Sewell Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 85 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY and AMALGAM-
ATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
In the Matter Of WARREN SEWELL AND AVA SEWELL, D/B/A WARREN
SEWELL CLOTHING COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO
Cases Nos. 10-C-1821 and 10-C-1865, respectively .Decided
January 15, 1947
Mr. Louis S. Belkin, for the Board.
Mrs. Leora Barfield, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
Mr. Shirley C. Boykin, of Carrolton, Ga., Mr. Alexander W. E.
Wilson, Jr., of Atlanta, Ga., and Mr. Don B. Howe, of Tallapoosa,
Ga., for the Corporation.
Mr. Robert D. Tisinger, of Carrolton, Ga., and Mr. John I. Kelley,
of Atlanta, Ga., for the Partnership.
Mr. Paul Bisgyer, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On August 2, 1946, Trial Examiner David Rein issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Corporation had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Corporation and
counsel for the Board filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
supporting briefs. On November 12, 1946, the Board heard oral
argument at Washington, D. C., in Which both respondents partici-
pated; the Union did not appear.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
'The Union, however, sent a telegram to the Board requesting it to adopt the Trial
Examiner's recommendations.
72 N. L. R. B., No 19. 85
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Examiner with the modifications, additions and exceptions noted
below.
1. As fully discussed in the Intermediate Report, the Trial Exam-
iner overruled at the hearing the Corporation's objections to the con-
solidation of the above cases and denied its motion to sever them.
Pursuant to the Board's interim order issued during the hearing deny-
ing the Corporation's appeal from the Trial Examiner's rulings with-
out prejudice to raising the question on exceptions, the Corporation
renewed its objections and motion in its Exceptions to the Intermedi-
ate Report and at the oral -irgument. We have reviewed all the pro-
ceedings and the record herein and find that, as the charge in Case No.
10-C-1865 alleged that the Partnership, as successor to the Corpora-
tion, was responsible for certain acts of interference by the Corpora-
tion, the cases were properly consolidated pursuant to the Board's
Rules and Regulations.2 Moreover, we find that the consolidation
did not create any confusion of issues, impair the Corporation's ability
to defend, or otherwise prejudice its rights. Accordingly, we affirm
the Trial Examiner's rulings, overrule the Corporation's exceptions
thereto, and deny its motion for a new hearing.
2. In its Exceptions, the Corporation generally charges the Trial
Examiner with bias and prejudice and particularly excepts to his
ruling denying its motion that he disqualify himself. The motion to
disqualify was made for the first time after the Board had completed
its case and the Corporation had put in a substantial part of its own
case, and only after the Trial Examiner had denied one of the Cor-
poration's motions to dismiss.
In view of the charges leveled against the Trial Examiner, we have
carefully scrutinized the record ; we find that the Trial Examiner con-
ducted the hearing with cominendable fairness and impartiality and
that there is absolutely no basis for any charge of bias or prejudice.
Nor are we persuaded that there is any merit in the Corporation's
motion to disqualify. Significantly, no evidence was offered, by
affidavit or otherwise, to support the motion or even to make out a
prima facie case for it. Moreover, a motion to disqualify must be
timely made. Here, neither at the hearing nor in its Exceptions did
the Corporation submit any facts to excuse its apparent lack of dili-
gence in delaying its motion until the latter stages of the hearing and
until after the Trial E :aminei• overruled its motion to dismiss." We,
accordingly, overrule the Corporation's exceptions in this respect.
2 Article II, Section 36 (b) of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 3, as amended , since renumbered Section 203 42 of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations-Series 4
3 To account for the delay the Corporation merely makes the assertion in its Exceptions,
without supporting facts, that "Respondent made allegation with respect to [the Trial Ex-
aminer's] disqualification which it had at that time just found out on information which
it believed to be true."
SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 87
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Corporation, by vari-
ous acts and statements of its supervisory employees, detailed in the
Intermediate Report, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. In so doing, we adopt
his finding that Supervisor Gardner engaged in surveillance of the
Union's meeting hall and meetings, for which the Corporation was
responsible. Unlike the Trial Examiner, however, we do not rely on
similar acts of surveillance by non-supervisory employees Lewin
Thompson, Lawrence Baxter, Hoyt Broadwell, and Ray Sewell, whose
acts, we find, on the state of the record, are not imputable to the
Corporation.
As part of the Corporation's coercive conduct, the Trial Examiner
properly found, in effect, that Lovvorn, the Corporation's secretary-
treasurer in charge of production, reprimanded Troy Payton and
another employee, Kugler, because of their protected union or con-
certed activity with other employees in seeking to obtain a wage in-
crease.4 Corroborating, in material respects, Troy Payton, whose
credited testimony concerning this occurrence is summarized in the
Intermediate Report, Supervisor Pritchard testified that Lovvorn,
referring to Troy Payton's and Kugler's efforts to obtain a wage
increase, told them that "they had caused a lot of disturbance on that
job and other jobs and that they caused disturbance between the girls
and things like that and said he didn't approve of that." Signifi-
cantly, there is no evidence that either of these employees had at
any time, in fact, created a disturbance. Pritchard further testified
that, after Troy Payton and Kugler had retracted their previous
notice that they intended to quit if no raise were forthcoming, Lov-
vorn summoned two office employees to witness Troy Payton's and
Kugler's reply to Lovvorn's question, "Do you want to work or do
you not and go back to your machine and cause no more trouble?"
We also concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that Supervisor
Ivey's interrogation of employee Hr ralson concerning her member-
ship in the Union was pen, se violative of the Act.5 Hence, contrary
to the Corporation's contention, it is immaterial whether or not Haral-
son believed herself thereby coerced. The test of interference, re-
straint, and coercion under Section 8 (1) of the Act does not turn
4It has uniformly been held that concerted activity for the purpose of obtaining a wage
increase is protected. See, for example, N. L. R B v. Central Steel Tube Co , 139 F (2d)
489 (C C A 8), enf'g 48 N. L R. B 604, N L. R. B. v. Condenser Corporation of America,
128 F. (2d) 67, 74-75 (C C A. 3), enf'g as modified 22 N L. R B 347, N. L. R. B. v.
Tovrea Packing Co., 111 F. (2d) 626, 629 (C. C. A 9), enf'g as modified, 12 N. L. R. B.
1063, cert denied 311 U S 668 To the same effect, see N L R B v Ilymie Schwartz
d/b/a Lion Brand Manufacturing Company, 146 F (2d) 773, 774 (C C A 5), enf'g 55
N L. R B 798
'It J Heinz Co v N L R B , 311 U S 514, 518, 520, P 77. Glatfelter Co v N L. R. B,
141 F (2d) 631, 6..33 (C C A 3) , N L. R B v. Cities Service Oil Co, 129 F. (2d) 933,
934 (C C A 2)
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
upon the success or failure of the attempted coercion, but rather hinges
upon whether the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reason-
ably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee
rights under the Act.' Consequently, the Trial Examiner properly
excluded, on the Board attorney's objection, questions which the Cor-
poration's attorney asked Haralson on cross-examination regarding
her reaction to Ivey's interrogation.
4. The Trial Examiner also found that the Corporation, after re-
suming operations following the economic lay-off, refused to reem-
ploy Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee Payton, Lonle Summerville, Cordia
Payton, James O. Lee, and Bunnie McPherson, all of whole had made
timely application for work, because of their union activity, and
thereby violated Section 8 (3) of the Act. We, however, only agree
that the Corporation discriminated against Eppe Summerville, Troy
Lee Payton and Lonie Summerville, and find that there is insufficient
evidence to support the finding with respect to the remaining three
complainants.
As discussed in the Intermediate Report, Eppe Summerville, al-
though concededly a competent employee with 14 years' experience in
the Corporation's employ, was never recalled. The Corporation, how-
ever, seeks to excuse its failure to rehire her solely on the ground that
no work was available for her on resumption of operations, and that
when an opening did subsequently arise she had another job. Yet,
it does not satisfactorily explain why, about 6 weeks .before Eppe
Summerville obtained other employment, the Corporation, without
first offering her a position, hired for no particular work, as Secre-
tary-Treasurer Lovvorn testified, "quite a number" of new and in-
experienced employees whom it was obliged to train before assigning
them to productive work. Moreover, Lovvorn's adinission at the hear-
ing that he had made no effort to verify with Eppe Summerville
whether she had other employment when work allegedly became
available, and Eppe Slunmerville's uncontradicted testimony, which
we credit, that during her interview for employment Lovvorn char-
acterized her work as "one of the best," cast considerable doubt on, the
validity of the Corporation's explanation. Viewing the Corporation's
unpersuasive reason for not recalling Eppe Summerville, whose prom-
inence in the union movement in the plant was well known to it,7
in the light of all facts and circumstances in the case, including its
IN. L R. B v Illinois Tool Works, 153 F (2d) 811 (C. C. A. 7) ; Matter of Clark Bros.
