Starkville Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1474 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Starkville Mills, Inc ., and its successor Buck Creek Cotton
Mills, Starkville Division and Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 26-CA-929 (formerly 15-CA-
1626). January 31, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 15, 1960, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, 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 and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' conclusions,
and recommendations.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent , Starkville Mills, Inc., and
its successor Buck Creek Cotton Mills , Starkville Division , its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discharging, refusing to reinstate , or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
(b) Threatening employees with reprisals because of their union
membership or activities.
(c) Requesting employees to furnish information concerning events
at union meetings and the identity of employees attending.
1 At one point in his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner refers to the testimony of
C. Al. Simonton concerning a conversation between Simonton and Dearman . This con-
versation might have been excluded as hearsay . However, as the Respondent neither
objected to its admission nor made its admission a basis of an exception , we rely upon
this conversation, as did the Trial Examiner , in finding that the Respondent had knowl-
edge of Davis' union activity.
129 NLRB No. 185.
STARKVILLE MILLS, INC. 1475
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Annie Davis, Paul A. Johnson, Ozzie Ashley, and
James Kent Murphy immediate arid full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their senior-
ity and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered by them in the manner set forth in the section of the
Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) 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 amounts of backpay due.
(c) Post at. their Starkville, Mississippi, mill, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative, be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Order, what
steps they have taken to comply herewith.
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
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, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Textile Workers Union
of America , AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of our
employees , by discharging or in any other manner discriminating
against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of employment
or other reprisals for engaging in union or concerted activities.
1476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right of self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile
Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation, 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,
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any and
all such activities.
WE WILL offer Annie Davis, Paul A. Johnson, Ozzie Ashley, and
James Kent Murphy immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them
whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of our discrim-
ination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, AFI^-CIO, or any other labor organization.
STARKVILLE MILLS, INC., AND ITS SUCCES-
SOR BUCK CREEK COTTON MILLS, STARK-
VILLE DIVISION,
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 AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, in which all parties were represented, was heard before Owsley
Vose, the duly designated Trial Examiner, in Starkville, Mississippi, on January 26,
1960, upon the complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Starkville Mills,
Inc., herein referred to as Starkville or the Company. At the hearing it was stipu-
lated that Starkville was a wholly owned subsidiary of Buck Creek Cotton Mills, an
Alabama corporation, herein referred to as Buck Creek; that on September 30, 1959,
after the events involved in this case, the parent corporation, Buck Creek, termi-
nated the operations of its subsidiary, Starkville, and is in the process of liquidating
the affairs of the latter corporation; and that upon such termination Buck Creek
took over the assets and assumed the liabilities of its subsidiary and commenced
operating the Starkville mill as a division of the parent corporation. Counsel for
the corporations expressly stated at the hearing that they were not challenging the
obligations of Buck Creek to remedy any unfair labor practices which might be
found in this case.
After the hearing the General Counsel and the Company filed helpful briefs
which have been fully considered. The General Counsel's motion to correct the
record is hereby denied.
The issues litigated at the hearing were whether the Company, by discharging
Annie Davis, Paul A. Johnson, Ozzie Ashley, and James Kent Murphy, has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and whether, by other acts and conduct
it has engaged in interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
STARKVILLE MILLS, INC. 1477
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Starkville is a Mississippi corporation. At the time of the events involved in this
case it operated a mill at Starkville, Mississippi, where it was engaged in the busi-
ness of spinning yarn and weaving cloth. During the year ended December 31,
1958, a representative period, the Company obtained from out-of-State sources raw
materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000. During the same period it
shipped over $50,000 worth of finished materials to out-of-State destinations. I
find that Starkville and Buck Creek are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act
1. Background; the commencement of organizational activities
In the latter half of July 1959, a union movement commenced at the mill.
Floyd Bush, who was acting as organizer for the Union, gave union cards to vari-
ous employees, including his sister, Annie Davis, and James Kent Murphy. Bush
was not an employee of the Company. Davis and Murphy, together with Ozzie
Ashley, sought to persuade other hands at the mill to sign cards. Ashley and
Murphy each succeeded in signing up three or four other employees. At least two
union meetings were held. One was held Saturday evening, August 1, and another
was held on or after August 5.1
2. Chief Engineer Denson 's threat to Murphy and his request that Murphy
report back on the union meeting of August 1
On July 31 , the day before the meeting of the Union which was scheduled for
August 1, R. A. Denson , the chief engineer of the mill,2 had a conversation with
James Kent Murphy , one of his subordinates . Denson told Murphy "that if [he]
worked for the Company [he'd] get ahead quick . If not, if the Union took over
[he] would get nothing . They would shut the mill down ." Denson asked Murphy
if he would go to the union meeting the next day and represent the Company.
