Sunshine Hosiery Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 664 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In , the Matter of SUNSHINE HOSIERY MILLS and BRANCH No. 55,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS
Case No. C-,58.-Decided April 29, 1936
Hosiery Industry-Interference, Restraint or Coercion: questioning employees
regarding union affiliation and activity-Strike-Discrinainotion: lay-off; dis-
charge ; non-reinstatement following lay-off ; non-reinstatement following strike-
Reinstatement Ordered, Non-Strikers: displacement of employees hired in places
of-Reinstatement Ordered, Strikers: discrimination in reinstatement; strike
provoked by employer's law violation-Back Pay: awarded, strikers and
non-strikers.
Mr. Walter G. Cooper, Jr., for the Board.
Mr. James D. Richardson, of Murfreesboro, Tenn., for respondent.
Mr. Herbert G. B. King, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Union.
Hilda Droslinicop, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On January 11, 1936, Branch No. 55 of the American Federation
of Hosiery Workers filed with the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region a charge that the Sunshine Hosiery Mills of Murfreesboro,
Tennessee, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices contrary to the National Labor Relations Act, approved July
5, 1935, hereinafter referred to as the Aci;. On January 16, 1936, the
Board issued a complaint against the Sunshine Hosiery Mills, here-
inafter referred to as respondent. The complaint was signed by the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region, and alleged that respondent
had committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3) and Section 2, subdi-
visions (6) and (7) of the Act.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that respondent, by its officers and agents, terminated the
employment of four named employees on November 6, 1935 thereby
causing three other named employees to strike on the same date, and
thereafter refused to reinstate them because each of said employees
had joined and assisted a labor organization known as the American
Federation of Hosiery Workers, said acts being contrary to Section
8, subdivisions (1) and (3) of the Act.
694
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 665
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were served
on the parties in accordance with Article V of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1. In its answer, filed
January 25, 1936 , respondent objected to the jurisdiction of the
Board on stated constitutional grounds. It admitted the discharges
alleged, but denied the allegations of violations . On February 3 and
4, 1936, a hearing was held at Nashville, Tennessee , by Walter Wil-
bur, the Trial Examiner designated by the Board, and evidence was,
taken . Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine
witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues' was
afforded to all parties.
At the hearing the complaint was amended to read "Sunshine
Hosiery Mills" instead' of "Sunshine Hosiery Mill"; the allegation
that Clara Travis requested reinstatement on November 23, 1935
was amended to November 19, 1935; and the allegation that Leburn
Woods was discharged and refused reinstatement under the same
circumstances as Mr. and Mrs. McClanahan was added to the coin-
plaint. Respondent stipulated that the answer put in with respect
to the McClanahans would extend to Leburn Woods . The Trial
Examiner then over -ruled the objection ,that respondent 's labor rela-
tions are "irrelevant" to interstate commerce, and that the Board,
therefore , has no jurisdiction . This 'ruling is hereby affirmed. At
the end of the hearing respondent filed a • supplemental answer restat-
ing its constitutional objections to the jurisdiction of the Board.
By order of the National Labor Relations Board, dated February
28, 1936, the proceeding was transferred to and continued before the
Board in accordance with Article V, Section 35 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1.
As considered by the Trial Examiner and presented before this
Board , pertinent allegations of the complaint involve the following
eight of respondent 's employees : Robert Waite , Cecil Cates, Elmo
Harvey, Elbert Harvey, Clara Travis, Herbert McClanahan, Mrs.
Mabel McClanahan and Leburn Woods.
Upon the entire ' record in the case, including the pleadings, the
stenographic transcript of the hearing , and the documentary and
other evidence received at the hearing , the Board makes the follow-
:ing:
FINDINGS OF' FACT
I. THE COMPANY
Respondent, Sunshine Hosiery Mills, is a Tennessee corporation,
having its principal office and place of business in the City of Mur-
freesboro, County of Rutherford, Tennessee. It is engaged in its
plant in the production, sale and distribution of men's, women's
and children's hosiery.
666 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent employs about 175 to 180 workers, who are divided
into a day and night shift. When work is slack it is the practice
of the company to stagger work between the two shifts , both then
working during the day.
