The American Thread Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1949

84 N.L.R.B. 593 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY and TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA
Case No. 10-CA-115.-Decided June 28,1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On November 30, 1948, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his.
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices 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. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair
labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed
with respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the Union and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and,
supporting briefs ; the Respondent filed a reply brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the.
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The
American Thread Company, Tallapoosa, Georgia, and its officers,
agents, succe9sors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Tatco
Council, or with the formation or administration of any labor organ-
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and Gray].
84 N. L R. B, No. 70.
593
.•
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ization of its employees, and from contributing financial or other
support to Tatco Council ;
(b) Recognizing Tatco Council as the representative of any of its
employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment; .
(c) Interrogating their employees concerning their union affilia-
tions, activities, or sympathies, 'Or in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile
Workers Union of America or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all
of 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) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Tatco Council
as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of deal-
ing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment,
and completely disestablish Tatco Council as such representative;
(b) Post at its plant in Tallapoosa, Georgia, notice attached hereto
and marked "Appendix A." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees 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;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated against
any of its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2 In the event this order Is enforced by 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."
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY- ` 595
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 HEREBY DISESTABLISH TATCO COUNCIL as the representative
of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, and we will not
recognize it or any successor thereto for any of the above purposes.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or
administration of any labor organization or contribute financial
or other support to it.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
affiliations, activities, or sympathies; or in any manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right
to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all of such activities except to the extent
'that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY,
Employer.
By -------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated--------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Charles M. Paschal, Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel.
Messrs. Frank A. Constangy, Le Gare Davis, and Donald B. Howe, of Atlanta,
Ga , for the Respondent.
Messrs. Ross Grochong and G. R. Jonnard, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
STATEMENT. OF THE CASE
Upon a fourth amended charge duly filed on May 18, 1948, by Textile Workers
Union of America , affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein
596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
called the Union, the General Counsel of the' National Labor Relations Board,
herein called respectively, the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued his complaint against
The American Thread Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the
Respondent had engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) and Section'2'
(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, (Public Law 101,
80th Congress, Chapter 120, First Session), herein called the Act. Copies of the
complaint, the fourth amended charge, and notice of hearing thereon were duly
served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, in substance, alleged
that the Respondent (1) discriminatorily discharged Eunice V. Arnold and Gladys
Moore on or about December 31, 1947, J P. Abercrombie on or about January 1,
1948, and Rufus G. Mulkey on or about May 15, 1948, and thereafter refused to
reinstate them, or any of them; (2) discriminatorily assigned and transferred
to more arduous and less desirable work, at reduced pay, Grover Jordan ; (3) on
or about February 1945, initiated, formed, sponsored, and promoted'ratco Council,
in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, and since that date, assisted, dom-
inated, and contributed to its support; and (4) since October 1, 1947, through
certain named officers, agents, and employees, by various stated means inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
The Respondent duly filed an answer admitting certain factual allegations of
the complaint with respect to its corporate structure and operations but denying
the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Buchanan, Georgia, on October 26,
27, 28, and 29, 1948, before Howard Myers, the undersigned Trial Examiner.
The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel, the
Unions by representatives. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues was afforded
all parties. At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, the mo-
tions of the counsel for the Respondent to dismiss the complaint as to Eunice
Arnold, Gladys Moore, and Grover Jordon were granted. The undersigned
also granted the motions of counsel for the Respondent to strike all testimony
appearing in the transcript of hearing with respect to the statements and
activities of Robert Bell, Elzie Teal, Harvey Chaney, and Marie Kilgore. The
motions of the Respondent's counsel to strike the testimony of S. A. Denman
and Nell Knight Sloman was also granted. Certain other motions of the Re-
spondent's counsel were denied. At the conclusion of the taking of evidence
counsel for the Respondent renewed his motion to dismiss the complaint as to
Abercrombie and Mulkey and also moved to dismiss the complaint in its en-
tirety for lack of proof. Decisions thereon were reserved. The motions are
disposed of as hereinafter found. The General Counsel's motion to conform
the pleadings to the proof was granted without objection.
The parties waived their right to argue orally before the undersigned. They
were then informed that they might file briefs and/or proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law with the undersigned on or before November 13, 1948.
Upon application to the Chief Trial Examiner, the time to file brief and pro-
posed findings of fact and conclusions of law was extended to November 19,
1948. A brief has been received from counsel for the Respondent and has been
duly considered by the undersigned.
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 597
Upon the entire record-in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The American Thread Company, a New Jersey corporation, has its principal
office and place of business at Tallapoosa, Georgia, where it is engaged, and
where it has been engaged during all times material herein, in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of cotton threads and combed cotton yarns. The Respond-
ent also operates other plants in the States of Georgia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
In the course and conduct of its business operations at its Tallapoosa plant,
the only plant involved in this proceeding, during the year ending July 1, 1948,
which period is representative of all times material herein, the Respondent pur-
chased raw materials valued in excess of $250,000, approximately 50 percent of
which was purchased at points located outside the State of Georgia and shipped
from those points to the Tallapoosa plant. During the same period, the Re-
spondent manufactured and sold products valued in excess of $400,000, ap-
proximately 75 percent of which was sold and shipped to customers located out-
side the State of Georgia.
