Southwire Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 12, 1961

133 N.L.R.B. 83 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

SOUTHWIRE COMPANY 83
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the
several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act , it will be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Thus, having found that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees by certain conduct , as found in section III , B, 3, above, the Trial
Examiner will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from this conduct.
Having also found that the Respondent discriminated with regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Eugene Rhodes on October 12, 1960 , and W. L. McAdams
on November 2, 1960, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent
offer each of'them immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimi-
nation against him, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the
amounts he would have earned from the date of the discrimination to the date of
the offer of reinstatement , less net earnings to 'be computed on a quarterly basis
in a manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Earnings in any particular quarter shall have no effect upon the backpay liability
for any other such period . It will also be recommended that the Respondent pre-
serve and make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to
facilitate the computation of the backpay due.
As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are of a character
striking at the root of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, it will be recom-
mended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner adopts the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 55, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers of America , is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
2. By discriminating in,regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Eugene
Rhodes and W. L. McAdams , thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and ( 1) oftheAct.
3. By creating the impression that it was engaging in surveillance of its employees'
union 'activities, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Southwire Company and Local 613, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 10-CA-4355,
10-CA-4355-2, and 10-CA-4373. September 12, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 21, 1960 , Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Intermediate 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 Intermediate
133 NLRB No. 1.
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner further found that the
Board-directed election in Case No. 10-RC-4532 should be set aside.'
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by 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 sand briefs, and the entire record in
this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Southwire Com-
pany, Carrollton, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease land desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Local 613, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation of its employees, by discriminating in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating its employees unlawfully concerning their mem-
bership in or activities on behalf of said Union, or any other labor
organization, or making any threat of reprisal or promise of benefit
because of such activity.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist the Union named above, or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
i On March 13, 1961 , after issuance of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report, Peti-
tioner, Local 613, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL -CIO, requested
permission to withdraw its petition for certification of representatives previously filed in
Case No. 10-RC-4532. On April 3, 1961, pursuant to this request, the Board allowed the
Petitioner to withdraw its petition without prejudice. In view of this order , we do not
adopt the Trial Examiner ' s finding that the election in Case No . 10-RC-4532 be set aside
and that a new election be conducted.
SOUTH` IRE COMPANY 85
(a) Offer to Z. Fred Sprewell, Clarence Pope, Horace H. Noles,
and Marion D. Stone immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make whole said employees and Tommie Lee Farmer in the
manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or
its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms hereof.
(d) Post at its plant in Carrollton, Georgia, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 2 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within 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 discharged Clyde W.
Jordan and Taylor Summerlin in violation of the Act.
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL offer to Z. Fred Sprewell, Clarence Pope, Horace H.
Noles, and Marion D. Stone immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without preju-
dice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed, and will make whole said employees and Tommie Lee
Farmer for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimina-
tion against them.
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their mem-
bership in or activities on behalf of Local 613, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, or make any threats of reprisal or promise
of benefit because of such activity.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the
Union named above, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named Union, or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment against any employee because of mem-
bership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
SOUTHWIRE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by Local 613, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a consolidated complaint , dated February 12, 1960, in Cases
Nos. 10-CA-4355 , 10-CA-4355-2, and 10-CA-4373, against Southwire Company,
herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3)
and Section 2(6) and (7 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein
called the Act. The Respondent filed an answer on about February 17, 1960, in
which it admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint but denied the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices . A hearing on the above complaint cases
was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner at Carrollton , Georgia, from
February 29 to March 16, 1960.
By Decision and Order issued April 13, 1960 , the Board directed that the hearing
in Cases Nos. 10-CA-4355, 10-CA-4355-2, and 10-CA-4373 be reopened; that
Case No . 10-RC-4532 be consolidated with said unfair labor practice cases; and
that a further hearing be scheduled before the same Trial Examiner for the purpose
of resolving the issues raised by. the Union 's objections Nos. 1 through 4. The parties
filed with the Trial Examiner a stipulation dated April 22, 1960, the Union's (Pe-
titioner's) objections to election , the Regional Director's report on objections, and
the Respondent 's (Employer's) exceptions to said report . By the stipulation the
parties waived further hearing in the above-consolidated cases and requested the
Trial Examiner to receive the above documents into evidence . The motion is
granted and said documents are received in evidence as Trial Examiner 's Exhibits
Nos. 1 through 4 . Briefs have been filed with the Trial Examiner by all parties.
Both from the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
SOUTHWIRE COMPANY
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
87
The Respondent is a Georgia corporation with its principal office and place of
business located at Carrollton, Georgia, where it is engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of wire cable and related products. In the ,course and con-
duct of its business operations, the Respondent annually has manufactured, sold,
and distributed from its Carrollton plant products valued in excess of $50,000, of
which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said plant in interstate
commerce directly to States of the United States other than the State of Georgia.
The complaint alleges, the Respondent's answer admits, and the Trial Examiner
finds that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 613, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization which admits to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Union commenced to organize the Respondent's employees during August
1959. The representation hearing in Case No. 10-RC-4532 was held on November
12, 1959. Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election of the Board, issued
December 15, 1959, an election was conducted among Respondent's employees
on December 31, 1959. There were approximately 290 eligible voters, of whom
120 cast valid votes for the Union and 128 cast valid votes against the Union. There
were eight challenged ballots and one void ballot. The Union filed objections to
the election on January 7, 1960.
B. Discrimination
1. Z. Fred Sprewell
On August 7, 1959, Sprewell, a member of the Union, filed an application for
employment with the Respondent. One of the reasons why Sprewell sought employ-
ment with the Respondent was to help organize its employees for the Union. During
an interview the following day, James F. Holliday, Respondent's plant engineer,
asked Sprewell if he had ever been a member of any labor union. Sprewell told
him that he had been but was no longer a union member.
Sprewell went to work for the Respondent on August 10, 1959, as a welder in the
maintenance department. He had another conversation with Holliday that same
day. Holliday told him, in substance, that Opp Electric Company, one of Spre-
well's references, had no record of his employment; 1 and that he understood that
Sprewell had "a big hand" in the "Out of Town Workers Club." 2 When Sprewell
admitted that he had had "a little something to do" with this club but denied having
"a big hand" in it, Holliday told him '1f you are here to start some kind of disturb-
1 Sprewell testified that he had not worked for Opp, of Atlanta, Georgia ; that he
named this company "because Opp is a non-union contractor" ; and that he "had actually
been working for a union contractor."
2 Concerning the organization and purpose of the above club, Sprewell testified as
follows :
I guess it would be best to go back to the organization of the Out of Town
Workers Club. My brother, H. G. Sprewell, and some other fellow Union members
that were working over at Lockheed, they talked to and from work about the situa-
tion that we have here in Carrollton, and they discussed that if we had some
Unions in Carrolton, that it would cause a better pay scale in this area and then
probably If the pay scale was raised, that officials of Carrollton, Chamber of Com-
merce, would have probably no objection to new industry coming here, which has
been stated in newspapers of the past that industry had actually been discouraged
from coming here because of their affiliation with the Union. So, they came up with
an idea that maybe we fellows ought to get together and show the town that there
is a lot of Union money being spent here in town, that the money that is being spent
here is not altogether locally earned money, that much of it is earned out of town
by Union members.
Sprewell testified that the club later became known as "Progressive Democrats."
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ance through the ... Out of Town Workers Club, you had just better go on right
now.,,
On August 13 Sprewell was called to the office of Roger Schoerner, vice president
and general manager of Respondent. Holliday was present during the conversation.
Schoerner told Sprewell, "Considering your past experience and your qualifications,
we just can't understand you coming to work at Southwire." Schoerner then ques-
tioned Sprewell about the Out of Town Workers Club; and told him that he had
"no use" for the club since it had "done damage to the community and the area."
Schoerner also told Sprewell that he had been present at a meeting of the chamber
of commerce at which Sprewell had spoken, and that he did not "appreciate what
you said that night." 3 After they left Schoerner's office, Sprewell indicated to
Holliday that he was worried about his job and )asked him if his work was satisfactory.
Holliday said , "No, your work is all right . . . you needn't bother to worry about
that . . . it is just like Mr. Schoerner told you, it is the fact he knows that you
had a big hand in this Out of Town Workers Club."
At the end of the shift on August 17, 1959, Holliday discharged Sprewell. He
told Sprewell, "We have decided it is not fair to you or to the Company for you
to stay here . . . we realize you are capable of making more money than you
are making here . . . you are not going ,to advance as you would expect to . . . in
fact, you are not going to advance at all with Mr. Schoerner feeling as he does to-
ward you, . . . since Mr. Schoerner was at that Chamber of Commerce meeting
and heard the things you said that night, . Mr. Schoerner feels like possibly in
the future he might make some mistake and you might . . either criticize some-
thing he says or does, . just like you criticized those leaders of the Chamber of
Commerce . . Mr. Schoerner just considers it a slight risk to keep you here . if
Mr. Schoerner had known about your application, we never would have hired you
here but I didn't know you . . . your work has been all right . . . and your atti-
tude has been good since you have been here, . . . it is just what Mr. Schoemer
knew about you before you came here." The reason for the discharge as shown
on Sprewell's separation slip is "Attitude on local working conditions did not agree
with company policies."
