Stowe Spinning Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 614 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

0
l
In the Matter Of STOWE SPINNING COMP,cNY, ACME SPINNING COM-
PANY, PERFECTION SPINNING COMPANY, LINFORD MILLS, INC. and
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 5-C-1887.-Decided August .26, 1946
Mr. John H. Garver, for the Board.
Mr. P. C. Whitlock, of Charlotte, N. C., for the respondent Stowe
Spinning Company.
Mr. George B. Mason, of Gastonia, N. C., for the respondent Acme
Spinning-Company.-
Mr. Hardy B. Gaston, bf Gelniont, N. C., for the respondent Perfec-
tion Spinning Company.
Mr. L. B. Hollowell, of Gastonia, N. C., for the respondent Linford
Mills, Inc.
Mr.. R. H. Harris, of Durham, N., C., and Miss Nancy Blaine, of
Charlotte, N. C., for the Union.
Miss Frances Lopinsky, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION .
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
et.
Upon an amended charge filed on October 1, 1945, by Textile Work-
ers Union of America, C. I. 0., herein calle tt the Union , the National
Labor Relations Board , herein called the Board, by its Regional Di-
rector for the Fifth Region ( Baltimore , Maryland ), issued its com-
plaint, dated October 3 , 1945, against Stowe Spinning Company, Acme
Spinning Company, Perfection Spinning Company, and Linford
Mills, Inc., herein called the respondents , alleging that the respondent
Stowe Spinning Company 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 Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat . 449, herein called the Act, and that x,11 the respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) and Section
2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hear-
ing thereon were duly served upon the respondents and the Union.
70 N. L. R. B., No. 45.
614
STOI' E SPINNING COMPANY 615
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended
during the hearing, alleged in substance : (1) that on February 10,1945,
the respondent Stowe Spinning Company discriminatorily discharged
John R. Hall and Lillie E. Hall, and on February 24, 1945, discrimina-
torily discharged George W. Gainey, Mabel Gainey, and Emma Louise
Gainey because they joined or assisted the Union; (2) that in January
1945, and thereafter, the respondents denied the use of a building in
North Belmont, North Carolina, owned by them, to the employees of
the respondent Stowe Spinning Company and to the Union, for the
purposes of self-organization; (3) that since November 1944,,the re-
spondent Stowe Spinning Company, through its officers and agents,
vilified and expressed disapproval of the Union, interrogated its em-
ployees as to their union affiliations, and urged and warned its em-
ployees not to join or remain members of the Union; and (4) that by
these acts the respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced their
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
In their answers, each of them verified on October 12, 1945, the re-
spondents denied that they engaged in the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices. As to the discharges, the answer of the respondent Stowe Spin-
ning Company contains certain affirmative allegations which will be
set forth and considered hereinafter.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Gastonia, North Carolina,
on October 15, 16, and 17, 1945, before C. W. Whittemore, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board
and'the respondents were represented by counsel; and the Union, by
its representatives. All parties participated in the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues.
During the hearing a motion made by counsel for the Board, with-
out objection, to strike from the complaint certain allegations relating
to John R. Hall, was granted. Also during the hearing, a motion
of the respondents to dismiss from the complaint allegations relating
to the use of the building above referred to was.denied. At the close
of the hearing, counsel for the respondents moved to dismiss the coin-
plaint in its entirety. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling,, and de-
nied the motion in his Intermediate Report. A joint motion, by all
counsel, was granted to conform the pleadings to the proof as to minor
matters. During the course of the hearing and in his Intermediate
Report, the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
O
k
1 The complaint originally alleged that, after his discharge by the respondent Stowe
Spinning Company, John R Hall was discriminatorily refused employment by the re-
spondent Acme Spinning Company . This was the portion stricken.
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On November 13, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondents and
the Union. He found that the respondent Stowe Spinning Com-
pany had engaged in and was engaging in unfair practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act„and that all the respondents had.engaged
in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recom-
mended that the respondents cease-and desist from the unfair labor
practices found and take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. Thereafter, on December 14, 1945, the
respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and support-
ing briefs. Upon consideration of the record, the Board, on its owl'
motion, reopened the record and received by stipulation of the parties
evidence concerning the business of two of the respondents. The
stipulations are hereby made part of the record.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respond-
ent's exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and
insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, con-
clusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit,
and insofar as the exceptions are consistent therewith, finds them to
have merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following,:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents Stowe Spinning Company, Acme Spinning Com-
pany, Perfection Spinning Company, and Linford Mills, Inc., some-
times hereinafter referred to as the respondents Stowe, Acme, Per-'
fection, and Linford, respectively, are North Carolina corporations,
each of them having its principal office and place of business in
Belmont, North Carolina. All are engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of cotton yarn. In the course and conduct of
their business, each of the respondents causes a substantial amount
of materials, consisting principally of raw cotton, valued at more
than $500,000 annually, to be transported in interstate commerce to
and through States of the United States, other than North Carolina,
to its Belmont plant, and causes a substantial amount of products
manufactured at its Belmont plant, consisting principally of cotton
yarn, valued at more than $500,000 annually, to be transported in -
interstate commerce to and through. States of the United States,
other than the State of North Carolina, from its -Belmont plant.
The four respondents concede that they are separately engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
STOWE SPINNING COMPANY 617
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated' with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership-employees of the respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The setting in which the relevant events occurred
1. The respondents' plants and'mill village's
Each of the four respondents operates a mill in North Belmont,
North Carolina, an unincorporated village located about 21/2 miles
from the town of Belmont. Each of the respondents owns a large
number of houses 2 which are rented to employees and which, col-
lectively, are known' as "mill villages." The mill villages are policed
by a deputy sheriff who is paid by the four respondents. At a point
centrally located in relation to the mill villages are: (1) a*branch
post office, located in a building erected and owned by the four
respondents; (2) a theatre, which-is owned by the four respondents;
and (3) a public school building. The three members of the School
Board are J. W. Miller, superintendent of the respondent Perfection,
Oyerseer John Thower of the respondent Acme, and Superintendent
John Starnes of the respondent Linford.
