Texas Miller Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 1949

83 N.L.R.B. 616 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. and UNITED HATTERS
CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
Case No. 16-CA-62.-Decided May 16,19419
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On December 28, 1948, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices in vi'o'lation of Se6tion;8 .(a) (1) and (3) of the Act,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached ' hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief." The Respondent's
request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the
brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the position
of the Respondent.
The Board 2 has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner except as they are inconsistent herewith.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the record establishes a
clear campaign by the Respondent to prevent self- organization among
its employees. Thus, on Monday morning, March 8, 1948, imme-
diately after learning of the union meeting scheduled for the follow-
ing Wednesday, Parrill, Respondent's vice president and its adminis-
trative officer at Corsicana, posted a notice on the plant bulletin board
I The Respondent also filed a motion with the Board to set aside the Intermediate
Report and remand the case for rehearing on the ground that the Trial Examiner was
not duly qualified . For reasons stated in Matter of The Russell Mfg. Co., 1-no., at al., 82
N. L. R. B . 1081 , the motion is denied.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this pro-
ceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray].
83 N. L . R. B., No. 93.
616
TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 617
advising the employees that the Respondent would not condone union
activities, and threatening to close the plant if they continued. He
again voiced this company policy in three separate speeches to groups
of employees during that afternoon. We find, as did the Trial Ex-
aminer, that by this conduct, as well as by the other unlawful conduct
of management representatives set forth in the Intermediate Report,
the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In reaching
this conclusion, we do not rely upon the fact that the Respondent
permitted representatives of the local Chamber of Commerce to ad-
dress the employees on the afternoon of March 10.
2. We are satisfied, as was the Trial Examiner, that the nine em-
ployees named in the complaint were all discriminatorily discharged
within the meaning of the Act. On March 5, 1948, before learning of
any organizational activities, Parrill had made a speech openly com-
plimenting the employees upon the progress of their work generally.
Yet only 4 days later, after the Respondent learned of such activity
and took immediate steps to combat it, seven employees were sum-
marily discharged without warning, some of them in mid-shift, osten-
sibly for incompetence.3 Among them were several who had openly
expressed pro-union sympathies in the plant. The only change in
circumstances occurring between March 5 and 9 was the advent of
union activity. That this organizational activity was the motivating
factor in the Respondent's sudden release of these employees is fur-
ther evidenced by President Seigle's conversation with one of them,
Laura McBroom, on March 9. When she told Seigle that she thought
she and others had been discharged because of the notice and in order
"to get*rid of the Union," as Parrill had threatened the day before,
but that still other employees were working who wanted the Union,
Seigle did not deny the accusation as to the motive for the discharges.
Instead, he merely asked for the names of these other pro-union em-
ployees. She gave him the names of Jewel Burns and Clara Allred;
both were discharged the next morning on the same pretext of incom-
petence 4
It thus appears clear, from the sequence of events between Parrill's
remarks praising the employees on March 5 to the discharge of Jewel
Burns and Clara Allred on March 10, that in selecting the first seven
employees for discharge the Respondent sought to choose those who
were thought likely to lend support to the proposed organizational
campaign. Whether or not the Respondent succeeded at first in reach-
3 Two, Jackson and Floyd Allred, were even told by their immediate supervisors at the
time that these supervisors did not know the reason for their release.
A
Although he denied having questioned McBroom, Seigle admitted that he invited her
to sit in his automobile with him, that she spoke of the Union, and that she referred
to a number of union adherents whose names he could not remember . Like the Trial
Examiner, we credit McBroom's version of the conversation.
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing only pro-union employees is immaterial, for its intention to do
so is well evidenced by the alacrity with which it utilized the informa-
tion drawn from McBroom. The quick discharge of the last two
employees confirmed the Respondent's motive, carried out the threats
expressed by Parrill 2 days before, and impressed upon all the em-
ployees his fixed determination to prevent organization of the plant
at all costs. We find, therefore, that the true reason for all nine dis-
charges was to discourage self-organization among the employees, and
that by such conduct the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and
(3) of the Act. We also find that President Seigle's interrogation
of Laura McBroom constituted an independent violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Texas Miller Products, Inc.,
Corsicana, Texas, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Hatters Cap and Millinery
Workers International Union, or any other labor organization of its
employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its em-
ployees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment;
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union activities;
(c) Engaging in surveillance of union meetings of its employees;
(d) Threatening to close its plant in the event its employes form
or join a union;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist United Hatters Cap and
Millinery Workers International Union or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain
from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Lula Holditch, Hurma Holland, Cora Praytor, and
Clara Allred immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 619
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges; 5
(b) Make whole Lulu Holditch, Hurma Holland, Cora Praytor,
Clara Allred, Henry Jackson, Floyd Allred, Aline McCulloch, Jewel
Burns, and Laura McBroom for any loss of pay they may have suf-
fered 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
he or she normally would have earned as wages during the period from
the date of the discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of rein-
statement, less his or her net earnings s during that period ;
(c) Post at its plant in Corsicana, Texas, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 7 Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, after
being signed by a representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained 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 with any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken. to comply herewith.
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 wn.r. NOT discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate in
regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or con-
6 In accordance with the Board' s consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"former or substantially equivalent positions" is intended to mean "former positions
wherever possible , but if such positions are no longer in existence, then to substantially
equivalent positions." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York,
Ban Juan, Puerto Rico Branch, 65 N. L. R. B 82.7.
6 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where, which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful discrimination and the
consequent necessity of seeking employment elsewhere. Matter of Crossett Lumber
Company, 8 N . L. R B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State,
county, municipal , or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings Republic
Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
7In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words,
"A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dition' of employment against, any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of UNITED HATTERS' CAP AND MILLINERY
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in any manner as'to their
union activities.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union meetings of our
,employees.