During the week after his discharge, Sprewell met Schoerner at the latter's request
"behind the hospital" in Carrollton. Schoerner accused Sprewell of stealing some
"production sheets," stating that "we have three witness that saw you take them."
Sprewell denied the charge.
Schoerner in a letter to employees, dated August 22, 1959, states in part as follows:
Recently a union in Atlanta decided that it would try to place spies who were
their paid organizers in Southwire Company for the purpose of telling you that
you were being mistreated and to try to get you to join their union and pay
them monthly dues. Several of our long service employees have promptly
reported that they had been approached by these outsiders to sign union
membership cards.
The purpose of this letter is to let you know that without knowing we hired
these union organizers. A few days ago one of them opened the door of the
Bulletin Board and stole the three posting sheet lists. These lists will, no doubt,
be used by them in sending you propaganda letters and in calling on you.
A few days after Sprewell's discharge, Supervisor Wilbur Chandler told employee
Horace Noles that the Respondent had fired Sprewell because of the Union. About
a month after Sprewell's discharge, Supervisor Oscar Norton told employee James
Wright that the reason why Sprewell was fired was "because he was trying to organize
the Union at Southwire." About the middle of September 1959, Supervisor Joseph
Bass told employee Marion Stone that Sprewell was fired because "the Company
believed he was a Union organizer, and also because that he was a member of the
Out of Town Workers Club." On December 2, 1959, employee Isom Chandler had
a conversation with Schoerner. Schoerner told him, "As you know, we fired Fred
Sprewell along with several others for Union activities . . . there is somebody else
out in this mill working, trying to bring the Union in, . .. we got to find out who
they are so we can get rid of them."
8 Sprewell testified that the above meeting of the chamber of commerce was held "prob-
ably two years ago" ; that he and several other members of the Out of Town Workers
Club were present; that Roy Richards, president of Respondent, also attended the meet-
ing; and that he (Sprewell) spoke at the meeting, quoting critically from a newspaper
item in which the president of the chamber of commerce was quoted as saying "The
Chamber had tried to discourage several other promising factories due to their one hundred
percent affiliation with unions."
SOUTHWIRE COMPANY 89
The above facts are based on the credited testimony of Sprewell, Noles, Wright,
Stone, and Isom Chandler. The testimony of Holliday, Schoerner, Wilbur Chandler,
Norton, and Bass, contrary to the above, has not been credited.
The evidence discloses that Sprewell did not engage in any activity on behalf of
the Union during his employment by the Respondent. However, the evidence con-
clusively shows and I find that the Respondent discharged him on August 17, 1959,
because it suspected that he was in the plant in order to organize the employees into
a union. Such conduct is violative of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. I also find
that Schoerner's threat of reprisal during his conversation with Isom Chandler on
December 2, constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion.
2. Clarence Pope
Pope was hired about March 1, 1959, as an electrician in the maintenance depart-
ment. His immediate supervisor was Electrical Foreman Larry Samples. Samples,
in turn, was under Plant Engineer James Holliday.
About August 1, 1959, Pope visited the office of the Union in Atlanta. After
talking to employees about the Union, he returned to Atlanta about a week later,
.again visiting the Union's office where he obtained about 100 union cards.
On August 28 Pope reported for work at 9:30 p.m.4 At 10 p.m. he went to the
"rod mill office" where he talked with Foreman Chandler, employee Horace Noles,
and two or three other employees. When Chandler left the offce, Pope asked the
employees if they would sign union cards. They said they would. It was then
arranged that the signing would take place in the "rod mill latrine" so that they could
not be observed, and that Noles would stand watch outside of the latrine to warn
them in case a supervisor appeared. The employees entered the latrine one at a
time and signed union cards for Pope. During this time Foreman Chandler was
approximately 50 or 60 feet away from the door to the latrine, sharpening a lawn-
mower blade on an electric grinder. A corner of the office obstructed his view of
the latrine door; but he was in a position to observe Noles "walking around, and the
employees going in and out . . . of the latrine." When Noles returned to the main-
tenance shop, Chandler asked him, "What was going on over there" and "What was
Pope writing?" 5
Pope later that same night solicited and obtained signatures on union cards from
two or three employees "at the front of the plant." He also gave cards to some
other employees. Shortly before quitting time, Shift Foreman Willis Wyatt went to
employee Roy Hambrick and asked him if he would get him one of the union cards
"that Pope is giving out . . . if he shows you one, you get it if you have to take it
away from the son of . .
Pope was the only electrician on duty that night. One of his duties was to start
and adjust the oil pumps on the rod mill machine. He was called to perform this
job when the machine broke down. When oil ceased to be pumped into the machine,
it would "shear pins." The machine operator or maintenance mechanic replaced
the pins. Replacing pins consumed from 11/2 to 2 hours, depending on which pin
had been sheared.
The Respondent's records show that the rod mill broke down on four different
occasions during the night of August 28 to 29. The Respondent's clock designated
time in hundreds, not in minutes. The machine broke down at 9:18 and was re-
started at 10:92. It broke down again at 11:05 and was started up at 1:54. It broke
down again at 1:85 and started at 2:95. When it broke down again at 3:28, Samples
was called to the plant to start the oil pumps.6
At 5:30 a.m. on August 29 Pope asked Samples if he could leave work "a little
earlier" as he had not had a "lunch break" during the night. Samples granted his
request and asked him if he was "having anything to do with the Union." Pope
replied that it was "none of his business."
Employee James Crawford was one of the employees whom Pope solicited to sign
a union card. Their conversation took place after midnight and lasted about 10
minutes. Crawford did not sign a card at the time. When Crawford returned to his
machine, Supervisor Larry Chadwick came to him and asked him "about getting one
of those green cards that was floating around the mill." When Crawford said that
* The record discloses that the above was Pope's starting time on the night shift, and
that the shifts of the regular production workers changed at 10 p.m.
s Noles testified to the effect that during the conversation in the office, Chandler was
present when Pope asked him (Notes) for the loan of a pencil.
"Pope testified to the effect that because he was unable to fix the pumps he called for
,Samples to help him.
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he had not seen any green cards, Chadwick replied, "You know, one of those green
cards, like Pope showed you a while ago." Crawford insisted that he had not seen
any green cards. Chadwick then told him that if he did "get ahold of a card," he
(Chadwick) would like to have it. Crawford's shift ended at 6 a.m. on August 29
and he went home. At 6:45 a.m., J. D. Hardman, Respondent's plant superintendent,
went to Crawford's house. Hardman asked him it Pope had shown his "a green
union card-Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on it." Crawford replied "[Pope]
showed it to me, . . . and I noticed it was green, . .. But I didn't get to read it. He
didn't show it to me long enough."
About 11:30 a.m. on August 29, while at his home, Pope received a message from
Holliday to return to the plant. When he got there, Holliday took him to Schoerner's
office. Schoerner told Pope that he was discharged. Pope asked for the reason.
Schoerner told him that he had been caught sleeping on the job. Pope replied that
he had been punished for that,7 and that the reason he had fallen asleep was that he
had become sick and weak after reporting for work from eating fish at his church's
"fish fry." Schoerner replied, "Never the less it is on the record, looks bad."
Schoerner then told him that he had been careless and had received electric shocks
on two different occasions, and that that was another reason for his discharge.8
Schoerner then questioned Pope about some electrical contracting work that he
was doing on the side, asking him where he got his material. Pope told him.
Schoerner asked him if he could "prove it." Pope replied that he could and agreed
to show him the invoices covering his purchases. Schoerner also mentioned the
fact that the rod mill had not operated the preceding night because of an electrical
problem. Pope told him that he had tried to correct the trouble to the best of
his ability. As Pope was leaving the plant, he stopped to talk to employee Taylor
Summerhn Holliday, who was with Pope at the time, told Summerlin to return to
his work and told Pope, "We don't want you talking to anybody that works here."
Later Pope called Schoerner by telephone and gave him the "invoice numbers"
covering the materials used in his contracting business . Pope's separation slip
shows the reason for discharge as, "Inefficiency in work performance and violation of
company rule."
On August 31 Noles had another conversation with Chandler. Chandler told him
"they called Pope back in Saturday morning and fired him.. . . For trying to get
the Union in here. They caught him trying to get some cards signed up." He
then asked Noles if he had been "watching for Pope over there at the latrine door the
other night." Noles denied this, saying, "I was waiting on my pencil." Chandler
replied that some employees already had been fired "about this Union, and some more
were going to get it."