2. The interrelationship between the respondents
A. C. Lineberger is -president of the respondents Perfection, Acme,
and Linford; J. Harold Lineberger is vice president of the respond-
ents Perfection and Linford, and secretary-treasurer of the- respond-
ent Acme ;- D. P. Stowe is vice president of the respondent Acme and
secretary-treasurer of the respondent Perfection. The officers of the
respondent Stowe are C. T. Stowe, president; C. P. Stowe, vice presi-
dent; and R. L. Stowe, secretary-treasurer, all-of whom are cousins
of D. P. Stowe.
3. The ownership of the P. O. S. of 'A. Building
As noted heretofore, the four respondents jointly own the building
which houses the North Belmont -Post Office. The building is known
as the P. O. S. of A. building,-the initials denoting the name of
a fraternal organization called the Patriotic Order Sons of America,
in which employees of each of the respondents are members. Mem-
bership dues are deducted from the employees' pay by the respondents
and remitted to this organization.
s Acme has about 158 such -houses, Stowe about 100 , and Linford and Perfection about
75 each.
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The post'office and a grocery store occupy the first floor of the build-
ing. On the second floor is a large hall, furnished with. chairs sup-
plied by, the respondents and used rent-free for 'meetings of the
P. O. S. of A.
D. P. Stowe, identified above as an officer of the respondents Acme
and Perfection, acts as the agent` of the four respondents in the con-
trol and rental of the P. O: S. of A. Building.
4. The self-organization of the respondents' employees
After the general textile strike of 1934, no union organizational
activity existed among the employees at any of the North Belmont
Mills until late in- 1944.
On a Sunday in December 1944, two union representatives met with
three employees of the respondent Stowe at the home of one of the
latter group. One of the employees present, George W. Gainey, whose
discharge is an issue in this proceeding, thereafter assumed leadership
in obtaining signatures to union membership application blanks.
For a time Gainey was aided in his union solicitation by another em-
ployee of the respondent Stowe, but this employee left the respond-
ent's employment early in February 1945 to join the armed services.
Shortly after the December meeting, Gainey, in, company with John
R: Hall, another employee of the respondent- Stowe, attended a union
organization gathering of employees of .another mill, a few miles from
North Belmont. At this meeting Gainey asked the union organizer
to arrange for a mass meeting of Stowe employees at North Belmont.
Hall-and his wife joined the Union in mid-January of-1945, and
about a week later Hall began `actively assisting Gainey in soliciting
union membership applications among fellow employees. The sub-
sequent discharge of Hall and the alleged discharge of his wife are
also issues in this proceeding.
B. The events relevant to the issues in this proceeding
1. The respondents' refusal to permit use of the P. 'O., S. of A.
Building for self-organization of the employees
J a) The refusal,
Pursuant to the request of Gainey that the Union arrange a mass
meeting of Stowe employees, Robert H. Harris, a national representa-
tive of the Union, came to North Belmont to seek a suitable meeting
place. Upon .being informed that O. R. Stewart, a second hand at
the respondent Acme's plant, had charge of the P. O. S. of A. hall,
Harris approached Stewart on Monday, January 22, 1945. Stewart
informed Harris that Harris would have- to, see Baxter Black, an
employee of the same mill, who was president of the P. O. S. of A.
STOWE SPINNING COMPANY 619
Harris went to Black, identified himself as a representative of the
Union, and asked permission to use the P. O. S. of A. hall on the
following Sunday afternoon in order that employees of Stowe -might
complete their union organizing campaign.
Black informed Harris that the Union -could•have the use of the
hall, and requested in payment therefor the sum of $1.00 as a jani-
tor's fee. Harris promised to pay more for the use` of the hall, the
exact amount to be paid over and above the janitor's fee being left
to Harris. In making arrangements for the use.of the hall with
Black, Harris stressed the fact that he must, have a definite commit-
ment that the hall would be available because leaflets announcing the
meeting place must be prepared and distributed. Harris was assured
by Black that his word was final, Black explaining that he was head
of the "lodge." 3 , Harris thereupon proceeded to have leaflets mime-
ographed.
On the next day Second' Hand Stewart asked Black what he had
done about Harris' request. When Black replied that he had given
Harris permission to -use the hall, Stewart stated : "You shouldn't
have done it for he ain't nothing but a Textile organizer." Black
thereupon reported his,,actioii to Superintendent Cauble of the re-
spondent Acme's mill. Cauble instructed Black to do nothing fur-
ther until he, Cauble, had seen the "officials" at Belmont. Later on'
the same day, Cauble told Black that D. P. Stowe, the agent for all the
respondents in control of the P. O. S. of A. Building, would communi-
cate with Stewart that evening .4
Later on the same day Stewart, who also was an officer of'the P. O.
S. of A., was summoned to D. P. Stowe's office. Agent Stowe asked
Stewart, according to Stewart's testimony, "if we were not overstep-
ping our bounds," told him that the respondents had built the P. O.
S. of A. structure for the organization's meetings and "meetings of
that type,"and demanded to know why permission had been given to,
Harris. Stewart replied :
.. . Brother Black had told me that he didn't understand
what the man was representing and therefore he didn't know
him being a union organizer and he had told him he could use
the hall at that time .. .
3 The findings as to the conversation between Harris and Black is based on the testi-
mony of Harris, which we credit Black testified that he told Harris, on this occasion,
that a meeting of the P.10 S. of A. would have to be held before permission could be
granted We agree with the Trial Examiner that Black's recollection of the' interview in
this respect was inaccurate. In addition to testimony that he knew of no reason why the
employees-could not use the hall for organizational purposes, Black also testified that he
told Stewart, the day after he had talked to Harris, that he had given Harris authority
to use the hall the next Sunday. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any-question as to
permitting the Union to use the hall was ever submitted to a P. O. S. of A. meeting.
* These findings-are based upon'the uncontradicted testimony of Black, which we credit,
as did the Trial Examiner.
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Stowe instructed Stewart to inform Harris that lie could not use the
hall.r,
On Friday, after leaflets had been distributed to • Stowe employees
announcing that the union meeting was to be held at the hall on the
following Sunday, January 28, Harris was told by Black' that he
had received orders, through Stewart, that Stowe had refused to
permit the Unibn to use the Ball "under any circumstances." 8
The employees did not use the hall on January 28, but met in the
street outside the building.
