Se-Ling Hosiery Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 12, 1939

14 N.L.R.B. 485 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of SE-LINO HOSIERY MILLS, INC. and AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS
Case No. C-1007.-Decided August 12, 1939
Hosiery. Manvufact'uring Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion:
charges of , not sustained-Discrim ination : charges . of, not sustained-Conz
plaint: dismissed.
Mr. Charles D. Diimnwc/e, for the Board.
Mr. C. P. Hatcher and Mr. William Waller, of Nashville, Tenn.,
-for the respondent.
Mr. James Rutherford, of Nashville, Tenn., and Mr. Herbert G. B.
King, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. Theodore W. Kheel, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by American Fed-
-eration of Hosiery Workers on behalf of Branch No. 55, herein called
the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board , by Charles N. Feidelson, Regional Director for the Tenth
Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued and duly served its complaint
dated June 29, 1938, against Se-Ling Hosiery Mills, Inc., Nashville,
Tennessee, herein called the respondent, alleging that 'the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
-commerce,' within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section
2. (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act.
The complaint alleged in substance (1)' that the respondent had
since June 18, 1937, discouraged membership in the Union and
had attempted to destroy 'the Union by exhibiting open hostility
to it, by discriminating against its members, and by other forms
of intimidation and coercion, and (2) that the respondent discharged
Gordon Dedmon on December 17, 1937, for joining and assisting
the Union. On July 8, 1938, the respondent filed its answer to
14 N. L. R. B., No. 37.
4R5
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the complaint denying that it had engaged in the unfair practices
alleged therein.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Nashville, Tennessee,
on July 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1938, before Harlow Hurley, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respond-
ent, and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in
the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all parties.
At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent moved to
-strike certain portions of the complaint as indefinite and uncertain.
The Trial Examiner denied this motion but advised the respondent
that he would entertain a motion during the hearing to strike any
surprise evidence for which the respondent could not properly pre-
pare its defense or cross-examination. During the hearing, counsel
for the Board moved to amend the complaint to date the, com-
mencement of the unfair labor practices from May 1, 1936, instead
of from June 18, 1937. The Trial Examiner granted the motion
with the understanding of counsel for the Board that evidence
introduced under the amendment would constitute "labor history."
At the conclusion of the Board's case, counsel for the Board moved
to conform the pleadings to the proof. This motion-was granted.
The Trial Examiner denied the respondent's motion to strike ' from
the record proof pertaining to acts alleged to have occurred after
the date on which the amended charge was filed. During the course
of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions
and on objection to the admission of evidence. The Board has re-
viewed these and the foregoing rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. His rulings are
hereby affirmed.
On October 26, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report in which he found that the respondent had" -not engaged in
.unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)
of the Act and recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The
respondent and the Union filed briefs and exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report all of which have been duly considered.' Except
as they are, consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set
`forth below, we find the exceptions to be without merit. Although
oral argument before the Board in Washington, D. C., was requested,
On December, 23, 1938, the Union moved to include in the record an order. dismissing
an injunction suit commenced by the respondent. against the Union. The respondent,
however, has admitted in its brief that it had voluntarily discontinued saiqr injunction
suit. This admission makes unnecessary the inclusion of this evidence and the Union's
motion is hereby denied.
SE-LING HOSIERY DMILLS, INCORPORATED 487"
thereafter it was waived by agreement between the respondent and-
the Union.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:-
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent manufactures ladies' full-fashioned silk hosiery at
its plant in Nashville;' Tennessee. All --its "raw- materials, and. about
one-half of its supplies are obtained outside the'State of Tennessee..
During 1937 approximately 90 per cent of its finished products were-
shipped to points outside the State of Tennessee. The respondent.
maintains salesmen in New York, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina,-
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama., Mississippi, Tennessee,,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana,._
Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Colo- -
rado. It employs approximately 333 persons for its operations in
Nashville, Tennessee.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Hosiery Workers, Branch No. 55, is a
labor organization affiliated with the Textile Workers Organizing-
Comin
,
i ,t-t- ee which, in turn , is affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
'trial Organizations . It- admits to membership all production and-
maintenance employees of the respondent , excluding . clerical and
supervisory. employees.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint , and coercion
On April 16, 1937, shortly after the Act had been declared consti-
tutional by the Supreme Court, Maclin Davis, the respondent's presi-
dent,posted a letter to•employees of the respondent discussing certain
provisions of the Act, the rights of employees thereunder, and the
policy that the respondent would pursue in compliance with the Act.
This letter was followed by another letter on June 18, 1937, giving-
further expression to the views held: by Davis on the matters pre-
viously discussed. Under the circumstances of this case, neither the-,
statements contained in the letters nor the manner in which they
were posted interfered with or had the effect of interfering with the
employees 'in the exercise of their rights under the Act.