The undersigned finds that the Respondent at its Tallapoosa, Georgia, plant is
engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
- Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, and Tatco Council, unaffiliated, are labor organizations admitting
to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Mrs. Edna Martin and Mr. G. R. Jonnard, two organizers of the Union, came
to Tallapoosa, Georgia, in October 1947, for the purpose of organizing the em-
ployees of the Respondent's plant. The campaign which the Union initiated
was favorably received by some of the employees ; others were violently opposed
to it. Likewise some of the supervisors expressed no opinion with respect to
their sympathies for or against the Union while other supervisors openly showed
their dislike for the Union. Thus, J. P. Abercrombie testified without con-
tradiction, and the undersigned finds, that he joined the Union soon after the
advent of the Union in Tallapoosa; that he had worn his union pin in a con-
spicuous spot on his clothing while at work ; that one day Overseer Monroe
Brooks, admittedly 'a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, asked him what
the pin was ; that he replied a pin of the Union ; that Brooks then asked whether
he was "working for that outfit" ; and that when he stated he was working for
the Respondent and not for the Union, Brooks said, "you had better get that
damn thing off of there."
Employee Earline C. Rochester testified without contradiction, and the under-
signed finds, that in February 1948, Brooks called her to his office and asked her,
among other things, whether she had signed a union membership application
598 DECISIONS OF:'NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
card ; that she replied in the negative ; and that Brooks then told her not to sign
one because the Union was not any good. Rochester further testified , and the
undersigned finds that in May 1948, she had the following conversation with
Brooks:
.. . he (Brooks ) says, "Has Mulkey been bothering you about the Union,
talking to you about it?"
I says, "No."
He says, "Has he ever?"
I says, "Yes , but not in the plant."
And he says , "Would you do me a favor?"
And I told him I would if I could.
He said, "Would you sign a Union card and swear that `Doe' Mulkey
got you to sign it in the plant?"
And I said, "No, that 's dirty," and I wouldn't do it, and he says, "The Union
is dirty, too , and we don ' t want it here ," and he says , "We can 't find any-
thing else to fire him for because he keeps his job up," and then he said for
me not to tell anybody about it because if I told it , they would probably
send him to the chain gang.
Rochester refused to sign the card.
Employee Lurlene Williams testified , without contradiction , and the under-
signed finds , that in February 1948, Overseer Gordon asked her if anyone had
been "bothering" her to join the Union ; that she replied in the negative ; and
that then Gordon advised her not to join because to do so might get her into
trouble. Williams also testified , and the undersigned finds, that in February
1948, Overseer George asked her whether she was for or against the Union.
Former employee Ernest Kitties testified without contradiction , and the under-
signed finds , that in February 1948, he was riding in an automobile with some
union organizers , and some time later he had the following conversation with
Brooks:
So after he (Brooks ) told me that he wanted to have a man to man talk
with me, I told him "Just go ahead," I was listening.
And he says, "You are running around with the wrong bunch." He says,
"I hate to see you get mixed up with this thing."
He says, "If you will turn the other way ," he says, "I will see that you
get paid for four hours a day that Mr. McGill sent you back home."
I told him that I thought Mr . McGill ought to come to me and tell me his
reason for sending me back home. I ,
That was all he said, and he said if I would turn , that he believed he
had that authority , that he could pay me for the four hours for the day
Mr. McGill sent me back home.
Kitties further testified that, and the undersigned finds, upon doctor's orders', he
quit the Respondent 's employ for some months early in 1948 ; that when he
became well enough to return to work he applied to Brooks for reinstatement :
that Brooks told him to return at a later date because there was no job available ;
that he returned to the plant several times seeking a job ; that upon the last
occasion , Brooks said that before he could be reinstated he would have to forsake
the Union and get "on their side ;" and that he made no reply to that statement
and therefore was not reinstated.
Other witnesses testified to certain conversations they had with Brooks. It
would serve no useful purpose to set out at length the testimony of these wit-
THE. AMERICAN THREAD' COMPANY 599
nesses since the statements attributed by .these witnesses to Brooks are similar
in nature as the testimony discussed immediately above. The testimony of
these witnesses, like the testimony of the above, named witnesses, clearly indi-
cates, and the undersigned finds, that Brooks' statements are violative of the Act.
The undersigned further finds that by,the aforesaid statements of Brooks, George,
and Gordon, the Respondent interfered with,, restrained, and coerced the em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Allen J. Abercrombie testified as a witness for the General Counsel as follows
regarding a conversation he had with Plant Superintendent Homer McGill in the
latter pait of October or early in November 1947:
He (McGill) says, "Allen", he says, "I have been gone the last week and,"
lie says, "since I have come back I have heerd some bad news on you." He
says, "I have heered that you wasn't satisfied with your job."
I said, "Well, ever who told you that, told you wrong." I said, "I am
well satisfied with my job. Never worked for a better company since I have
been textilin'."
