Stoneville Furniture Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 26, 1939

18 N.L.R.B. 702 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of STONEVILLE FURNITURE COMPANY, STONEVILLE, N. C.
and TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. C-347.-Decided December 26, 1939
Furniture Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion-
Lock-out: charges of, not sustained-Discrimination : charges of , not sustained-
Complaint : dismissed.
Mr. R. Reeves Hilton and Mr. Charles Y. Latimer, for the Board.
Messrs. Glidewell & Glidewell, of Reidsville, N. C., for the re-
spondent.
Miss Edna Loeb, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Textile Workers Organizing Commit-
tee, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifth
Region (Baltimore, Maryland) issued its complaint, dated September
20, 1937, against Stoneville Furniture Company, Stoneville, North
Carolina, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
Iierein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and accompanying
notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the
Union.
The complaint alleged in substance (1) that the respondent closed
its plant on or about May 7, 1937, for the purpose of discouraging
membership in and activity on behalf of the Union; (2) that the
respondent reopened its plant on or about May 27, 1937, but refused
to reinstate 30 employees because they joined and assisted the Union;
and (3) that the respondent by these acts interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
18 N. L. R. B., No. 82.
702
STONEVILLE FURNITURE COMPANY 703
On September 24, 1937, the respondent filed its answer in which
it admitted the allegations of the complaint regarding the nature
and scope of its business but denied that it had engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Wentworth, North Caro-
lina, on September 30, 1937, before Alvin M. Douglas, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the re-
spondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all
parties. During the course of the hearing, counsel for the Board
moved that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleged that
26 of the 30 designated employees had been discriminatorily denied
reinstatement by the respondent. The Trial Examiner granted these
motions. Counsel for the Board also moved to amend the complaint
to conform to the proof. This motion was likewise granted by the
Trial Examiner. The Board has reviewed these and other rulings
made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing on motions and on ob-
jections to the admission of evidence and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report, dated
January 3, 1938, copies of which were duly served on the parties, in
which he found that the respondent had not engaged in unfair labor
practices by closing its plant or by refusing to reemploy three of
the four remaining employees named in the complaint, namely, Bill
Robertson, Doc Simmons, and Alfred McGuire, and recommended
that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it so alleged. The Trial,
Examiner found, however, that the respondent had discriminated
against the fourth employee, H. H. Ferguson, within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, and recommended that the
respondent reinstate him with back pay.
On January 14, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the In-
termediate Report in so far as it concerned Ferguson. Although
afforded an opportunity to do so, neither the respondent nor the
Union requested a hearing before the Board for the purpose of oral
argument:
On January 4, 1939, the Board issued its' Orden Vacating and
Setting Aside Intermediate Report and Reopening Record for the
purpose of a further hearing. On October 26, 1939, the Board is-
sued its order revoking the above order and reinstating the Inter-
mediate Report.
On November 14, 1939, the respondent filed a brief in support of
its exceptions to the Intermediate Report and indicated that it did
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not desire a hearing for the purpose of oral argument. The Board
has considered the respondent's exceptions and its brief. As in-
dicated by the findings, conclusion, and order below, the Board
sustains the said exceptions.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a North Carolina corporation engaged in the
manufacture and distribution of chairs and kitchen table frames.
Its plant and principal place of business is located at Stoneville,
North Carolina. The principal raw material used by the respondent
in its manufacturing operations is raw lumber, which is purchased
in North Carolina and South Carolina and shipped to the plant
by railroad and truck. Approximately 99 per cent of the respond-
ent's finished. products are shipped from the plant to points outside
North Carolina. The respondent employs approximately 100
employees.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. It admits
to membership employees of the respondent with the exception of
supervisory employees.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The shut-down
In the spring of 1937 the Union commenced its organizational
activities among the respondent's employees, and on May 6, 1937,
conducted its first meeting in Stoneville, North Carolina. Leonard
Knuckles, machine-room foreman in the respondent's plant, attended
this meeting. H. H. Ferguson, one of the employees named in the
complaint, testified that R. S. Foley, plant manager, was also present,
Foley controverted this testimony. A number of the respondent's
employees signed membership application cards at the meeting and
at the plant.
On May 8, 1937, the respondent shut down its plant, laid off , its
employees, and did not resume operations until May 24, 1937. The
complaint alleges that this conduct of the respondent was prompted
by its desire to discourage membership in the newly organized Union.
