Southern Furniture Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 23, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 1159 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
and EZEAKIEL CALDWELL, AN INDIVIDUAL
Case No. 15-CA-9227.Decided October !?3, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 7, 1950, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent 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. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in other alleged unfair labor prac-
tices and recommended dismissal of these allegations of the com-
plaint. Thereafter the General Counsel and the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board I has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case,2 and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations insofar as they are consistent with our
Decision and Order herein.
1. We agree with the Trial. Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The record shows that Foremen Brad-
shaw, Thomas, and Sledge engaged in extensive interrogation of em-
ployees concerning union activity, and that the seemingly innocent
questioning concerning riding the Hines bus was part and parcel of
the interrogation about union activity. In addition, after Foreman
Bradshaw had interrogated employee Ezeakiel Caldwell as to
whether he had a union card or had signed one, Bradshaw warned
Caldwell, "Somebody is messing with the labor around here and if
I finds out who it is, it won't be so good for them." We find that, by
'Pursuant to the- provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]..
2 The request of the Respondent for oral argument is denied because the record and the
exceptions and briefs submitted , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and position
of the parties.
91 NLRB No. 189. .
1159
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
such interrogation and warning, the Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent
discriminated against the 17 employees named in Appendix A in vio-
lation of Section 8 (a) (1) and .(3) of the Act. We note particu-
larly, in addition to the Respondent's afore-mentioned interrogation
and threat, that all 17 employees actually signed union-application
cards; 3 that all, except Ezeakiel Caldwell and Lillian Warmack, rode.
the bus on October 6; that none had been threatened with discharge
for inefficient work; and that all were summarily laid off, without
warning, almost immediately after their concerted union' activity on
October 6. We likewise agree with the trial Examiner that the Re-
spondent's asserted cause for discharge-the necessity for building up.
a capable working force by weeding out inefficient employees-was an
afterthought, particularly in view of the earlier promise to some of'
the employees to send for them after a week or two and the actual re-
instatement of 1 of the employees. While it is true that 3 other bus-
riding employees who. had accepted union cards 4 were not laid off or
discharged, we agree with the Trial Examiner that this does not
disprove discrimination as to the 17 who were discharged. With
respect to Ezeakiel Caldwell and his sister, Lillian Warmack, who
were not bus riders but who came to work in Caldwell's truck, it is of
particular significance that Caldwell had been unlawfully interro
gated and threatened by the Respondent before his discharge, and that
Warmack was known to be closely connected with and related to
Ezeakiel, Annie Lee, and Delores Caldwell, all of whom had been in-_
terrogated and then discriminatorily discharged.
3. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent's discharge of
Sadie T. Benniefield and Betty H. Frieson was not in violation of the
Act. As no exceptions have been filed to these findings, we adopt
them.5
The Remedy
Having found that the Respondent discriminated against the
complainants named in Appendix A, we shall order the Respondent
8 The record does not show that one of the employees , Minnie Lee Alston , signed a card,
but it is clear that, like the other discriminatorily discharged employees , she was suspected
of union activity.
4 Morgan , "Geneva ," and William Martin.
5 Member Houston would find that Benniefield and Frieson were discriminatorily dis-
charged, because he believes that they were discharged for. the same reason as the other
discriminatorily discharged employees . The absence of specific exceptions to these findings
is no deterrent to the Board 's review and reversal of the Trial Examiner 's findings , so long
as exceptions have been filed. International Rice Milling Co., Inc., 84 NLRB 369. See
also, Kallaher and Mee, Inc., 87 NLRB 410 ; Salant d Salant, Incorporated, 87 NLRB 215.
SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1161
to offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions,6 without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges, with back pay from the date of their
discharge.? In making such order, we disagree with the Trial Exam-
iner's failure to recommend the reinstatement of Minnie Lee Alston,
Delores Caldwell, and Velma Pettis, and his failure to award back
pay to them after the date of their departure from the State of
Alabama. He relied on the absence of evidence that their departure
was occasioned by "cause related to the unfair labor practices." How-
ever, residence outside the State and away from the range of an em-
ployer's operations, and the fact that such residence may or may not
be related to the unfair labor practices, are not relevant factors to be
considered in a Board determination to reinstate and to award back
pay to discriminatorily discharged employees. As early as 1938, the
Board ordered reinstatement and-back pay to discharged employees
who left a State in order to seek employment." Accordingly, absent
a showing that Minnie Lee Alston, Delores Caldwell, and Velma Pettis
have wilfully withdrawn themselves and their services from the labor
market and do not desire reinstatement with the. Respondent, we
shall make our usual reinstatement and back-pay order as to them.
Since the issuance of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report,
the Board has adopted a method of computing back pay different from
that prescribed by the Trial Examiner.9 Consistent with that policy,
we shall order that the loss of pay be computed on the basis of each
separate calendar quarter or portion thereof during the period from
the Respondent's discriminatory action to the date of a proper offer
of reinstatement, except that the back pay of Minnie Lee Alston,
Delores Caldwell, and Velma Pettis shall be abated during the period
between the issuance of the Intermediate Report and our Decision
and Order herein.10 The quarterly periods, hereinafter called "quar-
ters," shall begin with the first day, of January, April, July, and
October. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum
equal to that which these employees would normally have earned for
6 In accordance with the Board' s consistent interpretation of the term , the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wher-
ever possible , but if such position is no longer in existence then to a substantially equivalent
position ." See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico,
Branch, 65 NLRB 827.
7 In the absence of convincing proof that Rosie Lee Campbell has been fully reinstated,
we shall also order her reinstatement.
8 Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440.
'IF. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
to In view of the Trial Examiner 's recommendation , we shall not require the Respondent
to offer these three employees back pay for the period between the issuance of the Inter-
mediate Report and our Decision and Order herein . See H & H Manufacturing Company,
Inc., 87 NLRB 1373.
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
each quarter or portion. thereof, their net earnings,'1 if any, in other
employment during that period. Earnings in one particular quarter
:shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter.
We shall also order the Respondent to make available to the Board
upon request payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of
the amount of back pay due.12
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, Southern Furniture Manu-
facturing Company, Navco, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in any labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of them, or by
discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment, or any term or condition of employment;
(b) Interrogating or threatening its employees concerning their
union membership or activity, or in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form, joint or assist any labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to the employees named in Appendix A, attached hereto,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole all such employees for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against
11 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 the unlawful discrimination and the
consequent necessity of seeking employment elsewhere . Crossett Lumber Company, 8
NLRB 440 . Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal,
or other work -relief projects shall be considered as earnings. Republic Steel Corporation
v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
12 F. W. Woolworth Company, supra.
SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1163
them, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision and Order
entitled "The'Remedy";
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board, or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due under the terms of
this Order;
(d) Post at its Navco, Alabama, plant, copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked Appendix A.13 Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent
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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered; defaced, or covered by any other material;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Sadie T. Benniefield
and Betty H. Frieson.
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 any labor organization
of our employees by discharging or refusing. to reinstate any of
our employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of their employment;
WE, WILL NOT interrogate or threaten our employees concerning
their union membership or activity, or in any other manner inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organ-
ization, to bargain collectively through representatives of, their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
13In the event this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,.
there shall be inserted in the notice, before the words "A Decision and Order ," the words.
"A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
poses of collective bargaining or other mutual, aid or protection,
or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as,
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer the following named individuals immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to the seniority or other rights and priv-
ileges they enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination :
Annie Lee Caldwell Creola Law
Minnie Lee Alston Leona Steele
Delores Caldwell Jessie Sullivan
Ezeakiel Caldwell Lillian C. Warmack
Rosie Lee Campbell Velma Pettis
Van J. Hurd Annie Mae Williams
Omeger Howard Irene Williams
Bonnie Jackson Mary Lee Williams
Flossie Mae Carroll
All our employees are free to become or remain members of any
labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment be-
cause of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organ-
ization.
SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
By ----------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated ----------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Robert B. Stark and Edmund J. Flynn, Esqs., for the General Counsel.