Denson further requested Murphy "to report back to him who was out there .
and what happened ." When Murphy inquired , "How am I going to get out there,"
Denson said , "Use my car ," and added , "Mr. Israel [knows] about it."
Murphy drove Denson's car to the meeting and brought Paul Johnson back with
him. Later Murphy reported back to Denson the names of a few of the employees
attending , explaining that he did not know the names of the new hands. When
Denson asked "what happened ," Murphy replied that they had been informed that
if enough employees signed cards, the Union would have a representative stationed
at Starkville .3
I find that Denson 's statement to Murphy that if he worked with the Company,
he would "get ahead quick ," but that if the Union came in, "they would shut the
mill down" was coercive , and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I find also
that Denson 's request that Murphy attend the union meeting and report back, and
his furnishing of transportation to the meeting, constituted an unwarranted intru-
sion into the self-organizational activities of its employees , and further violated
Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act . See Allure Shoe Corporation , 123 NLRB 717, 720,
725, enfd . 277 F. 2d 231 (C.A. 5).
1 This appears in the testimony of Annie Davis who stated that she attended one union
meeting before, and the other after, her discharge on the morning of August 5
2At the hearing the parties stipulated that Denson was a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act.
sThe foregoing is the undenied testimony of Murphy which I credit. Denson, although
still employed at the mill, was not called as a witness. Murphy's testimony is corrobo-
rated in part by that of Johnson, who testified that he returned from this meeting with
Murphy in Denson's car.
586439-61-vol. 129-95
1478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Superintendent Israel's antiunion threats and statements
Edgar Israel , the superintendent of the mill , stopped Paul Johnson in the spinning
room about the end of July or the first of August. According to Johnson's testi-
mony, the following ensued:
. "Paul, I want to talk to you about the union . Not as I am against the
union myself for I have a union card myself. I'm in the union . I have a
union card." And says, "I just want to tell you, if you get a union here and
ever have any trouble anyway at all Mr. Phillips will shut the plant down and
it will never run another day." . I said , "Mr. Israel, we are not making
anything." I said , "I got my pay check and my grocery bill, and my grocery
bill was one cent more than what my check called for." He said, "I know
that" but says, "If you ever have any trouble at all the plant will shut down
and stay out of here."
After Israel had concluded, Johnson went on down to his frame. The fixer was
working on it, and Nathan Dearman, the spinning department supervisor, was
standing nearby. Johnson testified that he then had the following conversation
with Dearman:
"That man talked to me about my job stopping." He said, "What about."
I said, "The union ." He said, "I hope we don't get that started." And this
fixer says, "I do too." And I spoke up and I said, "It's done started... ,
Ozzie Ashley, who worked in the spinning department, testified that about this
same time Superintendent Israel stated to him that he did not care how much he
talked about the Union "on the outside." But, he added, "Nobody can talk about
the union in the mill." 4 Ashley testified that he had not been doing any talking
about the Union to employees in the mill.
Israel also had a conversation with James Kent Murphy about this same time.
Murphy initiated the conversation by asking Israel whether he had obtained the
information which Murphy had previously requested about his wife's coverage under
,the insurance program to which he and his wife were making monthly contributions.
After commenting that Murphy was always dissatisfied, and threatening to discharge
him, Israel added, according to Murphy, "While we are on the subject, if you mess
with the union I am going to fire ,the hell out of you."
Superintendent Israel specifically denied threatening Murphy in this manner,
denied threatening any employees about the Union, and asserted that the first time he
heard about any union activities was after the discharge of the four employees here
involved. Spinning Department Supervisor Dearman similarly disclaimed knowledge
of the union movement. The undenied testimony of Murphy establishes that Denson,
one of the Company's top supervisors, had knowledge of the union movement before
the first union meeting was held. In view of the Denson's knowledge of the union
activities, I cannot credit Israel's denial of such knowledge, particularly in view of
the testimony of Johnson and Ashley concerning Israel's statements to •them -about the
Union, which is consistent only with an awareness on Israel's part of the union drive.