Q. What did he say then, Mr. Abercrombie?
A. Well, he say, "What are you displeased about, then?"
And, I said, "Well, there is three or four 'different things. that I am not
pleased about.". I said, "I am first not pleased about the way you done my
boy, and," I said, "the second thing," I says, "I am not pleased with the way
you talked about [me] when I was shift foreman since you have taken me
off." I said, "I just found out about that yesterday."
Q. Just go right on and tell us what he said to you and what you, said to
him, Mr. Abercrombie.
A. He said, "You know Doe Downey is our doctor, and," he says, "we
have got to do what he says do," and he says , "Doc Downey said your boy
wasn't able to work."
I said, "I have showed you two doctors' certificates that he was able
to work."
Q- And what did he say next?
A. You mean what did he say?
Q. Yes, sir.
A Well, we kept on talking, and he says, "Well," says, "you ought to
just go ahead and 'forget about this Union business ." He says, "Me and
you belong to the same lodge and we oughtn't to work against one another."
Q And what did you say, sir?
A. Well, I told him that I would-to drop my part of it, if lie wanted to
treat me right, and would treat me right, I would drop my part of it.
Q. And what did he say about that, sir?
A. He says, "Well," says, "What do you think about Mulkey and `Doe'
Kitties?"
Trial Examiner MYEUs. "Doe" who?
Mr. PASCHAL. "Doe" (spelling) K-i-t-t-l-e-s?
A. I told him I didn't think they would be changed.
Q. (By Mr. Paschal.) What did he say after that?
A. He said "'Doe' Kittles had better change-" I mean , "'Doe' Mulkey
had better change."
Trial Examiner MYExs. Change what? Did he say change what?
The WITNESS. He said he had better change over. - -
Q. (By Mr. Paschal.) Change over from what, Mr.-
A. We were speaking of the Union.
600 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Did he say why Mulkey had better change over?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he say, sir?
A. He said if Mulkey didn 't change over , that there would be a mob coming
in and tote him out the gate. He said that there was a bunch up there
wanted to catch us in town that morning when we was riding around organ-
izing and if we didn 't turn over , why, it would be too bad for us.
On cross-examination , Abercrombie admitted that he was quite perturbed with
the Respondent , for not putting his son back to work despite the fact that the
Respondent's doctor advised not to do so. Abercrombie also admitted that his
demotion from foreman to fixer also made him angry at McGill and the Respond-
ent. McGill testified that he never discussed the Union , or unionism in general
with any employee , that when any employee approached him and attempted to
discuss those subjects with him he would decline to do so and would inform the
'employee that he was at liberty to join or not to join any union. McGill was
a forthright and honest witness. He did make , as more fully discussed below,
certain anti -union statements but those statements do not reflect any antipathy
on the part of the Respondent for the charging Union. In fact, for the past
several years the Respondent has had a collective bargaining contract with the
charging Union covering the employees at its Dalton plant . Abercrombie's ad-
mittedly resentment of the Respondent and of McGill , in particular, coupled
with the fact that his testimony is replete with self -contradictory and confusing
statements leads the undersigned to find that his testimony regarding the above
quoted conversation with McGill , to be without credence.
Dicie Little testified that during a conversation she had with McGill, sometime
in January 1948, the latter ended the conversation by stating , "The ones that
are sticking with us, we are going to take care of them, but the ones that's joining
these organizations, we don ' t care anything about them ." The undersigned has
read and reread many times the portion of Little 's testimony from which the
above quotation was taken and it seems incredible to him that McGill would
end the conversation he had with Little with that statement . Up to that point,
nothing in the conversation referred to unions or unionization . Little is a neice
of Grover Jordan, one of the original complainants in this matter and the under-
signed is convinced , and finds, that Little added the alleged anti -union statement
to McGill's remarks in order to strengthen her uncle 's weak case.' By this finding
the undersigned does not impute to the Union or to the General Counsel any
knowledge of, or participation in, Little's improper conduct; the guilt for which
is charged to her entirely.
Regarding a regular meeting of the Tatco Council held in February 1948,
Little testified as follows regarding certain statements made thereat by McGill :
Well , Mr. McGill told that we were fixing to let something come in down
there that would tear up our playhouse. We had a good thing down there
and he didn't want us to let any outside influences come in and tear up our
mill.
He said that they were going to build more and would build another mill
if the people would cooperate with them.
He said this stuff that was started around was pure Communism. He
said it came out of Russia ; and he said that the ones that started this was
just some big, pot-bellied Yankee with a cigar in his mouth . He said they
' The allegations of the complaint with respect to Jordan were dismissed at the conclusion
of the General Counsel's case-in-chief.
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 601
wanted to leave all the money up north. He said they didn't want to leave
it in Tallapoosa ; they wanted to carry it up north.
And he said we would pay dues in that office, down there, and if we got
just one day's work, the dues would come out just the same.
He said if we got it, we would work in the same spinning alley with negroes.
We would use the same bathroom as a negro.
And he said at one time the leader of one of these Unions had gone to
Russia and conferred with Stalin and-I don't know-I don't know that
he said anything else, or not.
Oh, yes ; he said that they moved the machinery out of a mill at Carroll-
ton on account of this, and he said it could happen to that one down there.