Co, Inc, 70 N L R B 802
4 Appraising Secretary-Treasurer Lovvorn's testimony in the light of all the evidence, we,
like the Trial Examiner, cannot credit his denial of knowledge of Eppe Summerville' s union
membership and activity, or the asserted reason for not recalling her. Similarly, we can-
not credit his testimony concerning his lack of knowledge of the union membership and
activity of Troy Payton and Lonic Summerville , whose cases are hereinafter discussed, and
the reasons for not reemploying them.
SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 89
other unfair labor practices, we are of the opinion and find that the
Corporation was discriminatorily motivated in denying Eppe Sum-
merville reemployment."
With respect to Troy Payton, the Corporation contends that it did
not rehire her when it reopened its plant because it selected only the
best employees to fill its initial needs and Troy Payton was generally
inefficient due to her absences from her machine and carelessness.
Nonetheless, notwithstanding her alleged inefficiency, the Corporation
admits that it would have reemployed her after production had gotten
under way had she not in the meantime acquired other employment.
Although the Corporation, unless unlawfully motivated, was privi-
leged to select for employment those employees it deemed best quali-
fied when it resumed operations, we, like the Trial Examiner, are
unable, under the circumstances herein, to attach any credence to its
explanation for not recalling Troy Payton. Thus, despite the fact
that Troy Payton concededly possessed sufficient competence to war-
rant reemployment, the Corporation nevertheless, without first offer-
ing her a job, hired new and inexperienced employees. Nor are we
satisfied that the record bears out the Corporation's assertion in its
Exceptions that new employees were first hired after Troy Payton
obtained other employment' Even were the contrary assumed, the
record still does not convincingly establish that the Corporation acted
on information of Troy Payton's new employment. Thus, although
Lovvorn testified that he learned from "someone" about Troy Payton's
new job, there is not only no evidence of the identity of the individual
who supplied this information or the date it was given, but Lovvorn
admittedly never troubled to ascertain the truth of this information
with Troy Payton herself.
That Troy Payton's new employment was not the real reason but a
mere pretext for the Corporation's failure to rehire her is further
demonstrated, quite apart from her conceded qualification for reem-
ployment, by the fact that Payton was a capable employee whose effi-
ciency compared very favorably with that of other employees who
Were rehired. According to her uncontradicted testimony, which we
8 While union activity " in itself is no bar to the discharge of an employee for legitimate
reasons, it may well disclose the real motive actuating an anti-union employer in discharge-
ing such 4n employee when the reasons given for the action do not ring true." Burk Bros.
y 1' L IL B , 117 F ( 2d) 686 , 687 (C C. A. 3), enf 'g as modified , 21 N L It. B. 1281, cert.
dewed 311 U S 588
11 The record does not precisely indicate the date when the Corporation began hiring new
employees Lovvorn, during the early part of his testimony , testified that a new employee
was lured in November 1945, and later in his testimony stated that such employee was hired
about December , "possibly a month" after the Corporation resumed operations (viz, Novem-
ber 1 , 1945). It is noteworthy that, although the Corporation could have verified from
its records the precise dates it hired new employees , as it had done with respect to the
employment history of other employees , it failed to do so. In these circumstances, we
infer and find, as did the Trial Examiner , that the Corporation hired new employees before
Troy Payton obtained other employment on November 29, 1945.
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
credit, her production exceeded the average employee quota, she had
been complimented for this by her supervisor, Pritchard, and she had
never been criticized for poor work. Although Troy Payton was re-
quired to redo some of her work because the stitches used were too long,
Pritchard admitted that other employees, some of whom were subse-
quently reemployed, were similarly required to correct their work.
Besides, as Troy Payton also credibly testified without contradiction,
less work was returned to her for restitching than to other employees.
In this connection it is significant to note that there is no evidence that
Payton had ever been admonished to decrease her production and im-
prove the quality of her work. As for her absences from her machine,
not only did Troy Payton testify credibly that she had never been
reprimanded for such conduct,10 but the record discloses that it was a
common practice for employees to leave their machines and it does
not appear that Troy Payton abused this privilege more than her
co-workers. Also, at her interview for reemployment, Lovvorn in-
stead of mentioning her alleged inefficiency or improper absences from
her machine, as would be expected if such were the case, merely asked
her whether she was ready to return'to work.
In view of Troy Payton's recognized satisfactory service, the ab-
sence of any reasonable explanation for not recalling her, and the
Corporation's other unfair labor practices, we find that the Corpora-
tion's true motive in not offering her employment was her membership
in and activity on behalf of the Union.
We, like the Trial Examiner, also find that Lonie Summerville was
denied reemployment because of her known union activities, and not
for the reason urged by the Corporation that her work was undesirable.
In addition to her 14 years' history of satisfactory employment with
the Corporation, during which time the quality of her work had not
materially changed, Lonie Summerville credibly testified, without
contradiction, that her normal production output was almost double
the average employee requirement. No evidence was adduced that she
was ever admonished to decrease production and improve the quality
of her work, or that she was directed to redo more work than other
10 In this respect, we do not credit the testimony of Lanier , who was in charge of the
plant in which Troy Payton was employed , that lie had spoken to her about being away
from her machine probably more than once, the last time being in the spring of 1945. Not
only was Troy Payton ' s testimony not contradicted by her immediate supervisor , Pritchard,
who, it would be expected , would have reprimanded her if Troy Payton had , in fact, been
away from her machine too much , but Lanier ' s testimony was indefinite and unconvincing.
Thus, Lanier merely testified that he was "not positive about going to her personally
myself and saying a whole lot about her work but [he had] spoken to her about being away
from her machine and getting up and going out before recess and leaving the machine," and
that he was not positive "as to talking [ to her] more than once but in [his ] opinion [he
had] spoken to her more than one time ," the last occasion being in the spring of 1945.
Even assuming that Lanier did speak to Troy Payton about her absences from the machine,
the Corporation did not attach any significance to her purported misconduct inasmuch as
it concedes that she was considered qualified for reemployment.
SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 91
employees who were subsequently rehired. That the Corporation did
not consider her work record inadequate for reemployment is further
apparent from her undisputed testimony, which we credit, that at the
time she filed her application Lovvorn asked her whether she was
reach to return to work and whether she had read the Corporation's
handbook. of rules and regulations. In these circumstances, we are of
the opinion that the Corporation's failure to rehire Lonie Summer-
ville in preference to new and untrained employees, as it insists it
would have clone in Troy Payton's case despite the latter's alleged
inefficiency, was motivated by its opposition to the Union, manifested
in its anti-union conduct and the other discriminatory discharges
discussed above.
Accordingly, we find that the Corporation, by failing to reemploy
Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee Payton, and Lonie Summerville, dis-
criminated against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment, thus discouraging membership in the Union in violation of
Section 8 (3) of the Act "l We also find that by such conduct the
Corporation interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and
thereby violated Section 8 (1) thereof. Whether the Corporation's
discriminatory conduct be viewed as a violation of Section 8 (1) or
Section 8 (3) of the Act, we find that effectuation of the policies of
the Act requires the remedy set forth below.
Turning to the Corporation's failure to reemploy Cordia Payton,
Jaines O. Lee, and Burnie McPherson, we are not convinced that the
record supports the Trial Examiner's finding that the Corporation
was motivated by anti-union considerations. Thus, the evidence, in
our opinion, does not adequately establish that Cordia Payton and
Bunnie McPherson were leaders in the union movement at the plant
or that the Corporation was aware of their union membership or
activities. In these circumstances the Corporation's explanation for
not reemploying Cordia Payton because of the poor quality of her
work and her obstinacy in not obeying orders to correct defective
work, which latter fact she did not deny at the hea ring, appears to be
plausible. Similarly, the Corporation appears to have acted not un-
reasonably in refusing to rehire Bonnie McPherson because, as the
record discloses, she was not qualified to perform any of the new
operations in the plant and her age and physical condition militated
against teaching her a new job. As for Lee, who was a presser, there
u The fact that the Corporation also failed to rehire 59 other former employees, as
Lovvorn testified, does not, under the circumstances of this case, overcome the positive
evidence of discrimination against these three employees , and we so find Triplex Screw
Company v N L R B, 117 F (2d) 858, 861 (C C A 6), enf'g as modified 25 N L R B,
1126; N L. R. B. v. American Mfg. Co, 106 F (2d) 61, 67-68 (C. C. A 2), onf'g as
modified 5 N L R B. 443, aff'd as modified 309 U S 629
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is no evidence that a position was available for him or that the Cor-
poration's policy of filling openings with returning veterans was,
under the circumstances herein, unreasonable. Accordingly, we shall
dismiss the complaint as to these three employees.