The principal materials used by respondent in the manufacture
of hosiery are silk, cotton, rayon, elastic and wool. All of the silk,
wool and elastic , and 60 % of the cotton , so used by respondent come
from outside the state. Garant, president of respondent , testified
that from 60 to 70 per cent of all the raw materials used by it are
imported , and that 90 per cent of the finished product is sold outside
of Tennessee.
The chief methods of transportation used by respondent are
freight, truck, parcel post and express. Goods are shipped usually
in less than carload lots. Respondent 's employees transport the
goods to the railroad, but do not load them into the cars.
Respondent 's sales are to jobbers all over the United States. Only
a small supply of raw material is kept on hand; respondent buys
raw materials as they are needed. The entire process of manufacture
requires but two to three weeks . In the six months immediately prior
to the hearing 50 per cent of the manufacturing done by respondent
was done on order.
The aforesaid operations of respondent constitute a continuous
flow of trade, traffic and commerce among the several States.
II. THE UNION
Branch No. 55 , the union here involved , is a local of the American
Federation of Hosiery Workers which is affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor. The union includes employees of hosiery mills
in Shelbysville , Tennessee ; as well as those in Murfreesboro.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Before September 1, 1935, there had never been any organization
of the labor at respondent 's mill . At about that period the union
began to gain a foothold , until by October 29 the whole night shift
and a substantial portion of the day shift had joined . The employ-
ees assiduously concealed their union membership from the manage-
ment; Garant, the president , Waller, foreman of the full - fashioned
department and Carter , foreman of the dye department , unite in the
testimony that they were completely unaware of its existence.
That the management did not long remain in ignorance of its em-
ployees' union affiliations is evident from the fact that shortly after
October 29 Waller began to cast about for information on the sub-
ject. Herbert Porterfield , Dewey Porterfield, Ethel Dillahay,
Charles Bradford and Harold Burke were among the workers ques-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 667
tioned by Waller on their knowledge of union activities in the plant.
On November 5 Waller asked Herbert Porterfield whether he had
joined the union. On the same day he also told Dewey Porterfield
that he had heard that the employees had been having union meetings
at Nashville and insisted that Porterfield ought to tell him what was
going on.
On the evening of November 5, the union membership cards were
distributed. The next morning, Wednesday, November 6, the blow
fell. When Waite and Cates arrived at the mill they were met at the
door by Waller with the statement that Garant had given orders not
to let them in. Waller locked the door against them while he went
for their tools and checks. Neither was given any explanation of
his dismissal at the time; the general atmosphere on both sides was
that the reason was obvious and that discussion would be pointless.
Uncertain of how to proceed, Cates and Waite immediately notified
the Harvey brothers and hurried with them to Shelbysville to inform
Frazier, the union organizer, of what had occurred.
Meanwhile respondent executed another manoeuver. By ten
o'clock in the morning when Waite, Cates and the Harvey brothers
returned from Shelbysville, respondent had posted signs saying that
the entire night shift was laid off indefinitely for lack of orders.
The night shift had been working full time up to this period.
Wednesday night, November 6, was the normal end of the working
week. Respondent's extraordinary precipitousness in laying off the
shift on Wednesday morning accordingly required explanation. The
excuse of lack of orders was unsatisfactory since it did not account
for respondent's sudden decision to break off its established policy
of dividing time between the day and night shifts when work was
slack. Moreover, House, the finishing room foreman at the mill, had
told Bradford, one of the union employees, on November 4, in re-
sponse to a question in connection with the stock room, that the
company had orders at the moment. It is clear that the employees
on the night shift, like Waite and Cates, had provoked this arbitrary
and unprecedented display of force by joining the rnnion. The union
employees on the day shift quickly drew this inference; in protest
against respondent's tactics, and in an effort to anticipate the inevi-
table, most of them struck Wednesday morning.1
Respondent's behavior within the next few days fully confirms this
interpretation of respondent's motives. In reply to inquiries from
the City Commission of Murfreesboro concerning the labor difficulty
at respondent's factory, Garant announced to the Chief of Police,
the Mayor and the Chief of the Fire Department that he would not
'Among them were Prudy Dement, Ethel Dillahay, Mrs Cates, Mr and Mrs. McClanahan,
Leburn Woods, Clara Travis, and Harold Bui1 e
668 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operate a union mill. Two or three days after the strike began he
instructed Carter to notify the strikers that their jobs would be filled
if they did not return by Monday, November 11.