* * * * * *
He said that he knew that he was going to be run off. He said, "I know
I am going to be run off but," he said, "you people will stay here." He said,
"This is your home, where most of you were born and raised, and," he said,
"I know that most all of you want to stay here and I want to see that you
have the best. That you don't want anything to come in here and tear up
what you have built up."
Regarding the remarks McGill made at this meeting, Maud Jordan testified
as a witness for the General Counsel as follows :
He (McGill) said they had a union-he never did say union; he said "this
outside influence trying to come in." He never did call union. He said if
it came in, that the Company wouldn't be the same, and he also said that if
it came in we would be working side by side with negroes and sharing the
same rest room with them, and said they wasn't for us. They just wanted
our money and it would come out through the office, the dues would come
out through the office, and it would benefit a big-bellied Yankee with a cigar
in his mouth.
Gladys Edwards' version, the only other witness who testified regarding Mc-
Gill's remarks at that meeting, is substantially the same as Jordon's, except that
Edwards testified that McGill also said, "He wouldn't work under no union."
The undersigned finds that Jordan's version of what transpired at the afore-
said meeting of the Tatco Council to be substantially in accord with the facts.
Little's testimony, as found above, is, in the opinion of the undersigned, to be
unworthy of belief. Edwards' statement that McGill stated he would not work
"under" a union is unreconcilable with the testimony of Jordon, a very honest
and straightforward witness, that McGill did not mention "Union" but only re-
ferred to "outside influence." McGill, furthermore, denied mentioning or dis-
cussing the Union at any Tatco Council meeting Moreover, as found above, the
Respondent has had, for the past several years, a collective bargaining contract
covering the employees at its Dalton, Georgia, plant with the very union that
has been attempting to organize the Tallapoosa plant and therefore it is not con-
ceivable, at least not to the undersigned, that the Respondent would close the
Tallapoosa plant if the Union successfully organized the employees there. This
is especially true since Mr. J. R. Jolly, the Respondent's managing superintendent
and McGill's immediate superior, has his headquarters at the Dalton plant and
participated in the negotiations which lead to the execution of the said contract.
Accepting, as substantially in accord with the facts, Jordon's version of what
McGill said at the aforesaid Council meeting, McGill's remarks, although anti-
union, are not violative of the Act. Under the Act, mere words ascribable to an
employer do not constitute unlawful interference with the legal rights of the
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAPIONS BOARD
employees unless the words amount either to an actual threat of economic punish-
ment for engaging in collective activities , or, when interpreted in the light of
other proven facts, to an implied threat of the same character ; hence the dis-
cussion of facts and arguments , or the expression of opinions , preferences, or
dislikes on the subject of labor relations , do not violate the Act.
There is some credible evidence in the record that employee Beatrice Archer
circulated in the plant an anti-union petition and obtained signatures of various
employees to the petition . Since there is no evidence whatsoever that the Re-
spondent instigated , prepared , or permitted the circulation of the petition or
that it had any knowledge of the existence thereof, the undersigned finds that the
said activities of Archer , a non-supervisory employee , can not be chargeable to
the Respondent. .
The General Counsel introduced credible evidence upon which the undersigned
finds that Wyatt Davis kept under surveillance union members , organizers, meet-
ings, and meeting places. Davis denied that he had spied upon union members or
had kept under surveillance their activities or that he had followed any union
members or organizers . It could not have been mere coincidence that each time
the union organizers conferred that Davis "just happened along." The incidents
were too many and the times and places too far apart to be mere chance that
Davis happened to be there. Davis impressed the undersigned to be a meddler,
whose activities , some day, might be brought to the Respondent ' s doorsteps.
However, the General Counsel failed to introduce any clear or satisfactory evi-
dence connecting the Respondent with Davis' activities . Davis is, and always
has been, a non-supervisory employee and there is no credible evidence in the
record showing that he was, instructed by any responsible official of the Re-
spondent to-engage in 'the surveillance in which it has been found be engaged
Nor is there any clear and convincing evidence that he reported any facts he might
have ascertained through his surveillance Under the circumstances , the under-
signed finds that the activities of Davis can not properly be charged to the Re-
spondent.
About midnight on November 17, 1947 , Mrs. Edna Martin , an organizer of the
Union, was forcibly taken from the bedroom , which she had rented that day,
by a group of masked men and women , bound, and driven out of Tallapoosa
in an automobile truck. Martin 'testified , and the undersigned ' finds, that while
being bound and being taken from her room, several of her abductors spoke and
that she recognized some of her abductors by their voices . The persons she
mentioned by name, during her examination , were persons employed by the
Respondent in non-supervisory capacities . Those persons were violently opposed
to the Union . Their feelings and activities , however, properly can not be charge-
able to the Respondent . The proof does not show any connection between the
abductors and the Respondent , except through employment as non-supervisory
employees. Since this being so, the undersigned finds that the Respondent did
not instigate or perpetuate or participate in the kidnapping and therefore is not
liable for the actions of the said abductors
Clifford Thrower , the proprietor of a cafe, beer, and wine establishment located
about 5 or 6 blocks from the plant , testified that during the Union 's campaign
Martin, some other union officials , and members came to his place of business
and discussed the Union 's affairs . He also testified that one day , the date being
uncertain to Thrower , Harvey Nixon, the Respondent 's master mechanic, ad-
mittedly a supervisory employee within the meaning of the Act, and a then
customer of Thrower, told Thrower that if he would report to him the names
of the employees who visited Thrower's place of business and favorably discussed
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 603.
the Union , he would pay Thrower for such information . Thrower also testified
that he declined to do as Nixon requested.
