the
assistant superintendent that J. Arthur Yarboro bothered him at his work.
John Rufus Dunn testified that J. Arthur Yarboro said he didn't care if he did
get fired, because he would get $700 or $800 out of it. On one occasion the chief
overhauler (Johnny William James) observed four of the picker machines stand-
ing idle. When he spoke to J. Arthur Yarboro about it, Yarboro replied : "I don't
give a goddam if they do fire me." He also observed that Yarboro was not weigh-
ing his laps. J. H. Tuck (the fixer) observed on one occasion that Yarboro failed
to weigh a cotton lap when it came off the picker machine, and spoke to him
about it. Frank Edward Guill (a card grinder) told J. Arthur Yarboro at
another time in the carding room "If he didn't be particular he was going to get
fired, or keep his mouth shut he would get fired." J. Arthur Yarboro replied to
the effect that he did not care because he would make the Company pay for it
anyhow.
While in the employment of the Respondent, J. Arthur Yarboro borrowed money
and bought coal on credit from the general superintendent (W. W. Morrell), for
which he is still indebted. After his discharge , W. W. Morrell assisted him in
getting another job with George W. Kane, a contractor in Roxboro, North
Carolina.
In December 1950, J. Arthur Yarboro filed written applications with the Re-
spondent for reemployment, and in each instance stated in substance over his
signature and partly in his own handwriting that the reason for previous dis-
charge was his failure to keep the scales and indicator together.
Concluding Findings
It is clearly established by uncontradicted testimony that on May 20, 1950,
supervisiors of the Respondent observed a group of employees assembling in
ROXBORO COTTON MILLS 1383
front of the company store at Longhurst. One of them (Baxter Dunn) persist-
ently inquired of J. Arthur Yarboro where he was going. It having been disclosed
that they might go to Durham, the other supervisor (George Gilliam) in com-
pany with the assistant superintendent, passed the group in an automobile on
the road that afternoon while returning from a meeting at the union hall in
Durham. On the following Monday, the assistant superintendent extensively
interrogated Newton Yarboro and told him that he observed the group leaving
the union hall in Durham on Saturday. From a preponderance of the evidence,
I am convinced and find that the Respondent through its agents engaged in an
unfair labor practice by unlawful surveillance of the concerted activities of its
'employees on May 20, 1950 .6 Statements by a supervisor to an employee that
he observed employees engaging in protected concerted activities is an inter-
ference with the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act°
From a preponderance of the evidence, I find that on May 22, 1950, Lester, E.
Morrell, assistant superintendent of the Respondent, subjected Newton Yarboro
to an involuntary and coercive interview concerning his'union activities. He
discouraged self-organization by interrogation, appeals to friendship, threats of
economic reprisal and discriminatory discharges, and promises of reward if
Newton would abandon the Union. Lester E. Morrell interrogated other em-
ployees, Charlie Snow, Nat Paul, and Ralph Harris, concerning their knowledge
,of and sympathies for the concerted activities of its employees. He coercively
remonstrated with J. Arthur Yarboro about his union activities and stated that
people up at Danville were perishing on account_of the Union and that the people
here would go hungry if the Union came in. By the foregoing conduct of its
assistant superintendent, the Respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice by
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Because of its inherently restraining
effect, it is unlawful for an employer to interrogate his employees concerning
any aspects of their union activities, sympathies, or affiliations!
From uncontradicted testimony, I find that Reuben R. Yarboro, overseer of the
spinning department, interrogated George Anderson (an oiler) concerning his
knowledge of union activities among the employees, and thereby interfered with
their rights to self-organization.
,From uncontradicted testimony, I also find that J. Beacham O'Bryant (a fore-
man in the carding department) interrogated Marion Ogle (a fixer) by inquiring
whether he had been solicited to become a member of the Union, and whether he
knew who went to the meeting in Durham.' On several occasions O'Bryant con-
versed with James Paul (a spare hand) and told him that the Union would not
do any good, and might make it harder on the employees.
The foregoing acts and conduct of Reuben R. Yarboro and J. Beacham O'Bry-
ant, supervisors of the Respondent, contained veiled threats of economic reprisal
and was an interference with, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act 1°
With respect to the discharge of William Raynor, it seems incredible that
Overseer Reuben R. Yarboro would fire him without a complaint and investiga-
tion into the gravity of his offense based merely upon the employee's own version
of an incident. It was admitted that smoking alone was not a violation of the
0 Macon Textiles, Inc., 80 NLRB 1521.
1 Tennessee Egg Co., 93 NLRB 846; Hilltop Baking Co , 93 NLRB 694.
8 Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Co., 85 NLRB 1358; Meier & Prank Co., Inc., 89 NLRB 1016.