Nor, under all the circumstances of the case, including the facts relating to the dis-
charge of Johnson and Ashley which were effected by Dearman, can I credit year-,
man's denial of knowledge of the union movement. I find, upon the basis of the
testimony of Johnson, Ashley, and Murphy and upon my observation of the various
witnesses , that Israel made the threats and statements to which each of them testified.
Superintendent Israel, by threatening Johnson that the mill would be closed if the
Union came in and by warning Murphy that he would be fired if he "messed" with
the Union, has engaged in interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
B. The discharges in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act
1. Background; the Company's general defense
In the first half of 1959 the Company lost substantial sums of money.5 In an
effort to restore the business to a profitable basis the Company brought in Super-
' Israel mentioned at this time, according to Ashley, that be had been a union card-
holder for 25 years.
' Testimony and exhibits introduced by the Company show that in March 1959 losses
amounted to approximately $18,000; April, $7,000; May, $24,000; and June, $10,000.
STARKVILLE MILLS, INC. 1479
intendent Israel on July 1.6 He promptly dismissed 4 of the Company 's 6 super-
visors, and in the first 6-week period discharged some 18 employees . The Company
contends that the discharges here involved were a part of the "general house clean-
ing" initiated by Superintendent Israel in an effort to weed out inefficient employees
and increase production . With these background facts in mind , I turn to the indi-
vidual discharges.
2. Annie Davis
As noted above , Annie Davis was the sister of Floyd Bush , the union organizer,
who gave union cards to employees interested in the Union . She joined the Union,
around July 18 and sought to interest other employees in the organization. She-
attended one union meeting before her discharge.
Davis had been employed at the mill as a weaver for 17 years. There is no
credible evidence that her work prior to her discharge had not been satisfactory both
with respect to quantity and quality . " Davis credibly testified that she had not been
spoken to about her work for about a year prior to her discharge , at which time
she was among a group of weavers who were urged to increase production by Hunt-
singer , the supervisor at that time.8 C. M. Simonton , a former overseer of weaving
for the Company, regarded Davis as an "exceptionally good hand ." 9 In a conver-
sation with Dearman after Davis ' discharge , Simonton commented that he had found
the quality of her work the "best" and her production among "the highest." 10
Davis was discharged early Wednesday morning, August 5. According to Davis'
testimony , the events leading up to her discharge are as follows: On Tuesday
morning, August 4 , Superintendent Israel ,took some parts off her loom and showed
them to Barnhill , the fixer. Barnhill replaced the parts and started the loom going.
Davis observed that the loom was making "bad cloth" and reported the fact to
Wolford, the overseer of weaving . It does not appear that anything was done by the
Company to correct this condition. It is the responsibility of the fixer to repair any
looms which are not operating properly.
About 2:30 that day Wolford summoned Davis into the cloth room where, in the
presence of Barnhill , the fixer, he told her that she had made too many rolls of "bad
cloth," five, in fact, and showed her one such roll. Wolford told her that she would
have to do better. Davis replied she could not do any better unless he had her loom
fixed.il
6 Israel had been previously employed at the mill , having served as superintendent from
August or September 1958 until January 1959, but had not been at the mill the first
half of 1959.
7 Wolford, who supervised Davis' work for a few weeks before her discharge and who
effected the discharge , testified generally that Davis performed her work "very poorly"
and that the trouble was "low production , bad cloth ." I do not credit this testimony.
As found below , Wolford's testimony , in general , was unreliable . Although the Company
admittedly kept records both of the quantity and quality of the weavers' work, it did not
produce them at the hearing in support of its contention in this regard.
s At one point Wolford testified that he talked to Davis individually about her poor
production . However, on further examination , Wolford stated that he did not pick out
any particular employee to talk to, that he spoke with all the weavers continuously. In
view of the inconsistency in Wolford 's own testimony, I find it unworthy of belief and
credit Davis' ytestimony ,hereinabove set forth.
6 Simonton had worked at the mill for many years as a supervisor . Under the Com-
pany's predecessors , Simonton had acted successively as overseer of weavers , assistant
superintendent , and acting superintendent for 2 years while the superintendent was out
Ill. At the time the Company acquired the mill Simonton was assistant superintendent.
Thereafter , he served as overseer of weaving for the Company for a brief period and then
left the Company 's employ. This was over a year prior to the events here involved.