Nixon denied having the above-related conversation . He testified that during
the war , cigarettes in Tallapoosa were scarce ; that during the period of the
cigarette shortage , Thrower was "black-marketing" cigarettes ; that he would
buy his cigarettes at "black-market " prices from Thrower ; and that he has not
been in Thrower 's place of business since late in 1945 , when cigarettes became
more readily obtainable . Thrower did not impress the undersigned as an honst
and forthright witness. Nixon did. Under the circumstances , the undersigned
credits Nixon ' s denials and finds that he did not attempt to bribe Thrower. The
undersigned further finds that Nixon did not have the purported conversation
with Thrower and hence did not make the statements attributed to him by
Thrower.
B. Domination of, interference with, and support of Tatco Council
The Tatco Council, herein called the Council, was formed in or about February
1945. It has no constitution or bylaws. Neither has it any written rules or
regulations. Membership therein is automatic and membership does not carry
with it the obligation to pay initiation fees or membership dues. There are no
meetings of the membership.
. The Council is governed by representatives who are elected annually by the
non-supervisory employees. Each department selects one of its group to be its
representative. In case a representative resigns from the Respondent's employ
or is discharged, another person is selected.
Once a month the representatives meet with management and discuss questions
involving the working conditions of the employees, especially with respect to
sanitation and safety . Occasionally, a committee on sanitation or a committee
on safety would be appointed. Each of these committees would be composed of
two members from the Council and two persons representing management. All
committee reports are discussed at Council meetings.
- The representatives are not only paid by the Respondent for the time spent
attending meetings, but also for other time used in connection with the business
of the Council. All meetings and other business of the Council are conducted
on the Respondent's premises, with the Respondent's permission. Elections of
representatives are conducted on company time and property with the knowledge
and consent of the Respondent. The Respondent supplies the necessary paper
and other equipment necessary for the preparation of ballots and the minutes
of meetings. Likewise the Respondent permits the posting of the minutes of
the various meetings on its bulletin boards.
It is evident from the above recital of the credible evidence that the Respondent
permits the Council to hold its meetings in the plant, that representatives and
members are paid by the Respondent for the time spent by them at the Council's
meetings and while they engaged in other business of the Council ; that the
structure of the Council indicates the Respondent's control through the retention
in its employ of representatives ; that the employees are limited in their free
choice of representatives ; that membership confers only the right to vote in an
annual election of representatives; direct control over the functioning of the
organization is affected by the Respondent's power to unseat any elected repre-
sentative by transferring him to another department or by discharging him; and
that since there is no provision for dues or other form of self-financing, the
Respondent is in a position to assure its domination over the Council by subsidiz-
ing it. It did, and it is doing, the latter•by permitting Council meetings and other
604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
business to be transacted on *company time and property and by paying the repre-
sentatives and members for the time spent on Council business.
Upon the entire record, the undersigned finds that the Council exists and
functions only through the Respondent's control, participation, financial and
other support, and sufferance. The undersigned further finds that the Respondent
has dominated and interfered with, and is dominating and interfering with, the
administration of the Council and has contributed support thereto, and by these
and other acts has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The 1-day lay-off of J. P. Abercrombie
Abercrombie was absent from work on the night of November 16, 1947. How-
ever, there is no dispute that he had received permission from his supervisor
to remain away after Abercrombie had told his supervisor that he was not
feeling well.
It is undisputed that the Respondent will not permit an employee to return to
work, if the employee has been absent due to illness, unless and until the employee
obtains and furnishes to the Respondent a doctor's certificate attesting that
the employee is physically able to resume work.
When Abercrombie reported for work on November 17, he was informed that he
would be required to obtain a doctor's certificate before being allowed to work.
He obtained such a certificate, and when he brought it to the plant the following
night, November 18, he was permitted to work.
Abercrombie first denied that he ever had any knowledge that an employee who,
remained away from work due to illness had to obtain and bring to the plant a
doctor's certificate attesting to the employee's physical fitness. On later examina-
tion, he modified this testimony. There were introduced and received in evidence
three doctor's certificates which Abercrombie had brought to the plant after he had
absenced himself from the plant on previous occasions due to illness. He ad-
mitted, moreover, that after he had absenced himself from work for 5 days in
September or October 1947, due to illness, he was required to go to the Respond-
ent's doctor for a complete physical examination before being permitted to return
to his job.
The undersigned finds that the credible evidence, as summarized above, clearly
indicates that Abercrombie's lay-off on November 17, 1947, was not discriminatory,
but the Respondent's demand that he obtain and furnish a doctor's certificate of
physical fitness before being returned to work was in accordance with its past
regular and usual practice.