At 11 a.m. on August 29, employee Taylor Summerlin was called to Holliday's
office. Holliday told him that he was to take over Pope's work on the third shift.
When Summerlin asked why Pope did not handle the shift, Holliday replied, "We
are going to have to let Pope go. He was caught last night, signing up Union cards." 9
The above facts are based upon the credited testimony of Pope, Noles, Hambrick,
Crawford, Summerlin, Stone, and Kilgore. Chadwick did not appear as a witness
at the hearing. Testimony of Chandler, Holliday, Samples, Wyatt , Hardman,
Schoerner, Bass, and Brown, contrary to the above, is not credited.
In its brief the Respondent contends that Pope was discharged because (1) he slept
on the job, (2) he received two severe shocks "by reason of carelessness in handling
electricity," (3) he used "Company products in the sideline of electrical contracting
business," and (4) on the night of August 28 to 29, he was unable, "as an electrician,
to place the rod mill in operating order when it was shut down over an electrical
problem." The Respondent contends that the last of the above reasons was "the
precipitating cause of his termination."
In my opinion , the evidence conclusively shows that the Respondent 's reasons for
Pope's discharge are mere pretexts, and that the real reason was his activity on behalf
of the Union on the night in question. The Respondent's witnesses testified at length
7 pope testified that the above incident occurred some few weeks before his discharge,
and that as punishment he was laid off for a week.
8 Pope testified that he had received his first shock about 6 weeks before his discharge
and the second about 3 or 4 weeks later ; that he was not disciplined at the time, and
that after the second Incident Holliday told him that he was "being a little too careless
or trying to hurry a job up too much."
8 At some time during September 1959, Supervisor Bass told employee Marion Stone
that Pope was fired because he "got caught passing out Union cards in the latrine " On
August 29 or 30, Foreman Frank Brown told another employee, in the presence of em-
ployee Charles Kilgore, that Pope had been discharged for "passing out Union cards "
SOUTHWIRE COMPANY 91
in this connection . However , I feel that it is not necessary to discuss this testimony
in detail or to point out the contradictions and testimony which I consider incredible.
A brief review of some of the testimony of Respondent's witnesses is sufficient to
support the above conclusions.
Contrary to the claim in the Respondent's brief, the evidence shows beyond ques-
tion that the Respondent had knowledge of Pope's union activity before his discharge.
Hardman admitted that he went to Crawford's home and asked him did he know
"whether Pope was trying to get union cards signed during that night."
Wyatt testified to the effect that when the rod mill was down at 9 p.m., it was the
duty of the electrician on the second shift to fix it; that shortly after 10 p.m. he got
Pope "out of the shop"; that that was where Pope was supposed to be when not on
a job; and that he did not "blame" Pope for employees being away from their
machines that night. Chandler testified that the rod mill machine "kept knocking
off" because "we had problem with the solution part back there"; that although Pope
was on the job and started the pumps, the machine "kept knocking off"; and that he
(Chandler) had nothing to do with Pope's discharge. Samples testified that he was
called to the plant at 3:30 am. on August 29; that he "reset" the pumps; that he
"waited for them to start up when they get the shear pins back in"; that "Pope was
up near the front [of the plant]. I don't remember what he was doing"; and that
he did not mention Pope in his report.
From the testimony of the above three supervisors on duty the night of August 28
it does not appear that Pope was remiss in his duties, or that any of them made a
report to this effect. Their testimony does not show that the oil pumps were not
fixed because Pope could not be found. In fact, the evidence shows that Pope
started up the pumps some three times that night. Admittedly, on the last occasion
be was unable to find the reason why the pumps did not function properly and had
to call upon Samples. Samples' testimony indicates that this was not unusual. That
Samples did not consider Pope incompetent in the matter is indicated by the fact
that he did not attach any blame to Pope in his report.io
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent's discharge of Pope on August 29, 1959,
was in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. I also find that Chandler's
statement to Noles on August 31 constitutes a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the
Act since it contains a threat of reprisal.
3. Horace H. Noles
Noles was hired on June 29, 1959, as a "rod mill mechanic and welder." He
worked under Supervisors Bass and Howard Spradlin. Some few days after he was
hired, Noles had a conversation with Bass. Bass told him that he had heard that he
(Noles) had "lived a pretty rough life in the past." Bass said, "We heard that you
have drank a lot, fought a lot, and took your shotgun and run your folks off from
home." When Noles denied the charge , Bass said , "The past life don't matter. .
We've all done things we shouldn't have done. . . . What we are looking to now is
the future. . . . You are doing good work here so far, and we just want you to
continue."
When Noles was hired, Bass told him that he would start at $1.25 an hour; but
that as soon as he could "run a shift" by himself he would be raised to $1.50. During
about the latter part of July 1959, Noles was put on the second shift by himself.
After working on this shift for a few weeks he complained to Bass that he had not
received the promised increase . The following week Holliday brought him his check
and told him that he had got him a raise of 10 cents. When Noles complained that
he had been promised $1.50, Holliday told him that he was doing "a good job" and
that he would receive the other 15 cents in 4 weeks as "a quarter an hour increase
wouldn 't go through the office all at one time."
During the middle of August, Noles had a conversation with Supervisor Spradlin.
Spradlin asked him if he had heard "much about this Union." Noles replied that
he had not heard "too much" about it. Spradlin then said that the Union might help
the employees to make more money, but that he did not know if it would help
the supervisors. Noles answered that he thought that the Union "will help the
employees."
Noles' part in the incident involving Pope on the night of August 28, 1959, has
been related and found above. The conversations between Noles and Supervisor
Chandler on that night and on August 31 also have been found above.
Noles was discharged by Holliday on September 3, 1959. Holliday told him,
"Horace, you've been here almost three months, and your insurance is fixing to come
10 Samples testified that Holliday told him that he had fired Pope "for neglecting
his job."
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
into effect.... It's company policy that Mr. Schoerner always talk with the em-
ployees; but . . . he just never has gotten around to you. . . I hate to do this, but
they have put it on me to let you go ." Holliday also told him that his work was
satisfactory . When Noles asked him the reason for the discharge , Holliday replied,
"Your union activities , and your personal references did not meet Southwire 's expec-
tations." Concerning the latter reason Holliday explained that he had heard that
Noles did "a lot of fighting"; that he had run his people "away from home" with a
shotgun ; and that he was an "alcoholic ." Holliday refused to name the alleged
informer . When Noles questioned him about the "union activities ," Holliday replied,
"Well, there 's been some of it going on, you know ." Noles then stated that he was not
a member of any union and that he "might have said the wrong thing to the wrong
person ." 11 Noles' separation slip states the reason for the discharge as, "Mr. Noles'
personal references failed to check out."
Noles called Holliday on September 4 and told him that the charges against him
were not true and that his wile wanted to talk with him. Holliday replied, "No.
That's not necessary , Horace . 1 don 't believe all those things could be true on any-
body." Noles again told Holliday that he did not belong to a union and that he
needed the job. Holliday said that he would try to "get the other fellows" to agree
to taking Noles back and that he would let him know in a few days . Some few
days later Holliday told Noles that the Respondent did not need anyone at that time;
but that if an opening occurred , he would let him know. Holliday gave Noles a
letter of recommendation , dated September 7, 1959, which states, "Horace H. Noles
was employed under my supervision from June 29, 1959 to September 3, 1959. His
work while on the job was satisfactory . His attendance was regular and on time."
One or two days after Noles' discharge , Supervisor Chandler was in a group of
about four employees , including Max Crook and Hudon Ivey. Ivey remarked that
Noles was absent and asked where he was. Chandler replied that Noles had been
discharged because of "his reputation " and "union cards." On November 3, 1959,
Schoerner had a conversation with employee Stone during which he told Stone that
Noles had been discharged for getting employees "signed up" in the Union.
The above facts are based upon the credited testimony of Noles, Crook , Ivey, and
Stone. The contrary testimony of Chandler , Spradlin, Holliday, and Schoerner has
not been credited.