° Victor Chemical Works, 93 NLRB 1012.
10 The record contains additional evidence of isolated instances of interrogation by super-
visors of the Respondent not deemed sufficient to support a finding of unfair labor practices.
1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD
Company's rule, and the question of leaving his work without permission was
not in issue at that time. His immediate superior, Foreman Grover, made no
complaint and failed to testify in the case. In the absence of positive testimony
to the contrary, it may be implied that William Raynor had permission to
secure another bucket with which to perform his duties for the Respondent.
At most, failure to request permission in such instance would be an extremely
technical violation of a company rule designed to prevent neglect of duty.
Therefore, I cannot find from the evidence that William Raynor was discharged
for violation of a company rule. The alleged cause of "outside smoking" was
merely a pretext to get rid of an undesirable member and worker for the Union.
The Respondent thereby engaged in an unfair labor practice in discriminating
against him in regard to his hire or tenure of employment.
The contention of the Respondent that Newton Yarboro voluntarily quit his
employment cannot be sustained. With full knowledge of his physical limita-
tions, the Respondent provided suitable employment over a period of years, and
then arbitrarily required that he perform specific work beyond his capabilities,
or quit. The past forebearance of the Respondent indicates that suitable em-
ployment was available had the Respondent cared to provide it. Coupled
with previous interrogation and coercion by Lester E. Morrell and Reuben
R. Yarboro, the conclusion is inevitable that the Respondent terminated the
employment of Newton Yarboro because of his sympathy, affiliation, and
activities on behalf of the Union. Termination of employment under such con-
ditions amounted to a constructive discharge, and thereby the Respondent dis-
criminated in regard to his hire or tenure of employment to discourage member-
ship in a labor organization 11
The contention of J. Arthur Yarboro that fraud was practiced upon him by
E D. Paylor (overseer) cannot be sustained by a preponderance of the evi-
dence. Having credited the testimony of E. D. Paylor, J. A. Marston, Willie J.
Walker, John Rufus Dunn, Johnny William James, J. H. Tuck, and Frank
Edward Guill, I am constrained to find that for a period of approximately 3
weeks prior to discharge J. Arthur Yarboro assumed a belligerent and abusive
attitude towards his employer, violated the lawful instructions of his superiors,
and was negligent and careless in the performance of his duties to such an extent
that just cause for his dismissal existed. Even though engaged in concerted
activities which are protected by the Act, an employee cannot with impunity
ignore the duty which he owes to his employer. From a preponderance of the
evidence, I cannot find that the Respondent discriminated against J. Arthur
Yarboro in his hire or tenure of employment to encourage or discourage mem-
bership in a labor organization. It will be recommended therefore that the
complaint with respect to the discharge of J. Arthur Yarboro be dismissed.12
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMEECE
The activities of the Respondent described in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the Respondent's operations described in Section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and such of them as have been found to constitute unfair
labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
11 The Stilley Plywood Co., Inc., 94 NLRB 932.
12 See Midland Broadcasting Co., 93 NLRB 455.
ROXBORO COTTON MILLS
V. THE REMEDY
1385
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
By reason of discrimination in the tenure of employment of William Raynor
and Newton Yarboro, it will be recommended that the Respondent, after due
consideration of their qualifications and limitations, o1er to each of said
employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions,'3 without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and that the Respondent make each of them whole for any loss of pay
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equivalent to that which he would have earned as wages since
the date of his discharge to the date when the offer of reinstatement is made,
less his net earnings;' to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner estab-
lished by the Board in the case of F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289. Earnings
in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any
other such period. It will also be recommended that the Respondent make avail-
able to the Board upon request payroll and other records to facilitate the checking
of the amount of back pay due.18
Further finding from past conduct of the Respondent and the nature of the
unfair labor practices herein revealed, a likelihood that such practices may be
continued in the future, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and
desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, admitting to membership employees of the
Respondent.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of William
Raynor and Newton Yarboro to discourage membership in a labor organization,
thereby discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of America, CIO,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning and in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
4. The Respondent did not engage in an unfair labor practice within the mean-
ing of the Act by discharging J. Arthur Yarboro under the circumstances found
in this case.
5. 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 in this volume.]
11 The Chase National Bank of the City of Pew York, an Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
' Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440.
15 F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289.