The undersigned is not unmindful that Abercrombie was one of the leaders of
the Union, that he obtained a large number, of members for it, and was, in fact,
one of the Union's guiding spirits. Nonetheless, the undersigned finds, that
Abercrombie's union membership and activities played no part in the Respond-
ent's decision to refuse to allow him to return to work on November 17, until
he. obtained and furnished a doctor's certificate attesting to his physical fitness.
Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that that portion of the complaint
alleging that Abercrombie was discriminatorily laid off on November 17, 1947, be
dismissed.
D. The discharge of J. P. Abercrombie
Abercrombie testified that upon reporting for work, on the night of December
31, 1947, he had heard from some other employee that Overseer Albert George, the
shift foreman of the Spinning Department, a different department than that in,
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 605
which Abercrombie worked, had made an unfavorable report about him to McGill
and that after work had started, he left his machine in the Twisting Department
and sought out George in the Spinning Department. Regarding what then tran-
spired between him and George, Abercrombie testified on cross-examination as
follows :
Q (By Mr. Constangy.) What did you say to Mr. George?
A. I just asked him why the hell did he go tell Mr. McGill that I was over in
the winding room the night before talking to the winding hands about the
Union, for. -
Q. What did he say to you?
A. He said he didn't say it.
Q. And what did you say to him?
A. Well, I says, "Well," I says, "from what I hear, that's a damn lie."
Q. Is that all you said to him?
A. No.
Q. What else did you say to him?
A. I said, "I am not bothering you, and I haven't bothered you. and," I
said, "I want you to leave me alone and let my business alone," and I turned
and walked off. I don't know whether that's the very words, or not.
Q Did, you say anything about quitting telling McGill damn lies on you?,
A. I think so. I believe I did.
Q. You think you did say that?
A. I think I did say that.
Q. Did you say "damn lie" once of twice?
A. I won't be positive. I could have said it twice.
Q. Did you say anything to Mr. George about if he didn't quit, you were-
going to whip him?
A. No, I didn't tell him I was.
Q. Was the phrase "whip your ass" used in that conversation?
A. Not that I remember of.
Q You didn't say that?
A. I don't remember it, if I said it.
Regarding his encounter witjb Abercrombie on December 31, George testified on,
direct examination by Respondent's counsel as follows:
Q. Do you recall the occasion about the first of January of 1948 that he-
(Abercrombie) was discharged?
A. Yes, sir; I remember the night that he come down-
Q. Did you see him that night?
A. Yes, sir ; and=
Q. Where were you at the time you saw Mr. Abercrombie and-
A. I was standing at the end of the spinning frames, about halfway be-
tween them and the winders.
Q. End of the spinning frames, about halfway between them and the-
winders. '
A. Somewhere around the winders.
Q. What department was Mr. Abercrombie working in at that time?
A. Twister.
Q. Where did you see him, Mr. George?
A. Where did I see him?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. He come down to my department.
853396-50-vol 84-42
606 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL '--LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Had you invited him there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Had you given him authority to come into your department?
A. No, sir. - •
Q. What happened between you and Mr. Abercrombie on that occasion,
please, sir?
A. Well, I think he made about the statement that I could make He
came down there and told me he was tired of me telling damn lies to
Mr. McGill. I seen he was mad, and- -
Q. What did you say to him?
A. Doubling his fist up, and I said, "J. P., I ;haven't told Mr. McGill
anything." - '
Q. And then what did he say?
A. He said, "You have," and he kept arguing that I had told Mr. McGill
something.
Q. What else did he say? Just use his words.
A. He said, "I am getting tired, of you telling lies on me down there. I
am going to whip you."
Q. Whip what? Just tell us.
A. "Damned ass."
Q. What did you do, Mr. George?
A. I stood there and tried to convince the man that I had not told Mr.
McGill, and it seemed'like he wouldn't take my-evidence, and--
Q. What position was his fists in at that time?
A. He was squeezing up, his, fists and I, didn't have, anything in my
pocket. I just watched his hands, and the winder hands have a stool back
there, and I stepped back two or three steps backward and kept looking
at him.
Q. What did he do?
A. He kept arguing. He didn't do anything.
Q. What was his manner as to whether he was calm or angry?
A. He was pretty tore up, or looked to be.
Q. What was the tone of his voice? -
A. I should say he' was, mad.
The undersigned finds that George's version of what took place between him
and Abercrombie on the night of December 31, 1947, to be substantially in
accord with the facts. This finding is buttressed by the fact that after his
discharge by McGill, Abercrombie sought to get George to go outside of the
plant in order to engage in further altercation with him.
Immediately after the above-described incident, George reported it to McGill.
The latter then called Abercrombie into his office and he, in effect, admitted
to McGill what had happened. He also admitted to McGill that he knew it
was a violation of the Respondent's rules to leave his •machide, without per-
mission, and go into another department. 'He admitted 'on the witness' 'stand
that he knew it was a violation of the rules to use, while at work or' in the
plant, disrespectful and abusive language to a supervisor.