McCorvey, Turner, Rogers, Johnstone and Adams, by C. M. A. Rogers and Carl
Johnstone, Jr., Esqs., Merchants National Bank Building, Mobile, Alabama, for
the Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on January 31, 1950, by Ezeakiel Caldwell,
otherwise known as Ezeakiel Caurwell, an individual, herein called the charging
party,'the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, respectively
called herein the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director of the
Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana) issued a complaint dated March 7,
1950, against Southern Furniture Manufacturing Company, herein called the
Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in, and had continued to
SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1165
,engage in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
rSection S (a) (1) and S (a) (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged that the
Respondent on or about October 12, 1949, discharged its employee Sadie T. Ben-
'niefield, and on or about October 7, 1949, discharged its employees Minnie Lee
Alston, Annie Lee Caldwell, Delores Caldwell, Ezeakiel Caldwell (the charging
party), Rosie I.ee Campbell, Flossie Mae Carroll (Fuller), Betty H. Frieson,
'Omeger Howard, Van J. Hurd, Bonnie Jackson, Creola Law, Velma Pettis, Leona
Steele, Jessie Sullivan, Lillian C. Warmack, Annie Mae Williams, Irene Williams,
.and Mary Lee Williams.and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate any of
them because of their membership in and activities on behalf of United Con-
.:struction Workers, affiliated with District 50, United Mine Workers of America,
Independent (hereinafter called the Union), a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act, and because of their concerted activities engaged in for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. The com-
plaint further alleged that from and after July 1, 1949, and more particularly
from and after October 6, 1949, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act, because of their union membership and activities, by interrogation as to
their union membership and activities, by threats of discharge and loss of other
benefits, and by intimidation because of their union membership and activities,
and further alleged by amendment allowed March 21, 1950, that on or about
March 16, 1950, by its representatives, specifically by counsel for the Respondent
or his agent during the course of investigation and preparation of the case for
trial, the Respondent interrogated employees as to-their union membership and
activity. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served.
The Despondent filed answers in substance denying the commission of the
unfair labor practice allegations of the complaint and affirmatively plead that
the charging party, Ezeakiel Caldwell is a person not authorized to file a charge,
that he was discharged because one of its foremen was informed that he was
.discussing the possibility of obtaining employment with some person or persons
other than the Respondent, that Omeger Howard quit, that Lillian C. Warmack
was discharged because her work was unsatisfactory, that Rosie Lee Campbell
was reinstated, that 13 others named in the complaint were discharged because
it was deemed necessary to. reduce the force by discharging the less competent,
and that Sadie T. Benniefield was discharged for lack of work.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Mobile, Alabama, on March 21, 22,
23, and 24, 1950, before Stephen S. Bean, the undersigned Trial Examiner. The
General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel, all of whom
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses. and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues, was
afforded all parties.
It was stipulated by counsel that for the purposes of this proceeding the
allegations of paragraphs III, IV, and V, of the complaint are admitted with the
provision that the figures given are understood to be approximations. It was
stipulated by Respondent that its foreman Willie R. Bradshaw was informed by
Marion Gralapp of the possibility of Ezeakiel Caldwell becoming employed by
Cralapp. Thereafter, over objections of General Counsel, Respondent's motion
to amend this stipulation by in effect adding that in addition to information
obtained through Gralapp's conversations respecting Caldwell's other possible
.employment a conversation was also had by Caldwell with Bradshaw in the pres-
ence of foreman Dean Thomas, was allowed.
1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon motion of counsel for the Respondent, unobjected to by the General
Counsel, a view of the premises of the Respondent and the operations of
employees there engaged in work similar to that performed by the individuals
named in the complaint, was taken on March 23, 1950, by the Trial Examiner
who was accompanied by counsel for the Respondent and General Counsel.
General Counsel's motion to amend paragraph VIII of the complaint to show
that Rosie Lee Campbell was reinstated on March 2, 1950, was allowed. General
Counsel's motion to take the depositions on written interrogatories of Delores_
Caldwell, of Detroit, Michigan, Minnie Lee Alston of Oakland, California, and
Velma Pettis of Sandusky, Ohio, all named in the complaint, was allowed. The-
depositions of Pettis and Caldwell have been received and the hearing was
ordered closed on May 13, 1950. The taking of a deposition from Alston has been
waived. General Counsel's objection to cross-interrogatory No. 4 to Delores.
Caldwell is sustained as to its portion "and that he set out" and otherwise denied,.
objection to cross-interrogatory No. 6 to the same deponent is denied.
On his own motion the Trial Examiner strikes as unresponsive all that portion
of Velma Pettis' answer to direct interrogatory No. 15 following the words "we'
get into work." .
General Counsel's motion to conform the pleadings to the proof in formal.
matters was granted.
At the conclusion of the taking of oral testimony on March 24, 1950, counsel
for the Respondent moved:
(a) That the complaint be dismissed in its entirety because the charge has,
not been proven.
(b) To strike from the complaint, the names of all the persons therein named
who signed neither the charge nor the complaint, or in whose behalf neither the
charge nor the complaint was signed.
The Trial Examiner reserved decision on these two motions. They are now
denied. Oral argument was waived. Briefs received from the General Counsel
and counsel for the Respondent have been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observations at the view and.
of the witnesses who testified orally, the Trial Examiner makes the following:.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Southern Furniture Manufacturing Company is a Mississippi
corporation which maintains its principal office and place of business at Navco, or
Navaco, Alabama, where since July 1949 it is engaged in the manufacture and
assembly of furniture and other wood products. During the period from the
date of the commencement of its operations until December 31, 1949, the Re-
pondent purchased raw materials exceeding approximately $500,000 in value,.
of which approximately 25 percent was shipped to the plant from outside the
State of Alabama. During the same period, the Respondent manufactured
finished products valued at more than approximately $750,000 of which approxi-
mately 95 percent was sold' for shipment outside the State. of Alabama.
The Respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act, and it is so found.
IT. THE CHARGING PARTY AND THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The charging party, Ezeakiel Caldwell, is an individual and a person au-
thorized to file a charge within the meaning of Section 203.9 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations.
SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1167
United Construction Workers, is affiliated with District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, Independent,'and is a labor organization which admits to
membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 1
A. Background
The plant of the Respondent is located near Mobile in Navco or Navaco,
Alabama, where it is engaged in the manufacture and assembly. of wooden
bedroom furniture. The Respondent's operations commenced on July 1, 1949,
in a building which had previously been used by or under the control of the
United States Government. From a force of 8 who were first employed July
1, 1949, the working group had increased week by week to 113 by the week
ending October 8, 1949. At the time of the hearing there were according to the
last report, 200 to 210 employees exclusive of officials, foremen, and members of
the office staff. Between July 9, 194.9, and October 1, 1949, the Respondent hired
175 individuals.' The average weekly number of employees from the week
ending July 9 to the week ending October 1 was approximately 76. The average
weekly number of separations during the same period was about 6. There
were 22 separations or discharges, concerning which the chief controversy in
this case is concerned, the week ending October 8, 1949. The average weekly
number of separations during the 12 weeks following October 8 was between
5 and 6 and the average weekly number of persons working at the plant during
the same period was approximately 143.
The Respondent's buildings are of one-story construction and located in an
open area removed at a considerable distance from any other structure. They
are set back from the highway behind which is an open space or driveway run-
ning the entire length of the front of the buildings sufficiently spacious to
accommodate the parking of a large number of motor vehicles. This parking
space is utilized by officials and employees. It is clearly observable from any
portion of the front part of the plant itself. It was in this space or on a parallel
highway, in an equally conspicuous place that the so-called Hines bus, incidents
concerning which will be considered in some detail later in this report, was
kept parked during normal working hours.
The work of assembling commences in the stockroom where the parts or
dimensions procured from Southern Gulf Lumber Company, located nearby, are
first received. The parts then enter the assembly line where they are first glued,
clamped, and nailed together. Then the assembled individual pieces of furniture
1 This section does not purport to constitute an encyclopedic recitation of all the evidence
in the case . It is based upon substantial credited evidence . Such testimony as is not
here referred to has either been considered unessential to a determination of the issues or of
questionable probative value or has been discredited . Although it will be necessary to go
into some detail concerning the individual situations of each of the employees named in
the complaint , such attempt of conciseness as is compatible with an understanding of their
several and individual circumstances will be made.
2 It is impossible completely to reconcile the figures of hirings and separations, as set
forth in Exhibit No. G. C .-23 with those testified to by the Respondent 's vice president.
This computation of the total number hired is arrived at by adding the number listed as
hired week by week up to and including October 1 in this exhibit. The balance of 62,
arrived at by subtracting the number employed the week ending October 8 from the number
hired from July 9 to October 1. represents separations for all causes. As appears from
Exhibit R2 many employees hired before October 1, 1949. left the Company within 2 weeks
of the time they started and some such as Brown, magnolia Caldwell, Cobbs, Gray, Jones,
rlajor , M iller , Powell, and Rose within 3 days or less.