Before the °street meeting, however, and after Black had trans-
mitted Sto e's refusal to Harris, Harris tried to obtain the use of the
schoolhouse or the theatre in North' Belmont. J. W. Miller, the
chairman of the School Board and the superintendent of the re-
spondent Perfection's mill, at first told Harris that a shortage of
coal made the use of fire for heating purposes impossible. When
-Harris said that no fire would be necessary, Miller stated that D: P.
Stowe had said that the Union could not use the school building for
the meeting. Harris then interviewed the manager of- the movie
theatre, who stated that he permitted no one to use the theatre build-
ing for any purpose.7
(b) Conclusions as to the refusal
According to D. P. Stowe's uncontradicted testimony, which we
credit, the P. O. S. of A. Building was constructed in 1937 for the
dual purpose of providing store space for the convenience of employees,
and a meeting place for members -of the P. O. S. of A., who for some
years had been using the schoolhouse auditorium. He "further testi-
S The foregoing is based upon the uncontradicted testimony of Stewart which we credit.
Stewart also testified that he had been told by Stowe that Harris was to be notified that
he could not use the hall "unless he did see Mr. Stowe " However, Stewart's testimony
that Stowe's instruction contained. such qualification' is refuted by Stowe's definite testi-
mony that he refused to permit the use of the hall, and by Black's testimony that, after
seeing Stowe, Stewart had told Black that Stowe had refused to permit Harris to use
the hall. -
Harris so testified without contradiction, and we credit his testimony as did the Trial-
Examiner. This testimony was coi roberated by Black who credibly testified that Black
informed Harris that the building would not be available for Harris' use because "the
mill officials would not let us do it."
7 Harris so testified. Miller denied that he had refused Harris the use of the school
building, stating that he had no such authority. He further denied that the name of D. P.
Stowe was mentioned in his interview with Harris. He admitted, however, having informed
Harris that the schoolhouse could not be used because of the coal shortage. We credit
Harris, as did the Trial Examiner. Although the complaint contains no allegation as to
the refusals to permit the use of the theatre or the public school for a union meeting, the
findings are relevant to the question of availability of meeting places, other than the
P. 0 S. of A. hall, near the respondents' mill villages Miller's statement to Harris, more-
over, is further indication of Stowe's intent, as an officer and agent of the respondents,
Ito interfere with the employees' efforts to self-organize by refusing to permit them the use
of a suitable meeting place. It is undisputed that the schoolhouse had been used for many
years for meetings of the P. 0 S. of A. before a special building was erected in 1937, as
hereinafter stated.
STOVE SPINNING COMPANY 621
fled credibly that the only direct interest of the' respondents in the
P. 0. S. of A. was :
just the fact that we were trying to help the people out who were
members of it and did not have a place to meet in.
He added : ".. . 'we have always got a special interest in- being
patriotic."
As to the arrangements under which the P. 0. S. of A. was per-
mitted use of this company-owned property, Stowe credibly testified
without contradiction that "it was built especially for the Patriotic
Sons of America to hold their meetings in and was not to be rented
to anybody else." He also testified :
. . . we told the Patriotic Sons of America that we were
going to let them use the building free of rent, but were not going
to allow it to be rented for any [other] purposes.
No lease, however, is in effect containing this or any other provision.
Whatever may have been the respondents' purpose in erecting the
building, or whatever may have been the respondents' statement of
policy at the time that the P. 0. S. of A. was first granted the use of
the hall, such purpose and policy are not material to the issues herein
involved. As a matter of practice, since 1937, the hall has been used,
according to the credible testimony of Black, on numerous occasions
for community and employee meetings. Various churches have used
the hall for banquets; "Ladies Aid" societies have gathered there; the
North Belmont School had the use of the hall for at least one Christ-
mas party; and for several weeks employees of the respondents
attended a "Safety school" held in the halls That no other fraternal
order met there is explained by the fact, established by Stowe's testi-
mony, that the P. 0. S. of A. is the only such organization in North
Belmont. Furthermore, Black's credible testimony is undisputed
that it was the practice, when any other organization wanted to use
the hall, for the P. 0. S. of A. "lodge" itself to pass upon the request.
There is no evidence' that any other organization, except the Union,
was ever refused use of the hall, either by the P. 0. S. of A. or by the
respondents.
The evidence is clear, and we find, that Stowe's refusal, on behalf
of all four respondents, to,permit use of the hall for purposes of self-
organization in a labor union under the circumstances, constituted
8 The respondents admit in their brief that churches and other civic groups have used
the hall with the permipsion of the P. O. S. of - A., but argue that granting the hall for
church suppers is unlike granting it for a union meeting, church suppers being a P. 0 S.
of A activity because members of the lodge made up the membership of the churches. Inas-
much as employees of the respondents made up the membership of the lodge , a union
meeting , by the respondents' own standard , likewise constitutes a P. O. S. of A. activity.
i
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unlawful disparity of treatment and discrimination against the
Union.9
The respondents contend that their refusal to permit the use of
their- private property was within their constitutional rights. The
contention has no merit. We have held, and the Supreme Court of
the United States has confirmed the view, that when-an employer's
right to regulate the use of his own property comes into conflict with'
the employees' right to receive information to enable them to exer
cise their right to self-organization, which it is the policy of the
Act to encourage, the conflicting rights must be balanced to deter-
mine which right, in a given situation, is paramount.lo
The "right to self-organization" is more than 'an intangible con-
cept. The history of labor organization has established a pattern of
methods almost universally utilized by employees in self-organiza-
tion , deprivation of any one- of which makes inroads upon the
"right." 11 Foremost among these methods is the general meetings,12
the sine qua non of all true collective action, the basic constitutional
right of peaceable assembly.'8 'The respondents do not deny the ex-
istence of the abstract right of their' employees to meet for purposes
of self-organization. - However, by refusing to permit the Union to
use the only available meeting place in the community, a hall erected
and used by the respondents for the benefit of 'citizens isolated from
other public facilities by virtue of their employment' in the commu-
nity, the respondents in fact deprived their employees of this basic
right. The respondents do not claim that "inconvenience" or "dislo-
cation of property rights" would result from the Union's use of its
property.'' Indeed, no reason at all was offered by the respondents'
See, for example, Matter of Weyerhauser Timber Co:, 31 N. L R. B 258 , 266-267;
Matter of Gallup American Coal Company , 32 N. L R B 823, enf'd 131 F. ( 2d) 665, (C C. A.