5. We have also considered the Board attorney's exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's recommendation that the allegations of the amended
complaint, that the Partnership discriminated against James 0. Lee
and Hobart Entrekin, be dismissed, and we find the exceptions to be
without merit.12 Accordingly, we shall overrule these exceptions.
The Remedy
We have found that the Corporation violated the Act by, among
other things, interrogating its employees concerning their union
affiliation and the identity of members of the Union, threatening to
discontinue operations if the Union succeeded in its organizational
campaign, reprimanding employees for their concerted or union
activities in seeking a wage increase, and keeping the Union's meeting
hall and meetings under surveillance. In addition, the Corporation
actually penalized three employees involved herein for their organiza-
tional and concerted, activities, by discriminatorily refusing them re-
employment after it reopened its plant following an economic lay-oft.
Such discrimination, in the language of the Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, "goes to the very heart of the Act." 13
Upon the entire record, we infer and find that the Corporation's
illegal activities, mentioned above, disclose an intent to defeat self-
organization and its objects, and an attitude of opposition to the pur-
poses of the Act. Because of the Corporation's unlawful conduct and
the underlying purposes manifested thereby, we are convinced that
the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the unfair
labor practices proscribed by the Act and that danger of commission
in the future of any or all of the unfair labor practices defined in the
Act is to be anticipated from the Corporation's conduct in the past.
The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless our order
is co-extensive with the threat.'4 In order, therefore, to make effective
the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence
of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which
burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the
12 Although in our opinion there ii merit in the Board attorney ' s contention that the
amended complaint may reasonably be construed as alleging that the partneiship inde-
pendently violated Section 8 (3) of the Act in refusing to hire Lee and Entrekin, we find
that the i ecoi d does not support such a finding
i' N L. R B. v Entwistle Manufacturing Co , 120 F . ( 2d) 532, 536 (C C A 4) See
also N L R B v Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co, 116 F (2d) 350, 353
(C C A 7)
i'N L R B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U S 426 , Mail Department Stores
Co v. N L R B„ 326 U 8 376
SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 93
Act, we shall order the Corporation to cease and desist, not only from
the unfair labor practices herein found, but also from in any other
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Laving found that the Corporation discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee Pay-
ton, and Lonie Stulunerville, we shall order the Corporation to offer
these employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their senior-
ity or other rights and privileges, and to make them whole for any loss
of pay they ivay have suffered by reason of the discruination against
then by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the
amount which she normally would have earned as wages from the
date of the discriniinatlon against her to the date of the Corporation's
offer of reemployment, less her net earnings during said period. In-
asinu_h as it is impossible to determine the exact date on which these
employees would have been recalled to work had they not been dis-
cruninated against, we shall fix the date of discrimination as the date
on which the first female employee, not previously employed by the
Corporation. was hired.
lire also expressly reserve the right to modify the back-pay and
ieinstatemneiit provisions if made necessary by a change of conditions
in the future, and to make such supplements thereto as may hereafter
become necessary in order to define or clarify their application to a
specific set of circumstances not now apparent.15
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Sewell Manufacturing Com-
pany, Bremen, Georgia, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees,
by refusing to reemploy any of its employees, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of their employment;
Matter of Faumoot Cireamelil Company/, 64 N L it B 824 ; of N L . R 13 v New
Yorl Nerchandls + na Co , 134 P ( 2d) 949 (C C A 2 ) International Un,on v Eagle Pieher
Mining & Smelting Co 65 S Ct 1166
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union member-
ship, activities, or sympathies, or the identity of members of the above-
named union or any other labor organization;
(c) Warning its employees that it will close its plant or take other
economic reprisals if the above-named union or any other labor or-
ganization succeeds in organizing its plant;
(d) Reprimanding its employees for engaging in concerted or
union activities;
(e) Engaging in surveillance of the meeting hall or meetings of the
above-nailed union or any other labor organization;
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee Payton, and Lonie Sum-
merville immediate and full reinstatement to their former or suro-
stautially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee Payton, and Lonie
Summerville for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
of the Corporation's discrimination against them, by payment to each
of them of a sure of money equal to the amount which she normally
would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination
against her, as determined in the remedy section of our Decision, to
the date of the Corporation's offer of reemployment, less her net earn-
im,s during such period;
(c) Post at its plant at Bremen, Georgia, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 16 Copies of such notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Corporation's representative, be posted
by the Corporation immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days, thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Corporation to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) clays from the date of this Order, what steps the Cor-
poration has taken to comply herewith.
',rn the event that this Order is enfoieed h, a dreiev of a Cn(nit Coint of A"seals,
there shall be msrrtrd, before the words "A Decision and Ordei" the words ` A Decree
of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals Enfoi eing
SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 95
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed, insofar as it alleges that the respondent, Sewell Manufactur-
ing Company, has discriminated against Cordia Payton, James O.
Lee, Bunnie McPherson, Hobart Entrekin, W. B. Rabun and Will W.
Barger ;
AND IT is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the respondents, Warren Sewell and Ava Sewell, doing business
as Warren Sewell Clothing Company, engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., 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 discourage membership in Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization by
refusing to reemploy any of our employees, or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment.
We will not interrogate our employees concerning their union
affiliation, activities, or sympathies, or the identity of members
of the above-named union, or any other labor organization.
We will not threaten our employees to close our plant or take
other economic reprisals if the above-named union or any other
labor organization succeeded in organizing our plant.
We will not reprimand our employees for engaging in con-
certed or union activities.
We will not engage in surveillance of the meeting hall or meet-
ings of the above-named union or any other labor organization.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination :
Eppe Summerville
Troy Lee Payton
Louie Summerville
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
731242-47-vo] 72-S
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to form labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate iii regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor o rganization.
--------------------------------- --
(Employer)
By ---------------------- ------------
(Representa tive ) ( Title)
Date ----------------------------
NOTE : 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
Cllr. Louis S. Belkoi, for the Board
nibs Leora Barfield , of Atlanta , Ga., for the Union
Messrs Shiley C Boilkiii, of Car :olt•n. Ga , 4lexandei 1V E. Wilson. Ji , elf
Atlanta, Ga, and Don B Howe, of Tallapoosa , Ga, for the Corporation
Messrs. Robert D . Tisvngei, of Cariolton , Ga, and .Jolin I Kelley, of Atlanta,
Ga, for the Partnership.
