Summerfield Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 180 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Summerfield Industries, Inc. and Amalgamated Cloth-
ing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Case
I 1-CA-7371
January 24, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY. AND TRUESDALE
Upon a charge filed on December 23, 1977, and
amended on January 23, 1978, by Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, and duly served on Sum-
merfield Industries, Inc., herein called Respondent,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 11, is-
sued a complaint and notice of hearing on February
1, 1978, against Respondent, alleging that Respon-
dent had engaged in, and was engaging in, unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hear-
ing before an Administrative Law Judge were duly
served on the parties to this proceeding. Subsequent-
ly, Respondent filed an answer, admitting in part and
denying in part, the allegations of the complaint and
requesting that the complaint be dismissed. By letter
dated September 26, 1978, Respondent filed a with-
drawal of its answer.
On October 2, 1978, counsel for the General Coun-
sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment and memorandum in support
thereof, with exhibits attached. Subsequently, on Oc-
tober 12, 1978, the Board issued an Order transfer-
ring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To
Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment should not be granted. Respon-
dent did not file a response to the Notice To Show
Cause and therefore the allegations of the Motion for
Summary Judgment stand uncontroverted.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, provides:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer thereto.
The respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or
240 NLRB No. 42
explain each of the facts alleged in the com-
plaint, unless the respondent is without knowl-
edge, in which case the respondent shall so state,
such statement operating as a denial. All allega-
tions in the complaint . . . not specifically de-
nied or explained in an answer filed, unless the
respondent shall state in the answer that he is
without knowledge, shall be deemed to be ad-
mitted to be true and shall be so found by the
Board, unless good cause to the contrary is
shown.
According to the uncontroverted allegations of the
Motion for Summary Judgment and memorandum
in support thereof, on February 1, 1978, Respondent
was served with the complaint and notice of hearing
and on or about February 6, 1978, Respondent filed
an answer to the complaint. Thereafter, in its letter
dated September 26, 1978, which is attached as an
exhibit to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Re-
spondent. by its counsel, M. Daniel McGinn, re-
quested that it be allowed to withdraw its answer.
The letter contained the following statement regard-
ing Respondent's reasons for withdrawing its an-
saer:
. . .the Company feels strongly that it has not
committed any unfair labor practices. The Com-
pany therefore cannot, in good conscience, am-
end its Answer to admit the allegations of the
complaint. The Company is, however, solely as
an accommodation to the General Counsel and
the Board, willing to withdraw its Answer previ-
ously filed on or about February 6, 1978. The
Company's decision to withdraw its Answer is
based solely on the practicalities of the situation
and as an accommodation which would enable
the General Counsel to seek a Summary Judg-
ment without having to present evidence at a
hearing and have an Administrative Law Judge
come from Washington to hear such evidence.
In consequence of Respondent's withdrawal of its
answer, all the allegations in the complaint herein
stand unanswered. In accordance with the rules set
forth above, the allegations of the complaint are
therefore deemed to be admitted. Accordingly, we
find as true all the allegations of the complaint and
grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDING OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Summerfield Industries, Inc., is, and has been at
all times material herein, a North Carolina corpora-
SUMMERFIELD INDUSTRIES, INC. 181
tion with a plant in Raeford. North Carolina, where
it is engaged in the manufacture of knit fabrics. Dur-
ing the past year, Respondent shipped to points di-
rectly outside the State of North Carolina goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 and purchased
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from
points directly outside the State of North Carolina.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Since about early December 1977, and continuing
to date, Respondent at its plant in Raeford, North
Carolina, by its supervisors and agents named below,
on or about the dates listed below, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, re-
straining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by the
following acts and conduct:
1. In early December 1977, Alfred Patterson, knit-
ting department supervisor, A shift, created the im-
pression that the employees' union activity was un-
der surveillance.
2. On December 15, 1977, Jerry Ellis, knitting de-
partment supervisor, issued an employee a written
reprimand because said employee engaged in lawful
union activity.
3. Woine Neeley, security guard (alleged to be a
supervisor), and Lonnie Teal, knitting department
supervisor, A-I shift, promulgated and enforced an
invalid rule requiring employees to leave Respon-
dent's premises immediately after work hours to pre-
vent them from engaging in lawful union activity.
Neeley engaged in the above-described conduct on
December 15, 1977, and on January 18, 1978. Teal
engaged in the above-described conduct on Decem-
ber 16, 1977.
4. On December 16, 1977, and January 18, 1978,
Woine Neeley threatened employees with arrest and/
or other consequences if they violated Respondent's
unlawful rule as set forth above.
5. On January 18, 1978, Woine Neeley prohibited
employees from signing union authorization cards on
company premises.
6. On December 13, 1977, Respondent discharged
and failed and refused to reinstate employees Marion
Shaw and Delores Knott because they joined or as-
sisted the Union or engaged in other union activities
or concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining and mutual aid and protection.
Accordingly, we find that by the aforesaid conduct
Respondent has engaged in, and is now engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. We further find that by the con-
duct described in paragraph 6 above, Respondent
has engaged in, and is now engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) 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 opera-
tions described in section 1, above, have a close inti-
mate, and substantial relationship 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 Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom. and that it
take certain affirmative action as set forth below to
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act.