" Dearman did not recall mentioning Davis during this conversation . For reasons
more fully set forth hereinafter , I do not credit Dearman in this regard.
n This Is Davis ' testimony . Barnhill , the fixer who was admittedly present during this
conversation , was not called as a witness . Wolford testified as follows : On the day
prior to Davis' separation , the cloth room overseer called his attention to eight rolls of
defective cloth, pointing out the numbers of the looms on which the rolls were woven,
thus identifying the looms on which the cloth was woven Ascertaining that five of the
eight rolls had come from Davis' looms , he summoned Davis and the fixer to the cloth room
and showed them the numbers of the looms He explained the need for making better
cloth and asked her if she could not do better . Davis said she could not. Whereupon
Wolford stated , "Well, if you can 't I am going to have to recommend a discharge."
Wolford further testified that he had full authority to hire and fire and that he did not
1480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When Davis returned to her loom she found that it was still turning out defective
cloth. She stopped the loom and showed the cloth to Wolford. Wolford did not
say anything, but marked it and started .the loom up again.12
With respect to her termination, Davis testified as follows: Wolford came up
to her as she went on the job the next morning, August 5, and told her that he was
"going to have to let [her] go. He was making a change." She inquired whether
she could draw her unemployment compensation. Wolford said, "Yes."
Wolford's version is that he went up to Davis' job the following morning and
again "asked her if that was the best she could do" and that she said that it was.
Whereupon he told her "if that is the best you can do, well I am going to have to
do something about it." Davis then stated, according to Wolford, "Well, I'll just
quit and go on unemployment." When asked, "Did she quit?" Wolford nodded
his head affirmatively. However, on cross-examination Wolford testified two or
three times to the effect that he had told Davis, "Well, I'll just have to let you go,"
and then she had said, "Well, I'll just quit and draw my unemployment if I can." 13
Weighing the conflicting testimony of Davis and Wolford, I find Davis' version
more plausible. Wolford impressed me as very prone to overstate matters in favor
of the Company. It is significant that the Company produced no data supporting
Wolford's claims concerning Davis' poor performance, although records were
available. Wolford's testimony concerning Davis' alleged "quitting" contains many
inconsistencies , and cannot be reconciled with the affidavit given the Board 's repre-
sentative shortly after the event in which he stated that he discharged Davis. Davis'
version of the termination appears to be more consistent with the logic of the
situation It is improbable that a weaver with 17 years' experience in the mill would
suddenly flatly state, in effect, that she could not produce satisfactory cloth. More
likely Davis stated, as she testified and contrary to Wolford's testimony, that she
could not do better with the looms in the condition they were in. Under all the
circumstances, I find that Davis' testimony above set forth is credible and reject
Wolford's testimony to the contrary.
3. Paul A. Johnson
Johnson joined the Union on July 23 and attended the union meeting. As noted
above, about the time of the union meeting on August 1, Superintendent Israel
engaged Johnson in a conversation in the spinning room in which he warned that
the plant would be shut down if the employees affiliated with the Union.
Johnson had worked at the mill as a doffer in the spinning department for about
16 years. Prior to that time, he had worked for many years as a doffer at other
mills. Dearman, the spinning room supervisor, under whom Johnson worked,
testified that he regarded both Johnson and his other doffer as "mighty good doffers."
Dearman summoned Johnson to his office at 2:45 p.m. on August 7. There
Dearman told him, "Paul, Mr. Israel has been checking production and it seems
that your production is low and you are dissatisfied. I hate to do this in a way as
I am short of doffers but I will have to let you go. . I said well, do you have
my time ready: He said, "no, you will have to read the hand clock and figure it
out. 1114
As Dearman testified, Israel was continually pushing him for production in the
spinning department because it was the "bottleneck" for production in the whole
mill. As Dearman further admitted, the Company was continually short of doffers,
and he did not know, at the time of Johnson's discharge, whether he could find
another doffer as capable as Johnson with whom to replace him.
Johnson testified that he had never before received any complaints about his
production. Supervisor Dearman, when asked whether he had talked to Johnson
about his production, answered, "We was talking to everyone." The production
figures for each shift were posted daily in the spinning department so that the
Company could check on the production of the employees who were paid on a
piece-rate basis. However, when questioned as to whether Johnson's production
was becoming lower, Dearman replied, "I don't have the figures on that. I think
in fact consult Superintendent Israel about Davis' separation . For reasons more fully
set forth hereinafter, I do not credit Wolford's testimony where it Is inconsistent with
Davis and find the facts to be as related by Davis.