The Respondent contends that Noles was discharged because it had received re-
ports detrimental to his reputation . Holliday testified, in substance , that Noles had
been hired while he (Holliday ) was on vacation ; that when he returned, he re-
ceived "some reports that Mr . Noles, in the past , had had a reputation of being a
very rough individual"; that after receiving these reports an investigation was com-
menced; that the Respondent 's insurance plan becomes effective 90 days after a new
employee is hired; that the records of such employees are reviewed prior to said
effective date to determine "if we want to consider them for long-range employment
with the company "; and that "if we don't want them for long -range employment,
then they are terminated ." Concerning the reason for Noles' discharge, Schoerner
testified that he had received reports that Notes "had a rough background with his
family, drinking and the law in Franklin County" ; that he did not decide to make any
investigation at the time because "on the basis of these first reports that came to me
I understood that this had been discussed and our people had been assured that these
were things that had happened sometime in the past and Noles was presented to
me as being a good mechanic and doing a good job and we, at that time, were going
along on the basis that this was past history in Noles' career and we would take no
action on it"; that thereafter he learned from the manager of Southland Concrete
Co., Noles' last employer, that "within the last three months that [Noles] had
pulled a knife on an employee "; and that "this happened at the same period when
[Noles'] file came up for review at the end of a three -month or 90-day period prior
to our making him what we would classify as a permanent employee and putting in
his insurance and I believe I saw his file and just felt this incident was too recent and
that we better go ahead and not consider Noles as a long time employee at
Southwire Company. "
The undisputed evidence shows that the Respondent had no complaints about
Noles' work . In fact, the evidence indicates that the Respondent considered Noles
a "good mechanic" and employee, especially in view of the fact that he had received
one wage increase and had been promised another . Schoerner's testimony shows
that the original adverse reports on Noles ' character had not been taken too
seriously by the Respondent . This is confirmed by Bass' conversation with Noles
shortly after he was hired. However, according to Schoerner , the alleged knife
n Noles testified that on August 28 he signed a union card at the home of employee
Marion Stone.
SOUTHWIRE COMPANY 93
report settled the matter. Except for his statement that "this happened" at the end
of a "90-day period," presumably after Noles first was employed, Schoerner did
not give the date when he received this report. Holliday, who discharged Noles, did
not mention the knife charge in his conversations with Noles on September 3 and 4.
As pointed out in the General Counsel's brief, Noles had worked a total of only
66 days when he was discharged. So that it would appear that Noles' employment
record did not come up for review at the "end" of the "90-day period," as testified to
by Schoerner. Further, the discharge occurred only 6 days after Noles had assisted
Pope, as related and found above. That the Respondent had fully investigated the
union activity on August 28 is clear from the record in Pope's case. Also, that the
Respondent either knew or suspected Noles' part in such activity is shown by
Chandler's conversations with him on August 28 and 31.
In conclusion, I am unable to believe the testimony of Chandler and Holliday to
the effect that they had no knowledge of Noles' union activity. According to them,
the Respondent either had no knowledge of or took no interest in the union activity
on the night of August 28. That this is not so is conclusively shown by Hardman's
admitted visit shortly after the end of the shift on August 29 to the home of Craw-
ford and by his questioning of Crawford concerning Pope's union activity. Accord-
ingly, I find that the reason claimed by the Respondent for Noles' discharge is a
pretext, and that it discharged him for his activity on behalf of the Union in violation
of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. Clyde W. Jordan
Jordan first was employed by the Respondent in October 1954. Shortly there-
after he enlisted in the Army where he served for 4 months and was discharged be-
cause of poor eyesight. He then returned to work for the Respondent and was em-
ployed for about 4 years, or until December 1958 when he voluntarily quit for work
in Atlanta. He was rehired by the Respondent on October 5, 1959. During most
of his employment, including October 1959, Jordan's job was "recoiling" in the
shipping department.
On October 5, 1959, Jordan had a conversation with Schoerner. At 10:30 p in.
Schoerner came to Jordan's place of work and asked him when he had returned
to work for the Respondent. Jordan replied that he had started that morning He
then told Jordan, "Well, I guess you've heard that we are having union troubles."
When Jordan admitted that he had heard "a little about it," Schoerner told him that
it looked like the Union was "coming in here" and that he would close the plant
before he would "run it under the Union." Schoerner asked Jordan if he had
"worked under the Union" in Atlanta. Jordan replied that he had not.
It is found that the above threat of Schoerner to close the plant is violative of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
On October 8 or 9 Jordan was in the shipping office with employee Hewell Wilson
and several other employees. Supervisor Oscar Norton also was present. Wilson
asked Jordan what he and Schoerner had been talking about on October 5. Jordan
repeated the conversation and added that he thought that the employees would "make
a lot more money" if the Union organized the plant. A day or two later Jordan
was called to Hardman's office. Hardman waited until Norton arrived, and then
asked Jordan if he had been telling the employees that Schoerner had told him that
he would "not run the plant under the Union." Hardman told Jordan to go tell the
employees that Schoerner did not make the above statement, and that everything
would be all right if he would do that.
At sometime shortly after he was hired Jordan signed a union card. At the end
of the shift on October 13, 1959', Hardman discharged Jordan. When asked for a
reason, Hardman told him, "Well, in our long range program at Southwire, we are
looking for employees that will be satisfied with their job; and . . . I don't think you
will be. And I can let you know right now that you will never go any higher than
what you're on " Jordan's termination slip showed the reason for discharge as
"Not qualified in technical skills."
Prior to his reemployment on October 5, 1959, Jordan had a physical examina-
tion. The doctor's report showed that Jordan's eyesight was poor and stated, "I
recommend Mr Jordan is physically qualified for limited work. He should not be
allowed to work around heavy machinery, etc." This report is dated and was
received by the Respondent on October 5, 1959.
Hardman testified that he did not know that Jordan was a member of the Union;
that he learned about Jordan' s statement to employees in the plant from Schoerner
who "found out [Jordan's quoting of Schoerner] and told me that Clyde Jordan
had put out this rumor and told me to check into it": that he did not know how
Schoerner learned of Jordan' s statement in the plant; that he discharged Jordan on
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Schoerner 's order ; and that Schoerner told him what to put on the discharge slip.
Norton testified that he overheard Jordan's statement concerning Schoerner and
"reported it to Mr. Hardman." Schoerner testified that "first Oscar Norton and
then later Hardman" told him of Jordan 's remarks in the plant ; that he did not know
that Jordan was an adherent of the Union ; that the reason for Jordan 's discharge
was based upon the doctor 's report ; and that "When [ Jordan ] was hired , the fellow
who was taking care of the personnel work just assumed that he was all right. He
had worked for us before , and he had sent him over to the hospital , or the doctor,
as a routine matter ; and he frankly never should have been hired . If he had
properly read the doctor 's certificate , he never would have been hired."
Other than Jordan 's statement on October 5 in the presence of Norton, which
merely indicated that he was in favor of the Union , there is nothing in the record to
show that Jordan was active on behalf of the Union . I am of the opinion that this
fact, standing alone, is insufficient to ascribe an illegal motive to the Respondent in
the discharge , particularly in view of the adverse medical report . While there are
some conflicts in the testimony of the Respondent 's witnesses , as pointed out in
the General Counsel's brief, I do not believe that they are of such a serious nature
as to justify my rejection of the Respondent 's defense . Accordingly , I find that the
Respondent did not violate the Act by discharging Jordan.
5. Marion D. Stone
Stone was hired by the Respondent in August 1958. He worked as a welder in
the maintenance department under the supervision of Bass, who in turn was under
Hardman . During August 1959 , Stone and employees Pope and Taylor Summerlin
talked about going to Atlanta for the purpose of getting the Union to help them
organize the plant. As related above , Pope went to Atlanta . When Pope returned,
Stone obtained some union cards from him. Stone solicited employees to sign the
cards in the plant and elsewhere. About 40 employees signed cards for him. After
Sprewell was discharged and during the latter part of August 1959 , he went to
Stone's home and gave him some more union cards. Stone thereafter "contacted"
Sprewell "off and on."
Stone and employee Clarence Cash worked near to one another in the plant, with
"just a rail" separating them . On September 1, 1959 , while they were talking, Hard-
man came to Cash 's place of work and told him that he wanted to talk to him. He
then took Cash to a conference room. He asked Cash if he thought Stone was "for
the Union" and if Stone had said anything to him about it . Hardman stated that
Cash and Stone "talked a lot together ," and that he "just wondered " what they
talked about . Cash replied that they talked about "just first one thing and then
another." Hardman then remarked that employee Taylor Summerlin came "back
there and talked a lot." Cash told him that "Summerlin talked a lot, and most of it
was about women." Hardman asked Cash to keep him informed if he heard "any-
thing." Cash said that he would . It is found that the above interrogation by Hard-
man constitutes interference , restraint , and coercion.
After the above conversation, Stone talked to Cash . Stone then went to Hardman
and told him that he had met a Charles Atkins in Carrollton , who had wanted to
know "if any Union cards were circulating around in the plant." 12 Hardman wanted
to know where the man was from . Stone said he was from Atlanta. An hour or two
later Hardman came to Stone and told him that he had forgotten the name of the
man. Stone repeated the name; and Hardman wrote it down on a piece of paper.
Hardman then said, "Feel free to come to me any time you find out anything about
the Union."