We shall order Respondent to offer Marion Shaw
and Delores Knott reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to equivalent posi-
tions of employment without prejudice to their se-
niority or other rights and privileges, and to make
them whole for any losses they may have suffered as
a result of the discrimination against them in the
manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest computed in the
manner set forth in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977).'
In Respondent's letter of September 26, 1978, re-
questing withdrawal of its answer, which is attached
as an exhibit to the Motion for Summary Judgment,
Respondent by its counsel, M. Daniel McGinn,
makes the following statement:
As you know, Summerfield Industries, Inc..
has been out of business for over six months and
See. generally. Isis Plumhlin & Heating Co. 138 NI.RB 716 (1962).
SUMMERFIELD INDUSTRIES, INC.
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is in the final stages of liquidating all assets. The
plant in Raeford has been completely closed for
over six months, and no operating personnel are
present at that plant at this time.
In view of this assertion, it appears that our normal
remedy of ordering the posting of copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix" at Respondent's
facility may be an inadequate means of remedying
Respondent's unfair labor practices. Accordingly, in
addition to requiring Respondent to post copies of
the attached notice at the Raeford, North Carolina,
facility, we shall order Respondent to mail copies of
said notice to the last known addresses of all employ-
ees at the Raeford. North Carolina, facility. We shall
further order Respondent to sign and mail sufficient
copies of the notice to the Regional Director for Re-
gion II for posting by Amalgamated Clothing and
Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO; if it is willing,
said notice to be posted at Its offices and meeting
halls.
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCIUtSIONS OF LAW
1. Summerfield Industries, Inc., Raeford, North
Carolina, is an employer engaged in commerce with-
in the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the acts described in section III, above, Re-
spondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7, and thereby has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)( ) of the Act.
4. By the acts described in paragraph 6 of section
III, above, Respondent has discharged and failed
and refused to reinstate employees Marion Shaw and
Delores Knott because they joined or assisted the
Union or engaged in other union activities or con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining and mutual aid and protection, and thereby
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Summerfield Industries, Inc., Raeford, North Caro-
lina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Creating the impression that employees' union
activity is under surveillance.
(b) Issuing written reprimands to employees be-
cause they have engaged in lawful union activity.
(c) Promulgating and enforcing a rule requiring
employees to leave the Company's premises immedi-
ately after work to prevent them from engaging in
lawful union activity.
id) Threatening employees with arrest and/or
other consequences if they violated the above-de-
scribed invalid rule.
(e) Prohibiting employees from signing union au-
thorization cards on company premises.
(f) Discharging or otherwise discriminating
against employees because of their support for the
Union or because they engaged in union or other
activities protected by the Act, or discouraging em-
pl,yees from engaging in such activity.
ig) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing. or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action deemed
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Marion Shaw and Delores Knott imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or,
if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiva-
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
any other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Marion Shaw and Delores Knott whole
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered due
to the discrimination practiced against them by pay-
ing each of them a sum equal to what she would have
earned, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
(c) Rescind the written reprimand issued to an
employee because of his union activities by Jerry El-
lis on December 15, 1977, and expunge and physi-
cally remove such written reprimand from its records
and files and any references thereto.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its Raeford, North Carolina, facility
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2
2In the event that this Order is enforced by ajudgment of a United States
Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted h) Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board,"
SUMMERFIELD INDUSTRIES, INC. 183
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 11., after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be post-
ed by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(f) Mail to the last known addresses of all employ-
ees at the Raeford, North Carolina, facility, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 11, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent, shall be
mailed to said employees within 3 days after they are
received.
(g) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to
the aforesaid Regional Director for posting by Amal-
gamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-
CIO: if it is willing, said notice to be posted at its
offices and meeting halls.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order.
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Act gives all em-
ployees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To engage in activities together for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all
such activities.
WE WILL NOi lead employees to believe they
are being watched.
WE WILL NOT issue written reprimands to em-
ployees because they have engaged in lawful
union activity.
WE WLI.. NOT promulgate and enforce a rule
requiring employees to leave the plant premises
immediately after work to prevent them from
engaging in lawful union activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with arrest
and/or other consequences if the), violate the
above-described rule.
WE WI.L NOT prohibit employees form signing
union authorization cards on plant premises.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against employees because of their support
for the Union or because they engaged in union
or other activities protected by the Act, or to
discourage employees from engaging in such ac-
tivity.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guarantees them by Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL offer full and immediate reinstate-
ment to Marion Shaw and Delores Knott to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions of employ-
ment without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and WE WI.l. make them whole for an)' loss of
earnings they may have suffered due to the dis-
crimination practiced against them by paying
each of them a sum equal to what she would
have earned, less any net interim earnings, plus
interest.
WE WILL rescind the written reprimand issued
to an employee because of his union activities
by Jerry Ellis on December 15, 1977, and ex-
punge and physically remove such written repri-
mand from records and files, and any references
thereto.
SUMMERFIELD INDUSTRIES, IN(.
SUMMERFIELD INDUSTRIES. INC. 83