STATEMENT OF TSIE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America (C10), herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia), issued its complaint dated May 10, 1946, against Sewell Manufacturing
Company, herein called the Corporation, alleging that the Corporation had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section S (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act
Theieatter, charges were filed by the Union against Warren Sewell and Ava
,Sewell, d/b/a Wai ren Sewell Clothing Company and the two cases were con-
solidated by an order of the Board dated May 29. 1946 Thereafter, the com-
-plamt ironed against the Corporation was withdrawn, and the Board, by its
Regional Director issued its complaint on the consolidated cases dated May 31,
1946. against the Corporation and the Partnership alleging that both had en-
gaged in and were engaging in unfair labor piactices aftecting commerce within
the meaning of Section S (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Copies of the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing thereon were duly
served upon the Corporation, the Partnership, and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the Corporation had inteifered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by urging, per-
SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 97
suading and warning its employees to refrain from joining or retaining member-
ship In the Union; keeping under surveillance the activities, meetings, and
meeting places of the Union; inquiring of its employees whether they were
members of the Union ; and holding out its attorney, Clifford R Wheeless, to
be an impartial neutral observer, not paid for his services, and providing said
Wheeless with company time and property for the purpose of restraining eur-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 The complaint
further alleged that the Partnership was a successor to the Corporation and as
such responsible for the unfair labor practices of the Corporatioi set forth
above The complaint fun they alleged that the Corporation had discharged or
laid off and thereafter failed or refused to reemploy Troy Lee Payton, Cordia
Payton, Eppe Summerville, Lonie Suniuerville, Bunnie D. McPherson, J 0
Lee,' W B. Rabun, Will W Barger, and Hobart Entrekin, because the said em-
ployees engaged in concerted activities and joined and assisted the Union In
addition, the complaint alleged that the Partnership, as the successor to the
Corporation, and while continuing the employer-employee relationship previously
established by the Corporation refused to hire or reemploy J O. Lee, because
the said Lee engaged in concerted activities with other employees and joined
and assisted the Union
In their answers, both the Corporation and the Partnership admitted the
allegations as to commerce, but each denied that it had engaged in and unfair
labor practices, and that the Partnership was a successor to the Corporation
1'tirsuant no notice, a hearing was held from June 10 to 13, 1946, both dates
inclusive, at Buchanan, Georgia,' before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Boaid, the Corporation,
and the Partnership were represented by counsel, and the Union by a repre-
sentative Full eppoitunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties
At the opening of the hearing, both the Corporation and the Partnership
moved to sever the cases, arguing, among other things, that the Board order
consolidating the cases had been made without notice to them and hearing
thereon These motions were denied by the undersigned The undeisigned
also denied requests to hear evidence on the motion to sever before taking
other evidence, and to postpone the hearing, in order to allow an appeal to the
Board. Counsel for the Corporation thereafter dispatched a telegram to the
Board appealing from these itihngs and requesting a hearing on the question
of consolidation The Board, by telegraphic order dated June 13, 1946, denied
the request for special appeal, without prejudice to renewal of the question
on exceptions to the Intermediate Report
Also at the opening of the hearing, counsel for the Partnership moved to make
the complaint more specific. This motion was granted in part and denied in part
During the hearing, counsel for the Corporation moved to dismiss the allegation
in the complaint that the Corporation had discriminatorily discharged and there-
after refused to reinstate Hobart Entrekin, on the ground that Entrekin's name
was not included in the charge filed against the Corporation although it was in-
'This name appeared in the complaint as J C Lee, but at the hearing counsel for the
Board stated that the correct name was J 0 Lee
2 On the first day of the hearing, the Trial Examiner of dered, that for the convenience
of the parties , the hearing reconvene in the schoolhouse at firemen, Georgia During the
luncheon recess , the school authorities withdrew the permission previously granted to hold
the hearing there, and, accordingly, the hearing reconvened at Buchanan when the hear-
ing was reconvened, counsel for the Board moved that the heal fug be moved to Atlanta,
Georgia Upon objection by counsel for the Corporation, this motion was denied
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
eluded in the charge filed against the Partnership The motion was denied by the
undersigned.'
At the close of the Board's case, the Corporation and the Partnership renewed
their motions to sever which were denied by the undersigned The Corporation
also moved to dismiss paragraph 5 (d) of the complaint with regard to the activi-
ties of one ii'heeless, and both the Corporation and the Partnership moved to dis-
miss the entire complaint All of these motions were denied Counsel for the
Corporation also moved to dismiss the allegation of the complaint that the Union
was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the-Act The
undersigned, in denying this motion, stated for the record that the reference
to Section 2 (6) of the Act in the complaint was obviously a clerical error, since
it is Section 2 (5) of the Act that defines the term labor organization }
Toward the end of the third day of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to
amend the complaint to allege that the Partnership, as a successor to the Corpo-
ration, had discrimmatoi•ily refused to hire or reemploy Hobart Entrekin. This
amendment was allowed over the objections of both the Partnership and the Cor-
poration s The Partnership and the Corporation thereupon renewed their motions
to sever, counsel for the Corporation placing his motion on the ground that the
cases were originally consolidated "to allow this man [the Board attorney] to go
on a fishing expedition"' These motions were denied by the undersigned. Coun-
sel for the Corporation then moved to dismiss the complaint. on the ground that
by allowance of the amendment against the Partnership the Corporation had
been denied due process of law Upon denial of this motion by the undersigned,
counsel for the Corporation moved to disqualify the undersigned.' The undei-
signed denied this motion without comment Since, however, counsel for the Cor-
poration renewed this motion in their memorandum brief to the undersigned, it
would be desirable, at this point, to comment briefly on the reasons for the denial
of the motion. In the first place, the undersigned denied the motion because it
was not timely made A motion to disqualify an Examiner on the ground that
he,is biased or partisan is a serious matter. Any attorney who has within his
possession facts which justify such a motion, owes it to his client and the Board
to present such facts at the outset of the hearing in order to prevent a miscar-
riage of justice It is liiiidly propel, however, ton an attorney to withhold knowl-
edge of such facts and reveal them, only after the hearing is more than half
completed, and because the Examinee has denied a motion of his or ruled against
him on said point. To allow such a procedure would make it impossible to con-
a That every single clement in a complaint issued by the Board need not be covered by a
charge filed with the Board has been expressly decided by the Supreme Court National
Licorice Co v N L. R B , 309 U S 350 See also Matter of The Halls Brothers Company,
67 N L It B 1249 At the time the representative for the Union moved to amend
the charge Since the Board Rules and Regulations do not pros ide for the filing of charges
with a Trial Exanunci, this motion was denied
4It should be noted that Mr Wilson, counsel for the Corporation on having his attention
directed to this clerical error, made a claim of "surprise "
5 -Mr Wilson, counsel for the Corpoiation, stated shat although "at first blush" it would
appear that the Corpoiation was not affected by this amendment, lie nevertheless believed
the interests of the Corporation might in some manner be involved
It should also be noted that after the allowing of the ansendinent none of the pasties
asked for a continuance
'' Der Wilson, for the Corporation, added the additional ground that he was "outr.iged
7 This followed a request that the undervgned take the stand, which request was denied
Mr Wilson, for the Corporation, then stated lie could prove that the undersigned was "one
of the founders of a union of employees of the NLRB and that as such , [ he] at-
tempted to amalgamate that union to the CIO."
SEWELL MAN I FACTL; PING COMPANY 99
duct orderly hearings Moreover, such conduct on the part of the attorney in-
volved reflects not an attempt to secure justice for his client but rather 'an eftort
to intimidate the presiding officer. Secondly, the undersigned does not consider
that the statement made by counsel for the Corporation, assuming for this purpose
that the statement is supported by evidence,' would constitute a basis for
disqualification.
The Partnership, at the close of the Corporation's case, again moved to dismiss
the complaint, which motion was denied. At the close of the hearing, the Partner-
ship again renewed this motion, and the Corporation renewed its motions made
during the hearing These motions were taken under advisement, and aie dis-
posed of by the findings and conclusions of this Intermediate Report
Although afforded an opportunity to do so, none of the parties argued
orally. The Corporation and the Partnership filed memorandum briefs with the
undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the unden signed makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE CORPORATION AND THE PARTNERSHIP
Sewell DIanutacttuing Corporation is a Georgia corporation with its prin-
cipal place of business at Bremen, Georgia. During the year prior to September,
1945, the Corporation purchased a substantial amount of cloth and trimmings
for men's clothing, a major portion of which was shipped to its plants at Bremen
and Bowden, Georgia, from points outside the State of Georgia During the same
period, the Corporation manufactured, produced, and sold a substantial amount
of men's clothing, of which a major portion was shipped outside the State of
Georgia. Since September 20, 1945, the Corporation purchased a substantial
amount of cloth and trimmings for men's clothing, of which a major portion was
shipped to its plant at Bremen, Georgia, from points outside the State of Georgia.
During the same period, the Corporation manufactured, produced and sold at its
Bremen plant a substantial amount of men's clothing, a major portion of which
was shipped outside the State of Georgia.
Warren Sewell and Ava Sewell, doing business as Warren Sewell Clothing
Company, is a partnership established in the Site of Georgia and engaged in
the business of manufacturing men's clothing at Bremen and Bowden, Georgia.
In the 6 months prior to the hearing, it received raw materials in excess of 50
percent of its total intake of raw materials from points outside the State of
Georgia. During the same period, it shipped finished products in excess of 50
percent of its total production to points outside the State of Georgia.
At the hearing, both the Corporation and the Partnership conceded that they
were engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Corporation and the Partnership.
8 Although it is unnecessary for a ruling on the motion to disqualify to determine
the truth or falsity of Mr. Wilson's allegation, nevertheless, to clear the record on this
point, the undersigned wishes to take this opportunity to state that the accusations upon
which Mr. Wilson based his motion to disqualify, set forth in footnote 7, supra, are not
true.