' Wolford denied that Davis showed him anything at this time. I credit Davis.
is In an affidavit given to a Board representative in September 1959, Wolford stated that
he discharged Davis
14 This Is Johnson's testimony which I credit. Dearman was not questioned specifically
about this conversation.
STARKVILLE MILLS, INC. 1481
someone else could give that. It was lower than we thought it should be. It would
go up and down." The Company failed to produce any records showing poor
production on Johnson's part.
About August 17, Johnson went back to the mill and talked with Superintendent
Israel . After Johnson asked for a job, Israel replied, "Paul, I have known you for
a long time, it seems that I do some things around here that you don't like and I
will have to let you wait awhile." 15
Several weeks after Johnson's discharge, Dearman left Starkville's employ. About
this time he met C. M. Simonton, a former supervisory employee of the Company,
on the street. As related by Simonton, the following conversation took place:
Dearman said that he was out of work. When Simonton questioned him about this,
Dearman stated that he and Israel "never could get along at all," that Israel was
always "pushing him" for production, and that he could not obtain production with-
out adequate help. Simonton asserted that there always used to be a lot of good
help there and asked what the trouble was. Dearman replied "Well, you know
they run a lot of them off now . . . union trouble. Trying to get a union in."
As examples, Dearman mentioned Paul Johnson and Annie Davis.16
4. Ozzie Ashley
Ashley became a union member about July 23, solicited others to join, attended
the union meetings , and helped post union advertisements. Superintendent Israel
was cognizant of Ashley's interest in the Union, as is evident from his instruction to
Ashley, hereinabove discussed, not to talk about the Union in the mill.
About 2:30 p.m. on August 7, Supervisor Dearman instructed Ashley to come
with him into the office, telling him that he was "running too much tangled yarn,"
and that he was going to have to let him go. In the office, the bookkeeper made out
his time and handed him his check, which had been previously made out. Dear-
man testified that on the day of Ashley's discharge he found two or three cones
which had not been clipped, which would amount to 6 or 8 pounds of waste, so
he immediately decided to discharge Ashley.
Ashley had been employed by Starkville about 19 months. He performed vari-
ous jobs, such as doffing, warping, and "cutting off tangled yarn." This latter job
involved clipping off from the cones of yarn spun by all of the spinners the tangled
parts so that good yarn would not be lost with tangled yarn. Each day Ashley
weighed his waste and marked it up on a report. Prior to Ashley's discharge on
August 7 he had never been warned that he was wasting too much yarn.17 About
a week or two before Ashley's discharge, Superintendent Israel himself had weighed
15 Johnson 's testimony about this incident is undenied as Israel was not questioned
about it.
19 Dearman while recalling meeting Simonton on this occasion did not remember any of
the details of the conversation. When asked whether he remembered mentioning Johnson
and Davis during the conversation, Dearman answered in the negative While he thought
he may have mentioned the Union during the conversation, Dearman did not recall any-
thing he said in connection with the Union. Dearman did not have any recollection of
telling Simonton about running the help off on account of the Union. While he first testi-
fied that he did not hear anything about the Union until after he left the Company's
employ, subsequently, after looking over an affidavit which he had previously given to a
Board representative, Dearman stated that he was not sure when he first heard about the
Union, it might have been while still in the Company's employ At the time of the hear-
ing Dearman was employed as a foreman at Valley Mills at Columbiana, which is operated
by a concern connected with the Company. Simonton's recollection of this conversation
was precise, whereas Dearman's, as the record shows, was faulty. Simonton, so far as the
record shows, was a wholly disinterested witness Dearman, as an employee of an affili-
ated concern, was to some extent still dependent upon retaining the good will of the
Company's management. Under all the circumstances, I credit Simonton's testimony.
17 Supervisor Dearman testified in effect that the only time he had previously noticed
Ashley falling to clip the cones back properly was about a month prior to his discharge.