10) ; Matter of Ozon Lumber Company, 42 N L R B 1073
10 Matter of LeTourneau Company of Georgia, 54 N L. R. B. 1253 , 1259 , enf'd 324
U. S. 793 , - 0
11 " . . The right of self-organization and collective bargaining is a complex whole,
embi acing the various elements of meetings, speeches , peaceful picketing , the printing and
distribution of pamphlets , news and argument , all of which , however , are tiaceable to the
fundamental liberties of expression and assembly . So compounded , the right to self -organ-
ization and collective bargaining is fundamental, being one phase of the process of free
association essential to the democratic way of life." Violations/of Free Speech and Rights
of Labor, 77th Cong., 2d Sess ., Senate Report No. 1150, Part 1, pp 4-5. See also Matter
of LeTourneau Company of Georgia, cited supra
11 "Your Union's affairs are carried on by the membership in membership meetings . . .
It is important if the Union is to do the job you want it to do that you attend these meet-
ings and-be ready to take na1 t in working out the answers to our common problems . .
International Union, UAW-CIO,'How to Conduct a Union Meeting . ' Education Depart-
ment Publication No. 4, p 2. "Usually the goveinmentof the local union rests with the
mass meeting, the nlembers gathering together ever so often to-transact their business."
Cummins, E C , The Labor Problem an the United States, New York 1935, p 167. . . .
A meeting of the workers is usually called to agree upon their demands and to select their
spokesmen . 11 International Ladies Garment Workers' Union, Handbook of Trade
Union Methods , New York, 1937, p 13.
11 See Hague v. C. 1. 0., 307 U. S. 496
14 Cf. Matter of LeTourneau Company of Georgia, supra , and cases cited therein.
O
0
STOWE SPINNING COMPANY ET AL. 623
agent Stowe for countermanding Black 's grant of permission to Har-
ris to use _ the hall. Against the bare property right urged by the
respondents, the necessity of the employees for a place to hold an
organizational meeting clearly preponderates 15 - -
The dissenting opinion suggests that, had the respondents not pre-
vented the Union, from using'company. property for its organization
meeting, we would, under Board precedents, be compelled to find the.
respondents guilty of activity violative of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
The dissent states, in part, that "... the Board for years has
construed the statute . . . as forbidding even the most minute kind
o'f financial support to labor organizations," -and cites a number' of
cases in support of the statement. The cited cases are illustrative only
`of the Board's consistent policy, of taking into account, in any given
situation, peach of a number of facts and circumstances tending to
establish domination or-support of a labor organization, even though
any one of them, standing alone, might perhaps be regarded as trivial is
In each of the cited cases, the Board considered a certain kind of aid
rendered to a labor organization as part of many facts and circum-
stances which, taken together, established that the respondent had
dominated or supported that organization. And this approach has
been accepted by the courts 17
Under ordinary circumstances, where facilities other than company
property, ale available to employees for the purposes of holding *union
meetings, 'we would view with suspicion an employer's conduct in
supplying a meeting place. However, in a company town, where all
meeting facilities are owned by the employer, the use of such facilities
,by a labor organization is'necessai'y if the employees are really to be
free to exercise their rights under the Act. The mere granting of a
meeting place to a union by an employer under the conditions present
1S See N. L. R. B. v. LeTourneau Company of Georgia , 324 U. S. 793 . Cf. Marsh v. State
of Alabama, 66 S. Ct. 276 , in which the Court stated
The more an owner for his advantage , opens up his property for use by the public
in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and consti-
tutional rights of those who use it
10 For examples of- ',cases wherein the Board, because of surrounding circumstances, has
refused to characterize mere financial aid to a union as violative 'of Section 8 (2) of the ,
Act, see Matter of 'Mallinckro'lt Chemical Works , 63 N. L R B 373 , Matter of Mohawk
Carpet Mills, Inc, 12 N. L. R. B. 1265. N
17 See e. g., N. L . R. B. V. Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co ., 135 F. ( 2d) 15 (C. C. A. 3) ;
X. L R B v Christian Board of Publication, 113 F (2d ) 678,(C. C . A. 8), wherein the court
said, at p 683 . "The respondent cdmplains that the Board has seized upon trivialities in
finding that respondent lent support to the Employees Committee Reference is made to the
fact in the preparation of the petition and that respondent granted the Committee the use of
its assembly room for the meeting of June 19, 1937 . Little need be said on ' this point
These acts of respondent were but part of the general background upon which the Board
reached its conclusion that the respondent desired to encourage the Employees Committee.
As isolated instances of support ,' they are not particularly important but when.considered
with all other circumstances they form an'entirely adequate basis for the Board's con-
clusion.
I
' O
624 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
here would not, therefore, in and of itself constitute unlawful as-
sistance to that union, as the dissent -suggests. This is particularly
true in view of-the fact that the Union offered to pay for the hall .18
Moreover, one of the respondents evidenced a clear-cut anti-union
bias in-the discharge' of leaders of the very same union, as hereinafter
set forth.
Upon the foregoing considerations, including the arbitrariness of
D. P. Stowe's decision which resulted in the discriminatory treatment
of the Union in the use of the respondent's property, we find that the
sole purpose of D. P. Stowe's action, for which all the respondents are
accountable, was to' impede, prevent, and discourage self organization
and collective bargaining by the respondents' employees within the
meaning of Section 7 of the Act. Moreover, irrespective of the r'e-
spondents' motive, we are convinced, and find upon the considerations
stated above, that by refusing to permit their employees to exercise
the. right to meet on company-owned, property for the purpose of
holding a union meeting, when no other suitable property' in the
community was available for the, purpose, -under the circumstances
set forth above, the respondents have placed an unreasonabletimpedi-
ment on freedom of communication and of assembly essential to the
exercise of employees' rights guaranteed by Section i of the Act. By
their conduct in revoking the'grant of -privilege to use the hall and
thus denying the use of the hall to the Union, the respondents Stowe,
Acme, Perfection, and Linford interfered with, restrained, and coerced
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (1) thereof;l°
2. The respondent Stowe's discharge of-the Hall and Gainey families
(a) Events antedating the discharge Of John R. Hall and Lillie E. Hall
As noted above, during the latter part of January 1945, John R.