1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are placed on another line where operators fill up nail holes with putty, rub off
unevenesses and patches with sandpaper by hand, then air-sand the furniture
all over. After an inspection, the beds are dipped in paint tanks, and other
articles of furniture such as dressers are painted by spraying. Then each article
of furniture is hand-wiped to a desired shade and spun dried. Thereafter the.
product is subjected to a sealer spray, dried, and then undergoes a varnish
spray. Then it is put in a dry kiln overnight. Upon removal from the dry
kiln the finished product is inspected, the hardware is wrapped and tied on to,
the furniture, and final inspection takes place before packing for shipment. Each
of these separate operations is performed by small groups of employees working
under individual foremen. The job of assembling furniture although not highly
'skilled work, involves care, patience, and manual aptitude. Many errors can
be committed and it requires considerable time for inexperienced workers to.
acquire sufficient skill and judgment to avoid mistakes such as using split as-
sembly parts and drawer guides, too much or too little glue, improperly sand-
papering filled-in nail holes, fitting, clamping, spraying, wiping, rubbing, and.
carelessly stencilling, packing, and attaching hardware.
On October 3, 1949, Fred C. Deloach representative for United Construction
Workers, affiliated with United Mine Workers, in an attempt to organize em-
ployees of the Respondent went to the plant premises and while near the clock-
house talked to 2 or 3 individuals. Among them was Willie Johnson.. whom he
later visited at home. On October 4, Deloach talked to 2 men near the Respond-
ent's, commissary. One of them was an employee of Southern Gulf Lumber,
Company. He learned that there was some interest in the formation of a union
and also that it would be inadvisable for him to carry on activities in the vicinity
of the plant. On October 5 he became acquainted with employee Ernest Hines
who drove his own bus to work and transported various employees back anti
forth from Respondents' plant. Hines carried an average of 28 to 30 pas-
sengers, all but 4 to 6 of whom worked for the Respondent. While at work
Hines sometimes parked the bus in the above-described company parking space
near the office. By arrangements made between Deloach and Hines on October
5 the latter stopped the bus with its load of employees returning home from
work, the following afternoon Thursday, October 6, 1949, on Fulton Road just
off Highway 90 at a point about 2 to 21/ miles from the Respondent's factory-
The stopped bus could be seen from Highway 90. Deloach boarded the bus.
introduced himself and after making some remarks about unionization asked
the passengers in the bus, all of whom at that time were employees of the Re-
spondent,' to manifest their interest by a raise of hands. Apparently all hands
were raised and then union application cards were passed around to the em-
ployee passengers with the suggestion that they be taken home, signed, and re-
turned to Hines the next morning. The following morning Deloach picked up•
from Hines about 19 signed .cards. That same evening, October 7, Deloach
learned from Hines that all or most of those employees to whom application
cards had been given the preceding day had been discharged during the day by
the Respondent. About 6 more application cards signed by employees who had
been on the bus were received by Deloach on Saturday the Sth and Monday the
' 10th. Deloach turned all cards over to the Union.
On or as of October 7, 1949, the day following the passing out of union ap-
plication cards' 17 employees who had ridden on the bus on October 6 and 2' .
of their relatives were discharged. Most of the 19 were notified of their dis-
8 A number of nonemployees had alighted from the vehicle a short while before.
SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1169
charges on Friday, October 7, 1 or 2 were so notified on the next working day
Monday, October 10, 1 was so notified on Wednesday, October 12, the first day
she returned to work after October 7, and 1 was so notified on Friday, October
14, the first day she returned to work after October 7. Of the 19 who were
discharged, 1 was reinstated on March 2, 1950. Of the total of 22 employees
who were actually separated on October 7, exclusive of those who. were dis-
charged as of that date but not notified until later, there were 4, Ruth Wil-
liams, Janice Smith, Bessie Mae Laifiter, and Edith Alexander who quit. Em-
ployees Marguerite Morgan and a girl whose first name is Geneva' who were
also on the bus on the afternoon of October 6 were not discharged. Employee
William Martin who accepted an application card on the bus and later signed
and returned it to Hines was laid off for 2 weeks.'
Shortly before October 7, 1949, the Company's president upon the occasion of
a visit to the factory laid emphasis upon weeding out and discharging inefficient.
hands in furtherance of a process of building up a capable working force from a.
group of inexperienced employees.
B. The alleged discriminatory discharges
Jessie Sullivan went to work September 21, 1949, and was discharged October 7,.
1949. She worked under Foreman Dean Thomas agreed to be a supervisory
employee. Flossie Carroll and a girl named Eva showed her how to. do hand
sandpapering. She also drove down nails and filled holes with putty. Her work
was never either criticized or praised. She travelled back and forth to work on
Hines' bus. - On Thursday, October 6, 1949, the bus on which she was riding home
stopped, Deloach got on and requested those interested in unionization to raise
their hands. Sullivan raised her hand and took one of the application cards ;
she signed it and returned it to Hines the following morning on the bus on the
way to work where she started her job as usual at 7 a. in. Between 11 a. in. and
noon Foreman Thomas asked her what she rode to work and she told him that
she rode the bus. She was asked ii she had signed a union application card and
stated that she had. Thomas asked her who else were aboard and she pointed
to Flossie Mae Carroll and Delores Caldwell. Thomas pressed the inquiry as.
to who else was on the bus and Sullivan replied that she (lid not know all the
people. She then, at Thomas' request, gave him her clock number. She re-
ceived her regular pay slip for the week ending Friday, September 30, on that
afternoon at about 4 p. in. and then at 5 o'clock she was handed a slip for her
pay for the week ending October 7 and was told that she had to be laid off, that
she might be laid off for a week or two and that the Respondent would send
for her.
Flossie Mae Carroll went to work September 13. 1949, and continued through
October 7 under Foreman Thomas doing hand sandpapering. She received no
instructions from Mr. Thomas and at no time was either criticized or praised for
her work. She customarily rode to and from work on Hines' bus. On Thursday,.
October 6, 1949, she was on the bus when Deloach boarded it. Deloach made
some remarks about unionization and at his request she and all the other
employees, as far as she could see, raised their hands to indicate the desire to,
join the Union: She received an application card, took it home, signed it, and
' It does not -appear whether Morgan or "Geneva" accepted, signed, or returned cards.
They did not testify. As to the affect of not discharging all union adherents see Duro Test.
Corporation, 81 NLRB 976, 979.
5 The other October 6 bus riders who were also October 7 "Separatees" if any there were,
are unaccounted for in the evidence.
1170 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
handed it in the next morning to Hines. The next morning she heard Foreman
Thomas talking to Sullivan between 11 and 12 a.' in. She was 4 or, 5 feet away.
Delores Caldwell and Irene Williams were right there within hearing distance.
Thomas asked employee Sullivan if she rode the bus, if she had signed an appli-
cation card, and if she knew any other women who rode the bus. Sullivan
pointed her out as well as Delores Caldwell and Irene Williams. After that
Thomas asked Carroll for her clock number. Foreman Bradshaw handed her
her regular pay slip during the afternoon and later Thomas brought her a second
pay slip. She asked Foreman Thomas if she was being laid off because she had
signed the union card and he replied he just had too many and didn't have any-
thing for her to do. Subsequent to her discharge Carroll applied for work about
four times without success.
Irene Williams went to work August 31, 1949, and continued until she was dis-
charged on October 7, 1949. Her work consisted of glueing blocks and nailing
pieces of wood aprons on chests of drawers and vanities. She was instructed
by Foreman Thomas and was never either praised or criticized for her work.
She rode regularly on Hines' bus and was on it October 6 when it was stopped
and boarded by Deloach. She took a union application card, signed it, and gave
it back the following morning to Hines. Foreman Thomas asked her if she rode
on the bus G She saw him talking to Sullivan but did not hear what was said.
Sullivan and Delores Caldwell were nearer Thomas than she. That afternoon
she, too, was laid off.
Creola Law worked from September 12, 1949, through October 7, 1949. She
was -laid off upon reporting for work, the next working day, Monday, October
10, 1949. She wiped beds for 2 days and thereafter sanded beds working under
Foreman Charles Sledge admitted to be a supervisory employee. Her work
was never criticized or praised. She was instructed by other girls. She cus-
tomarily rode Hines' bus to and from work and was a passenger on the bus
October 6, signed a union application card, and turned it in to Hines the following
morning. Nothing was said to her by foremen on October 7, but when she went
-to work on the following Monday morning, October 10, 1949, she found that her
card was not in the rack. A little later Mr. Thomas came along and asked her
what her elock number was and handed her a final pay slip and discharged
her. She reapplied for work a week later but was refused employment.
Sadie T. Benniefield worked from September 14 to October 7, a total of 19
days, sanding and wiping beds. Her foreman was Charles Sledge who during
the early part of her employment told her to let the work dry a little more.