At that time, according to Dearman's testimony, "I caught a couple of them laying there
hadn't been clipped " While at first indicating that he had talked to Ashley about the
matter at this time, Dearman quickly went on to say that Ashley's area was away from
his main job and that he had cautioned his fixer to speak to the employees about thread
waste. In view of the confusion in Dearman's testimony regarding whether he had previ-
ously warned Ashley, I find, in accordance with that of Ashley, that he had never been
warned about failing properly to clip the tangled cones.
1482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ashley's waste and made no comment. I find that up until the time of his discharge
Ashley was performing his various duties satisfactorily.
About 5 weeks after Ashley's discharge, the Company offered, and Ashley ac-
cepted, a maintenance job in the shop.
5. James Kent Murphy
Murphy joined the Union on July 31, being the last of the employees here involved
to join. This was the same day Chief Engineer Denson requested him to go to the
union meeting the next day and report back who was there and what happened. It
was on this occasion also that Denson threatened the closing of the mill if the Union
came in.ls Previously, as found above, Superintendent Israel had threatened Mur-
phy with discharge if he "mess[ed] with the union." After he joined the Union
Murphy was active in its behalf. Obtaining union cards from Floyd Bush, the
organizer, he signed up four other employees in the Union.
Murphy, who had been employed by Starkville from about the time it took over
the mill, had worked for approximately a year as humidity man under Chief Engi-
neer Denson. His job was to ascertain at regular intervals throughout the day the
humidity in the weaving and spinning departments so that the humidifiers could
be adjusted to maintain the proper humidity. Measuring the humidity was done
by slinging around in the ar at eight places in each department a hygrometer con-
taining a wet and dry bulb, and obtaining a reading from each bulb. Murphy then
had to place these preliminary readings on a scale from which he would obtain his
final readings to include in his written report. Up until 2 or 3 weeks prior to his
discharge he had been required to prepare a humidity report twice a day only. At
this time Israel directed that he furnish reports every hour on the hour.
Murphy's custom for the entire time he had been humidity man had been to take
his readings first and then sit down in the smoking rooms and do his figuring. Smok-
ing rooms were adjacent to both the weaving and the spinning departments. The
employees were permitted to use the smokers whenever their work permitted, as the
Company does not have scheduled smoking breaks. It is the responsibility of the
supervisors to see to it that this privilege is not abused. Murphy's use of the smokers
had been done with the knowledge and acquiescence of his supervisor, Denson.la
On the afternoon of August 7, shortly before Johnson and Ashley were discharged,
Denson came up to Murphy and said, "Kent, I am going to have to lay you off." To
Murphy's query "why," Denson replied, "I don't know. Mr. Israel told me so."
When Murphy went to the office about his check, one of the office employees, after
a discussion with Israel, gave him a card stating "Fired for loafing on the job."
Murphy credibly testified that except for one time when Superintendent Israel
spoke to him about not getting his reports in every hour on the hour, no supervisor
had ever criticized him or warned him about loafing on the job. This had occurred
several weeks prior to his discharge while his wife was in the hospital. At this time
Israel gave Murphy more time to get in the late report or reports.
Israel credibly testified that on the occasion referred to by Murphy he had warned
Murphy that he would be discharged if he did not get his work in better shape and
also that 2 days before Murphy's discharge he had stopped him from loafing with
the employees who operated the machines in the slashing room 2°
According to Israel, his decision to discharge Murphy was prompted by Murphy's
conduct immediately prior to the discharge. As Israel explained it:
I was up in the spinning room. We have a smoker built up there for the people's
convenience and he was sitting in the smoker and drinking a soda pop. It
couldn't have been over ten minutes after that I walked in the weave room
18 The fact that Murphy had not previously been a union member may explain why
Denson selected him to approach to act as the Company's "representative" at the union
meeting.
111 do not credit Israel's testimony that the only place you can make out humidity re-
ports is "standing in front of the hygrometer." It is apparent from the record as a whole
that there is more to making out a humidity report than simply putting down the read-
ings from the wet and dry bulbs. These readings have to be adjusted by reference to the
scale, which is separate and apart from the hygrometer, to give the ultimate readings
included in the report. This making of the adjustment, to which Murphy referred to as
doing his "figuring," could be done in any convenient spot after the initial wet and dry
bulb readings where noted.
Israel testified further that a weaver had quit because of Murphy's going off and
leaving the humidity unattended . It does not appear that this fact was communicated
to Murphy.
STARKVILLE MILLS, INC . 1483
there he was drinking a soda pop, maybe the same one he carried down , sitting
in there smoking. And I walked directly to the shop and said to Mr. Denson,
"I want that man discharged."