As related and found above, Stone had a conversation with Supervisor Bass about
the middle of September 1959. Stone asked him if there was any truth "that the
Union is still trying to come in the plant." Bass replied that the Union was active
and referred to the discharges of Sprewell and Pope. He told Stone that he did not
think the Union ever would get in the plant and that he believed that "Roy Richards
would close the door and move his plant somewhere else before he'd let the Union
come in." When Bass referred to "the progress of Southwire and the community
in the last ten years," Stone replied , "look how much more progress Southwire and
south would have been made if there had been union wages paid ." Bass then asked
Stone if he was for the Union . Stone answered that he was not but that he was
"for the union wage scale or somewhere close to it."
22 Stone testified that Charles Atkins was a fictitious name, and that he "decided that
the Company might get wind that I was connected with the Union, so to throw the sus-
picion off of myself, I went . . . to J. D. Hardman "
SOUTHWIRE COMPANY 95
On the night of October 3, 1959 , Stone got involved in an altercation with the
Carrollton police. Stone was so badly injured that he was admitted to the hospital
the following morning. He was placed under arrest , but was permitted to remain
in the hospital . 13 He was due to report to work on October 5, but sent word through
his wife that he would be absent . He was in the hospital for 5 days. Schoerner
visited him on October 5. Upon being asked , Stone related the details of what had
occurred on October 3. Schoerner asked him if he had gone to the office of Bob
Jenkins, a Carrollton lawyer with whom Stone had had an argument before his in-
volvement with the police, in order to "get him to help organize this Union." When
Stone replied that that was not his purpose, Schoerner said, "Are you sure you didn't
go down there to leave a retainer 's fee." Stone denied this. Schoerner then asked
him if Sprewell had visited him and if he had signed a "union card." Stone replied
"no" to both questions . Schoerner told Stone that while he ( Schoerner) was out
of town , "a union organizer had got in the plant"; but that the organizer "didn't
last very long" as "we found him out." Schoerner ended the conversation by telling
him that he was not fired but that he was "going to investigate what you got
involved in."
Some few days later Schoerner visited Stone again . He told Stone that he had
investigated the police incident ; that when he felt able, he should return to the
plant, and that Stone should talk to him before he reported for work.
On October 15 Stone returned to the plant to report for work and went to
Schoerner 's office. Marvin Martin , the Responent 's personnel director was present
during at least part of this meeting. Schoerner told him that he could not put him
back to work at that time because "there is so much confusion and turmoil in the
plant about the Union." He then stated that he understood that Stone , Cash, and
Summerlin were "pretty good friends ." When Stone admitted this, Schoerner asked,
"What do you boys talk about so much?" Stone replied that they talked about
farming, school , and jobs in the plant . Schoerner then asked him how Cash and
Summerlin felt about the Union . Stone answered that as far as he knew they were
not interested in the Union . Schoerner ended the conversation by stating that he
was going to check further on Stone's "past and all" and with some of the com-
panies for which he had worked , and that he would let him "know something in a
few days."
After about a week , when he did not hear from him , Stone returned to Schoerner's
office . Schoerner told him that he still was undecided about letting him return to
work ; that some employees had told him "voluntarily" that Stone was a "union man"
and was getting employees "signed up"; that he got contrary information from other
employees ; and that he was confused and did not know what to believe since some
of the employees were "reliable ." Schoerner again questioned Stone about Sprewell
and Jenkins , particularly as to whether or not the latter had any connection with
the Union . He also wanted to know who had recommended the lawyer whom Stone
had retained in the matter involving the police . He asked Stone if he (Stone) had
signed a union card. When Stone replied that he had not, Schoerner asked him if
he knew of any employees who had. Stone answered that since he had been out of
work, he had talked to "lots of the employees" who had told him that they had
signed union cards; but that he would not name any of them as he did not want to
get them "involved in it." Schoerner then stated that from further "checking" he
had discovered that Stone had worked on an oil rig in Texas which a union had at-
tempted to organize , and that Stone had "taken over the drilling rig and finished
drilling the well" ( acting against the interests of that union ). Stone did not deny
this. Schoerner ended this conversation by saying that it looked like Stone "was a
victim of circumstances" and, "my hands are tied from helping you , . . . but you
give me a little bit more time , I will see what I can do."
Stone had an appointment to meet Schoerner on November 3, 1960. Schoerner
again asked him if Sprewell had contacted him. When Stone replied that he had
not, Schoerner asked him if Noles had talked to him about the Union . Stone an-
swered, "No." Schoerner then said , "Do you know we had fired Horace Noles be-
cause he was getting men signed up. . I wonder why he never approached you
about the Union ?" When Stone replied that he had told Noles that he was "against
the Union ," Schoerner said, "Well, perhaps that was the reason ." Schoerner then
told him, in substance, that since the advent of the Union the Respondent had in-
vestigated most of its employees ; that some had "police charges, one thing or
another against them one time or another"; that if such employees got involved with
13 As a result of the above incident, on February 12, 1960, Stone entered a plea of
guilty to the charge of "Assault with Intent to Murder" in the Superior Court for Carroll
County, for which he received a suspended sentence of from 3 to 5 years
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union , the Respondent would use their past record as "an excuse for firing them";
that the Respondent could not put Stone back to work and discharge other em-
ployees for the same reason; that the Board was going to hold a hearing on Novem-
ber 12 and probably conduct an election thereafter , that since "this might go on
for several months," it might be best for Stone to find another job; that when the
"union business all gets out of the plant ," the Respondent might consider rehiring
him; and that he would not put anything on Stone's separation notice that would
prevent him from drawing unemployment insurance . Stone's separation notice,
dated November 3 , 1959, states the reason for discharge as, "Based on a police re-
port of misconduct , company policy prohibits emplcvtng at this time."
At sometime after October 3, 1959, employee Isom Chandler had a conversation
with Schoerner about Stone. Schoerner questioned Chandler as to whether or not
he was afraid to work or would work with Stone if the Respondent brought Stone
back to work . He also asked Chandler if he considered Stone to be "a dangerous
man" and if he thought Stone drank on the job Chandler gave negative answers
to all of the above questions . However, Chandler told Schoerner that at one time
Stone "picked Preacher up" and "hooked him in his belt [on the hook of a hoist]
and his toes just barely touching the ground."
The above facts are based on the credited testimony of Stone, Cash, and Isom
Chandler Contrary testimony of Schoerner , Martin, Hardman, and Bass has not
been credited.
Schoerner testified , in substance , that "almost immediately" after Stone was hired
it became apparent that Stone was a "good mechanic" and that the Respondent had
found "a real good man"; that "as the weeks rolled by," however, he received com-
plaints from supervisors that Stone was "sarcastic" and "could only take orders from
one man"; that he learned of one incident of Stone "actually kicking [Supervisor]
Chandler in the seat of the pants "; that he did not want to discharge Stone over the
police incident until he had been tried ; that during one of his conversations with
Stone he questioned him about rumors in the plant as to whether or not he was a
"gangster " or a "union organizer"; that from his conversations with Stone he got the
impression that Stone "was definitely anti-union , that he didn't feel that he needed
anyone to fight for his rights, that he was able to take care of himself "; that he
received a report from Martin which disclosed that Stone at one time had had a
fight with a union "person"; 14 that this "confirmed" his impression that Stone was
antiunion ; that one of the reasons why he did not discharge Stone when he first
learned of the police incident was that he did not want Stone to lose the benefits of
his hospital insurance; and that because Stone was late for their last appointment
and parked his car in a "positively no parking" zone at the plant he finally decided
to discharge him. Martin testified that he made an investigation "by telephone" of
Stone's past ; that the investigation disclosed that Stone on three occasions had had
"trouble of some kind " in Kansas , Oklahoma, and Texas; and that in Texas "Stone
had gotten in an argument with a Union representative, and had struck the man."
Holliday testified to the effect that at some undisclosed time when Stone was working
under his supervision in the rod mill, Stone had a dispute with a mechanic over
equipment and the working area; that as a result he warned Stone that he would
be discharged unless he cooperated "with the foremen and with the employees";
that he reported to Schoerner about the problem he had "with supervising Stone,"
telling him that the employees "were afraid that [Stone ] might do some physical
violence to one of them"; and that after the incident with the police he advised
Schoerner not to put Stone back on the job.
In my opinion , the evidence shows clearly that Schoerner finally decided to dis-
charge Stone because he suspected that he was one of the leading adherents of
the Union . He interrogated Stone continually concerning his sympathy and activity
for the Union . In fact , Schoerner admitted that he asked Stone if he was a "union
organizer ." It may be that early during his conversations with Stone he had the
impression that Stone was against the Union . Stone certainly tried to create this
impression , and this may explain why he was not discharged immediately after his
involvement with the police. However, it appears that Schoerner was not satisfied
with the answers because he continued to question Stone about the Union.
The evidence shows that Stone solicited many employees to sign union cards,
obtaining signatures from about 40. The case is replete with evidence showing that
the Respondent 's supervisors, including Schoerner, extensively interrogated em-
ployees concerning union activity in the plant . I am satisfied that from this investi-
gation Schoerner learned enough to suspect Stone.