Under' the circumstances, the undersigned is not persuaded that the credible
evidence preponderates in favor of finding that Abercrombie was discharged
because of his union membership and"activities rather than for the reasons
advanced by the Respondent ; viz, that it discharged Abercrombie for willfully
and knowingly violating the Respondent's rules and for addressing profane, in-
decent, and vulgar language to Overseer George. Accordingly, the undersigned
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 607
will recommend that allegations of the complaint that Abercrombie was dis-
charged in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act be dismissed.
E. The 3-day lay-off of Rufus Mulkey
Mulkey was first employed by the Respondent in January 1944, as a twister
doffer and he retained that position, except for a period of several months in
1945, until his discharge on May 14, 1948. Mulkey worked in the textile industry,
mostly as a twister tender, for approximately a quarter of a century. One of
the principal duties of a twister doffer, or tender, is to watch the job con-
tinuously in order to avoid thread breakage, and to be available to make the
necessary repairs in the event of such breakage.
Mulkey joined the Union -in October 1947,'and immediately became'very active
on its behalf. He admittedly engaged in union activity during working hours
although he knew that the Respondent's rules prohibited such activity.
On November 17, while Mulkey was away from his job, admittedly discussing
unionism with "Buck" Barnes, another employee, the following transpired, ac-
cording to Mulkey's direct examination :
(By Mr. Paschal.) All right. During the time that you were talking to
Mr. Barnes, did you see Mr. Lee Roy Brooks (Mulkey's second- hand) and
Mr. Monroe Brooks (Mulkey's overseer) anywhere around?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were they, sir?
A. I didn't see Monroe, now. I saw Lee Roy and another gentleman
that worked out,there in the office. I believe his name was Fletcher. I
don't know his duties out there. I just know they stay out in the office.
Q. Where were they, Sir?
A. They were looking around my sides. Going up and down the alley.
Looking at my sides. -
Trial Examiner MYERS. Did they tell you to stop talking?
The WITNESS. They didn't get to me, then. They were coming towards
me ; what I mean, up one alley and down another. They was getting nearer
to me all'the time.
Q. (By Mr. Paschal.) Did Mr. Lee Roy Brooks, in your presence, say
anything to Mr. Barnes about talking to you?
A. No sir.
Q What happened after that?
A. Well, Lee Roy told me, he says-he called me away from Mr. Barnes
and he said, "Come down here, 'Doe'; I want to show you something," and
he showed me two ends running off the rollers, and I asked him-he says,
"You see that?" and I says, "Yes."
I says, "Them ends look like they have been off a pretty good while."
One of the rollers was dry.
And he went off and came back in a few minutes and he says, "Well; `Doc,'
I will have to let you off for three days."
Mulkey further testified that after being told to lay off for 3 days in November
1947, he went "over to see if the other twister hands had their ends running off
the rollers" ; that he "found ends running off two more sets of twisters" ; that
he called Brooks' attention to that condition and asked him what he was "going
to do with these fellows about ends running off the rollers" ; and that Brooks
replied they also would be laid off for 3 days.'
2 The record does not show whether the other two twisters were, in fact , laid off.
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since no clear or satisfactory evidence was introduced to establish that Mulkey
was laid off in violation of the Act, the undersigned finds that by laying off
Mulkey for 3 days beginning November 17, 1947, the Respondent did not violate
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. This finding finds sup-
port in the admissions of Mulkey that he knew that the Respondent's rule for-
bids discussing unions on company time and that he also knew that he had no
right to be away from his job. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend
that the allegations of the complaint with respect to Mulkey's 3-day lay-off be
dismissed.
G. The discharge of Rufus Mulkey
The Respondent contends that it discharged Mulkey because he habitually,
after repeated warnings, violated the Respondent's rules.
The credible evidence clearly indicates, and the-undersigned finds, that on
many occasions, after Mulkey was reinstated on or about November 20, 1947,
he was reprimanded for soliciting membership for the Union during working
hours ; for being away from his job, without permission ; for disseminating
rumors about pay rates at Respondent's Dalton plant ; and for other breaches
of duty and neglect of work.
Regarding what took place, regarding his neglect of duty, in December 1947,
Mulkey testified on direct examination as follows :
Q. (By Mr. Paschal.) Now, did Mr. Monroe Brooks say anything to you
about organizing for the Union after that, or staying on your job, Mr.
Mulkey?
A. Yes, he has.
Q Will you tell us about that, please, sir?
A. Well,,as well as I recollect, it was sometime in early December, 1947.
He come-I was working on 6 and 7, the frames that are allotted to me
to clean, and I hear a loud noise over there on-somewhere around No. 1
twister and I went over there and I saw the tape idler had broken, or slipped
off, and it had knocked off three or four more tapes, or knocked them off
the idler, or broken, one of the two, and I just kicked the idler under the
twister and I went and told Mr. Allen Abercrombie. He was a fixer on my
shift. I told him about the broke idler and he said , "Well, I amp busy
right now." He says, "Just leave it stand until I can get to it."
And I said , "0. K."