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coetcion
1 In general
In 1944 the Corporation was manufacturing clothing at three plants, two in
Bremen, Georgia and one in Bowden, Georgia In the spring of 1944, the Union
began an organizing drive among the Corporation's employees, and starting with
June, 1944, the Union held regular monthly meetings at a union hall in Bremen.
The oigamzi ng activities were carried on openly in the plant and in town, and
knowledge of the Union's campaign was widespread throughout the town and
the plant.
The Board introduced testimony to show acts of interference, restraint and
coercion by the Corporation's officers and supervisors after the commencement
of the organizational campaign Substantially all of this testimony was denied
by witnesses for the Corporation. It is accordingly, necessary, to review all
of these incidents and make findings based on ci ed ability in each case
Three of the Board witnesses ° testified about a speech made to the assembled
employees of the Brennen plant in August, 1944, by A. R Lovvorn, secretary-
treasuier of the Corporation and in charge of production According to their
testimony, Lovvorn in his speech spoke "about how Bremen had prospered during
the time the plant has been there without outside help and they didn't need
outside interference to keep on." Lovvorn admitted making this speech, although
lie placed the time at about December, 1944 He testified, however, that lie was
referring to the problem created by employees leaving to work in munitions and
airplane factories in the vicinity. The undersigned cannot credit this testimony
that Lovvorn would refer to the efforts to hire away his employees as "outside
help" and finds that Lovvoin was in fact referring to the oiganizational campaign.
This finding is fns then supported by the credited testimony of Troy Lee Payton,
that Lovvorn did not in this speech say anything about employees leaving the
plant, as well as by the incidents recounted) below.
In July or August, 1944, several of the employees working on canvass, gave
not ice that because of the Corporation's refusal to give them a raise, they would
quit. According to Troy Lee Payton, Lovvorn called in the two employees most
active in organizing this movement, Troy Payton and Betty J. Kugler, "and he
said he had tried to get us a raise and that it looked like we was trying to cause
trouble and he said it looked like we was trying to tell him what he could or
couldn't do and nobody could tell him what he should or shouldn't do and that
was his place and no union could tell him what he could or couldn't do " In the
version of Flora Pritchard, Payton's supervisor, Lovvorn made substantially all
of these statements but did not mention the Union Lovvorn gave a somewhat
different version of the incident but also denied that he mentioned the Union.
The undersigned finds Troy Lee Payton's version of- this incident to be the
most credible and finds that the conversation occurred as testified to by her10
Troy Lee Payton testified further that in July, 1944. her supervisor Flora
Pritchard, while seated next to Payton at her machine. began a conversation
° Eppo Summerville, Troy Lee Payton, and Lucille Shockley
10 This finding makes it unnecessary to pass on the question, whether under Pritchard's
vei Sion of the incident, Lovvorn's conduct, in the absence of any mention of the Union, con-
stituted an mterfei ence with concerted activity Cf. N. L R. B. v. Mackay Radio d- Tele-
graph Co. 304 U S 333, 344, N L R, B v. Hymic Schioartz, 146 F. (2d) 773, 774 (C C A.
5) , Carter Carburetor Corp v N L R B, 140 F (2d) 714, 717-718 (C C A. 8) ; Firth
Carpet Co v N L R B, 129 F (2d) 633, 636 (C C A 2) , Matter of Rockingham Poultry
Marketing Cooperative, Inc, 59 N L R B. 486
SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 101
about the Union "and said MYlr Warren Sewell said he wouldn't run the shop
under a union and she was talking on and asked me what I thought about it."
Later in July, according to Payton, Pritchard told her that she, Pritchard, "was
surprised at me at belonging to the Union " Flora Pritchard was somewhat
evasive in hei testimony on these incidents She testified that in the fall of 1944,
Payton asked her if she would feel any different toward any of her "hands" who
had "signed a card." that she replied, "No." that Payton then asked her if she
had lieai'd that lllr Warren Sewell said "that he would not run under a union?"
and that she, Pritchard, ieplied. "Yes, I heard that, but Mr Warren did not tell
me that " Pi itcliard l'ui thei testified that "it was generally talked over the
shop" that ".Air W u':en Sewell said that he would not run under a union." The
undersigned credits Troy Lee l',ayton's testimony and finds that the incidents
occurred as testified to by her
lima Lee tesufied that Paul Joiies, foreman of the pressers in Plant 1, and in
charge of the piessuig machines in all plants, came by her machine one day
when she had "spine unio,i pipers lying on the table "" According to her testi-
mony, Jones 'picked one la Union paper l up and asked me what the news was
anti I sand. 'Good news', and lie picked it up and says, `it is a moon paper and I
don't call that good news and if you knew anything, about the union you wouldn't
get in it', and he pounded his fist on the table and said `They are a bunch of Jews
and crooks and Sewell will not operate under a union'." This testimony was
corroborated by Lucille Shockley Jones denied making these remarks. His
version of the incident, was as follows:
Well, I came by the machine she was reading the paper and I asked her
what is the news and she just held the paper tip and I said, "That is no
news "
Q What was the paper do you recall?
A I don't know, I couldn't tell you what it was
Q Do you recall who put the paper out, or what masthead it hall?
A No, I don't know
Jones was an evasive witness. Further, his version of this incident that he
asked to look at the paper could not recall seeing anything in the paper, but
nevertheless made the comment, "That is no news," is not credible to the under-
signed. Accordingly, the undersigned credits Irma Lee's testimony and finds
that this incident occurred as testified to by her.
James 0. Lee testified that in March or April, 1945, Paul Jones was in the
piessing room of Plant No 2 when the men in the room told Jones about the
Union and Jones "said that they would close our shop down before they would
let the Union come in" Jones denied this conversation The undersigned has
already found that Jones was not a credible witness. The conversation, how-
ever, was also denied by witnesses Witcher, Daniel, and Johnson, all three of
whom, according to Lee, were present at the time of the conversation's The
undersigned was especially impressed with the credibility of James Lee, and
the manner in which he testified to this incident. Nor is it likely, in the opinion
of the undersigned, that if Lee were in fact giving false testimony, that he would
list as present at this conversation three employees whom he had no reason to
believe would support such testimony. Further, it has already been found that
Jones made a similar remark on another occasion, and Lee's testimony is con-
sistent with the other findings in this report. For all of these reasons, the
11 No (late for this incident is given in the record
1' Itav Sewell also denied that this conversation took place in ]its presence, but Lee did not
testify that Sewell was present at the time
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
undersigned credits James Lee's testimony and finds that the incident occuiied
as testified to by him.
Eppe Summerville testified that on several different occasions about March,
1945, her supervisor, Ivey, came to her at her machine and Ivey "would ask me
how many more members we would have to have enough to have an election
and probably who some of them were. She named some personally and wanted
to know if they were union members." Clemmie Haralson testified that in May,
1945, Ivey came to her machine "and asked me if I belonged to the Union and
I asked her who wanted to know and she said Mr. Gardner" Gardner was in
charge of Plant No. 2. According to Summerville, shortly after this incident,
Ivey "came by my machine and said she was sorry she asked Clemie [sic] if
she was a union member but Mr. Gardner told her to ask and it was her under-
standing he was trying to find out and trace who belonged to the union for Air
Lovvorn." Ivey denied the testimony of both Summerville and Haralson. The
undersigned, however, was impressed with the credibility of Summerville and
Haralson, and accordingly credits their testimony and finds that the incidents
set out above occurred as testified to by them.
The undersigned finds that by the above conduct of its supervisors, the Cor-
poration interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Other testimony was introduced into the record by the Board to show anti-
union remarks and actions by supervisors Strickland, Bradley and Entrekin, by
Ray Sewell, a nephew of the president and vice-president of the Corporation,
and by one Hoyt Broadwell. The undersigned makes no finding of unfair labor
practices on the basis of this testimony for the Board, because he either credits
the denials of this testimony by witnesses for the Corporation, or he finds that
this testimony for the Board even if credited does not constitute interference,
restraint and coercion.
2. Activities of Clifford R. Wheeless
The complaint alleges that the Corporation held out its attorney, one Clifford
R. Wheeless, to be an "impartial neutral" observer and not paid by the Corpora-
tion, although the Corporation in fact did pay for his services, and that the
Corporation provided the said Wheeless with company time and property for the
purpose of threatening, coercing, intimidating and restraining employees.