At about the time this order was given, Frazier and a union com-
mittee secured an appointment with Garant to discuss a settlement.
When they arrived, however, Garant instructed his secretary to
announce, that he would not see them because in his opinion there
was nothing to discuss. A second committee, composed of Charles
Bradford, William Sandford and Dewey Porterfield met with Carter
on November 13, and put before him the suggestion that all the em-
ployees return to work "as union people". Carter replied that the
night shift men would be called back because they had merely been
laid off, but that he could not predict the fate of the day shift men
who had struck; they would have to make application directly to
Garant. He added that the employees who were out would have to
come back "as individuals". On November 14, Garant declined to
grant an interview to Callahan, another representative of the Ameri-
can Federation of Hosiery Workers, saying that there was nothing
to talk.about.
The strike had already lasted a week in the face of the uncompro-
mising tactics of respondent. Many of those who were out were
suffering severely from lack of funds; some of the union employees
had already gone back to work. The newly-formed union was unable
to finance the workers, and it was felt by Frazier that the walk-out
had in any case been provoked by respondent before'the workers
were sufficiently educated in union affairs to withstand the rigors
of a strike. Waite and Cates suggested that they seek redress from
the National Labor Relations Board for their own discharges, and
that the others concentrate their energies on getting all the men
reinstated in a body through the union's efforts. It was decided
that a third union committee composed of Elbert Harvey, Earl Mc-
Knight and Herbert McClanahan propose'to Garant that the night
shift, and the day shift which was still out, be reinstated in a body;
that the work be divided between them in the usual manner ; and
that Waite and Cates not be taken back. About the middle of
November the committee finally reached Garant with the above
compromise.
Garant's concessions to the union apparently had been exhausted in
consenting to see the committee. In reply to their proposal, he said
that he had not decided to reinstate any of those who had walked out,
and that he would not divide time with the night men. He indi-
cated that he would call them when, as, and if he wanted them. Re-
spondent's attitude was fully as inflexible when Curtis, a representa-
tive of this Board, called on November 16 to make a survey of the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 669
situation and asked the reason for the discharge of Waite and Cates.
Garant refused to discuss the matter, saying that he would send in a
full report on November 18. This was never done.
On or about November 18, respondent re-opened its night shift.
Since about the middle of January, 1936, the mill has been operating
on three shifts. Several union men from both the day and night
shifts have been reinstated from time to time. Since November 6,
respondent has hired at least two employees who had no previous
association whatever with the mill, and at least four former em-
ployees who had not worked there for a year or two. The union men
who returned to work severed their connection with the union ; one
of these testified under subpoena that he no longer pays dues and
attends no union meetings; when questioned as to the reason he
refused to answer.
The four discharged employees
The complaint alleges that respondent discharged and refused to
reinstate the following four employees because of their union mem-
bership and activity :
(a) Robert Waite had been employed by respondent for almost
seven years. For four and a half years he had performed the most
skilled operations in the full-fashioned department, where he was
earning $30.00 a week on piece work, one of the largest salaries paid
in the mill. Waite was one of the most active union men in the plant.
He was discharged on November 6, and Virgil Parsons, who formerly
had collected waste and swept the floor, took his place. Waite has
secured no other employment.
Respondent's answer alleges that Waite was discharged for ineffi-
ciency, and Waller testified that he had complained frequently to
Garant about Waite's work. Garant, however, denied this on the
stand and asserted, on the contrary, that though he was thoroughly
acquainted with the daily output of every man in the mill, he had
never had occasion to question Waite's performance until November 5.
On that day, he testified, he detected Waite in the act of manipulating
the regulator on his machine so that the finished stockings were sev-
eral inches shorter than the required length, thus increasing his pro-
duction. Without giving any sign of his suspicions to Waite he went
back to his office and, without assigning any reason to anyone, ordered
Waite's summary dismissal.