WE WILL NOT THREATEN to close our plant in the event our em-
ployees join or; forma labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organ-
ization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-
named union of any other labor organization, to' bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any
or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organ-
ization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL OFFER to Lula Holditch, Cora Praytor, Hurma Holland,
and Clara Allred 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 the employees named below whole for any loss of pay
above-named union or any other labor organization.
Lula Holditch Henry E. Jackson
Cora Praytor Jewel Burns
Hurma Holland Aline McCulloch
Clara Allred Floyd E. Allred
Laura J. McBroom
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named Union or any other labor organization.
TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC.,
Employer.
By ---------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date
hereof and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
621
Mr. James R. Webster, for the General Counsel.
Mr. Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for the Respondent.
Messrs. Mullinax, Wells & Ball, Dallas, Texas, by Mr. L. N. D. Wells, Jr., for
the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by United Hatters Cap and Millinery Workers Inter-
national Union, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, called respectively the General Counsel and the Board,
by the Regional Director of the Sixteenth Region, (Fort Worth, Texas), issued
his complaint dated September 14, 1948, against Texas Miller Products, Inc.,
Corsicana, Texas, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended June 23, 1947, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint and charges were duly served upon the Respondent and
the Union.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hear-
ing,' alleges in substance : ( 1) that the Respondent , for the purpose of discourag-
ing union membership and activities on behalf of the Union, discriminatorily dis-
charged the following employees on dates indicated: '
Lulu Holditch March 9
Aline McCulloch " 11
Hurma L. Holland " "
Cora Praytor
Laura J. McBroom " "
Floyd E. Allred
Henry E. Jackson
Clara Allred March 10
Jewel Burns " It
(2) that through certain named officers and agents, the Respondent interrogated
Its employees concerning their union affiliations, warned them to refrain from
assisting the Union, and kept under surveillance the union meeting place ; and
(3) by these acts interfered -with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
In its answer , duly filed , the Respondent admitted certain allegations of the
complaint, relating to jurisdictional matters, but denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices. Affirmatively, the answer alleges that the discharges
were for cause, were made "in connection with a plan for factory reorganization"
and "because of the apparent disruption of discipline among the employees."
Pursuant to notice duly served, a hearing was held October 26 to 29, inclusive,
at Corsicana, Texas, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel, participated
in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During
' A motion by the Respondent was granted , without objection , to strike one paragraph
from the complaint , relating to the alleged conduct of one superintendent. At the close
of the hearing a joint motion was granted to conform the pleadings to the proof in minor
matters, such as a spelling of names, dates, etc
2 Unless otherwise specified , all dates noted in this Intermediate Report are in 1948.
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the hearing ruling was reserved upon a motion, made by counsel for the Respond-
ent, to strike from the record a document introduced into evidence by General
Counsel. The motion is now denied.' Oral argument before the Trial Examiner
was waived by all parties. A reasonable period for the filing of briefs was set
and thereafter extended to December 13, by the Chief Trial Examiner. -Briefs
have been received from all parties. -
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses
the Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Texas Miller Products, Inc., is a Texas corporation, with its principal office
and plant located in Corsicana, Texas, where it is engaged in the manufacture
Iof men's and boys' straw, felt, and cloth hats. During the year preceding the
hearing the Respondent purchased raw materials amounting to more than $100,000
In value, of which more than 75 percent was shipped to the Corsicana plant from
points outside the State of Texas. During the same period, the Respondent
shipped more than 75 percent of its finished products, valued at more than
$100,000, to points outside the State of Texas.
The Respondent concedes that its operations affect commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Hatters Cap and Millinery Workers International Union is a labor
organization 'admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and the issues `
The Respondent corporation is one of several controlled by I. A. Miller and
David Miller, of New York City, where the parent company, Miller Brothers Hat
Company is located. The Corsicana corporation was formed late in 1945; manu-
facturing operations were not begun until the summer of 1946. The president is
Alex Seigle, who is also head of Texas Miller Hat Corporation of Dallas, Texas,
a selling organization. Seigle spends most of his -time with the sales organiza-
tion, while the chief administrative and supervisory duties at Corsicana are
performed by Benjamin Parrill, who is also vice president of the corporation.
According to Parrill's testimony, at the time the Corsicana corporation was
being formed David Miller and Max Zaritsky, the latter then president of the
Union, informally agreed that the Union would make no effort to organize
employees of the new plant during the training period. In return for delay in
organization, Parrill said , Miller agreed that when the Corsicana "plant was
running" management would "definitely cooperate" with the Union. Accord-
8 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2, a copy of a union letter which was posted upon the
Respondent's bulletin board. The exhibit was offered early in the hearing, and was
received in evidence upon assurance of General Counsel that its materiality would be
established through other witnesses. The Trial Examiner considers that its relevance was
thereafter fully established.
* Unless otherwise indicated, the findings in this section are based upon credible testi-
mony mainly undisputed.
TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 623
ing to Parrill, the parent company and the Union have collective bargaining con-
tracts at several of its factories "in the east." Whatever the personal wishes,
desires, or informal agreement of Miller and Zaritsky, there is no evidence that
the Union or any other labor organization took steps to determine the representa-
tion desires of the employees themselves at the Corsicana plant until February
1948.
On February 23 Field Representative Latane Lambert of the Union came to
Corsicana and visited with a number of the Respondent's employees, including
two of the girls whose discharges are in issue. On March 5 Lambert mailed to a
selected list of 25 employees a letter inviting them to attend a meeting at the local
Labor Temple on March 10, to discuss possible organization at the Respondent's
plant. The letters were sent to employees, among others, who had been mem-
bers of a union of textile workers in Corsicana before being hired by the Respond-
ent, and/or who were wives of members of a local machinists' union.
On Friday, March 5, Parrill addressed the assembled employees, complimented
them upon the quality of their work, urged higher production, and promised a
number of benefits, such as an insurance plan and paid vacations, which the
company was planning to inaugurate.