The record shows that Wheeless was employed by the Coiporation to come
to the plant and talk to the Corporation supervisors about their responsibilities
under the Act While lie was at the plant, the employees were told by supervisors
that lie was available to give advice to the non-supervisory employees as well,
and several of the employees in this category went to see him Only one such
employee, however, testified as to the substance of a conversation with Wheeless
This employee, Troy Lee Payton, testified as follows :
I asked Mr. Wheless (sic) if lie thought a union would help us get a raise
and he said, "No, it wouldn't." And I asked him if they would close after
the union came in and he said, "No, not on account of a union but there
could be a shortage in materials and other things "
Q Did Mr. Wheless explain to you in any way how he happened to be on
company property?
A He said-explained he was not on the Sewell pay roll-never had been
and never would be.
Wheeless did not testify. It would appear to be hardly proper for the Corpora-
tion to employ an attorney to give its employees advice on union matters Fur-
SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 103
ther, Wheeless' conduct in iendernig advice to both employer and employee on
union matters and falsely stating to the employees that lie was not in the employ
of the Corporation is certainly open to sei sous criticism Nevertheless, the
record does show that the Corporation did not require its non-supervisory em-
plo^ees to consult with Wheeless Those who (lid consult with him slid so on their
own volition Under these circumstances, the undersigned does not believe that
this one conversation testified to by Troy Lee Payton is suthcient to sustain the
allegation in the complaint that Wheeless was employed by the Corporation for
the purpose of interfering with the rights of the employees as guaranteed in the
Act, and the undersigned so finds
3 Suivcillance of the Union's meeting place
The Board in its complaint alleged that the Coiporation kept under sur-
veilhuiee the actniti^s, meetings, and ineet:n; laic-,s of the Union In support
of this allegation the Board presented the iolloiv ing testimony Union meetings
were held about once a week at night, commencing with June 6, 1944 They were
held in a union hall situated on Buchanan Street in the town of Bremen On
the occasion of these meetings, according to Board witnesses, there were present
outside the union hail, either standing or seated in a car, Gardner, supervisor of
Plant No-2, Lewin Thompson. and Lawrence Baxter, shipping clerks," Hoyt
Bioadwell, a salesman for the Corporation but during this period working as
a shipping clerk,' and hay Sewell, who was employed in pressing work, and was
a nephew of the president and vice president of the Corporation On one occasion,
according to Board witnesses, Lewin Thompson, Lawrence Baxter, and Ray
Sewell were parked in a ear across from the union hall, when Eppe Summerville
went up to the car and "asked them if they wanted to know what was going on
in the union hall and if they did, why didn't they come up "
All of these individuals denied that they loitered about the union hall or spied
on union meetings. The testimony of the Board witnesses, however, received
corroboration in the testimony of two of the Corporation's witnesses, Vella
Richie and Cora Kung In addition, the undeisigned has found above, that the
Corporation exhibited a considerable interest in union affairs and inquired into
union membership. Further, the undersigned was impressed with the credibility
of the chief witness for the Board on this point, Eppe Summerville. For all
these reasons, the undersigned credits the testimony of the Board witnesses as
set out above. The undersigned is further convinced and finds that the purpose
of these men in watching the union hall was to spy on the union meetings for
the Corporation. No other explanation appears in the record for their con-
tinued and constant presence outside union meetings. In addition, the findings
set out above with regard to the Corporation's anti-union attitude and inquiries
into union affairs support this conclusion
The undersigned finds that the Corporation kept under surveillance the meet-
ings and meeting places of the Union, and by such acts interfered with, re-
strained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
The Board also presented testimony to show that Lanier, in charge of Plant
No 1 under Lovvorn, passed by the union hall nearly every clay during a period
1l Lewin Thompson on ned a few shares of stock in the Corporation
11 There was testimony that at this period Broadwell exercised snpeivisory authority over
one other shipping cleik The undersigned finds, however, that although Bioadwell' s posi-
tion at the time was somewhat ambiguous, since he apparently was working as a shipping
clerk for the Corpoiation moic or less merely to tide the Corporation over a difficult period,
the recoid, never theless, does not justify a finding that lie was a supervisor
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
when union meetings were held during the noon hour Lanier did not deny this,
but explained that the union hall lay on the route from the plant to his home,
and he thus passed by the union hall on his way to and from lunch Some
testimony was presented to the effect that prior to the organization of the Union
Lanier employed another route from his home to the plant But the record does
not indicate that the route past the union hall was an unusual one The under-
signed credits Lanier's testimony and finds that he (lid not spy on or keep under
surveillance union meetings.
B The discitmmattons
In June of 1945, the Corporation ceased operating its plants because of lack
of materials 15 During the period of the shut-down, the Corporation sold to the
Partnership its plant in Bowden, Georgia, and Plant No 2 in Bremen.1° Sub-
stantially all of the machinery from these plants was moved to the Corpoi ation's
remaining plant in Bremen. This plant was opened and commenced operations
on about November 1, 1945 Operations were started on it limited scale, and full
operation was not reached until approximately 4 months later
The complaint alleged that the Corporation failed to reemploy nine employees
because of their union activities The Corporation denied this allegation Its
position was that each of these employees was rejected for a specific reason, after
review of his or her application. In general, the Corporation's position is that
a considerable revision was made in the methods of work, that the officers of
the Corporation resolved, before reopening the plant, that they wanted a con-
siderable improvement in the quality of the garment produced, and that for this
reason wished to reemploy, at least at the beginning of operations, only the best
employees. Lovvorn and his supervisors testified that applications for employ-
ment were received on about October 15, that the supervisors classified the
employees. Lovvorn and his supervisors testified that appli cations for employ-
performed, that the cards were then submitted to Lovvorn, who alone made the
actual selection of the employees to be rehired.
In order to determine this issue, it will be necessary to examine each case
separately. In considering each case, however, it should be borne in mind that
the cases are reasonably considered against the background of unfair labor
practices set out above in this report. Further, it is clear from the findings
above, and the undersigned finds, that the Corporation had knowledge of the
activities of the leading union members. This is evident from the conversations
between the Corporation's supervisors and some of these active members, set
out above from the evidence that the Corporation's supervisors inquired into
union membership and activity from the evidence that union activity was wide-
spread and open in the plant, and lastly from the evidence that the Corporation
kept union meetings and meeting places under surveillance.
Eppe Summerville began to work for the Corporation in 1931. She was em-
ployed on the pants line joining flys under Foielady Gladys Ivey She was
complimented on her work on several different occasions, and according to Ivey,
her forelady, was a good worker. Eppe was among the most active if not the
most active union employee, and it is evident from the findings above that her
supervisor, Ivey, and the officers of the Corporation had. knowledge of her union
activities.
Lovvorn testified that when the plant reopened in November, 1945, the process
of making and joining flys had been combined. Only two employees were needed
15 Some work continued on an Army contract until August 1945
16 The question of the Partnership as a successor is discussed infra.
SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 105
for this process, so he decided to rehire two employees who had formerly been
,employed at making flys since this was the more difficult process A third person
was taken on at this job in March of 1946. Lovvorn testified that Eppe would
have been employed at this time, had it not been for the fact that she had, in the
.meantime, received a jot) at Bremen Mills and it was against Lovvorn's policy to
hire employees who were workiii at other plants The record shows that
Eppe began to work tot Bremen Mills on January 14, 1946
Lovvorn's testimony reveals that as early as the middle of November, 1945,
the Corporation began to hire new employees who had never worked for the
Corporation before Lovvorn did not explain- why he failed to offer to Eppe
any of these jobs which lie gave to new employees Lo',vorn slid testify that
,although lie did not follow any seniority policy, lie gave some consideration to
'experience, and Eppe's supervisor testified that Eppe could "operate a plain
sewing machine most anywhere." Thus, even if Lovvoin's testimony as to his
failure to offer Eppe a position on the pants line be accepted, there is still no
explanation in the record for the Corporation's failure to offer her another job
which she was admittedly competent to perform, and which the Corporation
offered instead to new, inexperienced personnel In addition, it appears from
.the record that the Corporation offered to other old employees whose jobs had
been eliminated, other jobs in the plant.
In view of the Corporation's failure to explain this refusal to employ Eppe
:Summerville, and in the light of the unfair labor practices found above, the
undersigned finds that the Corporation refused to reemploy Eppe Summerville
because of her union activities.
Troy Lee Payton began to work for the Corporation in May, 1939. She was
employed on canvas under Forelady Flora Pritchaid. According to Pritchard,
'Troy Lee did excellent work but was frequently away from her machine, and
an her attempt to make up lost time did poor work on these occasions. Next to
Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee was the most active union employee, and it is
evident from the findings above that her supervisor, Pritchard, and the officers
of the Corporation had knowledge of her union activities.