On the following day she let it dry too much. Soibetimes Sledge would tell
her she was wiping the furniture too dry or she was wiping it too wet. She
sometimes rode home in Hines' bus. On October 6 she was on the bus, took
and later signed a union application card, but never turned it in. She sent
word she would not be in to work on Monday, October 10. She returned on
Wednesday, October 12; and found that her card was not in the rack. Foreman
Thomas told her he had been instructed to take out of the rack the card of
everybody who had not been in the previous day. She never applied for
reinstatement.
Annie Mae Williams worked from August 25 to October 7 when she was dis-
charged. Her work consisted of putting chests of drawers together with glue,
using a rubber hammer, and nailing backs on chests of drawers. Her foreman
was Thomas. She was never praised or criticized for her work. She was
6 See testimony of Delores Caldwell.
SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1171
a regular rider in Hines' bus and was on the bus on October 6. She took,
signed, and returned a union application card to Hines on the morning of
Friday, October 7. On that day Thomas asked her how she got to work and
she told him on a bus. Thomas asked "what bus?" She replied "Ernest Hines"
and Thomas response was "un huh." Thomas asked her if she had signed a
union card and she said she had not. After some further conversation Thomas
asked her for her clock number. He wrote it down. She received her first pay
slip that afternoon at 1:50 and later that afternoon a final pay slip. Upon
asking the foreman why she was being laid off, she was told it was for a while.
She had seen Thomas talking to Jessie Sullivan and heard him ask Annie Lee
Caldwell, how she got to work the previous day and when told "with Ernest
Hines" Thomas asked her about a union card.
Rosie Lee Campbell started to work on September 15, 1949, and was laid off
October 7 and thereafter reemployed on March 2, 1950. Her original job was
wiping and later she did sanding. Foreman Sledge was her boss. She was once
instructed how to do her work by Sledge and later by other workers. Her work,
was neither criticized nor praised. She ordinarily rode into work with Ezeakiel
Caldwell but when the latter worked overtime she would take Hines' bus home.
On October 6 she was on the bus, received a union card, carried it home, signed
it, and gave it to Hines the following Tuesday or Wednesday. On Friday,
October 7, she was discharged by Thomas who asked her twice for her clock
number. Upon inquiry as for the reason for her discharge Thomas replied he
hadn't any reason except that her work was unsatisfactory, and he didn't need
her Monday and that there were a lot more that he could not get that day that
he would get Monday. Since the discharge she sought work three times before
being reemployed.
Mary Lee Williams went to work on September 8, 1949, and was discharged
October 10, 1949. Her work was that of a wiper and a sander. Her foreman
was Charles Sledge and she was taught by one Ruby Lee. Her work was neither
praised nor criticized. She was on Hines' bus on Thursday, October 6, 1949, re-
ceived a union application card, signed it, and returned it to Hines the follow-
ing morning, Friday, October 7, 1949. Nothing was said to her about the in-
cident on Friday, October 7, and she went to work on Monday, October 10, 1949.
She was met at the door of the plant by Foreman Thomas who asked her for
her clock number, handed her a final pay slip, and directed her to the window for
her money.
Betty T-7. Fricson went to work on September 15, 1949, and was discharged on
Friday, October 14, 1949. Her foreman was Charles Sledge and her work as
finisher sander brought forth neither complaints nor praise. She first rode
back and forth with Ezeakiel Caldwell and later with Hines on whose -bus she
was a passenger on October 6, 1949. She received a card which she took home
and signed and gave to Hines on the following morning, October 7, 1949. On
Friday no supervisor said anything to her about the bus or Union. She was out
sick until Friday, October 14, having sent the Respondent word of her sickness.
Upon her return the timekeeper met her at the door and asked her where she
had been and told her her card had been pulled.
Leona Steele worked 2 days for the Respondent before the day of her dis-
charge on October- 7. 1949. She was hired by Foreman Bradshaw arid worked
as a brush gluer on chests of drawers. Her work was neither praised nor crit-
icized. She went to and from work on the Hines' bus, was a passenger on Oc-
tober 6, 1949, and took and signed a union application card and returned it Fri-
day morning. On that day about 11 o'clock Foreman Bradshaw asked her if she
917572-51-vol. 91--75
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had been on the bus. She told him yes, then when asked if any union men had
got on a bus and given out cards she told Bradshaw no. Bradshaw then told her
not to lie about it. He came back again about 30 minutes later and asked her
if she was sure she didn't take a card, that she did not sign one, and that she
didn't see anybody take a card. Steele figured she would be laid off if she told
Bradshaw the truth. Bradshaw then asked her clock number and then handed
her a pay slip stating that a man had told him to pay her off and that she was
being laid off.
Bonnie Jackson only worked 5 days for the Respondent under the supervision
of Thomas who worked as a wiper and was neither praised nor criticized. She
was discharged October 7. She was on Hines' bus on the Thursdayy, in question,
received a union application card, signed it, and passed it back to Hines the fol-
lowing morning. She was then asked by Thomas if she had ridden on the bus
and she told him she had. Thomas asked her name and later handed her a final
pay slip stating he did not need her Monday and that she was being laid off.
Van J. Hurd worked in the Shipping Department from September 19 to Octo-
ber 7 tying beds, stacking furniture, and loading freight cars. His foreman
was Mr. Schrader, a superintendent, stipulated to have been a supervisor. He
had an interest in Hines' bus and assisted Hines in its operation. The bus was
left in the parking area in front of the Respondent's premises near the office
off Navco Road during the day time. The various employees who were in the
habit of riding the bus usually ate lunch on the bus in the parking space. He
had seen Deloach talking to employees over at the post office near the commis-
sary a day or two before October 6, 1949. Foremen were around the parking
area going off and returning in their cars during the lunch period every day.
On October 6, Hurd helping Hines, distributed cards to various employees on
the bus, took one himself, signed it, and turned it in to Hines the following
morning. On that day after lunch, Jack the timekeeper to whom he had been
taken by Schrader when first employed asked him "How do you get to work?
Do you ride the bus or ride with Deacon Caldwell?" Hurd replied that he some-'
times rode the bus and sometimes got to work the best way he could. The time-
keeper shrugged his shoulders and walked off. Later Jack brought him the
regular pay slip. At about 4 o'clock Thomas told Hurd he was laid off and
handed him a final pay slip.
Annie Lee Caldwell was employed by the Respondent from August 31 to Octo-
ber 7, 1949, in the glueroom under Foreman Thomas who gave her no instruc-
tions. He made no remarks about her work either by way of praise or criticism.
She usually rode to work with her father, Ezeakiel Caldwell, but sometimes took
the Hines' bus home when her father worked overtime. On the Thursday in
question she was riding home in the bus. Mr. Deloach, the union organizer,
got on the bus when it stopped. She took three or four application cards, signed
one and gave it to Hines the next day. She gave one to her father, one to her
aunt, Lillian C. Warmack, and turned in one signed by the latter. On the follow-
ing morning, October 7, 1949, she saw Foreman Thomas talking with other em-
ployees and heard him ask Annie Mae Williams if she had signed a union card.
About 10:30 that same morning Thomas asked her how she got to work. She
replied that she came with her father. He then asked her if she-rode the bus
and she replied that she did the preceding day. Later Thomas came along and
asked her if she signed a union card, and feeling if she told him the truth she
would be fired, her answer was no. Thomas then asked her what her clock
number was and wrote it down. He then came back with her regular pay slip
at 4 o'clock. He later came back with a second pay slip. Thomas said nothing
SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1173
to Caldwell either time but told her sister-in -law that he was laying them both
off for 2 weeks.
Lillian C. Warmack worked from September 21 until she was discharged
October 7 , 1949. She is the sister of Ezeakiel Caldwell, the aunt of Annie Lee
Caldwell and Delores Caldwell 's husband . She was a sander under Foreman
Bradshaw who the first day instructed her how to wrap sandpaper around a
wooden block and rub the pieces of furniture straight with the grain and not
across the grain. She also put putty in the nail holes and after it had dried
would rub it down with sandpaper . Her last job was sweeping. Foreman
Bradshaw knew she rode to work with her brother . She had done private work
at Bradshaw 's home previously to entering the employ of the Respondent. Her
work at the plant was never criticized . Bradshaw had told her that she had a
job as long as she wanted it. She received a union card from her niece, at the
noon hour on October 7, in the rest room. She signed it and gave it back to
her niece . That afternoon Bradshaw asked her her clock number and a final pay
slip was handed her later on . She asked what it meant and Bradshaw replied he
didn't need her any more.