Early Monday morning, March 8, one of the letters anoouncing the union
meeting appeared on the plant bulletin board. The record does not reveal who
placed it there. Upon his arrival at the plant, about 9 or 10 o'clock, Parrill
ordered the letter removed.
The next morning Parrill caused a notice to be posted upon the same board,
stating :
Yesterday, a letter was found on the bulletin board in the new building. We
did not authorize the posting of this letter. It was placed there secretly and
without permission. We did not, ,nor will we, sanction this. Nor do we
approve of it. This type of activity and of outside interference, under any
circumstances or condition, will not be condoned in this plant,-as long as
it is in operation. And, as stated several times before, its continued opera-
tion and/or growth immediately depends upon your 100% cooperation,,,
Certain threats in the above-quoted notice are in issue, and will be discussed
fully below.
On the same day, March 9, Parrill made speeches to all his employees, in
which he warned them, in effect, that he would "stand for" no "outside inter-
ference," and that if such interference occurred the plant would be closed and
converted into a warehouse. He also told the employees that there was a
"good show" in town and advised them to attend it, instead of going to the
union meeting. Certain statements in these speeches are in issue.
Also on March 9, upon Parrill's orders, seven employees were summarily
discharged. One of the seven, under circumstances narrated below, told Presi-
dent Seigle, upon his inquiry, that two other girls had also been active on behalf
of union organization, and the next day the two were dismissed. All nine
discharges are in issue.
On the night of March 10, following a dinner for supervisors, Parrill instructed
a number of them to watch the entry to the local Labor Temple, where the
union meeting was scheduled to be held, and report to him who attended.
Several of the supervisors followed Parrill's instructions. This surveillance,
admitted by Parrill, is in issue.
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The discriminatory discharges ; other acts of interference, restraint and
coercion
1. The notice and speeches of March 9
Parrill 's notice to employees , in which he stated that "outside interference,
under any circumstances or conditions , will not be condoned in this plant," had
been quoted in full above.
He also admitted having made speeches ( the same day ), to all employees, in
which he said "we weren't going to stand for outside interference ." He did
not deny having threatened, in the same speeches, closing of the plant and
converting it into a warehouse if such interference continued ; the making of
such threats having been attributed to him by a former supervisor, appearing
as a witness for General Counsel.
As a witness, Parrill explained his reference to "outside interference" as
follows :
What I was trying to get at, without putting it in so many words, was that
I didn ' t want in our plant , the Texas Miller, a battle going on between the
anti-Union group which is here in Corsicana and the United Hatters which
we had known for so many years going on in our plant . We definitely had
none of the feelings in regard to it ; I am sure, there was a lot of anti-union
talk going on at the time and there was a lot of upset about the letter
being posted in the building and that is exactly what I meant . Our plant
was being disrupted by two forces. We had no interest in either one of the
forces. Our understanding there-we had already agreed that we would
cooperate with the-with President Zaritsky and the United Hatters and
we did not want a lot of upset coming from the previous union problems
that has come in Corsicana.
As a witness Parrill also said :
I think one thing that upset it was the mailing of the letters . . . I
put a notice on the bulletin board stating that I didn't want any outside
interference in the plant and by that I primarily meant anybody in Corsi-
cana as well as any one come into the plant and posting a notice on there
to stir it up. (sic)
An employer is privileged , of course , to take all reasonable precautions to
maintain order and discipline in his plant . In this case , however, there is no
evidence that disorder among the employees either occurred after or was
threatened by the appearance upon the bulletin board of the union letter.
Parrill cited no specific instance of actual interference with production until
after the sudden discharge of a group of employees on Tuesday noon. When
pressed for a factual basis for his claim that there was an anti -union element
in the plant , Parrill finally said that he knew of none , and admitted that he
only "assumed" there was some anti -union "feeling" because the president of
the local Chamber of Commerce and the Corsicana Improvement Association
told him that these organizations were opposed to the Union.
Thus Parrill's own testimony casts discredit upon and invalidates the reasons
he offered at the hearing for posting the notice and making the speeches. Fur-
thermore, he admitted that he made no explanation of what he meant by "outside
interference" in his speeches.
Under these circumstances , it is reasonably inferred and found that Parrill
actually meant and intended the employees to understand , by his reference to
TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, IN C. 625
"outside interference," their activity looking toward the organization of a union
and their attendance at the proposed union meeting. This was the chief subject
raised in the union letter, to which both his notice and speeches were addressed.
The conclusion is buttressed by the fact that Parrill permitted, on Wednesday,
March 10, the Chamber of Commerce head to address all employees at the plant
and urge them to "go to a movie or play dominoes" instead of attending the
union meeting that night.
The Trial Examiner therefore concludes and finds that Parrill's notice and
speeches to employees, on March 9, constituted interference, restraint, and coer-
cion, in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, insofar as the
notice: (1) stated that "outside interference" would not be condoned; and (2)
in effect threatened closing of the plant if such activity continued ; and insofar
as the speeches warned employees : (1) that Parrill would "stand for" no
"outside interference"; and (2) that if it continued the plant would be closed
and converted into a warehouse.
Also, on March 9, Foreman Keating told employee Mary Hanna, who had been
away ill but who that noon returned to the plant, that he could not put her to
work then because something had just happened which had "floored" him. He
added that a union was being organized ; and declared that if it was organized
at the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, the plant would be closed and pad-
locked on Thursday 6 Keating's threat that the plant would be closed constituted
restraint and coercion within the meaning of the Act:
2 The surveillance of March 10
As a witness Parrill admitted, and the Trial Examiner finds, that on March 10
he instructed members of his supervisory force to spy upon and report the names
of employees who might attend the union meeting scheduled for that same
evening. The testimony of a former supervisor, Albert Blackford, is undisputed
and the Trial Examiner finds, that Parrill's instructions in this matter were
carried out.