The evidence offered by respondent in support of so grave a charge
seriously strains credulity. When the stockings leave the machine,
they are inspected first for quality (dropped stitches, etc.) ; on the
second inspection short lengths are caught on the board in the finish-
ing room. All goods are subject to this daily review; defects can
670 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be traced back to the machine on which the product was made at any
point in the process and after the process is complete. Records are
kept of such imperfections and a check-up may be made without the
operator's knowledge. Samples of this defect had never been traced
to Waite. In addition, the ordinary process of manufacture requires
the operator to adjust the regulator on the machine frequently.
Waite's work on the day in question involved several such adjust-
ments. Garant admitted that Waite might have been making such
a legitimate operation when he saw him make the movement which
gave rise to his suspicion. It is significant in this connection that
Waite's back was to Garant when the latter claims he saw him change
the regulator. Woods, Waite's helper on the machine, whose duties
necessitate continuous observation of his movements, testified that he
saw Waite make numerous proper adjustments of the regulator, but
none of the type described by Garant.
In view of respondent's elaborate routine system for detecting errors
Garant's personal pursuit of the culprit leaves much to be explained.
That he should have chanced to detect Waite in flagrante clelicto on
the same day that Waller was reconnoitering for facts about the
union and on the very day that he decided to discharge Cates and
to lay off the night shift, presents a series of striking coincidences.
Considering the nature of Waite's alleged infraction, even more
curious is Garant's failure to confront Waite with it when he noted
the improper adjustment, or when he was dismissed. In the light of
his statement that the source of these errors had been sought for
some time, his failure to communicate with Carter and Waller about
the cause of the discharge is unaccountable. This reticence is par-
ticularly difficult to explain in view of his testimony that he knew
that neither Waite, Waller nor Carter were aware that he had made
the crucial discovery. Nor can the latter testimony be reconciled
with Garant's declaration that he did not inform Waite of the cause
of his dismissal because Waite knew the reason. Respondent's asser-
tion that Waite was discharged for inefficiency is also incompatible
with Garant's statement to Curtis, agent of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, on November 16, ten clays after Waite's dismissal,
that he had not yet determined whether Waite had been discharged
for inefficiency, and that he would let him know on November 18.
The plethora of contradictions in respondent's position contrasts
markedly with the plausibility of the union's contentions. The facts
point conclusively to the view that Waite's discharge was part of a
campaign to stamp out the union, and that respondent seized upon an
imagined irregularity as a pretext.
(b) Cecil Cates had been employed by respondent since Septem-
her, 1926, and had worked in the day shift of the full-fashioned de-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 671
partment for five years, earning $27 and $28 a week on piece work.
His output had been satisfactory and the subject of no more coin-
plaints than were usual in the department. He had been active in
union affairs. Like Waite, he was denied admittance to the plant
without warning on the morning of November 6, by Waller, who
said, -'Cates ; I do not know what this is about; I am sorry to hear it.
If you want to know anything about it you will have to ask Mr.
Garant . . . I am sorry to hear about this ." This statement by all
official of respondent hardly accords with respondent 's contention
that Cates was discharged for inefficiency. Moreover the humane
and enlightened policy of respondent to its employees, to which re-
spondent 's counsel so continuously adverts, is inconsistent with the
summary discharge in this manner of a worker of almost ten years
standing. That the circumstances were extraordinary is evident
from the fact that Garant in his November 16 interview with Curtis
exhibited the same uncertainty about the reason for Cates' dismissal as
of Waite's . Garant admitted that this could not be laid to any
doubt of his legal right to discharge an employee for inefficiency.
That he did not regard Cates' work too unfavorably follows, further-
more, from the fact that a week before the hearing respondent in-
structed Carter to tell Cates to apply for reinstatement, and thereupon
offered him a temporary position . This Cates declined on the ground
that he could not afford to accept a temporary job. Raymond Rich-
ardson, who was a helper , now occupies his place. Cates has secured
no other equivalent employment.
(c) Elbert and Eliino Harvey had been employed in respondent's
mill for approximately nine years and five years, respectively. At the
time of the lay-off Elbert was earning $27.50 and Elmo $25 a week on
an average. Their work had always been satisfactory. However,
they had been the most active union men on the night shift. When
Waite and Cates were discharged, the Harvey brothers were the first
to be notified. As a result of the expedition with Waite and Cates
to Shelbysville and their persistent urging of the wavering strikers
not to go back individually , their vigorous espousal of the union
was forcibly brought to respondent' s attention early in the strike.