Ezeakiel Caldwell, sometimes known as Deacon Caldwell , is the charging
party. He went to work for the Respondent September 13, 1949, after having
made several applications and was discharged on October 7, 1949. Bradshaw
was his foreman . He was an experienced upholsterer . and had done some spare
time private work for Bradshaw at the latter ' s home. Caldwell 's first work at the
plant was leveling boards up on the back and later he began building beds. His
relatives including a sister, Lillian C. Warmack , a daughter , Annie Lee Caldwell,
and a daughter -in-law, Delores Caldwell , also worked for the Respondent. He
ordinarily drove Lillian, Annie Lee, and others to work in his own truck. He
received a union application card from his daughter and signed it on October
7 and turned it in to Ernest Hines on the same day after he was fired . Caldwell
heard Bradshaw asking Minnie Lee Alston about 7: 30 to 8 a. in. on Friday,
October 7 , 1949, if she rode the bus , if she got a card, and if she signed it. At
about 9:30 that morning Bradshaw came back, called Caldwell aside and asked
him if anyone had stopped him going to and from work and whether or not he
had a union card. When Caldwell replied no Bradshaw said "You mean you
haven 't signed a union card ?" When Caldwell asked what was the matter,
Bradshaw answered " Someone is messing around with the labor around here. If
I finds out who it is it won't be good for them." At 4 o'clock that day Bradshaw
asked Caldwell for his clock number and wrote it down . Bradshaw came back
again and brought a slip for the current week 's pay. A few minutes later Fore-
man Thomas came along and asked Caldwell what his clock number was, said
"We've got to lay off some and I guess I just as well start on you," and gave him
a final pay slip. Bradshaw had asked Caldwell before he was laid off if he would
be interested in an upholstery shop. Caldwell sometime before October 7 had
taken a studio couch home from the shop of a furniture dealer named Marion
Gralapp, upholstered it, and returned it and was paid for his work by Gralapp
on October 12, 1949. Caldwell did nothing and said nothing to either Bradshaw
or Gralapp to occasion belief he was contemplating quitting his job to take.up
upholstery work full time.
Omeger Howard worked sanding and wiping beds and chests from September
8 to October 7, 1949 , under Foreman Sledge. She was out sick from about
Wednesday , September 14, through about Wednesday , September 28. She was
a regular rider on Hines ' bus and on October 6 took, signed , and the next morning
returned to Hines a union application card. On October 7 Sledge asked her if
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she rode on the bus and when Howard answered in the affirmative asked for her
rack number. She was told she was not needed anymore when she was handed
a final pay slip.. Howard did not quit of her own accord.
Velma Pettis went to work September 14, 1949. She was a sander under
Foreman Sledge who gave her instructions. She also was instructed by fellow
employees. Her work was never criticized nor was she ever reprimanded.
She was a regular passenger on Hines' bus. On October 6, 1.949, she was with
A lot of other employees on the bus and took, signed, and turned in a union
application card. The following clay she was discharged. She later left the
State of Alabama.
Delores Caldwell, daughter-in-law of Ezeakiel Caldwell and sister-in-law
of Annie Lee Caldwell, employed from August 31 or September 2 to October
7 as a glue block girl was pointed out to Foreman Thomas by Sullivan in the
presence of Carroll and Irene Williams as having signed a union card. Thomas
asked her, Williams, and others if they had ridden on the bus. She and Williams
admitted it. Later that day, October 7, she was told by Bradshaw that they had
to lay-off people and that they would be called back in 1 or 2 weeks. The answer
admits her discharge. She later left the State of Alabama.
Minnie Lee Alston worked 2 weeks from September 26 to October 7 on which
(lay at about 7: 30 to 8 a. in. Foreman Bradshaw in the presence of Ezeakiel
Caldwell asked her if she-rode the bus, got a card, and signed it. The answer
admits she was discharged. She later left the State of Alabama.
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion.
Almost immediately after the union activities on the bus Foreman Thomas
asked Sullivan if she had been on the bus and signed a union application card
drew from her the disclosure that Carroll, Irene Williams, and Delores Caldwell
had either been passengers, had signed cards, or both, and asked her who else
was on the bus; Thomas asked Carroll if she had been in the bus and signed a
card and if she knew other bus passengers; Thomas asked Annie Mae Williams
on what bus she came to work and if she had signed a union application card ;
Bradshaw asked Leona Steele if she had been on the bus and if a union man
hadn't been on the bus and given out cards; Thomas asked Jackson if she had
ridden on the bus; the timekeeper to whom Hurd had been taken by Superin-
tendent Schrader asked Hurd if he got to work on the bus; Thomas asked
Annie Lee Caldwell if she had ridden the bus and signed a union application
card ; Bradshaw asked Alston if she rode the bus, got a card, and signed it;
Bradshaw asked Ezeakiel Caldwell if any one had stopped him to and from
work, whether he had a union card or signed one and stated that someone was
messing around with the labor and if he found out who, it would not be so good
for them ; and Sledge asked Howard if she rode on the bus.
C. Al. A. Rogers, counsel for the Respondent, assisted by John E. Wilson, a
Mobile lawyer, investigated the case in preparation for the trial and discussed
it' with some of the employees named in the complaint and other employee
witnesses. It was deemed important to find out whether the individuals men-
tioned in the complaint (lid indeed have union affiliations. If the individuals
named were not union people or had no union affiliations it would seem necessarily
to follow that the allegations that they were discharged on account of their
union interests or sympathies would fall. In the process of preparation several
of the individuals. mentioned in the complaint including Carroll, Howard, Steele,
Warmack,, Benniefield,, Frieson, Sullivan, Law, Jackson, Irene, and Ruth and
SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1175
Mary Lee Williams were asked about March 16, 1950 , whether or not they were
interested in a union or had signed union cards.
Three nonbus riding employees who signed union application cards after
October 6 and who were not discharged were Myruth McCarty, Lue Coster
Fenderson , and Georgia Collins . McCarty went to work for the Respondent
in July 1949 continuing until the time of the hearing . She and Fenderson re-
ceived a union application card from one Pearl Stubbs who was fired before
Christmas . She never rode on Hines' bus. Fenderson entered Respondent's
employ September 9 and was working there up until the time of the trial. She
had seen some laid off permanently and some who had been taken back. She
did not ride in Hines' bus . Stubbs gave her 'a union application card in November
and she signed it. Georgia Collins went to work in the middle of August and
continued to up through the time of the hearing . She rode to and from work
in a pick-up truck. She rode to Mobile on Hines' bus on the Saturday morning
"after all these people got fired" and signed a union application card at the
union office . No supervisor made any union inquiries of these three.
William Alartin, worked for the Respondent from September 9, 1$49, except
during a 2-week layoff , to the time of the hearing. He holds an AFL card. He
was on the bus operated by Hines when union organizer Deloach came aboard
and cards were passed out . He signed a card and turned it in to Hines the
next, morning . He did not talk with Foreman Bradshaw about riding on the
bus on October 7. On that day he could see Bradshaw talking to people and
starting to lay people off. He did talk to the foreman on the next day Saturday,
October 8, 1949, when Bradshaw asked him if he had been riding on that bus.
He was then laid off for•2 weeks, for a cause that is not clear . He had been
sick and left or missed work 1 day on account of the paint.
Harris,jtov, Rinoncr, shipping room foreman for the Respondent since July
1949, recalled that in early October 1949 various officers of the Respondent in-
eluding President Tipton visited the plant. When Superintendent Schrader told
him to pick out the best employees and let the rest go, he had already done it
letting four or five go sometime prior to October 7 and before the visit of the
officials to the plant . At the time of the hearing there were more employees in
the shipping department than after letting those four or five go.
Charles Sledge , foreman . of the finishing department at some time had re-
ceived instructions , as he employed the picturesque colloquialsim , "to get shed
of the sorry ones." He could not remember the exact date that he started fir-
ing employees or their names . He asked hands how they got to work and
if they rode on a bus. He might have fired the employees who were riding on
Hines ' bus. He had "gotten after employees " but could not remember criti-
cizing any of the individuals mentioned in the complaint.
Deals, Th.om,as , a foreman in the case assembly room has had between 20 and 25
people working under him when the plant is running at pretty good force. He
had talked to some employees about their work and whether or not they were
pus riders but could not give the names of the persons to whom he talked.
Willie R. Bradshaw was foreman in the bed department in October. About
12 employees were under his supervision. He discharged Ezeakiel Caldwell and
Lillian C . Warmack, whom he knew to be brother and sister , and Minnie Lee
Alston. He had asked employees about riding on a bus.' He discharged others
The assertions of Sledge, Thomas, and Bradshaw that their inquiries concerning bus
riding were not directed to travelling on Hines' bus will be discussed in a subsequent
portion of this report.