We find that the respondent has not interfered with, restrained,-
or coerced its employees in the 'exercise of the rights guaranteed in...
Section 7 of the Act by the statements contained in those letters.
488 DECISIONS OF NATIO NAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the early part of April 1938, Davis announced a wage reduction
for certain employees effective on April 11, 1938. Two days before
the reduction was put into effect, the Union called it meeting to con-
sider steps to be taken in protest against the reduction. On the same
day, Davis secured, ex party, from the Chancery Court of Davidson
County, Tennessee, a temporary injunction restraining, in general
terms, the Union and 12 named officers and members thereof, from
engaging in various forms of unlawful conduct in connection with its
protest against the wage reduction. This injunction was served on
the Union and the individual party defendants during the course of
their meeting. Its service disrupted the meeting and caused many
members to leave. On Monday morning, April 11, 1938, the wage
reduction was put into effect, apparently without protest on the part
of the Union.
The Union and the individual defendants filed a joint answer to
the complaint on April 29, 1938. Shortly thereafter, Davis sum-
moned to his office those defendants who were employees of the
respondent, and berated them for certain derogatory statements con-
cerning him which they had made in their answer. It was not con-
tended nor do we find that Davis in any manner mentioned at this
time the Union or the union activities of these employees.
We conclude that the facts set forth above as established by the
record do not constitute unfair labor practices. We find accordingly
that the respondent did not thereby interfere with, restrain, and
coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.'
B. The alleged discriminator j discharge
Gordon Dedlnon joined the Union when it was organized at the
-respondent's plant in 1933. At the time of his discharge on December
17, 1937, Dedmon was operating a footing machine. The respondent
contends that it discharged Dedmon because he had entrusted his
machine to his helper while it was in operation and left the premises
.of the mill in violation of the respondent's rules and it previous
warning which he had received.
Dedmon admitted that he had left his machine in operation all-
-though he denied that lie had gone from the premises of the mill.
He testified that at about 11 o'clock in the morning he decided to
-place a special order for lunch with the restaurant keeper across the
z Evidence was introduced during the hearing concerning alleged unfair labor practices
occurring prior to June 18, 1937. For the reason hereinbefore stated, we have considered
-such evidence only as "labor history." We do, not find therein any explanation of the
matters related above. We have therefore omitted any discussion of this evidence from
-our decision.
SE-LING HOSIERY ' MILLS, IN CORPORATED 489
street from the mill. Entrusting his machine to his helper, he walked
to the employees' entrance of the mill and signaled his order. Shortly
,.after he returned to his machine, he was approached by his foreman,.
.Bernard Seydak, who inquired where lie had been. After Dedmon
explained his mission, Seydak discharged him.
Dedmon operated a full-fashioned footing hosiery machine. This
machine, extremely delicate and easily damaged, requires the constant
.attention of its operator. About every 12 or 15 minutes, it comes to
a dead stop during which the operator may take time to go to the
lavatory or drinking fountain. Although there was testimony that
operators occasionally left their machines, only one witness, Dedmon's
brother, testified that he had heard of operators leaving footing
machines in operation. It is reasonable to believe that if footer
operators did leave their machines, they availed, themselves of the
time during which the machines were not in operation.
While-it appears-to have been a.current practice among the em-
ployees of the respondent to cross from one department to another
,.without permission, it is clear that they were not permitted to leave
the mill.. Dedmon appreciated the force of this 'rule. for he con-
tended that he had not left the premises of the mill on the day he
was discharged. He argued that he had remained on the inner side
of the threshold. In this respect, he is not supported by the evidence
which indicates that Dedmon did, in fact, step outside of the mill.
The following facts were offered to buttress the contention that
Dedmon was discharged for union activity. Davis knew that Ded-
mon was a member of the Union since he had served on several com-
mittees which met with Davis. Dedmon was active in soliciting
members for the Union and had protested to Seydak the day before
his discharge against a proposed wage reduction. His wife testified
that when she had applied for a job with the respondent, Lorraine
Lineville, a forelady, advised her that she did not get one because of
her husband's activity in the Union. This incident was denied by
Lineville. Moreover, shortly thereafter Mrs. Dedmon was given a
job by the respondent. From all the evidence, we are not satisfied
that Dedmon's discharge had any connection with his membership
or activity in the Union.
We find that the respondent did not discharge Gordon Dedmon
because of his membership and activity in the Union.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLusIONs OF LAW
1. The operations of the respondent, Se-Ling Hosiery Mills, Inc.,
occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, Branch No. 55, is a:
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire or.
tenure of employment or any condition of employment of Gordon-
Dedmon, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of:
the Act, within the, meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
ORDER
. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings-of fact and conclusions of
law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the com--
plaint against the respondent, Se-Ling Hosiery Mills, Inc., Nashville,.
Tennessee, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the-
-above Decision. and Order.