Such surveillance has repeatedly been found by the Board and the Courts to
be prohibited by the Act. It is therefore concluded and found that by such sur-
veillance the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act e
3. The discharges of March 9 and 10
a. Events and evidence bearing upon General Counsel's contentions
Shortly after Parrill had posted the notice described above, on March 9, six
employees were summarily discharged. Another employee, Laura McBroom,
5 The findings as to Keating's remarks are based upon the credible testimony of Hanna.
Keating admitted the occasion but denied making the statements attributed to him. In
view of the fact that , in substance , his remarks were of the same nature as those made
in writing and orally by his superior , Parrill, on the same day, Keating 's denial is not
accepted as true.
Parrill claimed that he issued these instructions upon telephonic orders from Miller.
Miller , according to Parrill , wanted the information to pass on to Zaritsky , then head
of the Union . In its brief, the Respondent contends that "the circumstances justified
the action taken ." Even if Parrill 's wholly unsupported testimony on this point be
accepted as true, the rights guaranteed by the Act to all employees were not subject
to any restrictive agreement, formal or Informal , that Miller and Zaritsky, may have
entered into.
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who happened to be absent from the plant by permission at the time the other
six were dismissed, was discharged as soon as she returned to the plant later
the same day. Two more employees, whose names were revealed to President
Seigle by McBroom, as active in the Union, were promptly discharged the fol-
lowing morning, March 10.
Lola Holditch, Aline McCulloch, and Hurma Holland, were discharged by Bar-
ney Mozley, superintendent of the felt hat department, in which they worked.
All three were called from the line of employees formed at noon on their way to
lunch, given their pay checks, and told they were fired. When they demanded
to know' why, Mozley told each of them that their work was unsatisfactory.
When they insisted that there must be some other reason, the superintendent told
them to go to the office and see Parrill. Before going to Parrill's office the em-
ployees queried their forelady, Inez Gray. Gray told them that she knew noth-
ing about their dismissals, that it was as much of a surprise to her as to them,
and that she was sure it could not be on account of their work because they were
three of the best hands she had. They proceeded then to Parrill's office, where
they were merely told to come back in 2 or 3 days and he would give each a
private interview.
Holditch and Holland had been active union members and had participated
in a strike at a local textile plant before being hired by the Respondent. The
fact that Holditch had left the textile plant on strike was recorded on her em-
ployment application with the Respondent. Holland had discussed with Fore-
lady Gray her participation in the textile strike. Both Holditch and Holland
had assisted union representative Lambert in drawing up the list of employees
to be invited to the March 10 meeting. Holland had told several employees in
the plant of Lambert's visit to her home and openly expressed her belief that
organization would be beneficial to the workers. McCulloch was the wife of a
union man ; she had received one of the union letters, had openly made arrange-
ments to transport in her car several of the other girls to the union meeting,
and Just before the beginning of working hours at the plant on March 9 had given
a union pamphlet to another employee.
Parrill's testimony makes it apparent that by March 9 he knew of the mailing
of the union letter.' As a witness he admitted having made inquiry of "various
people" about the posting of the union letter, and of having "told some of the
boys" to watch the union meeting on March 10. It is reasonably inferred that
the strike at the textile plant and the identity of its participants had been com-
mon knowledge at the time of its occurrence;. the Respondent itself established
the fact that some of its records bore notation of certain previous strikers, and
Parrill as a witness said that he did not "want" any "upset" such as had come
from previous "union problems" in Corsicana. In view of these facts, the Trial
Examiner concludes and finds that management was aware, before their dis-
charges, of the union sympathies of Holditch, Holland, and McCulloch, and be-
lieved them to be assisting in arousing organizational interest at the plant.
Cora Praytor and Laura McBroom. Praytor and McBroom, who are mother
and daughter, were discharged on March 9 by Thomas Keating, assistant super-
intendent or foreman in the straw hat department. Praytor was discharged at
noon, as were others in the group. McBroom had been excused that morning to
do an errand, and was not discharged until her return to the plant that afternoon.
'' As quoted above, in explaining why he posted the notice-which occurred before the
discharges , Parrill said , "I think one thing that upset it [the plant ] was the mailing
of the letter."
TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, IN C. 627
Keating told Prator that he had "office orders" to let her and her daughter go ; that
they could not work "relationships" any more. McBroom was told that she was
being dismissed because she was "unhappy." When she said that this was not
much of an excuse, Keating added that her work was unsatisfactory. McBroom
went to Parrill's office in protest. President Seigle, in the office at the time,
asked her to talk with him outside the plant, in his car, and there inquired why
she was so upset. When she replied that it was because she had been fired, and
believed it was because of the union notice, Seigle asked her what she knew
about the union activities. McBroom told him that if she and others had been
fired "to get rid of the Union," they had chosen the wrong ones, because others
who had wanted the Union still remained. Seigle asked for additional names,
and finally McBroom cited Jewel Burns and Clara Allred.' (As described more
fully below, Burns and Allred were promptly discharged the next morning.)
McBroom was not a union member, but her mother, father, and husband were
or had been. Praytor had been a union member at the textile mill. About 2
weeks before the discharges both Praytor and McBroom openly expressed their
sentiment in favor of union organization to Foreman Vada Westbrook.' Both
received the union letter above described.
As in the cases of Holditch, Holland, and McCulloch, the Trial Examiner con-
cludes and finds that management knew, at the time of their discharges, of the
union sympathies of Praytor and McBroom.