Lovvorn testified that, in accordance with the Corporation's policy of hiring
the best operators to begin with, Troy Lee was not employed when the plant first
opened because of the poor quality of her work. He further testified that she
was not employed later when production increased because she was then em-
ployed at Bremen Mills and "I do not hire other people's help." Troy Lee went
to work at Bremen Mills on November 29, 1945.
The Corporation, however, did not contend that Troy Lee's work was of such
poor quality as-to -warrant her not being hired at all, and indeed, Troy Lee's
supervisor, Pritchard, testified that in her opinion, Troy Lee should have been
rehired "around the first of December."
The Corporation's explanation for its failure \to reemploy Troy Lee does not
,explain all the facts. Under the Corporation's explanation that it wished to
reemploy the better employees first, it could show that it therefore did not re-
employ Troy Lee until other employees with better performance had been reem-
ployed. But, as in the case of Eppe Summerville, this in no way explains why
completely new and inexperienced employees were taken on before Troy Lee was
offered employment, and, as the record shows, before Troy Lee secured employ-
ment at Bremen Mills." -
11 One of these new inexperienced employees who was taken on by the Corporation before
Troy Lee secured employment at Bremen Mills was later put to work on canvas, which had
been Troy Lee's operation
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned , accordingly , cannot credit the reasons advanced by the Cor-
poration for its refusal to reemploy Troy Lee Payton , and in view of the unfair
labor practices found above, finds that the Corporation refused to reemploy Troy
Lee Payton because of her union activities
Lonie Summerville began to work for the Corporation in 1931 At the time
of the shut -down in June , 1945 , her job was tacking coat collars under the super-
vision of Forelady Entrekin . She was among the most active union members ;
and it is evident from the record and the undersigned finds that her forelady,
Entrekin , and the officers of the Corporation had knowledge of her union mem-
bership and activity
Lovvorn testified that "Mrs Lonie Summerville was not employed for one
i eason , that of poor quality work " The Corporation , how ever, did not, in the
opinion of the undersigned , present any evidence which supports this assertion of
Lovvorn Louie 's forelady , Entrekin, although critical of her work, did not
testify that her work was of so poor a nature as to warrant Lonie 's dismissal, or
the refusal to reemploy her Entrekin testified that Lonie " was capable of doing
good work but she didn't put the right amount of time in on her work." She also
testified that she, on occasion , complained to Lamer and Lovvorn about Lonie's
work But she admitted that she reported others for bad work as well as Lonie,
and that the quality of the work that Lonie (lid in the period before the shut-down
was not very different from what she had done prior to that period 18
Lonie had been employed by the Corporation for 14 years Clearly, if she had
been a consistently poor worker during all of this period, she should have been
discharged or laid off long before the shut -down of 1945 Witnesses for the Cor-
poration did testify that a number of unsatisfactory employees were retained
during the war period because of the difficulty in securing help at that time But
this does not explain the Corporation 's retention of Lonie for the many years
prior to the war. The Corporation certainly makes no sufficient showing of poor
work that would serve to rebut this work record of 14 years . There is merely an
assertion by Lovvorn of poor work , testimony by Entrekin that Lonie had been
criticized , but apparently not to a much greater extent than other employees,
and an admission by Entrekin that Lonie 's work prior to the shut -down was about
the same as it had been before that time
The undersigned , accordingly . cannot credit the reasons given by the Corpo-
ration for its refusal to reemploy Louie Summerville , and in view of the unfair
labor practices found above , the undersigned finds that the Corporation refused
to employ Lonie Summerville because of her union activities.
Cord r-a Payton , Troy Lee l 'ayton ' s mother , began to work for the Corporation
in 1931 At the time of the shut-clown in June, 1945, she was sewing side seams
and joining shoulder seams under Forelady Mary Bradley . She was among
the most active union members. It is evident from the record and the under-
signed finds that her forelady , Bradley, and the officers of the Corporation had
knowledge of her union membership and activity . Cordia testified that Lovvorn
on several occasions told her that her work was very good.
According to Lovvorn . Cordia was not reemployed because of poor quality
work and because she was very obstinate about doing her work over and had a
very bad disposition Cordia ' s forelady , Bradley , also testified that Cordia's
work was unsatisfactory. But Cordia had a work history of 14 years with the
Corporation . There is no explanation for her retention during this long period
of time if both her work and her disposition were unsatisfactory The testi-
mony that the Corporation did not wish to dismiss employees during the war
18 This testimony of El ntrekin' s is in direct conflict with that of Lovvorn' s, which the
undersigned does not credit, to the effect that in the period prior to the shut-down Lonie
Summerville did "an even worse job than she formerly did."
SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 107
period, does not explain it, retention of Cordia during the long period prior to
the war
Viewing the entire record, the undersigned cannot ciedit the reasons given by
the Corporation for the failure to reemploy Cordia Payton, and in the light of
the unfair labor practices found above, the undersigned finds that the Corpora-
tion refused to reemploy Coi dia Payton because of her union activities
James O Lee went to work for the Corporation in June, 1943. He was a presser
at the time of the shut-down Lee was au active member of the Union. He
carried union literature around the shop and spoke about the Union in the plant
It is evident from the record and the undersigned finds that the ofhceis of the
Corporation had knowledge of his union membership and activities.
When asked why he was not reemployed, Lovvorn testified as follows :
James O. Lee came to our plant in 19,13 after a number of our boys had gone
into the Service We had 74 or 75 of them Some of them were already
returning. I realized that with a smaller production that it would be im-
possible to use all of the employees we had from the men's standpoint in
June and also the men returning from the Service.
It is a fair inference from this testimony that the Corporation did not rehire
Lee because it reemployed, among men, only returning service men and men who
had been employed in June 1945 at the time of the shut-down But at a later
point in his testimony, Lovvorn stated that after the plant reopened in November
he hired new male employees who had never before been in the employ of the
Corporation He mentioned two such employees specifically, and stated that
the Corporation might have hired other new employees Obviously, Lovvorn's
testimony that Lee was not reemployed because all jobs were taken by returning
service men cannot be credited if, in fact, entirely new male employees were
hired by the Corporation.
Accoiduigly, the undersigned does not ciedit Lovvorn's testimony as to the
reasons for the Corporation's refusal to reemploy Lee. and finds, in view of the
unfair labor practices set out above, that the Corporation refused to reemploy
Lee because of his union activities
Bennie McPherson went to work for the Corporation in 1933 At the tune
of the shut-down, she was basting lapels under Forelady Entrekin She was an
active union member She talked about the Union and put out union literature
in the shop It is evident from the record and the undersigned finds that the
officers of the Corporation had knowledge of her union membership and actin i
ties McPherson was 56 years of age at the time of the hearing
According to Lovvorn, McPherson was not reemployed because her job was
eliminated, and because of her age he did not wish to break her in on it new
operation. But the Corporation made no showing that it had decided, upon
reopening the plant, to enforce a general policy of retiring people because of
old age. Mrs Keever, who worked oil the same job as McPherson. was about 53
years of age at the time of the shut-down, but was nevertheless transferred to
another job Farther, the Corporation presented no testimony to show that
any other employee, aside from McPherson, had not been reemployed because
of his or her ago Not only is there no evidence that the Corporation had any
policy of retiring or refusing to rehire employees at a certain age, but there
is in addition no evidence to indicate that McPherson's age was reflected in
poor or inefficient work. Oil the contrary, McPherson's forelady, Entreknr,
testified that she would not say that McPherson's work was poor, or that
Dlcl'herson had been unduly criticized for errors in her work.'°
i'J Despite this Entrek .n testified that a new operation would require "the work of steady
lingers which I don 't think Mrs McPherson has" Entiekin , however , stated no facts m
evper 'reuce which would support this opinion
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the absence of some showing that the Corporation had a general policy
regarding the retiring or rehiring of employees at a certain age, or put into
effect such a policy on the reopening of the plant or else sonic evidence that
McPherson's age had rendered her inefficient at work, the undersigned cannot
credit the G.iporation's reasons for the refusal to reemploy McPherson. The
undersigned tiods, in view of the unfair labor practices set out above, that the
Corporation refused to reemploy McPherson because of her union activities
Hobart Entrekm began to work for the Corporation in December, 1941. At
the time of the shut-down, he was a recutter. He was an active union member
Lovvorn testified that the recutting job was eliminated ashen the plant was
ieopened in November, and that this work was done by cutters All of the
employees engaged in that job appear to have at least as much seniority as
Entrekin, and many of them were returning service wren The undersigned finds
that the Corporation's failure to reemploy Rntrekin was not due to his union
activities
W B. Rabun began to work for the Corporation in September, 1942 He was
a presser at the time of the shut-down in June, 1945 He was an active union
member.