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
but does not recall who they were and when they were discharged. At the same
time some employees were working overtime. Bradshaw got daily lists of re-
jected production enabling him to identify the employees making errors result-
ing from faulty work. (No evidence was produced from such lists showing any
of the October 7, 1949, dischargees' work had been faulty. Ezeakiel Caldwell
had done about 15 hours private work for him and he recommended him to
Gralapp. Caldwell told him subsequently that he was doing a job for Gralapp
and he might go to work full time for Gralapp and that he wanted more money.
Caldwell's last pay slip showed a 5-cent an hour raise.
D. General discussion
Simply stated the main issue is whether the Respondent discharged employees
because they applied for membership in a union or because they were inefficient.
To solve this the central problem, in relation to which all other questions are
collateral, the Trial Examiner must decide the issue upon credited evidence and
reasonable inferences warranted by such evidence. Were valid alleged reasons
for discharges the real reasons or only a pretext offered to cloak antiunion
action? The General Counsel asserts the discharges were motivated by a deter-
mination to discourage union membership and activity. The Respondent con-
tends in general that for the purpose of improving production, discharges were
made of inept employees, knowledge of whose union. interests it does not admit.
Collateral contentions requiring resolution in conjunction with a determina-
tion of the main issue are (1) that the complaint should be dismissed as to all
persons other than the charging party on the ground that all others named had
neither signed the charges, nor authorized any one to bring the charges or com-
plaint in their behalf, and (2) that the Respondent had no knowledge of its
employees activities.
In part II A, of this report, I have found that Ezeakiel Caldwell is a person
authorized to file a charge under the Board's Rules and Regulations. Section
10 (b) of the Act sets forth no restrictions as to who may file a charge. The
complaint which the Board issued upon the charge was not premised on an
adjudication of private rights but a proceeding designed to give effect to the
declared public policy of the Act. Some of the. named employees know that a
complaint had been filed and seemed to understand its significance. Others
seemed to have but a vague notion of the meaning of these entire proceedings.
1 hold that regardless of whether or not these persons had expressly authorized
Caldwell to sign the charges, the General Counsel had explicit authority to
prosecute the complaint in furtherance of the requirement of the Act charging
him with the duty of proceeding to effectuate its policies. Since the Act is
designed to futher a public policy, and not private rights, the desires of in-
dividuals are not determinative of whether alleged violations of the Act shall
be prosecuted. For those well established reasons I, as set forth in "The State-
ment of the Case," denied the Respondent's motion to dismiss on these grounds.
Direct evidence of antiunion motivation or even of employers knowledge of-
employee's union activities is infrequently encountered in cases of this character.
Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Tex-o-Kan Flour Mills, 122 F. 2d 433, 438-439 (C. A. 5) ; Hartsell
Mills Co. v. N. L. R. B., 111 F. 2d 291, 293 (C. A. 4) ; N. L. R. B. v. Abbott Worsted
Mills, 127 F. 2d 438, 440 (C. A. 1).
There is evidence that the union organizer was in the immediate neighbor-
hood of the Respondent's plant and talked to employees on 2 or 3 days im-
mediately preceding the critical Thursday, October 6, 1949, when he solicited
memberships. In a small plant, divided into smaller departments like the
SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1177
present one , it is a reasonable inference and I find that there came to the
attention of the plant foremen, superintendent , and operating vice president,
the union activities of the particular employees involved in these proceedings
who before they were approached by DeLoach had been in the habit of having
their lunch together in the bus in plain sight of the foremen who were driving
in and out and each of whom accepted application cards publicly in the presence
of some 20 odd other employees . Cf. Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere Co., Inc.,
80 NLRB 1149-1150, enf. pending C. A. 2 on other grounds; N. L. R. B. v. Abbott
Worsted Mills , supra., 127 F. 2d 438, 440 ( C. A. 1) ; Breznor Tanning Co ., Inc., 50
NLRB 894. Information of the acceptance and signing of union application
cards openly before other employees was information likely to reach manage-
ment. Ames Spot Welder Co., Inc., 75 NLRB 352 , 355. The thorough questioning
concerning bus riding , before the discharges were made , was a part and parcel of
the interrogation about the signing of union application forms.
It would be to shut one's eyes to the obvious to believe that these discharges
were occasioned only by management 's desire to improve its working force or
that it was a coincidence that these employees were regarded as being satisfac-
tory workers just before they signed union application cards and unsatisfactory
workers the next day. Indeed the contention that they were discharged to in-
crease plant efficiency upon orders of high management at this particular time
is not supported by one of the foremen who testified he had already let the un-
satisfactory employees go before October 7 and another who testified he had been
firing them right along . Had they been discharged for inefficiency or inadapta-
bility there was no reason why they could not have been so informed . None of
them except Delores Caldwell , Benniefield , and Warmack had ever been criti-
cized or corrected . This occurred only during the early part of their employ-
ment. None had been forewarned . In nearly every instance they were simply
told they were being laid off for a short time and would be called back . The fore-
men gave different reasons for the discharges at different times. The foremen
in testifying respecting individual employees , were unable or unwilling in most
instances to recall who they had laid off and why they were laid off. They were
especially vague as to just when employees were laid off with respect to the
time of the instructions from visiting officials . The necessity of the Respondent's
establishing a working force of reliable workers by means of employing a con-
siderable number of people and a gradual process of eliminating help found
unsuitable is apparent and I believe that orders to achieve that purpose were
given at some time, but conclude that this excuse for sudden separations was
seized upon after the charge was filed by way of a luxurious gift of hindsight as
a pretext and that the reason for the dismissal of most of the employees named
in the complaint lay elsewhere.
It is clear from the facts of this case that the claim of inefficiency or ineptitude
is but a "specious afterthought " ( N.L.R.B. v. Botany Worsted Hills, 106 F. 2d
263, 268 ( C. A. 3) ). Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Southern Wood Preserving Co., 135 F. 2d
606, 607 ( C. A. 5) ; N.L.R.B. v . Bobbins Tired Rubber Co ., 161 F. 2d 798, 801
(C. A. 5) ; N .L.R.B. v. Richter 's Bakery, 140 F. 2d 870, 872 ( C. A. 5) certiorari
denied, 322 U. S. 754.
The disparity between the number of Hines' bus riders who were discharged
and those employees who had other means of conveyance requires no more than
passing comment. It was complete . The only employees in the entire plant
with the exception of Ezeakiel Caldwell and Warmack who were discharged on
October 7 , 1949, were such riders , I am convinced that the Respondent's pre-
cipitate conduct in getting rid of most of these employees has been shown by
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a fair preponderance of the evidence to have been "adroitly timed to cripple
the strength of the union during its formative period." N.L.R.B. v. Peyton Pack-
ing Co., 142 F. 2d 1.009, 1010 (C. A. 5), certiorari denied, 323 U. S. 730. The
mathematical probability that the selection of employees had nothing to do with
their union activity is so remote as to cast some burden on the Employer to
come forward with a convincing explanation for the layoffs. Its explanation
is not convincing. I am satisfied and find that on all the evidence and the rea-
sonable inferences to be drawn therefrom that the Respondent's motive was dis-
criminatory. The General Counsel has at the very least shown a greater likeli-
hood that most of the dismissals were attributable to union interests than to
inefficiency or other causes from the consequences of which the Respondent is
immune. Cf. D'Entrentont v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 320 Mass. 586. 70
N.E. 2d 700. To allow an employer to discharge the original participants in a
self-organization movement before it ripens into a formal organization would
permit him to frustrate the impetus to self-organization at the outset. It is
apparent that the Respondent's desire was to eradicate the movement at the
start. It attempted to render ineffectual the-Act's prohibition against discrimi-
nation which discourages membership in a labor organization. Its purpose was
to deny employees protecton at the very time they were most in need of it, by
means of drastic crack-down and amazingly prompt counteroffensive against
its employees' incipient attempt at self-organization less than 1 day earlier.
Such uniform action in dealing with the Hines' bus riders is not consistent with
the Employer's attempted explanation. Rather the real reason for most of the
discharges was the Employer's desire to eliminate the first employees who mani-
fested an interest in unionization and thereby set an example before, and
frighten and coerce other employees whom it felt would subsequently be ap-
proached. Its conduct was calculated to impress on employees the disastrous
effects of engaging in union activities.