Henry Jackson. Jackson was also discharged at noon, March 9. He was
dismissed by Foreman Johnnie Young, of the felt hat department, who said
that his checks had been sent out from the office, but that he did not know why,
since Jackson was one of his best workers. Jackson then went to Mozley,
superintendent of the department, who said that he did not know the reason,
but that it was not because of his work. That afternoon Jackson interviewed
Parrill, who also said he did not know why he was discharged.10
Jackson had been a union member and had participated in the strike at the
local textile mill before being employed by the Respondent. He had received
one of the union letters above described. As in the cases previously noted,
the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that management believed, at the time
of Jackson's discharge, that he was sympathetic with organization of the Union.
Floyd Allred. Allred, then working in the shipping department, was also
discharged at noon, March 9. He was given his dismissal check by Emil Klein,
who was head of the shipping department with headquarters in New York.
Klein merely told Allred that he had been told to give him the check, but other-
wise knew nothing about it. Later that afternoon, upon his further inquiry,
Parrill told Allred that "somebody" had told him his work was unsatisfactory.
Allred then went out to see Joe Pete Marsh, in charge of shipping locally. Marsh
told him that his work had been satisfactory."
Allred had been a union member at the textile plant. He was among others
who received the union letter. As in the cases of other employees dismissed at
the same time on March 9, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that manage-
8 Seigle admitted the incident , but said that he could not remember the names given
him by McBroom , of "women that were stirring up things in the plant."
Westbrook , conceded by the Respondent to be a member of its supervisory staff , admitted
that this conversation had taken place.
10 Jackson 's version of his dismissal interviews with Young, Mozley, and Parrill, upon
which the findings rest, is undisputed.
"Floyd Allred 's testimony concerning his interviews , above described , was uncontra-
dicted.
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment believed Allred to be sympathetic toward organization of the Respondent's
plant.
Clara Allred and Jewell Burns. Allred and Burns were both discharged at
about 10 o'clock the next morning, March 10; Allred by Mozley, and Burns by
Keating. Mozley told Allred that her work had not been satisfactory since
she had begun work there, in 1946. When she asked why Forelady Gray had
never said anything about this, Mozley replied that "word had just come in from
New York." Keating told Burns that although he "hated" to do it, he had to
let her go, but assured her that it was not because of her work"
As found above, Seigle had been informed, by McBroom during the afternoon
before, of the,union interest of both Clara Allred and Burns.
b. Events and evidence bearing upon the Respondent's contentions
In general, Parrill claimed that these nine discharges, were ordered because
of the poor quality-of hats being produced at the Corsicana plant. It is plain
from his testimony, however, as well as that of other management officials, that
poor quality was not only natural in a new hat factory, where local labor was
not trained in this trade, but that poor quality has been since the plant's opening
in 1946, and was at the time of the hearing, a matter of continuing concern to
responsible officials. As President Seigle stated : ". . . the hats in Corsicana
are very poor. Naturally, we are in training and you can't-make hats in a
year or two years or three years...." Even at the time of the hearing, Seigle
said , hats made at the Corsicana plant were still being sold "as seconds to the
lower priced stores . . . so we can produce more here,and do more training."
According, to Foreman Keating's testimony, it takes 5 years to develop skilled
employees,in-his department. He said that he had heard'complaints by company
officials from, 2 months after ,the plant opened in 1946 until the hearing, about
every operation required to make a hat. He also said that although there was
a large- turnover of labor due to many employees being unfitted to learn the
skilled trade, it iwas the general .policy in his'department to transfer trainees,
rather than,lay•them off. And Mozley, head of the felt department; tesified that
he knew. of no,,discharges in his department during the preceding year because
of inferior, work., Thus it is reasonable to infer from the Respondent' s witnesses,
and it is.found, that special; circumstances, and not poor quality in general, were
the,cause,of the discharges. ,
Nor was any credible evidence offered by the Respondent that the discharges
were made in carrying out,a "plan for factory reorganization," as claimed in
its, answer . If Parrill's testimony is to be believed, he and Bernstein, the cor-
poration-secretary, had given orders.over an indeterminate period before March
9 for various, discharges, but. the superintendents and foremen all disobeyed
these orders until Tuesday morning, March 9. Also, according to, his unsup-
ported testimony, he, wasp told over the telephone on Friday, March,5, by David
Miller, to, `close the, place t;down, to reorganize the place, and to start it from
scratch." Parrill admitted, that, he failed to carry out Miller's orders. In a
situation where, if Parrill is to be believed, foremen and superintendents dis-
regarded,his- orders, as vice president, while he disobeyed orders of the owner
of the business, the Trial Examiner Is able to detect none of the indicia of a
"reorganization plan,' in the generally accepted meaning of the term. When
pressed for his recollection as:,to the discharges, which he claimed -had been
32 The testimonyI of Clara 'Allred, and Burns as to their final interviews ', upon which
the findings are based , was undenied by the respective supervisors.
TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC . 629
planned before March 9, Parrill finally admitted that on Monday, March 8, he
had no idea of who was to be discharged, and that he had no conversation about
firing anybody, on March 9, until after the union notice had been discovered.
Thus the claim of a "reorganization plan" is clearly invalidated by the testimony
of Parrill himself.
Turning to the testimony given by Parrill and various supervisors as to reasons
why specific discharges were effected on March 9 and 10, one is confronted by
much confusion and inconsistency.
As to the discharges in the felt hat department, Mozley testified concerning
Holditch, Holland, McCulloch, Clara Allred, and Jackson.
Concerning Holditch, hired in October 1946, Mozley said that he had been
"planning on discharging her even from the time we was in the old building,"
which was in 1947, because she was a "very contentious person," with a "very
bad temperament." He then said that sometime in January 1948, she called him
a liar and he "made up his mind" to discharge her. He changed his mind, he
said , because he heard from other employees that her husband had died. He
then admitted that her husband did not die until February, some time after the
incident which he claimed to be the cause of his decision. Mozley also claimed
that her work "quality wasn't what I would call good." Holditch's. testimony,
however,- is uncontradicted that just before her discharge, Sol Bernstein, the
Respondent's secretary and Mozley's superior in charge of making felt hats, had
inspected her work and had declared, "It's fine, and I think you are doing just
fine." On cross-examination, Mozley admitted that he had "refrained from talk-
ing" to her, "from the fall of '47 up to the time she was discharged." The in-
consistency and contradictions in Mozley's testimony deprives it of credibility.