Hall began openly and actively to assist Gainey in organizing eui-
ploypes at the Stowe mill. i _ -
'Hall and his wife, Lillie E. Hall, were, employed by the respondent
Stowe in October 1944.- As employees, they were, permitted to occupy.
one of,-the company-owned houses. Before his employment by the
respondent Stowe, Hall had had many years' experience in textile
mills, and in the preceding 10 years had served as a spinning room
18 See Matter of Standard Oil Company of California , 61 N. L. R. B 1251 , wherein the
Board , by dictum , approved an independent union ' s meeting on company -owned property
for which it paid a small yearly rental
1° Although the complaint alleges that only the rights of the employees of the respondent
Stowe were thus interfered with , in view of the closely knit nature of the community of
four mill villages , it is reasonable to infer, ands we find , that knowledge of the respondents' -
refusal was shared by employees of the other respondents as well. The refusal served not
only as a deterrent to self -organization among the respondent Stowe's employees , but also
to such organization among employees of the other respondents.
• STOWE SPINNING COMPANY 625
doffer,, as a section hand, and as a second hand, both of the latter
positions. being supervisory.. For a few weeks at the Stowe mill, Hall
worked as a doffer-on the second shift. He then was also assigned
to the first shift, as head doffer, with supervision over three doffers.20
Thereafter, until his discharge in February 1945, Hall worked two
8-hour shifts a day, 6 days a week. From the beginning of December,
except during Christmas week, Hall worked from 80 to 96 hours each
week until his discharge. As head doffer on the first shift, he received
51 cents an hour, and as doffer on the following shift, he was paid
at the rate of 50 cents an hour. Mrs. Hall was employed as a spinner.
No regular lunch periods are given to employees at this mill; they
eat during their working time. Throughout the period during which
Hall worked two shifts a day, he was accustomed to go to his company-
owned home, about 100 yards from the mill, twice each day for meals, in
the morning for breakfast, and later in the clay for lunch.21 Mrs. Hall
worked on the third shaft,, from 11 at night until 7, the next morning.
On the morning. of February 10, 1945, Mr. Hall arrived at work at
6:45. About half an hour later, having completed doffing. several
frames, Hall went home for breakfast as'usual. When he returned,
about half or three-quarters of an hour thereafter, Second Hand
Floyd Childers told Hall that he would have to stay°on his job and
"run it better." This was the first time Childers had.reprimanded
Hall 22 A few minutes later, Overseer John A. McCarn approached
Hall and also told- him that he would have to stay on the job. Hall
became angry, and raised a question concerning the nature of the
work he was required to do on the second shift, stating, according
to his own testimony, that "before I would be around piecing up
behind the doffers, I would quit." McCann testified that Hall said
merely, "I quit," that McCarn then said, "All right," whereupon Hall
declared that he would not quit. McCarn said, according to his own
testimony, "You done quit," and added, according to Hall's unrefuted
testimony: "Well, you empty my house and I will call'it not running
your job." 23
20 Hall directed the work of three doffers and worked along with them. He was not a
supervisory employee within the Board's usual definition of the term . However, -assuming
that he was a supervisor , the respondent does not take the position that his supervisory
position affected the case in any way. We find , therefore , that Hall ' s discharge was not
effected to Protect the respondent 's position of neutrality. ° _
2i That Hall had followed this practice is established by his testimony , which we
credit . Second Hand Floyd Childers , Hall's immediate supervisor , denied that it was
customary for Hall to go to his house for breakfast "unless he got permission from me."
Childers admitted ,, however, that the three doffers under Hall could leave without obtain-
ing permission . We do not credit such testimony of Childers insofar as it conflicts with
that of Hall
12 Hall's testimony on this point , which we credit , is uncontradicted
28 In most major respects , McCarn corroborated or did not deny Hall 's testimony con-
cerning the incident described above The incident is reconstructed . hereinafter.
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD °
Hall left the mill and went to see Gainey, the leader among the
employees in their efforts to organize. Gainey and Hall went to the
office of Superintendent C. W. Kale, where Gainey informed the
superintendent that Hall, "one of our Union members," had been
laid off, and asked to have him put back to work. Kale said that
he would "look into" the matter. 'Neither Hall nor Gainey heard
anything further from' Kale, and on or about February "19, 1945,
Hall and his wife vacated their company-owned dwelling. Neither
has been recalled to work by the respondent Stowe. .
A few days after Mr. Hall's employment ceased, Mrs. Pearl Caven-
dar, a spinner who had worked on frames of which Hall had charge
as 'lead •doffer, asked McCarii whether Hall had left the mill.
McCarn replied that Hall had, and that he, McCarn believed that
Hall .was a union organizer and had been "signing up" employees
in the Union.24
(b) The respondent-Stowe's contention as,to Mr., and Mrs. Hall
The respondent Stowe contends that Mr. and Mrs. Hall voluntarily
quit their employment. The Trial Exaliliner found that both were
discharged because of their union membership and Mr. Hall's union"
activity.
Throughout his, testimony McCarn insisted, despite the fact that
his version `of the conversation with Hall on February 10 did not
differ materially oil the point from that of Hall, 'that Hall was not
discharged but quit voluntarily. Asked at the hearing why he did
not accept Hall's immediate change of mind as to quitting, McCarn -
replied: "I felt like that the, way he was doing, I would be better
off without him."- -
His only. explanation of his reference to "the way he was doing"
was to assert at the hearing that Hall "had his frames down." By
the context McCarn thus apparently meant that some frames had
not been doffed during Hall's absence at breakfast.25 Later in his
testimony McCarn in-effect contradicted his previous assertion that
Hall's work that morning was unsatisfactory by_stating without
qualification-that he had been 'ready and willing to continue Hall on
the job.jand would have done, so except for the fact that he quit.
i 21 Cavendar ' s testimonv as to this incident , which we credit, is uncontradicted.