Immediately after the police incident Schoerner told Stone that he was not dis-
charged and not to "worry" about his job. From this it appears that the Respondent
14 In this testimony Schoerner apparently refers to the "oil rig in Texas."
SOUTHWIRE COMPANY 97-
had no established policy regarding employees with police records, at least not at
that time. Nor was there any talk about Stone first being cleared of the charge.
as a condition of continued employment . That Schoerner either was not too con-
cerned about the police incident or was satisfied with Stone 's explanation of it 15 is.
indicated by the fact that during his second visit to the hospital he told Stone to
report for work when he was able. This conversation took place after Schoerner
made an investigation into the matter . Schoerner 's final conversation with Stone
shows that the reason for discharge given on the separation slip was merely a-
pretext.
Accordingly , I find that the Respondent , by refusing on and after October 15,_
1959, to let Stone go to work, and by discharging him on November 3, 1959, dis-
criminated against him within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act.
I also find that Schoerner 's interrogation of Stone concerning his activity and that_
of other employees on behalf of the Union and his threat of reprisal because of such
activity constitute interference , restraint , and coercion.
6. Taylor Summerlin
Summerlin was hired on July 2, 1958 . He worked as an electrician in the main-
tenance department under Supervisors Samples and Holliday . Summerlin had a.
conversation with Sprewell as the latter was leaving the plant on the day that he
was discharged . About 2 days later, on or about August 19, 1959, Summerlin was
called to Schoerner 's office, where he had a conversation with Schoerner and Holli-
day. Schoerner asked Summerlin what he and Sprewell had talked about. When
Summerlin replied that they had talked "about one thing and another," Schoerner
asked him if Sprewell was trying "to get the Union here at Southwire ." Summerlin
answered that he did not know and that he did not want to be "a Company pimp."
Schoerner then said, "Well, I would like to know about Fred Sprewell-any in-
formation you have on him, his purpose here, and everything ." Summerlin said
that he had not known Sprewell "until that day. He introduced himself to me."
Schoerner asked him what he knew about the Union . Summerlin replied that he did'
not know "too much about it." Schoerner said that "Southwire is 100 % against
the Union"; that he did not like Sprewell because of a speech he had made at a
meeting of the chamber of commerce ; that he had worked "at one place" where a_
union established picket lines ; and that "all the Union does is just cause trouble."
He then asked Summerlin if he would be "willing to go along with them in keeping--
the Union out of Southwire ." Summerlin replied that he would be willing to give
him any information he could get . Schoerner asked him if he saw Sprewell take
"some production sheets missing off the bulletin board out here," stating that he had
"two witnesses that know Fred got them ." Summerlin replied - that he did not see-
Sprewell take the sheets but that he had heard that "the two witnesses " got a raise
of 10 cents an hour. Schoerner denied this saying that raises were not given for-
information . When Summerlin said that he did not think he was getting the raises
to which he was entitled , Schoerner answered , "Well, we are going to send an elec-
trician up North to Minneapolis Honeywell to study temperature controls." He-
told Summerlin that he thought he would "be the one sent up there" if he helped'
"in keeping the Union out of Southwire ." Holliday, when asked by Schoerner, also
confirmed this. Summerlin then said that he was not satisfied with what he was,
making at Southwire and that in a few days he was going to Warner-Robins Air-
Base to check on a job. Schoerner asked what he expected to make there. When
Summerlin replied, "Over $2.00 an hour," Schoerner said; "Well, the Company is
doing pretty good at the present time . If you will help us out and keep the Union
out of the Company, I believe it won't be long before you are making $2.25 here.
On August 24, Summerlin had another conversation with Schoerner . Schoerner
met him after work that night behind the Carrollton hospital Schoerner again
questioned him about Sprewell and the Union . Schoerner told him, "Any helpful
information you can give us about this Union , . I'll appreciate it." Summerlin.
replied, "I will go along with you on anything." During the conversation Summerlin
told Schoerner that he had 2 weeks to make up his mind - about a job at Warner-
Robins About I week after the above conversation , Schoerner came to Summerhn's
place of work and asked him how the Union was "coming along ." When Summerlin
replied that he did not know , Schoerner asked him if he had been talking to Sprewell.
Summerlin admitted that he had but that he had not found out anything as they were-
"just talking ." Schoerner then said, "You told me that you were - going to help out
15 Stone testified at length and without contradiction concerning what transpired on-
the night of October 3, 1959
624067- 62-vol. 133-8
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Company. . . I found out you're the main source for the Union. You're
talking to Fred [Sprewell], and you're not telling us nothing. You're just beating
around the bush." Summerlin denied this and said that he would let him know if
he found out anything.
As related and found above, on or about September 1, 1959, Hardman interrogated
employee Cash concerning what he and Summerlin had been talking about; and
Cash told him that Summerlin "talked a lot . . . most of it was about women."
On October 15, 1959, Summerlin had a conversation which lasted about 5 minutes
with employee Crutchfield. This was in the plant away from Summerhn's place of
work and during working hours. Roy Richards, president of Respondent, was nearby
at the time. Richards reported this to Holliday. Holliday then made out a "warning
slip" for Summerlin and instructed Samples to have Summerhn sign it. Samples
went to Summerlin and said, "Roy Richards caught you out yonder, talking to
Crutchfield a while ago. Is there anything wrong with Crutchfield's machine?"
When Summerlin admitted that nothing was wrong with it, Samples showed him the
warning slip and asked him to sign it. Summerlin refused. Some few minutes later
Holliday came to Summerlin and asked him to sign the warning slip. Summerlin
again refused to sign the slip, saying, "I just can't understand this around here-y'all
trying to give me this warning slip, me just talking to him a few minutes.16 .
Anytime my work is not satisfactory-that it don't come up to standard, if you'll let
me know, .. . I'll quit."
The following day, October 16, Summerlin was called to Holliday's office. Holli-
day told him that he had received a report which was "generally around the mill" that
he (Summerlin) had told him (Holliday) "to ram the warning card." Summerlin
admitted that he had spread the report and offered to sign the warning slip. Holliday
said that it was no longer necessary to sign the slip as it had already gone into Sum-
merlin's personnel file, that that was not the question at the moment, and that he felt
that Summerlin's services were no longer needed. Summerlin stated that he had
received notice the day before that he did not get the job at Warner-Robins; and that
if Holliday discharged him, it would make it difficult for him "to get work of a
similar nature in the area." Holliday reminded him that he (Summerlin) had
stated that he would quit if his services were no longer needed. He told Summerlin
that if he wanted his termination papers to show that he "quit to seek employment
elsewhere" rather than to show a discharge "for insubordination," he would be glad
to accommodate him. Summerlin agreed to this.
Summerlin received a termination slip dated October 21, 1959, showing the reason
for termination as, "Accepted another job." Another slip dated November 3, 1959,
shows the reason as "Quit to seek employment elsewhere."
In making the above findings I have credited Summerlin's testimony as to his talks
with Schoerner and Holliday's testimony concerning the conversation on October 16.
I find that the Respondent did not violate the Act in terminating the employment
of Summerlin. He did not join the Union and it does not appear that he was active
on the Union's behalf to any appreciable extent. In fact, he gave the Respondent to
understand that he was against the Union and was willing to inform against it. The
facts found above show that Schoemer became dissatisfied with the amount of in-
formation passed on by Summerlin and accused him of being active for the Union.
It may be said that this, at least, shows that Schoerner was suspicious of Summerlin's
real sympathies. That may be the case; but I do not believe that it affords sufficient
grounds, standing alone , to reject the Respondent's reason for the termination. Aside
from the lack of any open activity on Summerlin's part for the Union, it should be
noted that he denied Schoerner's charge and offered to continue to get information
about the Union. Further, this last conversation with Schoemer was about a month
and a half before Summerlin's termination.
Accordingly, it will be recommended that Summerlin's case be dismissed. It is
found that Schoerner's interrogation of Summerlin concerning the Union and his
promise of benefit if Summerlin would obtain information regarding the union
activities of employees are violative of Section 8(a)fl) of the Act.
7. Tommie Lee Farmer
Farmer was employed by the Respondent since about 1953. He operated a wire
drawing machine for 4 or 5 years prior to the times mentioned herein. Farmer acted
as a union observer in the election held on December 31, 1959.
During about the middle of December 1959, Farmer had a conversation with
Hardman. Hardman mentioned the coming election, and asked him how he felt
11 Summerlln testified to the effect that he had talked to employees "like that before"
but had never received any warning slip.
SOUTHWIRE COMPANY 99
about it. Farmer told him that he was "for the Company." 17 Hardman's interro-
gation is found to constitute interference.
On December 31 Farmer was on the night shift working on scrap. About 2 a.m.
he went to the restroom for about 10 minutes. While he was there, Hardman opened
the door and "looked in" on him. About 3 a.m. he went to the rod mill in order to
warm his feet by the furnace. As he returned to his place of work he met Hardman.