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Holditch was not discharged for
the reasons advanced by Mozley.
Concerning Holland, hired in September 1947, Mozley said that he actually
determined on Tuesday, March 9, to discharge her, although he had "decided"
some time before then to do so, because she had "constantly had machine trouble."
Mozley claimed that Bernstein told him to "replace" her. Bernstein was not a
witness, and in view of Mozley's contradictory and inconsistent testimony in
general, and in particular as to Holditch, noted above, the Trial Examiner can-
not accept as trustworthy his unsupported testimony as to Bernstein's instruc-
tions. Discredit upon his claim that "machine trouble" was the reason for her
discharge is reflected in his admissions: (1) that he never questioned the validity
of her complaints about the machine being out of order ; and (2) that she had re-
ceived three separate increases in pay during the 6 months of her employment.
Further doubt upon the accuracy of Mozley's testimony is cast by the fact that
on direct examination he said he discussed Holland's discharge with Parrill,
but on cross-examination denied that he had. On direct examination he said
that Parrill insisted • that she be discharged ; on cross-examination he denied
this claim. The Trial Examiner can place no reliance upon Mozley's vacillating
testimony, and finds no merit in the reasons advanced by him for Holland's
discharge.
Concerning McCulloch and Clara Allred, who were hired in April 1947, and
November 1946, respectively, and had worked as trimmers throughout their em-
ployment, Mozley claimed that sometime before March 9 Bernstein had told
him "several times" to replace these two girls and a third, who worked with
them on the same operation, because of their poor work. According to Mozley,
he "hated to let these people off," but was finally ordered on Tuesday, March 9,
by Parrill to carry out Bernstein's instructions. McCulloch,, however, was the
844340--50-vol. 83-41
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
only one of this group to be discharged that day. No reasonable explanation was
offered by him as to why he delayed discharge of Allred until March, 10., , He
admitted that both McCulloch and Allred were "doing all. right" and; that he
wanted to keep them both. He also testified that both McCulloch ;and Allred
were better workers than the third girl on the operation, who was not discharged,
then or later. .Thus Mozley's own testimony reveals the impotency, of the,reasons
claimed by the Respondent to have brought about the discharge of McCulloch and
Allred. To urge that better quality work is to be obtained from a unit of three
girls by discharging the two who are already doing good work, and by retaining
the new and inexperienced individual, is to urge the absurd and ridiculous. It
is found that McCulloch and Clara Allred were not discharged for the reasons
claimed by the Respondent.
Concerning Jackson, hired soon after the,plant opened, in 1946, Mozley claimed
that he ordered the discharge, because "sometime around the first of the year in
January" Foreman Young had told him "he had had some words with Jackson at
different times." Later in his testimony Mozley added that "shortly" before the
discharge Young had complained about "something" regarding Jackson's work
but he did not "remember exactly." Young was not called as a witness. Jack-
son's testimony is unrefuted that when Young gave him his check the foreman
said that he did not know of any reason why one of his best workers -should be
discharged. As found above, Mozley's unsupported testimony is unreliable. In
this case, his testimony is not only without support but so vague as to be per-
suasive only of the fact that there is no merit in his claims as to why Jackson
was dismissed.
Praytor and McBroona. Superintendent Marchand and Foreman Keating
advanced various conflicting reasons why Praytor and McBroom, previously
identified as mother and daughter, were fired. Unsatisfactory work by McBroom
was urged as one reason. According to Keating, although McBroom had done
satisfactory work since the opening of the department in 1946, "all of a sudden"
her "quality wasn't there at all," and during a visit to the plant in February
I. A. Miller told him to fire her. Miller himself was not a witness. Having
observed Keating's demeanor as a witness and noting the unreliability of his
testimony generally, the Trial Examiner is unable to accept the, foreman' s state-
ment as true that Miller had advised him to fire McBroom. Had the owner of
the business actually given such instruction to a foreman, it is reasonable to
believe that the foreman would have obeyed, without delay and without question.
Furthermore, Keating's claim of the "sudden" failure of McBroom's "quality"
is made impotent by his further testimony, supported by that of Marchand, that
both of them protested vigorously against Parrill's orders to discharge the two
employees, given on March 9, because they did not want to "lose" either of them,
since each had showed promise of doing good, work. Marchand admitted that
McBroom's "operation" required particular "aptitude and skill," and that she
possessed such aptitude, while Keating admitted that while he was away from
the plant for a period of 2 weeks, he had left McBroom with the responsibility
of "keeping the work moving." The Trial Examiner must reject as incredible
the contention that McBroom was -discharged because of poor quality work.
Equally incredible is the reason advanced for dismissing Praytor, an alleged
company policy against employing "relations." Both mother and daughter were
among the employees hired in 1946; their relationship had long been a matter
of knowledge 'to management., Praytor's testimony is undisputed that similar
"relationships" were retained at the time she was discharged, and Keating
admitted as a witness that a mother and son were still employed in his depart-
TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 631
ment. Whatever the rule or policy, or whatever its merit, if invoked it was
called into play discriminatorily. Under the circumstances, however, the Trial
Examiner is convinced and finds that "relationship" to her daughter was not
the real reason for Praytor's discharge's
Jewel Burns. As to the discharge of Burns, also one of the Respondent's
oldest employees in point of service and training, Keating and Marchand ad-
vanced mutually inconsistent reasons. According to Keating, at that time they
were changing, from hand to machine, the method of performing the operation
Burns was on, and he did not believe Burns could properly handle the machine.