25 The record contains a good deal of confused and conflicting testimony as to the actual
number , of flames " which became ready for doffing, during Hall's absence . In view of
McCarn 's testimony, noted hereinafter , to the effect that nothing Hall had done or not
done was oI sufficient cause to discharge him, and that he would have remained at work
had he not quit, we consider it unnecessary to resolve the conflicting testimony on this
point. Whatever may have been the number of idle franles , Second Hand Childers' test!-
,mono established the facts that one or more of the three doffers under Hall were late that
morning, that he had had to go and look for all three and that he "had to send for them
quite a lot .", There is no evidence that he had ever had to send for Hall. McCarn testified
that, until that morning , Hall's work "had been very satisfactory."
STOWE SPINNING COMPANY 627
Thereafter, he testified that he "didn 't want him back." When the
inconsistency in his claims was called to his attention and he was
asked at the hearing t9 clarify his position , McCarn .replied: "Well,
his work was not satisfactory by doing the way he was doing and
he quit, holding up my production."
We do not credit McCarn's testimony that Hall's work was unsatis-
factory or that he effectively quit.
It is also significant , as Superintendent Kale and McCarn testified
in effect, that, although employees frequently quit, they "very often"
called them in to "straighten them out"; however, no such effort was
made in the case of Hall, although the mill was short of doffers
at the time.
In quick reconstruction of the events on the morning of February
10, credible evidence shows in substance : (1) that, when for the first
time Hall was reprimanded for going to breakfast he became irri-
tated, a not unreasonable state of mind for a man who for months
had been working 80 to 96 hours each week; (2) that he threatened
to quit and quickly withdrew the threat; and (3) that McCarn
ignored the withdrawal , terminated Hall's employment , and ordered
him to vacate his company-owned dwelling.
Under the circumstances, we find that Hall was discharged, and
that there is no merit in the respondent Stowe 's contention that
Hall voluntarily quit. The reason for his discharge is discussed
hereinafter.
As to Mrs. Hall , the record is practically barren of evidence. The
respondent Stowe contends that she quit its employ sometime before
her husband did. The record indicates that she had not worked,
because of illness, for a week or two before February 10, but there
is no evidence that her name had been removed from the pay roll
or that she had informed the respondent that she would not return
to work upon recovery from her illness. On the other hand, although
the Was evicted from the respondent Stowe's house , we do not agree
with the Trial Examiner that she was discharged thereby. Inasmuch
as the respondent Stowe did not require its employees to live in
Stowe-owned houses, so far as appears , Mrs. Hall could have con-
tinued to work for ,Stowe after her eviction while living elsewhere.
Up to the time of the hearing she had not returned to the respondent's
plant and had not reported for work or otherwise requested employ-
ment. Although a suspicion arises from the circumstances under
which her husband was ordered to vacate his house that, had she
returned , she would have been denied work , we cannot find, on the
basis of the record, that Mrs. Hall was discharged . We shall , there-
fore, dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that Lillie E. Hall
was discriminatorily discharged.
712344-47-vol 70-41
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Events antedating the, discharge of George W. Gainey, Mabel
Gainey, and Emma 'Louise Gainey
George W. Gainey, his wife, Mabel, his daughter, Emma Louise;
and a son, Alfred, began to work for the respondent Stowe in Febru-
ary 1943. Gainey had worked in textile mills for 27 years, his wife
for 25 years.
As noted heretofore, Gainey was the leader among the respondent
'Stowe's employees in their efforts to organize in the Union. In that
capacity he unsuccessfully interceded for Hall with Superintendent
Kale after Hall's discharge on February 10.
A week or two before February 24, 1945, Gainey had a conversation
with McCarn in the mill. In the conversation McCarn stated, "They
tell me the Union is going pretty hot around here." Gainey answered
that it was getting along pretty well. McCarn then stated that a union
was unnecessary because the Government set both prices and wages,
and then asked Gainey, "who all belong to it?" Gainey replied that
a good many belonged. McCarn named specific individuals and asked
if each was a member. Finally, McCarn asked if Gainey himself
belonged, and Gainey admitted that he and his family had joined.21,
On the morning of February 24, 1945, when McCarn discharged a
boy for not doing his work properly, 18-year-old Alfred Gainey, in
protest against the boy's discharge, quit his job as doffer for the re-
spondent Stowe. McCarn made no effort to see Alfred's father or
mother, but at once gave instructions to Overseer James H. Ballard to
discharge all others in the family when they came td work on the next
shift. Ballard carried out these instructions.27 Thus, George W.
Gainey, Mabel Gainey, and Emma Louise Gainey were discharged on
-February 24, 1945.
(d) The respondent's contentions as to the discharge of the Gaineys
The respondent Stowe contends that Gainey, his wife, and his
slaughter were discharged because Alfred Gainey quit; and as a result,
the respondent needed their dwelling in order to house another doffer
to take Alfred's place.
Of relevance to a determination of the merit of this contention are
the following facts : (1) Mrs. Gainey's production record was above
average; (2) there had never been any complaint about George
Gainey's workmanship; (3) the only comment Superintendent Kale
had received as to Gainey's daughter was that "she was rather young";
and (4) no doffer had applied for work or was awaiting employment at
26 McCarn was not specifically questioned concerning the above -described conversation
with Gainey , upon whose ciedihle testimony the findings as to the conversation rest At
the hearing counsel for the respondent Stowe read to McCarn several allegations in the
complaint , and McCarn denied each of them. We do not consider his general denials to
be sufficient to negate the specific and detailed testimony of Gainey.
21 The findings as to these events rest upon the testimony of McCarn and Ballard.
STOWE SPINNING COMPANY 629
the time that Alfred Gainey quit on February 24. Although Kale
asserted at the hearing that it was a "practice" to discharge an entire
family when one member quit, if they were living in a company-owned
house, no credible evidence was offered to support this assertion.
Furthermore, Kale testified that not all employees lived in company-
owned homes, some lived in town or in the country nearby, and he
admitted at the hearing that there was no reason why he did not sug-
gest to Gainey that he continue to work and seek a dwelling not on com-
pany property.