Elbert Harvey was also on the third union committee . The Harvey
brothers have secured no other equivalent employment.'
Respondent insists that the Harvey brothers were never discharged.
It contends that they were recalled to work but did not appear, and
that the mill was forced to take other hands instead . No such infer-
ence can be drawn from the record. About the period that respond-
ent began to take on men again , both Harvey brothers applied person-
ally to Garant for work at the mill. To Ehno's inquiry on November
22, as to when lie would be put to work again, Garant rejoined that
672 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
there would be none for him and referred with indignation to a rumor
that he had threatened Dewey Porterfield with violence if he returned
to the mill without the others. On November 23, Elmo; in a confer-
ence with Porterfield and Carter, successfully demolished this tale,
and secured Carter's assurance that Garant would be informed of its
untruth. Porterfield himself carried a denial to Garant. Thus for-
tified Elmo again approached Garant for work on the same day, but
found him still obdurate. His request for a recommendation was
also refused. Elbert's application for work was similarly unsuccess-
ful; he too was refused a recommendation. After his conversation
with Garant, in the course of, closing accounts with Waller, he com-
mented to him on Garant's unfairness in admitting the adequacy of a
man's work, and yet refusing him a recommendation when he was
dismissed. Waller refused to give Elbert a recommendation himself
because Garant had forbidden him to do so on Wednesday night,
when the night men were laid off.
The earnest attempts of the Harveys to obtain recommendations,
and their subsequent departure from Murfreesboro on November 25
in search of work, supports the view that they were explicitly in-
formed that their employment had been terminated. On this state
of fact, they were under no duty to linger in town awaiting a call
which they were told would not come. In view, moreover, of the size
of the town, respondent must have been aware that they returned
empty-handed about December 3, and have been available since that
time. Respondent expanded its working force considerably after
that date. The probability suggests itself that even though an early
unsuccessful call had been made the subsequent need for men would
have resulted in their employment, had they been, as respondent
insists, still on the waiting list.
We have found that respondent's intention in discontinuing its
night-shift was to terrorize its employees into submission by parading
its power to deprive them of their means of support. It is precisely
such appeals to force that the Act pronounces illegal, and which this
Board is required to prevent and to redress. It is clear, moreover,
that respondent considered the Harveys permanently discharged from
the date on which the night shift was discontinued. The date of the
Harvey brothers' dismissal is therefore fixed at the date of the lay-
off, November 6, rather than the date when their applications were
rejected.
Elbert Harvey's place has been taken by Harold Burke who was
formerly a time-keeper in the mill ; Shirly Hay, previously a footer,
is now a legger in Elmo Harvey's place.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 673
The four striking employees
The four remaining employees here involved struck on November 6
in protest against the discharge of Waite and Carter and the laying
off of the night shift. Respondent alleges that these employees were
recalled to work, but that when they failed to appear their places were
filled. It is clear from the record that respondent 's sole announce-
ment that there were jobs for these workers was the message delivered
by Carter at the beginning of the strike that those who did not return
by Monday , November 11, would be replaced. Respondent 's argu-
ment proceeds upon the assumption that the employees' refusal to
abandon a strike at its height in response to a threat that they will
be replaced if they fail to return justifies the inference that they have
relinquished all interest in their jobs and may be stricken from the
employee lists. This contention betrays a fundamental misconcep-
tion of the rights created by the Act. It is elementary that rejection
of employment under these circumstances connotes a determination
to improve the conditions of a job to which the striker intends to
return. The Act specifically guarantees the right to strike and pro-
vides that the striker retains the status of an employee while he is
engaged in this form of concerted activity. To permit the employer
to discriminate against strikers when they apply for reinstatement
merely because they had previously refused an offer to return to work
is, of course , a deliberate rebuke to concerted action by members of a
labor organization.
We have found that the union committee made its first request that
the strikers be reinstated on November 13. About November 19
respondent had sufficient work to put back the night shift; several
weeks before the hearing in this case a third shift was instituted by
respondent . It is fair to assume that among the large force hired
after November 13, there were several toppers, footers , seamers and
leggers, into which classifications the four employees here involved
fell. It was admitted at the hearing , moreover, that respondent
could, if it so wished , even at that time, work in at least two additional
men.