Since the employees asserted deficiencies became insupportable only after they
indicated their intention of joining a union, it is apparent here as in Apwilines,
Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 87 F. 2d 146 (C. A. 5), their dismissal was directed more at
their unionism than at their peculiarities. If the Respondent had discharged
employees who were not on the bus, it could have, by showing they were non-
union advocates, rebutted to some extent the inference of discrimination against
the bus riding Union's partisans. Similarly, had the Respondent adequately
supported by documentary evidence or otherwise, its contention that, in sub-
stance, the discharged employees were selected on a basis of comparative lack
of ability, efficiency, and industriousness, the inference of discrimination would
not have been so patent. As is elsewhere pointed out in this report, one fore-
man had in his possession while testifying certain records which he stated dis-
closed instances of poor workmanship and identified the individuals responsible
therefor. Yet there was no testimony that these records contained a single
reference to inferior work on the part of any employee named in the complaint.
But although such information was peculiarly within its possession, the Re-
spondent failed to show that any of the employees named in the complaint were
not interested in unionization. The record does not support the Respondent's
contention that all of the discharged employees were selected for discharge upon
its asserted basis for selection. By its failure to divulge pertinent information,
if any exists, and by its general discrimination, the Respondent has negatived
the possibility of a determination as to whether any of these employees alleged
to have been discriminatorily discharged, would have been discharged absent
discrimination. It must bear the consequences of such action for it rested upon
SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1179
the Respondent to disentangle the consequences for which it was chargeable
from any of those for which it might have been immune.
The discharges of Jessie Sullivan , Flossie Mae Carroll, Irene Williams, Annie
Mae Williams , Leona Steele , Bonnie Jackson , Van J. Hurd , Annie Lee Caldwell,
Omeger Howard , Minnie Lee Alston , and Delores Caldwell were all made under
relatively similar auspices . These 11 employees were all either interrogated
about being passengers on the bus or whether they had signed union application
cards or were identified by fellow employees , at the behest of foremen , as being
passengers and signers . Immediately thereafter all eleven including Howard
whom the Respondent contends resigned , were quickly discharged . There is no
evidence to support the allegation that Howard quit of her own accord. The
alacritous discharges of Creola Law, Mary Lee Williams, Rosie Lee Campbell, and
Velma Pettis arose under substantially the same conditions as those of these 11.
The one factor that makes their situation somewhat less clear than that of the
larger group is the absence of evidence that any supervisory employee had
directly interrogated them before their discharge about their union interests
or its equivalent , about their presence on the bus . But the inference is strong
that in this small plant where the union organizer could have been and probably
was seen, where these 4 girls could have been and probably were seen habitually
riding on the bus and using it at noon and who accepted union application cards
openly and signed and returned them was information that reached management.
I find than the Respondent at least suspected they were interested in unioniza-
tion. The Respondent 's action in subsequently giving Campbell employment
effectively negatives any contention that she was so much below standard as to
merit discharge for the alleged purpose of building up an efficient working force.
The discharge of Ezeakiel Caldwell and Lillian C. Warmack take on a some-
what different aspect from those of the other 19 named in the complaint. This
brother and sister travelled to and from work in the former 's truck and were not
passengers at the time the application cards were distributed. Caldwell was
interrogated concerning union activities . He was threatened by Foreman Brad-
shaw who told him things would not be so good for whomever was discovered
to be interested in the Union . Warmack was not interrogated . She was known
to be the sister of Ezeakiel Caldwell who in turn was known to be the father of
Annie Lee Caldwell and the father -in-law of Delores Caldwell, both of whom
the Respondent knew were bus passengers , and card recipients and signers.
They had both received cards from Annie Lee Caldwell ; Warmack signed and
turned hers back at noon October 7. Ezeakiel Caldwell delivered his signed card
to Hines after he was fired.
Foreman Thomas effectively carried out Bradshaw 's threat by telling Caldwell
when discharging him that some employees had to be laid off and that he might
just as well start on him . The Respondent ' s contention is that this man was
discharged because of the possibility of his leaving the plant of his own accord
and since it was endeavoring to build up a force of competent workers, it was
deemed best to let him go. The Respondent was of course privileged to dis-
charge any of its employees for any reason whatsoever or through sheer whim,
provided the ascribed reason was the real reason rather than a pretext offered
to cloak antiunion action. Considerable stress has been placed upon Caldwell's
dealings with Gralapp . Caldwell testified he had had no contact with Gralapp
until after be was discharged . I do not credit this part of Caldwell 's testimony
but do not find it necessary to pass on the question as to whether Caldwell was
mistaken or testified falsely. However , this may be, I was impressed by the re-
liability of his testimony in general . Although he was less naive than the other
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
persons named in the complaint, he struck me as being more ingenuous than the
supervisory employees called to testify by the Respondent and I credit most of the
aspects of this testimony. Even if it be a fact that Caldwell had engaged in
some conversation with. Gralapp or Bradshaw concerning upholstery work, I
am convinced, as I have indeed found above in section B, that he said or did
nothing to occasion belief he was contemplating quitting his job to take up up-
holstery work full time. It is my feeling that the Respondent's ascribed reason
for laying off this man was not the real reason, but was a pretext seized upon to
shield the real reason of antiunion motivation. Obviously there is ever present in
the back of any employer's mind the possibility that any.employee might quit at
any time in order to better himself. Such an idea respecting Caldwell must have
been prominent in the case of this Employer. So far as the evidence goes to show
Caldwell and his sister were the only 2 employees among the 113 workers who had
had any experience whatsoever in furniture construction. It would indeed be
surprising if Caldwell would remain interminably in the Respondent's employ
at 40 cents or 45 cents an hour. But to ask one to believe, in face of the facts of
this case, that Caldwell was discharged because he might sometime quit of his
own accord places an unbearable strain on one's credulity. Were employers to
discharge any employees whom they apprehended might not long remain on their
jobs, steadiness of employment would be rare indeed.
Warmack had been, in the private employ of Bradshaw before he hired her to
work for the Respondent. She had some knowledge of upholstery work and to
that extent she and her brother probably bad more experience and sense of
craftsmanship in furniture work than most if not all of their fellow workers.
Bradshaw had an opportunity to observe Warmack's work before hiring her for
the Company and it seems unlikely that as a presumably loyal foreman he would
have employed a person whose work was unsatisfactory to him. As I observed
the' operations at the view, her 13 days work, no more than similar brief or even
shorter learning periods in such cases as those of Sullivan, Steele, Carroll, Law,
the Williams, Jackson, and Pettis for example, provided neither a sufficiently long
time nor opportunity for a person to demonstrate either an aptitude or a lack
of dexterity for the work. The most the foremen could observe during the brief
period would be loafing or absences. There is no evidence or claim that the dis-
charges of either Warmack or the others were due to indolence. Warmack was
known to be closely connected with and related to Ezeakiel, Annie Lee, and
Delores Caldwell all of whom had been interrogated and were also discharged..
It is apparent to me that the Respondent believed she was a union adherent and
that although her discharge may have been immediately due to her brother's,
niece's and niece's-in-law discharge, the antecedent cause was the Respondent's
discrimination against union adherents with intent to discourage membership
in the union.
The dismissals of such relatives as Mary Lee, Delores and Ezeakiel Caldwell,
and Warmack give rise to the belief that they were all additionally motivated
by the Respondent's belief it would aid in killing off unionization by getting rid
of all members of the same family. N. L. R. B. v. Fashion Piece Dye Works, 100
F. 2d 304 (C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B. v. Ford Motor, 119 F. 2d 326, 328 (C. A. 5) enfg.
26 NLRB 322; Memphis Furniture Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 96 F. 2d 1018 (C. A. 6),
enfg. 3 NLRB 26, 33.
The dismissals of Sadie T. Benniefield and Betty H. Frieson present a ques-
tion more difficult of determination than does the discharge of the other 17
that have been discussed. The alleged reasons for the discharge of Benniefield
was lack of any work to give her. The Respondent asserts the discharge of Frie-
SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1181
son was due to a necessary reduction in force by dismissal of those less competent
to do the work . The former was discharged on Wednesday , October 12, and
the latter on Friday , October 14 . Neither was interrogated concerning the bus
incident or union interests . The evidence that it had been decided to drop all
those who had not reported to work the previous Monday is undenied. The
timing of their dismissals is not so closely related to the affair of October 6
as in the case of the other bus riders . The evidence lies evenly in the scales.
I do suspect that their discharges were a part of the Respondent ' s general
contraceptive conduct. But I am no more able to make a finding on this surmise
than I can make a finding on a suspicion that Morgan and "Geneva" who were
also on the bus, and not dismissed , were probably informers . I may not pile the
Pelion of speculation on the Ossa of conjecture.