Under the circumstances, we are convinced and find that there is
no merit in the respondent's contentions that it was the respondent
Stowe's practice to evict all members of a family from a company-
owned house whenever one member ceased working for the respondent,
or that the Gainey dwelling was needed to house another doter. It is
clear and we further find, that the respondent Stowe seized upon
Alfred's quitting as a pretext and that the reason for discharging the
other members of the Gainey family lay elsewhere.
(e) Conclusions as to the discriminatory discharges of Hall
and the Gaineys
It has been found that the respondent Stowe's contentions as to its
reasons for terminating the employment of the Gainey family are
without merit and that Hall did not voluntarily quit, as the re-
spondent Stowe contends but rather was discharged.
It has also been found that George Gainey and John Hall were,
before being discharged, the two leaders of the union movement
among the respondent Stowe's employees. McCarn admitted in his
testimony that he knew of Gainey's union membership and, as found
above, McCarn told employee Cavendar, after Hall's discharge, in dis-
cussing the termination of his employment, that he, McCarn, believed
that Hall was a union organizer who had enrolled employees in the
Union. Kale testified that he had seen literature distributed by Hall
and Gainey and that he, Kale, knew of "some activity around there."
We conclude and find that management representatives responsible for
the discharges of Hall and the three Gaineys were aware of their union
activity.
The respondent Stowe's antipathy toward the Union and the dis-
parity of treatment accorded to it have been found in Section III, B,
1, (b), above.
From its anti-union conduct, and from the lack of merit in the re-
spondent Stowe's explanation of the termination of employment of
one union leader, and in the reasons it advanced for terminating the
employment of another union leader and his family, it is reasonable
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to infer,28 and' we find, that the respondent discharged Hall and the
Gainey family because of their union membership and activity, thereby
discouraging membership in the Union.29
Upon the entire record, we find'that, by discharging John R. Hall,
George W. Gainey, Mabel Gainey, and Emma Louise Gainey, the re-
spondent Stowe discriminated with respect to their hire and tenure
of employment, thereby' discouraging membership in the Union, and
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of
Section 8 (3) and (1) thereof. We further find, that, by the anti-
union statements of McCarn and by his interrogation of employees as
to their union membership, as set -forth above, the respondent Stowe
further interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of
Section 8 (1) thereof.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents, set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operation of the business of the re-
spondents 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 the respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order that, they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent' Stowe discriminated as to the
hire and tenure of employment of John R. Hall on February 10, 1945,
and of George W. Gainey, Mabel Gainey, and Emma Louise Gainey,
on February 2A, 1945. In order to effectuate the purposes and policies
of the Act, we shall order that the respondent Stowe offer the above-
named employees immediate reinstatement to their former orsub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges, including the privilege of immediate
occupancy of a company-owned house, if available, and if not im-
28 See N. L. R B. v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U. S 584, in which the court, at 602, states :
The evidence as to inefficiency is quite inconclusive. The Board was justified in relying
on circumstantial evidence of discrimination and was not required to deny relief because
there was no direct evidence that the employer knew these men who had joined Amalgam-
ated and was displeased or wanted to make an example of them."
2a During the hearing counsel for the respondent Stowe elicited testimony showing that
sometime after being discharged from the Stowe mill, Hall was employed by a company
in Belmont, North Carolina, of which the president of the respondent Stowe is secretary-
treasurer, and that sometime after his discharge, Gainey was employed by the respondent
Linford. It is argued that such evidence refutes the contention that the -respondent
Stowe had discriminated against either Hall or Gainey We have considered such testi-
mony but deem it not controlling here.
STOWE SPINNING COMPANY 631
mediately available, then as soon as vacancies occur. We shall also
order that the respondent Stowe make each of the above-named em-
ployees whole for any loss of pay that they have suffered by reason of
the respondent Stowe's discrimination, by payment to each of them
of a suns of money equal to the amount each normally would have
earned as wages from the date of the discriminatory discharge to the
date of the offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during
such period 30
Having found that the respondents interfered with, restrained, and
coerced their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization
and collective bargaining by denying the use of the only suitable meet-
ing place in the community to them, and to an organization which
sought to inform them of their rights and to represent them for the
purposes of collective bargaining if the employees so desired, we shall
order the respondents to cease and desist from denying to their em-
ployees and to labor organizations the right to meet for purposes of
self-organization and collective bargaining in the P. O. S. of A. hall,
and, upon request, to grant to all employees of the respondents, and
to Textile Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor orgaliiza-
tion, the use of the P. O. S. of A. hall for the purpose of holding meet-
ings pertaining to self-organization or collective bargaining.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., is a labor organiza-
tion, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of John R. Hall, George W. Gainey, Mabel Gainey, and Emma
Louise Gainey, thereby discouraging membership in Textile Workers
Union of America, C. I. 0., the respondent Stowe Spinning-Company
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondents Stowe Spinning Company, Acme Spinning Company, Per-
fection Spinning Company, and Linford Mills, Inc., have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
$' By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses such as for transportation, loom,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with , obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent Stowe, which would not have been incurred but for his
or her unlawful discharge , and the subsequent necessity for seeking employment elsewhere
See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company , 8 N. L. It. B 440 . Monies received for work
performed upon Federal , State , county , municipal, or other work -relief projects shall be
considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v N L R B, 311 U 8 7
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act. -
5. The respondent Stowe Spinning Company has not engaged in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act, as to Lillie E. Hall.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Stowe Spinning Company, North Belmont, -North Carolina,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, C. I. O., by discriminatorily discharging any of its employees or
by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) Refusing to permit the use of the Patriotic Order Sons of
America hall by its employees or employees of Acme Spinning Com-
pany, Perfection Spinning Company or Linford Mills, Inc., or by
Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organ-
ization, for the purpose of 'self-organization or collective bargaining;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu-
tual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act: -
(a) Offer to John R. Hall, George W. Gainey, Mabel Gainey, and
Emma Louise Gainey immediate and full reinstatement to their for-
mer or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole the employees named in paragraph 2 (a), above,
for any loss of earnings that they may have suffered by reason of the
respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them,
of a sum of money equal to the amount which each normally would
have earned as wages from,the date of the discriminatory discharge
to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his or her
net earnings during said period;
(c) Upon request, grant to its employees and employees of Acme-
Spinning Company, Perfection Spinning Company, or Linford Mills,
Inc., and to Textile Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor
STOWE SPINNING COMPANY 633
organization, the use of the Patriotic Order Sons of America hall for
the purposes of self-organization or collective bargaining;
(d) Post at its mill in North Belmont, North Carolina, copies of
the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be
posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and main-
tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondents
Acme Spinning Company, Perfection Spinning Company, and Lin-
ford Mills, Inc., and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of
America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
by refusing to permit the use of the Patriotic Order Sons of America
hall by employees of any of the respondents' mills, including the em-
ployees of the respondent Stowe Spinning Company, or by Textile
Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization,
for the Purposes of self-organization or collective bargaining.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, grant to all persons employed in the said re-
spondents' mills, and to employees of Stowe Spinning Company, and to
Textile Workers Union of America, C. I.O., or any other labor organi-
zation, the use of the Patriotic Order Sons of America, hall for the
purposes of self-organization or collective bargaining;
(b) Post at each of their mills in North Belmont, North Carolina,
copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix B." Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respective representative
of each respondent be posted by the respondents immediately upon
receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material ; °
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten ('10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
spondents have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that
the respondent Stowe, Spinning Company discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of Lillie E. Hall, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. GERARD'D. REILLY, concurring in part, dissenting in Daft`:
While I agree with the conclusions of my colleagues with respect
to findings of discrimination in violation of Subsection 8 (3), the
holding that the Company was under a duty to supply the Union with
the use of its hall for organizational purposes is such an abrupt reversal
of the position that this Board has taken in scores of cases that I am
constrained to disagree.