Admittedly Israel did not ask Murphy whether he was caught up in his work when
he saw him in the smokers.
While I credit Israel's testimony that he discharged Murphy after observing him
sitting smoking, first in the spinning room smoker, and then shortly thereafter, in
the weaving room smoker, for reasons stated hereinafter, I do not credit Israel's
testimony that this was the reason for Murphy's discharge.
6. Conclusions concerning the discharges
In the week following the union meeting on August 1, four of the employees who
had attended the meeting and who had otherwise been active in support of the Union
were discharged. Annie Davis, the sister of the union organizer, was discharged on
August 5 and the three men were discharged, almost simultaneously, on August 7.
With the exception of Davis, comments had been made to all of these employees by
Superintendent Israel which indicated that he was aware of their interest in the
Union. As to Davis, the Company's knowledge of her prounion sympathies is
revealed in Supervisor Dearman's conversation to Simonton about the Company's
"running off" of the help because of "Union trouble," in which he gave Davis, and
also Johnson, as examples.
Dearman's conversation with Simonton discloses not only the Company's knowl-
edge of Davis' and Johnson 's union activities but also that the discharges were based
upon antiunion considerations. Further evidence tending to show that the discharges
were rooted in antiunion bias is found in the threats of Superintendent Israel and
Chief Engineer Denson concerning the adverse consequences which would follow
the unionization of the mill.
The Company's explanations of the discharges do not bear close scrutiny. John-
son, who had worked at the mill for 16 years, was discharged allegedly for poor
production. Although the Company kept records of production of the doffers, none
was produced to support this claim. Johnson worked in the department which was
the production "bottleneck" of the whole mill. Dearman classified him as "a mighty
,good doffer" and admitted that he did not know whether he could hire another doffer
as capable as Johnson was. Nevertheless he was discharged.
With respect to Davis, the Company contends first that she quit and was not
discharged at all. Davis' credited testimony as to the circumstances of her discharge
establishes the invalidity of this claim .21 In any event, accepting the version of
Wolford's testimony concerning Davis' alleged quitting relied upon by the Company,
it is apparent from the entire sequence of events that Davis' termination was in-
voluntary on her part. Hence, there is no valid basis for the Company's claim that
Davis had quit.
For its second defense the Company urges that Davis was discharged because she
had turned out a large quantity of defective cloth the day before her discharge.
However, as found herein, this cloth resulted from the Company's failure to repair
her loom. Moreover, Davis' reputation both for quality and quantity of work was
of the "best," and no records were offered to show the contrary, although the Com-
pany maintained such records. Such an abrupt discharge of anable and experienced
weaver (17 years at the mill) for 1 day's bad work, is not "natural." E. Anthony &
Sons Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 163 F. 2d 22, 26-27 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 332 U.S. 773.
This is particularly true where, as here, the Company was making intensive efforts to
increase production. Production is not likely to be increased by letting the most ex-
perienced hands go.
Ashley was discharged allegedly because on one occasion, in the company view,
he had caused an excessive quantity of good yarn to be wasted by failing properly to
clip tangled yam off the cones. Assuming that Ashley erred on this occasion, his
past record with respect to waste was sufficiently satisfactory so as not to evoke any
adverse comment from the Company. Ordinarily an employer does not discharge
an experienced and satisfactory employee the first time he makes a mistake of this
nature . Anthony case, supra. The fact that the Company previously had Ashley's
u The Company relies on Wytheville Knitting Mills, Inc., 78 NLRB 640, 657 , in sup-
port of its contention that Davis quit . However, in Wytheville, unlike this case, all wit-
nesses agreed that the employee quit, and the employer the next day or two offered the
employee her job, with the choice of any machine in the department , if she would en-
deavor to improve the quality of her work. Wytheville is thus distinguishable from the
instant case.
1484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
check made up refutes the Company's suggestion that this was a "spur-of-the-moment"
discharge and supports the inference, which I draw, that the Company had previously
decided to get rid of him, and was looking for an excuse upon which to base its
action.
Murphy had been preparing his humidity reports in the smoking rooms, with the
acquiescence of his supervisor, for about a year. Murphy was discharged assertedly
because Superintendent Israel, observing him on the afternoon of his discharge in
both smoking rooms in quick succession, assumed that he was loafing on the job.