Hardman said that he had been watching him; that he had been to the restroom and
had been "horsing around over the null"; that he had not done any work; and that
if he did not intend to work he should punch out and go home. Farmer returned to
work. He punched out at 5:15 a.m. and then acted as a union observer at the
election. He returned to work that night at 10 p.m. While he was talking to another
employee about the work, Foreman Chadwick told him, "Tommie, 1 put you back
there to work in that area. . . . I mean for you to stay back there in your area
and . work."
On January 8, 1960, Farmer worked on the wire drawing machine. When he re-
ported for work, he went to Chadwick for instructions. Chadwick told him to finish
the order of the operator on the last shift. Farmer checked with this operator and
found that he had been having trouble with the machine. Farmer also had trouble
with the machine and reported it to Chadwick. Chadwick said he would get him a
"larger starting die." Later Chadwick brought him to the office and read him a
written statement of what had been said during their conversation on the night of
December 31. When Farmer refused to sign the statement, Chadwick told him to
go back to work.18 Later that same night Schoerner came to Farmer's place of work
and looked in the scrap can in front of his machine. Schoerner said to Farmer,
"Didn't I teach you better than to mix scrap and paper together?" Farmer denied
mixing the paper with the copper, pointing out that he had not run the machine "in
a long time." Schoerner ordered him to get the paper out of the can. Schoerner
questioned him about the bobbin and wire being run on his machine. Farmer told
him. Schoerner then went to Foreman Norton's desk. After talking to Norton, he
called Farmer over to him and said, "You lied to me.. . You told me you were
running hard drawn wire." When Farmer admitted this, Schoerner said , "I have
checked with the foreman to see what kind of wire you were running. . . you're
running soft drawn wire." Farmer replied, "Mr. Schoerner, we don't run soft
drawn wire on the machine-not that I know of. . . . We run it on bobbins, and
then it goes into the furnace and comes out soft drawn." Schoerner then asked him
if he had refused to sign a statement for Chadwick. Farmer admitted this. Hardman
approached them at about this time; and they took Farmer to the office.
Schoerner told Hardman to make out two warning slips for Farmer.19 When
Farmer asked the reason for the slips, Hardman answered, "One is for telling Mr.
Schoerner a lie, and the other is for refusing to sign a statement for the foreman."
Farmer denied that he had told a lie and said that the statement was not true.
Hardman then went and got Chadwick, who repeated the same facts as set forth in
the statement. Farmer refused to sign either the statement or the warning slips.
Schoerner then gave him a layoff of 2 days. Hardman told him that the next time he
got a warning slip "we will send you home again for two weeks on any little thing."
Some few weeks later Hardman came to Farmer's machine and told him, "Tom-
mie, this is a one-man job. I don't want Charlie Allen over here helping you no
more." Allen was the rod welder for Farmer's machine and in the past had helped
Farmer when he had an emergency. Hardman also told Farmer that he wanted a
report from him "about every kind of trouble" he had that day with his machine.
Some few days later or on January 27, 1960, when Farmer reported for work,
the operator of his machine on the preceding shift told him that he had had "trouble
all that night" and that about half of the wire that he had produced had been re-
jected by the inspector for being "too soft." When Farmer operated the machine,
he noticed that it was not operating properly because copper dust was "flying back in
[his] face." Farmer then told Chadwick, "The block is skipping in this wire."
Chadwick told him to continue to run the machine. Later Chadwick came back
and weighed a bobbin of wire. He told Farmer that the wire was "over-weighing it-
self." Farmer cut samples of wire from the bobbins produced and set them aside
for the inspector. Farmer was concerned "about the scratch" and was waiting for
17 Farmer testified that he had signed a union card sometime during October and that
he had obtained signatures on cards from five or six other employees.
18 Farmer testified that he did not sign the statement because it "wasn't right," but
that he did not tell this to Chadwick.
19 Farmer testified that until this time he had never before seen a warning slip.
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the inspector to check on it. When the inspector did not appear ,20 he ran two more
bobbins and then "sat down" because the dust was coming back to his face "so
heavy." While Farmer was feeding the wire back "to the take-up machine" in order
to find out if it had a "scratch" in it, the inspector came by and picked up a
sample. He told Farmer that the wire had "a scratch." The inspector rejected two
bobbins. After checking with Chadwick and obtaining "another die," Farmer con-
tinued to operate the machine until the end of the shift 21
As he was explaining the trouble to the operator on the next shift, Farmer was
called to Hardman's ofhce. Chadwick was present. Hardman asked Farmer if he
knew that he had run two bobbins of "bad wire." When Farmer admitted this,
Hardman gave him a warning slip and told him to sign it. Farmer said that he
did not want to sign it. Hardman, using profane language, told Farmer that he
(Farmer) had signed "too-much already," 22 and that he was going to sign the slip.
Farmer refused. Hardman then called Schoerner and asked him if he could dis-
charge Farmer. As a result, Hardman and Farmer went to Schoerner's office.
Schoerner interrogated Farmer concerning the production of the faulty wire and
asked if he could see or feel the scratch in the wire. Farmer answered that he could
not. Martin, who was present, said that he could see the scratch. Schoerner asked
Farmer why he would not sign the warning slip. Farmer stated that he had once
signed a contract which had cost him some money and that his lawyer at the time
had told him not to sign anything unless he knew what he was signing. Schoerner
then gave Farmer a layoff of 2 weeks.
The above facts are based upon the credited testimony of Farmer. Contrary
testimony of Hardman, Schoerner, and Martin has not been credited.
The first layoff was for the alleged reason that Farmer had lied to Schoerner.
From the state of the record, including the testimony of Hardman and Schoerner,
it is not possible for me to determine in fact if Farmer had or had not lied, unless I
accept the testimony of one side or the other at face value. There is testimony con-
cerning "soft" and "hard drawn wire" and "light" and "heavy bobbins." In this
connection it is noteworthy that on January 27 some wire on the preceding shift had
been rejected for being "too soft." Perhaps this was the kind of wire referred to by
Schoerner in his conversation with Farmer as being "soft drawn," or which resulted
from using "light bobbins," mentioned in Hardman's testimony. At any rate it is
unexplained in the record, at least to the Trial Examiner's satisfaction.
As for the second layoff, the evidence shows conclusively that Farmer produced
two bobbins of defective wire 23 Farmer knew that the machine was not operating
properly because of the copper dust and was concerned about "a scratch." The in-
spector told him that the wire had a scratch when he rejected it. Farmer, although
he later stated that he could not see or feel the scratch, admitted to Hardman that the
wire was defective.
The evidence indicates that the Respondent was looking for an excuse to take
reprisals against Farmer because he acted as a union observer at the election. Im-
mediately after it learned that Farmer was a union observer, the Respondent main-
tained a close watch on his work, restricted his movements in the plant and made his
job more difficult by taking away his help. It does not appear that any other em-
ployees were accorded this treatment. The warning slip for refusing to sign a state-
ment for Chadwick further indicates that the Respondent was seizing upon pretexts.
As far as the second layoff is concerned, Farmer testified without contradicition to
the effect that he kept Chadwick, his foreman, informed of the trouble that he was
having with his machine; and that Chadwick instructed him to continue to operate
it. From this it would appear that Chadwick was more to blame for the wire than
Farmer. However, Chadwick was not called as a witness Finally, although Farmer
testified without contradiction that a considerable amount of rejected wire was uro-
duced on the shift preceding his, it does not appear that the operator was laid off or
otherwise punished. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent by laying off Farmer
on January 8 and 27, 1960, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
20 Farmer testified that it had been his custom to take samples "to the inspector's room,"
but that Hardman had told him to cease this practice.
21 Farmer testified to the effect that his machine still was not operating properly at the
end of the shift
22 Farmer testified, "I hadn't signed nothing but a union card and some papers out there
at the election that went on, that I was an observer."
23 Hardman testified that the weight of the wire amounted to approximately 2,000,
pounds and that "it would have to be reprocessed and go into a smaller wire because it
couldn't be used for that particular wire "
SOUTHWIRE COMPANY 101
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. In the complaint cases
Since on or about August 1 , 1959, until December 15, 1959 , and after Decem-
ber 31, 1959, the named officers and supervisory employees engaged in the following
conduct which I find to be violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act:
J. D. Hardman
Hardman interrogated employees concerning their union sympathies and activities
and the union sympathies and activities of other employees . He told employees that
Richards would close the plant if it was organized by the Union.
Roger Schoerner
Schoerner interrogated employees concerning their union sympathies and activities
and the union sympathies and activities of other employees.
Joseph Bass
Bass interrogated an employee concerning his union sympathies.
Larry Samples
Samples interrogated an employee about his union sympathy and activity and told
him that the Respondent would discharge him because of such activity.