General Counsel asserts that the conduct , of Respondent 's attorney in inter-
viewing employees during the course of investigation and preparation of the
case for trial interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act . There is no evidence whatsoever
to indicate that counsel in the guise of preparing a defense to the complaint
went beyond the necessities of such preparation . The reasons for making
inquiries concerning union interests were frankly and clearly expressed. They
disclose a sincere and genuine effort on the part of the Respondent 's competent
counsel to discover the facts within the limits of the issues raised by the com-
plaint for the sole purpose of preparing a defense to the pending charges. Joy
Silk Mills , Inc., 85 NLRB 1263; N. ^& W. Overall Company , Inc., 51 NLRB 1016,
1022.
Various foremen , in explanation of their inquiries of employees concerning
bus riding which, as I have found is equivalent to interrogations about union
interests assert that they were prompted merely by a desire to assist one Vincent
in canvassing the possibility of establishing a bus line running to and'from the
plant. Mr. John Proudfoot , Respondent 's operating vice president and general
manager, testified that he had heard nothing of the Vincent bus until the day
of the hearing. It is difficult for me to believe that any business man inquiring
into the opportunity of establishing a service of this character would have
addressed himself to individual foremen rather than to the manager of this
relatively small plant.
Poreman Charles Sledge testified that he asked various employees , "Do you
ride the bus ?" Upon repeated cross-examination by the General Counsel, Sledge
continued to insist that he asked the employees , "Do you ride the bus?" rather
than asking them do you ride a bus and where they lived near the proposed
bus line, or whether they would be interested in riding a bus if Vincent should
establish a line. Neither he nor Foreman Thomas nor Sledge on neither their
own testimony nor on the testimony of a dozen or more employees asked these
questions which they normally would be expected to ask at least some of the
employees in explaining the reason for their inquiries..
All except two of the employees named in the complaint , lived in Prichard,
Alabama, some 5 miles directly north of Highway 90 entering Mobile from
Respondent 's plant. The indication that possibly Vincent was referring to
a bus line which the city of Mobile would establish raises the question as to
just how such service would benefit employees living 5 miles off the route on
which the bus would operate.
The Respondent did not produce present employees who were working in
October 1949 to testify that they had been questioned by Sledge , Thomas, or
Bradshaw as to how they rode to work , and whether they would be interested
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in using a possible new service. It would indeed be most surprising if the
only persons interviewed for the purported reason, just happened to be those
who were discharged immediately following the inquiry and that none of the
other 113 employees were approached. Scarcely could the arm of circumstance
have been so long.
Vincent was not a witness. There is no indication that General Counsel
sought to procure his attendance and there was no legal burden upon him
to do so. A less than vigorous attempt to locate this individual was made by
the Respondent, after the Trial Examiner's inquiry of a witness as to whether
he could be found in. the event either counsel should desire to call him. I am
of course unable to state whether Vincent's testimony would have assisted
in resolving any factual question and refrain from.drawing any inference from
the fact he was not summoned by either party. Experience proves that fre-
queiitly persons engaged in occupations or businesses serving the public strive
to avoid appearing to take sides in court, especially in cases involving conflict-
ing public interests and occasionally explains the hesitancy of counsel to
subpoena reluctant witnesses who may become reclacitrant and give testimony
'disappointing to the party that calls him or to the lawyer who interrogates him
in direct examination.
It is beyond the realm of reasonableness to conclude the foremen would have
independently selected for discharges only persons who were riders on Hines'
bus and who by virtue of the inquiries directed to most of them were at least
suspected of being engaged in union activities.
I am satisfied that this mass discharge of employees was violative of the Act.
In so finding, I rely particularly on the inquiries that were made of the em-
ployees concerning their union interests, the summary nature of the discharges,
the timing of the discharges immediately following the Respondent's acquisition
of knowledge of union activity, the fact that no employees other than Hines'
bus riders, the charging party, and Warmack were discharged at this time,
the fact that the employees were not advised that they were being discharged
for the reasons assigned by the Respondent at the hearing, the fact that dif-
ferent reasons were given for the discharges at different times, the fact that
.the work of none of the dischargees was criticized or commented upon after
the first few days of work and then in only two or three instances, the fact
that there was no evidence that their work was inferior to that of those retained,
the fact that the period during which they worked was too short to have
permitted appraisal of their skills, and the augury concerning the fate of those
found to be "messing around" with a union.
E. Specific conclusions
1. The discharges
The facts concerning the dismissals have been related and discussed in parts
B and D of this section.
In summary I conclude and find that (a) the real reason for the discharges
of Minnie Lee Alston, Annie Lee Caldwell, Delores Caldwell, Ezeakiel Caldwell,
Rosie Lee Campbell, Flossie Mae Carroll, Omeger Howard, Van J. Hurd, Bonnie
Jackson, Creola Law, Velma Pettis, Leona Steele, Jessie Sullivan, Lilliam C.
Warmack, Annie Mae Williams, Irene Williams, and Mary Lee Williams, whose
names are included in Appendix A to this report, was the interest in or the
activity of these employees in behalf of the Union and that by such discrimina-
tory discharges the Respondent interfered with, the hire and tenure of em-
SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1183-
ployment of these employees, restrained, and coerced- them in the exercise of'
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3) of the Act; and (b) the discharges of Sadie T. Benniefield and Betty
H. Frieson have not been shown to have been motivated by considerations of
union interest or activity and did not amount to a violation of the Act.
2. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The facts concerning other interference, restraint, and coercion have been.
related and discussed in parts C and D of this section.
In summary I conclude and find that the Respondent (a) by interrogating
employees concerning their interest in or activity in behalf of the Union and
thereafter discharging them, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and thereby
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act ; and (b) by interrogation of its employees
during the course of investigation of the case for trial through its representa-
tives specifically by counsel for the Respondent, as to their union membership
and activities, did not engage in coercive conduct within the meaning of the,
Act or in violation of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent as set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the business and operations of the Respondent as described
in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
I have found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of the employees included in Appendix A who are 17 of
the individuals named in the complaint and that it engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices.
Accordingly it will be recommended that the Respondent offer each of the
employees listed in Appendix A, except Minnie Lee Alston, Delores Caldwell,.
Velma Pettis," and Rosie Lee Campbell" reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges. It will be further recommended that the Respondent make-
each of them whole for any loss of pay they individually may have suffered by
means of the Respondent's discrimination 'by payment to each of them except
Minnie Lee Alston, Delores Caldwell, and Velma Pettis,10 a sum of money equal:
to that which he or she normally would have earned as wages from October 7,.
6It would not seem either to further the purposes of the Act or to be equitable to require-
the Respondent to offer reinstatement to employees who no longer reside in the State of
Alabama or in the vicinity of the Employer's operations or to make back pay to such-.
employees covering a period subsequent to their taking up residence elsewhere . It does not
appear that Alston, Delores Caldwell, or Pettis left the range of the Respondent's employ-
went in Alabama or the vicinity of Mobile for cause related to the unfair labor practices-
° Campbell has been reinstated.
10 See footnote 8, supra.
1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1949, to the date of reinstatement or offer of reinstatement less his or 'her net
earnings during said periods. It will be further recommended that the Re-
spondent make Minnie L'ee Alston, Delores Caldwell, and Velma Pettis" whole
for any loss they may have suffered by means of the Respondent's discrimination
by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which she normally
would have earned as wages from October 7, 1949, to the date she left the State
of Alabama, less her net earnings during. said periods.
Because of the Respondent's unlawful conduct and the underlying attitude of
opposition to the purposes of the Act revealed thereby, the undersigned is con-
vinced that the unfair labor practices found are closely related to the other
unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and that a danger of their com-
mission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the Respondent's
conduct in the past. The preventive purpose of the Act may be frustrated unless
the recommended order is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to
make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent the re-
currence of unfair labor practices and thereby to minimize industrial strife which
burdens and obstructs commerce and thus to effectuate the policies of the Act,
it will also be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in any other
manner, in the exercise of,the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
As the evidence does not establish that Sadie T. Benniefield and Betty H.
Frieson were discriminatorily discharged or that the interrogation of employees
by counsel for the Respondent during the course of investigation and prepara-
tion of the case for trial constituted coercive conduct, I shall recommend the
dismissal of the portions of the allegations of the complaint appertaining thereto.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Construction Workers, affiliated with District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, Independent, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the
employees listed in Appendix A, thereby discouraging membership in and ac-
tivities on behalf of a labor organization, the' Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining. and coercing their employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (1) or (3) of the Act by discharging Sadie T. Benniefield
and Betty H. Frieson.
6. The Respondent did not violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interro-
gation, through its counsel, of employees in preparation of the case for hearing.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
11 See footnote 8, supra.