The respondent denied that it had any such motive. In its answer
'ST^ONEVILLE FURNITURE COMPANY 705
and at the hearing it maintained that it had stored in its plant
an accumulation of manufactured products which it had been unable
to sell; that its insurance company had complained that the goods
were stacked so high that they interfered with the fire-prevention
apparatus there; and that the respondent had therefore been forced
to discontinue its manufacturing operations until it could find a
market for its surplus goods. Foley testified that the insurance
company made its semi-annual inspection of the plant on April 15,
1937, and on April 29, 1937, wrote the respondent a letter regarding
the overcrowded state of the storeroom. Joseph Perloff, secretary-
treasurer of the respondent, testified further that if the respondent
had continued to manufacture chairs for another full day it would
not have had space in which to store them. On the other hand,
Doe Simmons, one of the employees named in the complaint, tes-
tified that the storeroom was only about two-thirds full and that
he had seen it as full as that before.
The Trial Examiner found that the shut-down was occasioned by
insufficient warehouse space, and the Union filed no exceptions to
his finding. Although Simmons' testimony and the fact that the
shut-down so closely followed the first meeting of the Union give
rise to a suspicion that the respondent temporarily discontinued its
operations for the reason alleged in the complaint, in our opinion
the evidence as a whole does not warrant a finding to that effect.
We find that by closing its plant on May 8, 1937, the respondent
did not interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The alleged discrimination after the reopening of the plant
On or about May 22, 1937, the respondent decided to reopen the
plant with a reduced force and to give substantial weight to efficiency
in selecting persons for reinstatement. The plant reopened on May
24 with between 60 and 70 employees. The respondent informed
various employees that additional persons would be reemployed as
soon as business permitted, and a number of employees were rein-
stated subsequent to May 24. At least one new employee was hired
after the plant reopened.
The complaint alleges that subsequent to the reopening of the
plant the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of H. H. Ferguson, Bill Robertson, Doc Simmons,
and Alfred McGuire, by refusing to reinstate them.
H. H. Ferguson was employed by the respondent in the latter
part of October or the first part of November 1936 in its machine
department. He had charge of the operation of two saws and was
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assisted by several helpers. He directed the work of the helpers to
some extent but had no power to hire or discharge them. He at-
tended the union meeting on May 6, 1937, joined the Union on
that date, and solicited and secured other members for the organiza-
tion. Ferguson was laid off at the time of the shut-down. Subse-
quent to May 24 he made several applications for reinstatement. He
was reinstated to the position of helper on July 9 and was discharged
on July 29. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had
discriminated against Ferguson. The respondent takes exception
to this finding.
Foley testified that he did not reinstate Ferguson prior to July 9
because he learned from Knuckles, Ferguson's foreman, that Fergu-
son had cut materials to the wrong dimensions prior to the shut-
down. Although at the hearing Ferguson denied that he made this
mistake, we cannot conclude on the basis of the whole record that
the respondent discriminated against Ferguson prior to July 9.
Foley, Ferguson, and R. M. Clark, yard foreman, gave. somewhat
contradictory testimony with respect to the events leading to Fergu-
son's discharge on July 29. From their testimony and other evi-
dence in the record, it appears that on the day of Ferguson's dis-
charge he bored holes on the wrong side of a number of chair posts,
and during working hours went into another department of the
plant and there told an employee, "You fellows out here better do
something about the C. I. 0." While the quality of Foley's testi-
mony gives rise to the suspicion that Ferguson's discharge was dis-
criminatory, in our opinion the evidence as a whole does not warrant
finding to that effect.
Bill Robertson, Doe Simim,ons, and Alfred McGuire were laid off
when the plant closed down and were not reinstated upon or after
its reopening. We have analyzed the evidence with respect to these
employees and find that it does not sustain the allegations of the
complaint that the respondent discriminatorily refused to reinstate
them. We therefore concur in the Trial Examiner's recommenda-
tion in his Intermediate Report that such allegations be dismissed.
Since the Union filed no exceptions to the Intermediate Report, we
shall not discuss in detail the evidence with respect to these
allegations.
We find that the respondent did not discriminate in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of H. H. Ferguson, Bill Robertson,
Doc Simmons, and Alfred McGuire, thereby discouraging member-
ship in a labor organization, or interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
'STONEVILLE FU'RNITURE COMPANY 707
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations and business of the respondent constitute a
continuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the complaint against the respondent, Stoneville Furniture Company,
Stoneville, North Carolina, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Mx. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.