Lovvorn testified that Rabun was not reemployed "hecause of his moral
character as far as I was concerned. By that I mean continuous drinking, by
doing certain things, tanning in his time that was irregular and by his con-
teniptuous attitude towards my supervisors " There is festimoray, in the record,
which the undersigned ci edits, to support these assertions of Lovvorn The
undersigned accordingly finds that the Corporation's failure to reemploy Itabun
was not due to his union activities.
Will Barger began to work for the Corporation in March, 1943 He was a
seam presser at the time of the shut-down. Barger was a member of the Union,
but was not especially active.
Lovvorn testified that Barger was not reemployed because he "was just not
totally competent to learn to do a job." There is testimony in the record, whicht
the undersigned credits, to support this assertion of Lovvorn The undersigned
accordingly finds that the Corporation's failure to reemploy Barger was not
due to his union activities.
Conclusions
The undersigned finds that the Corporation discriminated against Eppe Sum-
merville, Troy Lee Payton, Lonie Summerville, Cordia Payton, James 0 Lee,
and Bunnie McPherson, in regard to their hire and tenure of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in the Union.
The undersigned further finds that the Corporation did not discriminate against
Hobart Entrekin. W B Rabun, or Will Barger because of their union activities
C. The responsibility of the Partnership
The complaint alleged that the Partnership was a successor to the Corporation
and as such responsible for the acts of the Corporation. The undisputed facts
are as follows After the slut-down in June, 1945, Warren Sewell. president of
the Corporation, sold all of his stock to the Corporation for cash Shortly
thereafter, he, together mth his wife, organized the Partnership The Partner-
ship purchased from the Corporation, the Corporation's plant in Bowden, Georgia,
and plant No 2 in Brennen. The purchase included only the plant buildings
Substantially all of the machinery from both buildings was removed to the
Corporation's other plant in Bremen, and the Partnership, before it commenced
operations, purchased entirely new machinery for this purpose There was no
SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 109
arrangement or discussion between the Corporation and the Partnership with
regard to the employees who had worked at the various plants. The record
shows that the Partnership lined two supervisors and one salesman who had
previously worked for the Corporation
Both the Corporation and the Partnership are now engaged in the manufacture
and sale of men's clothing Theie is no evidence as to any arrangement between
them on the questions of customers, suppliers, or any other matter. On the
contrary. it appeais cleat ttoni the record that they are competing enterprises
In the opinion of the undersigned these facts do not warrant a finding of
succeswrship In no sense has the Partnership succeeded to the Corporation
as a business enterprise. Indeed the Corporation has neither in whole nor in
part discontinued its operations The transaction between the Corporation and
the Partnership appeais, on this record, to have been nothing more than a sale
of real estate The undersigned accordingly finds that the Partnership is not
:i successor to the Corporation.=°
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Corporation found to be unfair labor practices In Section
III, above, occui ring in connection with the operations of the Corporation
described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade. traffic, and commerce aniong the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce,
V THE REMEDY
The undersigned finds that the Corporation by the anti-union statements and
actions of its officials and supervisors and the discrimination against the six
most active union members, engaged in a campaign designed to defeat the self-
oiganization of its employees The statements and actions of the Corporation's
officials and supeivisors evince a clear attitude of opposition to the Union and
the purpose of the Act, and it determination generally to interfere with the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 Because of the unlawful conduct of the Corpo-
ration and since there appears to be an underlying attitude of opposition to the
purpose of the Act, the undei signed finds that the danger of the commission of
unfair labor practices geneially is to be anticipated from the Corporation's
conduct in the past The undersigned will accordingly recommend that the
Corporation cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights
guaranteed in Section.7 of the Act.ii
The undersigned has found that the Corporation discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee Payton,
Lonie Summerville, Cordia Payton, James O. Lee and Bunnie McPherson,
thereby discouraging membership in the Union It will accordingly be recom-
mended that the Corporation otter these employees immediate and tull rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, displacing, if pecessary, any
employee kited by the Corporation for the first time after November 1, 1945,
J0 Since the allegation in the complaint that the Partnership iliscrhninated against Lee
and Entrekin iested squaiely in the allegation of suecessoiship, it is not necessary to discuss
their Cases as against the Partnership A different question might have been presented if
the complaint had alleged disciimination by the Psitnership against these two on the theory
of iefusal to hire even in the absence of successorship Cf Phelps Dodge Coop v N L,
R B, 313U S 177
21 See N L If B v Express Publishing Company, 312 U S 426 , May Departpient Stores
Company i N L R B , a26 U S 376
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the date the plant reopened, and that the Corporation make whole these em-
ployees for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against them by payment to each of the employees of a sum of money equal
to that which he or she normally would have earned as wages from the date
of the discrimination against him or her, to the (late of the offer of reinstatement,
less his or her net earnings 22 during that period For this purpose, since it
may be impossible to determine the exact date on which these employees would
have gone back to work, had they not been discriminated againt, the under-
signed will fix the date of discrimination, in the case of the female employees,
the date on which the first female employee, not previously employed by the
Corporation, was hired, and in the case of Lee, the date on which the first male
employee, not previously employed by the Corporation, was hired.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCT.USiONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Corporation has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(1) of the Act.
3 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Eppe
Summerville, Troy Lee Payton, Louie Summerville, James O. Lee, Cordia Payton
and Bunnie McPherson, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the
Corporation has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (0) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Net.
5. The Corporation did not discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Hobart Entrekin, W B. Rabun, and Will Barger
6. The Partnership is not a successor to the Corporation, and is not responsible
for the unfair labor practices of the Corpoiation
7. The Partnership has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed hereby recommends that Sewell Manufacturing Company, its agents,
successors, and assigns shall :
1 Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workeis of America,
CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminatorily dis-
charging employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor orgamza-
ze By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the conse-
quent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber
Company, 8 N L R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State,
county, municipal or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings. See Re-
public Steel Corporation v. N L R B , 311 U. S. 7.
SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 111
tions, to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(.a) Offer to Eppe Somerville, Troy Lee Payton, Lonie Summerville, Cordia
Payton, James O. Lee and Bunnie McPherson immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges as set forth in the Remedy and make said
employees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
computed as set forth in the Remedy ;
(b) Post at its plant in Bremen, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto,
marked "Appendix A " Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Corporation,
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Corporation to insure that said notices are not altered, detaced or covered
by other material;
(c)' File with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region on or before ten (10)
days from the date of the icceipt of this Intermediate Report a report in writing
setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the Corporation has complied
with the foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed so far as it alleges
that the Corporation engaged in unfair labor practices through the activities of
one Clifford Wheeless, and that the Corporation discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Hobart Entrekin, W. B. Rabun, and Will Barger,
thereby discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
CIO.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed so far as it alleges
that Warren Sewell and Ava Sewell, doing business as Warien Sewell Clothing
Company, is a successor to Sewell Manufacturing Company, or that the said
Warren Sewell Clothing Company engaged in any unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the Act.
It is further recommened that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Corporation notifies said Regional
Director that it has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Corporation to take the
action aforesaid.'
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 27,
1945, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from
the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant
to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D C., an original and four copies of a
statement in writing, setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report
or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all
motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four
copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such mtate-
731242-47-vol 72-9
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment of exceptions and/or brief , the party or counsel for the Board filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a
copy with the Regional Director As further provided in said Section 33, should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board , request therefor
must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10 ) days from the date of
the of der transferring the case to the Board Any party desiring to submit a
brief in support of the Intermediate Report shall do so within fifteen ( 15) (lays
from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, by
filing with the Board an original and four copies thereof , and by immediately
serving a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and the Regional Director.
DAVID REIN,
Trial Examiner.
Dated August 2, 1946.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We will not in any manner interfere with. restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exec cise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Woikers of America, CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively thioumu representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without piejudice
to any seniority of other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pad suffeied as a result of the discrimination.
Eppe Summerville Cordia Pa}ton
T.oy Lee Payton James 0 Lee
Lonie Summerville Bunmie McPherson
All our employees are free to become or remain inenibea s of the above-named
union or any other labor organization 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.
SEW'FLL M.INUFACTUR!NG COMPANY
Dated------------------------ By-------------------- ---------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE: Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces
of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in ac-
cordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.