The facts relating to the four employees in question are as follows :
(d) Clara Travis had worked in respondent 's mill for twelve years;
during five of these she had been a topper in the full-fashioned de-
partment earning approximately $17.50 a week. There had been no
complaints about her work. She had been among the most active
union employees on the day shift, and was one of the first to strike
when Waite and Cates were discharged. As a union member, she
applied for reinstatement in the middle of November through the
second and third union committees , when they requested Garant to
re-employ all the men. On November 19th, the day after respondent
674 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reopened its night shift, she applied personally for a job, but was told
by Garant that he had nothing for her. She denies that she was
ever recalled to the mill. She was always available and has secured
no equivalent employment. We find that respondent declined to re-
employ Clara Travis because of her union activities.
(e) Leburm tiVoods had been employed by respondent for twelve
years. At the time of the strike he was earning $13.50 a week as
Waite's helper on the footer on the day-shift in the full-fashioned
department. Woods became a member of the union. He did not go
out immediately with the McClanahans and Clara Travis when
Waite's and Cates' dismissal became known, but joined the strike after
a conversation with Waite. However, unlike several other union
men, he did not return to work when Garant delivered his ultimatum
on November 8. His first application for reinstatement was made
through the second union committee. On November 18, when the
night shift was re-opened, however, Woods applied for reinstatement
to Waller, who said he would have to see Garant. Garant said he
did not need him, and has never offered him employment since.
Woods has failed to secure equivalent employment. Respondent's
contention based upon Wood's failure to return to work in response
to his call on November 8 has been disposed of above. We find that
respondent's refusal subsequently to reemploy him was due to his
union affiliations.
(f) Herbert McClanahan had worked in respondent's mill for ten
years, and had been in the full-fashioned department for five. At
the time of the strike lie was earning $20,to $28 a week as a legger on
the day shift. McClanahan had joined the union. When Waite and
Cates were discharged the McClanahans were among the first to walk
out. McClanahan was also singled out for notice as a staunch union
man by his presence on the union committee which saw Garant, and
by his failure to return to the mill by November 11 in response to
Garant's threat. Garant appears to have harbored a special ani-
mosity against McClanahan for his participation in the strike. On
one occasion in the middle of November when McClanahan attempted
to speak to Garant on the street, he was rebuffed with.the statement,
"To hell with you . .." ; on the other, when he made an effort, about
November 23, to apply for a job, Garant would not see him at all.
This change of front on respondent's part after ten years' amicable
relations at the mill can be laid only to resentment at McClanahan's
association with the union. Like the other strikers, McClanahan's
application dates from the proposal of the second union committee.
The McClanahans were always available for reemployment.
(g) Mrs. Mabel McClanahan had been employed by respondent for
about five years as a seamer on the day shift in the full-fashioned
department. Her earnings were approximately $15 a week. She had
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 675
joined the union, and struck when Waite and Cates were fired. Mrs.
McClanahan also ignored Garant's order that the strikers return to
work by November 11. Her application for reinstatement was made
through the second union committee, which represented her among
the other union employees. Respondent thereafter failed to call her
to the mill, although she was always available. We find that respond-
ent discriminated against her because of her union affiliations.
By discharging Robert Waite, Cecil Cates, Elmo Harvey and El-
bert Harvey from employment, and by refusing to reinstate them
and Clara Travis, Leburn Woods, Herbert McClanahan and Mrs.
Mabel McClanahan, who struck because of the discharges, and by
each of said acts, respondent discriminated in regard to tenure of
employment and has thereby discouraged membership in the labor
organization known as Branch No. 55, American Federation of
Hosiery Workers.
By such discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employ-
ment and terms and conditions of employment, respondent inter-
fered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
It is important to distinguish the nature of the remedy accorded
the two groups of employees in the instant case. We have found that
Robert Waite, Cecil Cates, Elino Harvey and Elbert Harvey were
discharged on November 6 and refused reinstatement because of
union activity. The unfair labor practice of which they were the
victims thus dates from November 6; their back pay is accordingly
calculated from that period. It follows also that they are entitled
to their former jobs at the cost of dislodging those who took their
places when they were unlawfully dismissed. We have also found
that Clara Travis, Leburn Woods, Herbert McClanahan and Mrs.