Marchand, however, claimed that Burns was let go on Wednesday because, after
the discharge of Praytor and McBroom, who worked in the "trimming line" ahead
of her, there was not enough work for Burns to do. The Trial Examiner cannot
accept, as credible, Keating's unsupported claim that Burns could not operate
a machine properly. Even if her inability had been a fact, however, her sudden
discharge was in violation of what he claimed to be his own policy in the depart-
ment, of transferring employees instead of discharging them. Equally in-
credible is the claim of lack of work as a reason for her discharge. The Respon-
dent does not contend, nor was any evidence offered to show, that the operations
performed by Praytor and McBroom were being permanently abandoned. What-
ever the degree of drop in production in the trimming line, caused by their dis-
charge, it was clearly intended to be no more than temporary. The Trial
Examiner concludes and finds that the reasons urged by the Respondent for Burns'
dismissal are wholly without merit.
Floyd E. Allred. Parrill testified that it was his decision to discharge this
employee, and that he determined upon it because Klein, sometime before March
9, had told him that "Allred was a young fellow, he didn't much care, he wasn't
too much interested, he didn't work too much . . ." Klein was not called as a
witness, and Allred's testimony is uncontradicted that when giving him his dis-
charge check Klein told him he knew nothing about it. Parrill's testimony
generally was so contradictory, garrulous, and evasive as to make it impossible
for the Trial Examiner to find, on the basis of his unsupported claim, either: (1)
that Klein in fact told him Allred was unsatisfactory, or (2) that Allred actually
did poor work." The lack of reason in Parrill's claim is made apparent by the
following quotation from his testimony, on cross-examination :
Q. Knowing of his poor work, you offered him reemployment about three
weeks later?
A. Yes, definitely so.
'a Equally fallacious and lacking in merit is the claim that Praytor was discharged
because, according to Marchand , "I believe I agreed with Mr. Parrill that Mrs. Praytor
would never be happy after the discharge of her daughter ." It is, undisputed that when
Keating discharged Praytor at noon on March 9 , giving her as an ecuse the "relationship"
policy, Praytor urged that she be retained and her daughter be let go , if necessary , because
her own husband was a disabled veteran.
I* The following additional examples of inconsistency within Parrill 's testimony are cited.
On cross-examination :
Q. Is it not true that you made the discharges to quell the friction?
A. No, it is definitely not true. Those discharges were decided , the changes were
decided on the week prior.
Parrill was then confronted with a previously made affidavit , in which he had stated,
in part:
In an effort to restore the plant to normalcy . . . I then decided to discharge these
employees .. .
He admitted that the statement made in the affidavit was true,-although in direct
contradiction of his testimony . On numerous occasions it was necessary for counsel to
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Trial Examiner finds no merit in the reason offered by Parrill for his dis-
charge of Allred.
c. Conclusions as to the discharges
It has been found, in the section next above, that there is no merit to any of
the several reasons advanced by the Respondent for the discharge of the nine
employees on March 9 and 10.
The Trial Examiner therefore concludes and finds that the real motive for
the Respondent's action, in discharging these employees, was the same as that
which prompted Parrill to engage in other illegal conduct the same days,-the
desire to discourage self-organization of the employees, in general, and mem-
bership in the Union in particular. Discriminatory discharges, effected for this
illegal purpose, interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act.
d. Reemployment of certain discharged employees
On March 13 Seigle was orally notified by a union representative that charges
would be filed with the Board against the company because of the March 9-10
discharges. On March 24 a charge was filed, naming the nine employees whose
discharges have been described above. The respondent received a copy of the
charge on March 25 or 26.
On March 18 and 19 Holditch and Holland, respectively, wrote to the Respond-
ent, asking for written statements as to why they had been dismissed. On March
25 Parrill sent them letters, each reading as follows :
We are in receipt of your letter requesting the reason for your discharge.
We wish to restate that the cause of this was a production problem and a
re-working'of our production set up. We should be very happy to discuss
this with you further if you care to call upon us.
There is no evidence that either Holditch or Holland returned to the plant
for further oral discussion. The Respondent has not offered reinstatement to
Holditch, Holland, or Praytor.^
On October 27, 1948, during the hearing, Jackson was offered, and declined, an
unconditional offer of reemployment by the Respondent.
On March 29 Parrill sent identical letters to Floyd Allred, Burns, and McCulloch,
in which he said, in part :
At the present time we have a position open that we feel you may be quali-
fied to fill.
request more definite answer than the following, given by Parrill in reply to a question
as to whether or not there was an anti-union element in the plant :
I don't know . I don 't know. I know there was a great deal of dissention one way
and the other . That was what I sensed ; I surmised it was ; there was a good
indication of it.
Again, as to dissention and discussion , Parrill said :
Well, I must have been in the factory and noticed it and maybe it was reported
that. . . .
13 The- Respondent claimed , at the hearing , that ' It' had offered unconditional reinstate-
ment to these three employees, during settlement negotiations before the hearing. Proof
adduced, however, establishes that no offer was made directly to the employees concerned,
and that only a condittonal offer was made to the Union. As counsel for the Respondent
stated : "the Union was to do certain things." The proposed settlement-was not approved
by the Regional Director and never passed negotiation stages.
TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 633
, McCulloch returned to work on March 30, at the same pay, but in another
department. At the hearing she stated that there was "not too much difference"
in the two jobs. It is found that McCulloch was reinstated to a substantially
equivalent position on March 30.
Clara Allred was reemployed on March 31, by Mozley, but at another job.
Although she was reinstated at the same hourly wage, instead of continuing at
the skilled work in her former department, she was assigned to making boxes,
which she described as being harder and more disagreeable. Furthermore,
although the evidence on the point is not conclusive, it appears that since her
discharge from the trimming department, other girls there have received an
increase in pay. It is found that Clara Allred has not been reinstated to a sub-
stantially equivalent position.