So I went back over there and went to cleaning on my twisters, and a
few minutes later, I don't know, ten or fifteen minutes later, something
like that-it might have been longer than that, I am not positive-I saw
Mr. McGill and Monroe Brooks over there looking at that twister and so
I went over to see what the trouble was-to see what they were looking at,
rather. I knew what the trouble was. And someone had started the twister
up since I had left it and the ends had run and lapped around the rollers
and it made a little lap around the rollers ; waste, you see ; so I asked Mon-
roe, I said , "Who started up that twister?" and he said he did.
So I went back and went to work putting up ends and he come up to me
and said, "Mulkey, we all know you are busy with organizing." He said,
"I want to warn you," he said, "you had better stay on your job and watch
out for broken ends."
I said , "Monroe, I don't let the organizing interfere with running my job
down here at the mill."
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 609
Moreover, Mulkey admitted, on direct examination, that he was aware of the
Respondent's rules against solicitation on company time. He admitted that, in
spite of this knowledge, he nevertheless engaged in it, because, as he told Over-
seer Brooks on November 6, 1947, when the latter reprimanded him for engaging
in such conduct, "I haven't noticed anybody else observing the rules."
In fact, on May 14, 1948, the day Mulkey was discharged by Overseer Brooks
for "talking about the Union," he admitted on cross-examination that the fol-
lowing ensued : ,
Q Tell me what those remarks were, Mr. Mulkey.
A. I told Mr. Brooks-I thought anyone had a perfect right to work for
a Union if they wanted to. That they shouldn't have to sneak around in
back alleys to talk about the Union, or work for the Union.
Q. Did you tell him you thought you had a perfect right to solicit Union
membership in the plant on Company time?
A. I may have. I probably told him that. I won't deny it, if I said it.
Like the case of J. P. Abercrombie, the undersigned is not persuaded that the
credible evidence preponderates in favor of a finding that Mulkey was discharged
rbecause of his union membership and activities rather than for the reasons ad-
vanced by the Respondent. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that
the allegations of the complaint alleging that Mulkey was discharged in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3) be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON 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 such of them as has 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 unfair labor practices in
-violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act, the undersigned will recom-
mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent interfered with and dominated the admin-
istration of the Council, and contributed financial and other support to it, it
will be recommended that the Respondent withdraw all recognition from said
organization as representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of work, and completely disestablish
the Council as such representative.
The scope of the Respondent's illegal conduct discloses a purpose to defeat
self-organization, among its employees. It sought to coerce them in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in the Act by making statements violative of the
_Act and by continuing to support and dominate the administration of the Coun-
cil. Such conduct, which is specifically violative of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of
the Act, reflects a determination generally to interfere with, restrain, and coerce
Pits employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assist labor organizations, 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 presents a ready and
effective means of destroying self-organization among its employees. Because
of the Respondent's, unlawful conduct and since there appears to be anyunderlying
attitude of opposition, on the part of the Respondent to the purposes- of the
Act to protect the rights of employees generally, the undersigned is convinced that
if the Respondent is not restrained from committing such conduct, the danger
of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's con-
duct in the past, and the policies of the Act will be defeated. In order, therefore,
to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act,
to prevent a recurrent of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial
strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies"
of the Act,, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent cease and
desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act. -
The undersigned finds that the credible evidence is insufficient to warrant the
conclusion that J. P. Abercrombie and Rufus Mulkey were laid off and subse-
quently were, discharged'-because' of their respective 'membership and activities
in behalf of the Union and therefore he will recommend that the allegations of the
complaint with respect thereto be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
'Organizations, and Tatco Council, unaffiliated, are labor organizations, within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. 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 practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the administration of Tatco Council,
and contributing financial" and other support to it, the Respondent has, engaged
in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent, by laying off and subsequently discharging J. P. Aber-
crombie and Rufus Mulkey, has not discriminated with respect to the hire and
tenure of their employment
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent,
The American Thread Company, Tallapoosa, Georgia, its agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Tatco Council,
or with- the -formation 'or, -administraiibn -of ' any labor -organization 'of sits em-
ployees, and from contributing financial or other support to Tatco Council ;
-THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 611
(b) Recognizing Tatco Council as the representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment ;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the ' exercise- o1 the right,, to self-organization,-to form labor organizatiogs, to
join or assist the Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Tatco Council as the repre-
sentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish Tatco Council
as such representatives;
(b), Post at its plant in Tallapqosa, Georgia, notice. attached hereto and
marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by'- the- Regional
Director of the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent,
be posted by it 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
by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, 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 said Regional Di-
rector 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.
It is further recommended that.the allegations of the complaint with. respect
to the lay-offs of J. P. Abercrombie and Rufus Mulkey and their subsequent
respective discharges be dismissed.
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. Immedi-
ately 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-tionssof.theirecord,relied upon and,shall-be-legibly-printed=or•miineographed,
and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other
'612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48'of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
-and order, and all objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C, this 30th day of November 1948.
HOWARD MYERS,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
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 HEREBY DISESTABLISH Tatco Council as the representative of any of
our employees for the purpose of-dealing with us concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, and we will not recognize it or any successor thereto for
any of the above purposes.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.
WE WILL Nor in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
In the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, affiliated with CONGRESS OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this
union , or any other labor organization.
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY,
Employer.
By -------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.