Marvin Martin -
Martin threatened employees with the closing of the plant if it was organized by
the Union.24
Warner Muse
Muse told an employee that he had been talking about the Union ; and that if
he expected to keep his job, he would have to keep his "mouth shut."
Jimmy Blackmon
Blackmon interrogated employees concerning their union sympathies . He told
employees that Richards would close the plant if it was organized by the Union.
Robbie McClung
McClung told employees that Richards "probably" would close the plant "before
Southwire would go Union."
Arthur Wimberly
Wimberly told an employee that he was going to be discharged because the Re-
spondent knew he was "connected up with the Union"; that the Respondent had a
list of names of employees who were for the Union; and that those who were for
the Union were going to be discharged.
21 The record discloses that Martin , accompanied by Hardman , spoke to the employees
in groups of 10 or more . Employee James Weatherington was present during one such
speech during October 1960. Weatherington testified credibly during cross-examination
that Martin stated that Richards was worried about the financial condition of the Re-
spondent if the Union got in the plant, and that he felt that the plant might have to
close because of the economic demands of the Union The testimony of other witnesses
shows that Martin did not mention economic demands of the Union in connection with
his statements about the closing of the plant . It appears , however, that there is no con-
flict between the testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel. Roy Hambrick testified
credibly that he was made a "sub set up man" ; that he attended "supervisory meetings" ;
that during one such meeting in October 1960, the Respondent's attorney told those
present that they could not threaten employees with reprisals because of their union
activity ; that Martin stated that he had "already" been telling employees "that the
plant will close if the Union comes in"; and that the attorney told Martin not to make
such statements in the future.
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Willis Wyatt
Wyatt told an employee that Richards would close the plant before he would let
the Union come in.
Oscar Norton
Norton interrogated an employee concerning his union sympathies. He told em-
ployees that the plant would close if the Union got in.
Gilbert Boone
Boone told employees that Richards had said that he would close the plant if the
Union organized it.
In making the above findings I have credited the testimony of Howard Lee, Willard
Thornton, Elbert Cash, Max Crook, James Crawford, Jim W. Brown, James Wright,
B. Wayne McDaniel, Bobby Johnson, James Smith, Billy Kimbrell, Billi Smith,
Wayne King, Charles Campbell, James Weatherington, Charles Kilgore, Tommie
Lee Farmer, Roy Hambrick, and Clarence Cash. Contrary testimony and denials
of Hardman, Schoerner, Martin, Bass, Muse, Samples, Blackmon, McClung, Wim-
berly, Wyatt, Norton, and Boone have not been credited.
2. From December 15 through 31, 1959
During the above time the named officers and supervisory employees engaged in
the following conduct which I find to be violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act:
Oscar Norton
Norton told employees that Richards would close the plant "if the Union come
in"; that overtime work would be eliminated; and that when machines broke down,
employees would be laid off instead of getting odd jobs around the plant. He told
employees that if they "voted the Union in," the Respondent would give them warning
tickets, "just be hard on [them] all of the way until [they] got three and then [they
would] be fired." He interrogated employees concerning their union sympathies and
the union activities of other employees. While an employee was talking to an
observer for the Union at the election, Norton told him, "I knew you were for the
Union all the time."
James F. Holliday
Shortly before the election on December 31, Holliday spoke to a group of 17 or
18 employees, telling them that if they did not "vote the Union out" they might be
without a job, as Richards "would more than likely shut the plant down."
J. D. Hardman
Hardman told employees that "if the Union come in, it wouldn't be like it had
been in the past where when, like work was slack," temporary work was found for
them; that they would be laid off; and that they would be called back to work about
the time they were due to draw unemployment insurance. He told employees that
if they wanted to work they should "be sure [they] voted right." He interrogated
an employee concerning his union sympathies. He asked an employee how he was
going to vote and if he was going to vote "his way"; and told the employee that if
the Union was not voted in, he could have all the overtime he wanted and a job at
Southwire as long as he wanted it. Immediately after a speech by Richards to em-
ployees, Hardman asked employees if they understood "what Mr Richards said
about not working with Fred Sprewell"; 25 and told them that if they valued their
jobs in the future, they should "bear that in mind."
Marvin Martin
When an employee asked him if the Respondent would "make it hard on every
man there to get even with the ones that started [the Union]," Martin said, "It's just
like in war, you don't think about the innocent people when you are bombing a city or
something like that."
Roger Schoerner
Schoerner, during a discussion of Sprewell and a union contract at another plant,
stated to employees, "Now Mr. Richards has already got his money made. .. . It's
25 It is clear from the record that Sprewell's name was synonymous with the Union
SOUTHWIRE COMPANY 103
just a couple of years to go before I will have mine made"; and that Richards "could
just close down" the plant. Schoerner told Farmer, a colored employee, that he
could "help the Company a whole lot" by talking to other colored employees and
getting them to "vote right"; and that the Respondent "had a lot of jobs back there
in the mill for the colored boys."
The above findings are based upon the credited testimony of Henry Horton,
Howard Lee, Willard Thornton, Marion Powers, Billi Smith, Isom Chandler, Jerry
Martin, Billy Kimbrell, Howard Kilgore, Clarence Cash, David Warren; James
Wright, B. Wayne McDaniel, Bobby Johnson, Tommie Lee Farmer, and James Craw-
ford. Contrary testimony and denials of Norton, Holliday, Hardman, Martin, and
Schoerner have not been credited.
3. Alleged "Discriminatory No-Solicitation Rule"
During the times mentioned herein the Respondent had posted on the gate at
the entrance to its plant a sign which read, "No Solicitation or Advertising Per-
mitted on Southwire Property." A booklet, distributed to employees and entitled
you and the Southwire Company," contains a statement as follows:
In order to protect employees from continual requests the Company feels it
must prohibit outside solicitations. [Emphasis supplied.]
The evidence shows that employees solicited other employees to join the Union on
company property, and that the Respondent interrogated employees concerning such
activity and kept it under surveillance. However, the Respondent did not attempt
to prohibit such activity by application of the above rule. There is no evidence that
the Respondent called the attention of employees to the rule or otherwise warned
them about it in connection with their union activity. In this respect, Schoerner
was questioned and testified as follows:
Q. But you made no effort to notify your employees, the sign doesn't say
so, the book doesn't say so, you made no effort to let your employees know
that they could solicit for union or other matters on their own time or if they
requested permission?
A. I would have preferred them not to have solicited on company property.
Q. And that is the company's position is it not?
A. We have preferred it, however we recognized that employees have certain
rights and we would not have tried to violate any of these rights.
Q. But you didn't tell them?
A. I put in the rule on the one hand and say break it on the other hand. I
don't understand you.
Q. The rule is Do Not solicit on Southwire Property, is it not?
A. That is, in general, the rule. However, you keep bringing in the reference
to union activities. People could discuss union activities and apparently did
although it did not come to my attention.
Q. If it had you would have stopped it would you not?
A. If it had been on company time I would certainly have tried to discour-
age it.
Q. That is the point I made. How would an employee know when he comes
to work with you and sees the sign on the gate and reads the book, that is
all you give them, how would he know that there was a distinction being made
between company time and his own time?
A. I would just assume that the average employee would know when he was
supposed to be working and when he is on his own time, he knows when he
punches the clock. .. .
I find that the promulgation and enforcement of the above rule by the Respondent
was not violative of the Act. The wording of the rule in the booklet and the fact
that it was posted outside the plant on the entrance gate, and not on the plant bulle-
tin board or other places in the plant where notices to employees are customarily
posted, clearly show that it applied to outsiders and not to employees.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices,
the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminated against Z. Fred Sprewell,
Clarence Pope, Horace H. Noles, Marion D. Stone, and Tommie Lee Farmer. It
will be recommended that the Respondent offer Sprewell, Pope, Noles, and Stone
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make all
,of the above employees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
-of Respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to them of sums of money
equal to that which they normally would have earned as wages from the dates of dis-
crimination to the date of an offer of reinstatement, or to the dates of reinstatement
in the case of Farmer, less their net earnings during such period. Said backpay
shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
It has been found that from December 15 through 31, 1959, the Respondent en-
.gaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It is also found that
such conduct substantially and materially interfered with the employees' free choice
at the election. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the election be set aside
and that a new election be held.
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. Southwire Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 613, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating against Z. Fred Sprewell, Clarence Pope, Horace H. Noles,
Marion D. Stone, and Tommie Lee Farmer, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By discharging Taylor Summerlin and Clyde W. Jordan the Respondent did not
, engage in any unfair labor practice within the meaning of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Norton & McElroy Produce, Inc. and Sales Drivers & Helpers,
Local 274, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Petitioner . Case No. 28-RC--848 (formerly 21-RC-6888). Sep-
tember 12, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Daniel F. Gruender, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in ,connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning]
133 NLRB No. 2.