Mabel McClanahan struck as a result of the illegal discharge of the
aforenamed employees. If they are now out of employment, it is
because respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice which
threatened the labor organization to which they belonged. They are
therefore entitled to reinstatement in the positions which they left
because of respondent's illegal conduct. Their right to back pay
dates from November 13, the period of their first application for
reinstatement, and is based upon the discriminatory refusal of re-
spondent to take them back because of their union activities.
V. EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It was found above that the employees here involved are engaged
in the manufacture of products the preponderant portion of which
are sold in interstate commerce. Interruption of their work in-
676 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS! BOARD
volves necessarily an interruption of the'steady'and continuous flow
of commerce to and 'from respondent's plant. This -fact is illustrated
in the present case, where owing, to the labor dispute production was
dislocated' and'the' plant was' shun down for som'e'4iine. I
Interference with the activities 'of employees' in. forming or join-
ing labor organizations results in strikes and 'other forms of indus-
trial unrest' which in the knit-goods 'industry have habitually had
the effect of impeding the movement of these prodiicts into, inter-
state and foreign commerce. Official statistics of -the, United States
Department of Labor on labor disputes in the kiiit-goods industry in-
dicate that of the 65 strikes and lockouts in the industry in 1934 and
the first half of 1935, 59 were the outcome of difficulties in regard to
union recognition and discrimination for union activities. Eighty
thousand six hundred and seventy-four workers were involved in
stoppages owing to such disputes, which resulted in a loss of 825,152
man-days of potential productive activity to the industry. •
The aforesaid acts of respondent have led and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
CoNcLusIoNs of LAw
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the proceeding the Board finds and concludes as a
matter of law:
(1) Branch No. 55 of the American Federation of Hosiery Work-
ers is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2, subdi-
vision (5) of the National Labor Relations Act.
(2) Respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Robert Waite, Cecil Cates, Elmo Harvey, Elbert
Harvey, Clara ' Travis, Leburn Woods, Herbert McClanahan and
Mrs. Mabel McClanahan, and each of them, has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8,
subdivisions (1) and (3) of the Act.
(3) Such unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions (6) and
(7) of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
respondent, Sunshine Hosiery Mills, and its officers and agents shall:
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From discouraging membership in Branch No. 55, of the
American Federation of Hosiery Workers, or in any other labor
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 677
organization of its employees , by discharging , threatening to dis-
charge, or refusing to reinstate any of its employees for joining
Branch No . 55, of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, or
any other labor organization of its employees; and
(b) From in any , other manner discriminating against any of-its
employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment for joining Branch No . 55, of the American
Federation of Hosiery Workers , or any other labor organization of
its employees ; and
(c) . From in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organiza-
tion , to form, join or assist labor organizations , to bargain collec-
tively 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
National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Robert Waite, Cecil Cates, Elmo Harvey, Elbert
Harvey , Clara Travis , Leburn Woods, Herbert McClanahan and Mrs.
Mabel McClanahan , immediate and full reinstatement, respectively,
to their former positions , without prejudice to any rights and priv-
ileges previously enjoyed;
(b) Make whole said Robert Waite , Cecil Cates, Elnio Harvey,
Elbert Harvey, Clara Travis, Leburn Woods, Herbert McClanahan
and Mrs . McClanahan , for any loss of pay they have suffered by
reason of its discharge or unlawful failure to reinstate . Robert Waite,
Cecil Cates , Elmo Harvey and Elbert Harvey shall be paid, respec-
tively , a sum of money equal to that which each would normally have
earned as wages during the period from the date of his discharge
on November 6 to the date of such offer of reinstatement , computed
at the wage rate each was paid at the time of his discharge or would
have earned but for the unlawful failure to reinstate , less the amount
each earned subsequent to his discharge ; Clara Travis , Leburn
Woods, Herbert McClanahan and Mrs. Mabel McClanahan shall be
paid at the same rate from the date of their first application for re-
instatement on November 13 to the date of such offer of reinstatement;
(c) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous
places in its mill, stating ( 1) that respondent will cease and desist in
the manner aforesaid , and (2 ) that such notices will remain posted
for a period of at least thirty ( 30) consecutive days from the date
of posting.