Israel admittedly made no effortto ascertain whether Murphy was caught up in his
work. Had not Superintendent Israel previously threatened Murphy with discharge
for "messing with" the Union, Israel's explanation would carry more weight. How-
ever, in view of this threat and the other evidence of hostility to the Union above
mentioned, I find that Israel utilized the incident of the smoking rooms as a pretext
for ridding the Company of an active union supporter.
In view of all the facts of the case I find that whatever may have been the justi-
fication for the discharge of the other employees who were terminated in the first 6-
week period after Israel took over the management of the mill, the four employees
here involved were selected for discharge, not to improve the efficiency of the mill, as
contended by the Company, but for antiunion reasons. To recapitulate briefly, all
four employees shown to have been active in the Union's behalf were discharged
almost simultaneously less than a week after the first union meeting. The Com-
pany's hostility to the Union is demonstrated by the threats of Superintendent Israel
and Chief Engineer Denson. I cannot accept the Company's explanations for the
discharges because of their implausible nature. For example, in the case of John-
son, Supervisor Dearman admitted that he did not know whether he could replace
Johnson with a doffer who was as capable as he was. In these circumstances I con-
clude that the Company had knowledge, or at least believed, that all four of the em-
ployees here involved were active in the union movement, and discharged them in
an effort to head off the union drive. By thus discharging Davis, Johnson, Ashley,
and Murphy, the Company has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of 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 commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Starkville has engaged in unfair labor practices and that Buck
Creek is the successor to Starkville, I will direct them to cease and desist from the
unfair labor practices herein found, and to take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will also be recommended that Starkville and Buck Creek offer Annie Davis,
Paul A. Johnson, Ozzie Ashley, and James Kent Murphy immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without loss of
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by payment to him of 'a sum of money equal to that
which he would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination
to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period, and
in a manner consistent with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289. Since Ozzie Ashley was not reinstated to his former position, I shall
include him in the reinstatement provision. I shall recommend also that Starkville
and Buck Creek preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon request,
for examination and copying, all payroll and other records necessary to analyze the
amounts of backpay due under the terms of my recommended order.
The unfair labor practices herein found are such as to indicate an attitude of oppo-
sition to the purposes of the Act generally, and accordingly the commission of these
and other unfair labor practices in the future is reasonably to be 'anticipated from
such past conduct. In these circumstances, the preventive purposes of the Act may be
thwarted unless the remedy is coextensive with the threat. To effectuate the policies
of the Act, therefore, it will be recommended that Starkville and Buck Creek cease
and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by
the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
PHILLIPS CONTROL CORP., CIRCUIT COMPONENTS CORP. 1485
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2. By discharging Annie Davis on August 5, 1959, and by discharging Paul A.
Johnson, Ozzie Ashley, and James Kent Murphy on August 7, 1959, Starkville has
discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the above-named
employees, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
3. By engaging in the aforesaid unfair labor practices and the other acts and
conduct set forth in section III, A, above, Starkville has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and.(7) of the Act.
5. Buck Creek Cotton Mills, the parent corporation of Starkville, is the successor
to Starkville and accordingly is obliged to assume the obligations and responsibilities
of the Company under my recommended order.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Phillips Control Corp . and Circuit Components Corp . and Inter-
national Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO. Cases No. 24-CA-1248 and 24-RC-1325. Janu-
ary 31, 1961
DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION i
On August 20, 1960, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent in Case No. 24-CA-1248, had not engaged in and was not
engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a brief in support thereof. The Respondent filed a reply
to the General Counsel's exceptions and brief.
The Board z has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
' Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election , an election by secret
,ballot was conducted by the Regional Director on February 16, 1960 , in Case No.
24-RC-1325 . The tally of ballots showed 49 votes for petitioner , IUE ; 109 votes cast
against petitioner ; and 9 challenged ballots. On February 23, 1960, the IUE filed timely
objections to the election . As the objections involved the same conduct as the alleged
,unfair labor practices , the Regional Director recommended that said objections be con-
-solidated with the complaint proceedings for decision.
In accordance with the Regional Director 's recommendation , the objections to election
in Case No . 24-RC-1325 , are hereby transferred before the Board, and consolidated with
the complaint proceedings in Case No 24-CA-1248 , for decision.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers In connection with these cases to a three-member panel
[[ Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
129 NLRB No. 180.