Upon reporting to the plant in response to the above-described letter, Floyd
Allred was offered a job in the box making department, instead of returning
to his former job in the shipping department. On or about April 1, Allred in-
formed Parrill that he had decided not to take the position in the box depart-
ment, but would continue at Junior College, where he would have a future.
It appears that Allred's wages would have been the same, had he accepted the
proffered job.'' Before his discharge Allred had worked in the shipping de-
partment, packing hats and loading packages upon trucks. Although not free
of doubt, there is no convincing evidence that he declined the new job for any
reason other than that he preferred to remain in school, or that there was any
substantial difference between the unskilled jobs in the shipping and the box-
making departments. Under the circumstances, the Trial Examiner concludes
and finds that on April 1, 1948, Allred declined an offer of reinstatement to a
substantially equivalent position.
On or about April 1, Burns was reemployed, at another job, but one which
she stated was "about the same" as that from which she had been discharged.
It is found that on that date she accepted substantially equivalent employment.
On or about April 15, McBroom was reemployed, although in another depart-
ment than that from which she was discharged. Since she stated at the hearing
that she does not wish to be reinstated to her previous job, it is found that on
April 15 she received substantially equivalent employment.
In summary, it is found : (1) that the following named employees accepted on
the dates indicated substantially equivalent employment offered by the Re-
spondent:
Aline McCulloch--------------------------------- March 30, 1948
Jewel Burns-------------------------------------- April 1, 1948
Laura McBroom ---------------------------------- April 15, 1948
(2) that the following named accepted, on the date indicated, reemployment by
the Respondent but not reinstatement to substantially equivalent positions :
Clara Allred_____________________________________ March 31,1948
(3) that the following named were offered, but declined,, on the dates indicated,
reinstatement to substantially equivalent position :
Henry Jackson--------------------------------- October 27, 1948
Floyd Allred-------------------------------------- April 1, 1948
"At the time of his discharge , Allred was receiving 75 cents an hour ; the standard
starting wage for men in the plant.
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and (4 ) that the Respondent has not offered unconditional reinstatement to the
following :
Lula Holditch
Hurma Holland
Cora Praytor.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several states, and, to the extent that they have been found to be
unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies
of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged each of
the nine employees named in the complaint, but that it thereafter offered sub-
stantially equivalent reinstatement to certain of them, as described fully in
Section III-B-3-d above, It will be recommended that the Respondent offer
the following named employees :
Lula Holditch Cora Praytor
Hurma Holland Clara Allred
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and
that the Respondent make each of the nine named employees whole for any loss
of pay he or she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination, by payment
to each of them a sum of money equivalent to that which he or she would have
earned as wages from the date of the termination to the date of the offer of rein-
statement to the same or substantially equivalent position, less his or her net
earnings during said period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and up the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
OONOLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Hatters Cap and Millinery Workers International Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment and
terms and conditions of employment of :
Lula Holditch "Aline McCulloch
Hurma L. Holland Cora Praytor
Laura J. McBroom Floyd E Allred
Henry E. Jackson Clara Allred
Jewel Burns
thereby discouraging membership in labor organizations in general and United
Hatters Cap and Millinery Workers International Union in particular, the Re-
TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 635
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor parctices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
recommended that Texas Miller Products , Inc., Corsicana , Texas, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Hatters Cap and Millinery Workers
International Union, or any other labor organization of its employees, by in any
manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment;
(b) Interrogating employees in any manner as to their union activities, views,
sympathies or membership ;
(c) Spying upon meetings of its employees held for the purpose of forming
labor organizations;
(d) Threatening closing of its plant in the event its employees form or join
a union ;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist United Hatters Cap and Millinery Workers Interna-
tional Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Trial Examiner finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Lulu Holditch, Hurma Holland, Cora Praytor, and Clara Allred
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Lula Holditch, Hurma Holland, Cora Praytor, Clara Allred,
Henry Jackson, Floyd Allred, Aline McCulloch, Jewel Burns, and Laura McBroom
for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him or her by payment to him or her of a sum of money equal to the amount each
would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against
him or her to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement to a former or
substantially equivalent position, less his or her net earnings during such period ;
(c) Post at its plant in Corsicana, Texas, copies of the notice attached hereto,
marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Di-
rector for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representatives, be posted by it, and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to its 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;
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writing within
ten (10 ) days from the date of the receipt of Intermediate Report and Recom-
mended Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10 ) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies the said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may,
within twenty ( 20) days from the date of service of the order transferring
the case to the Board , pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations,
file with the Board , Rochambeau Building , Washington 25, D. C., an original
and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order or to any other part of the record
or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections ) as he relies
upon together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ;
and any party may, within the same period , file an original and six copies of
a brief in support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Im-
mediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the
party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties.
Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the por-
tions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed,
and if mimeographed shall be double spaced . Proof of service on the other
parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required
by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board , request therefor must be
made in writing to the Board within ten (10 ) days from the date of service
of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions , recommendations , and rec-
ommended order herein contained shall , as provided in Section 203.48 of said
Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, con-
clusions , and order , and objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 28th day of December, 1948.
C. W. WHITTEMORE,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner 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 discharge any employee because of his membership in or
activity on behalf of UNITED HATrERS CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in any manner as to their union
activities, views, sympathies, or membership.
WE WILL NOT spy upon meetings of our employees held for the purpose of
forming labor organizations.
TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 637
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant if our employees join or form a
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other 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 the above-named union or any other. labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to Lula Holditch, Cora Praytor, Hurma Holland, and
Clara Allred immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them and Laura J.
McBroom, Henry E. Jackson, Jewel Burns, Aline McCulloch, and Floyd E.
Allred whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-
named union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of
membership in or activity on behalf Of UNITED HATTERS CAP AND MILLINERY
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, or any other labor organization.
TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------------ By----------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date hereof and
must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.