Subsection 8 (2) of the Act, which makes it unlawful for an em-
ployer to contribute financial support to a labor organization, contains
only one exception, namely; a proviso that an employer may have
conferences with representatives of his employees on union matters
during working hours without deducting the loss of time from their
wages. Since this exception is so narrow, the Board for years has
construed the statute (to my mind, correctly) as forbidding even the
most minute kind of financial support to labor organizations. It has
frowned, for example, upon letting a union organization have the
profits from vending machines, even though patronized exclusively
by members of the bargaining unit; 31 on the use of company office
machines for preparing pamphlets; 32 the use of vacant office space
for the transaction of union business; 33 and mere permission to hold
union meetings on factory premises 34 Indeed, this principle has been
enunciated in so many cases that any employer who consulted counsel
"'Wilson & Co. V. N L R. B., 126 F. (2d) 114 (C. C. A. 7).' ,
sa N L. R B. v. General Motors Corp., 116 F. (2d) 306 (C. C. A 7) ; Bethlehem Shipbuild-
ing Cot p . v N L. R B., 114 F ( 2d) 930 (C. C. A. 1) ; N. L R B. v. Carlisle Lumber Co.,
94 F. (2d) 138 (C C A 9) , N 1 R B v Christian Board of Publication, 113 F (2d) 678
(C C A 8) ; N. L R B. v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Coipoi ntion, 109 F
(C C A 4), enf. as mod. 12 N L R. B 886.
(2d) 128
ai N. L R . B. v American Manufacturing Company , 106 F ( 2d) 61 ( C. C. A 2 ), enf. as
mod. 5 N . L R B 443 , aff'g as mod 306 U. S. 629 ; N. L. R B v . Automotive Maintenance
Machinery Co., 116 F. (2d) 350 (C C. A. 7 ) (dictum ) ; N. L. R. B. v . Brown Paper Mill
Co., 108 F. ( 2d) 867 ( C C. A. 5 ) ; N. L. R. B v. Carlisle Lumber Co, 94 F. (2d) 138
(c, C A. 9 ) , N L R B v Christian Board of Publication , footnote 2, supra, N L R. B
v. Friedrich, Inc, Ed , 116 F (2d) 888 (C C A. 5) N L R B v Moore-Lowry Flour Mills
Company, 122 F (2d) 419 (C' C A 10), mod. 21 N. L R B 1040, New Idea, Inc v.
N. L. R B, 117 F. (2d) 517 (C C A 7)
u See Matter of Virginia Electric & Power Company, 44 N L . R. B 404 , and Matter of
Berkshire Knitting Mills, 46 N . L. R. B. 955.
C
STOWE SPINNING COMPANY 635
would be loath to let a labor organization conduct a meeting in a
building owned by him for fear of incurring the risk of being cited for
violation of Subsections 8 (1) or (2) of the Act.
Yet, in this case, we are holding it a violation of the Act for a
corporation to refuse to permit an affiliated union to use a hall which
was built to afford recreational facilities for its employees. It seems
to me that such a decision assumes a duty on the part of the employer
to give affirmative support to labor organizations-a premise contrary
to the specific language in the Act and the converse of the doctrines
developed by this Board with respect to employer attitudes toward
independent unions.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any 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 Textile Workers Union
of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination,
John R. Hall Mabel Gainey
George W. Gainey Emma Louise Gainey
We will not refuse to permit the use of the Patriotic Sons of
America hall by our employees and other employees of the North
Belmont, North Carolina, Mills, or by Textile Workers Union of
America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, for the pur-
poses of self-organization or collective bargaining. Upon request
we will grant to our employees and to other employees of the
North Belmont mills, and to Textile Woi:kers Union of America,
C. 1. 0., or any other labor organization, the use of Patriotic Order
Sons of America hall for the purposes of self-organization or
collective bargaining.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any labor organization. We will not discrimi-
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4ate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment against any employee because of membership in or
activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
STOWE SPINNING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ----------------- By ----------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NoTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in
the armed forces of the United States will be offered full reinstate-
ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor or-
ganizatioiis,. to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America,
C. I. 0., or any other,labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection by refusing to permit the use of
the Patriotic Order Sons'of America hall by our employees or
other employees of the North Belmont, North. Carolina, mills,
or by Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., or any other
labor organization, for the purposes of self-organization or col-
lective bargaining.
Upon request, we will grant to our employees and to other em-
ployees of the North Belmont mills, and to Textile Workers Union
of America, C., I. 0., or any other labor organization, the use of
Patriotic Order Sons of America hall for the purposes of self-
organization or collective bargaining.
(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.