The American Thread Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1699 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1699
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO. Case dVo. 10-CA-794. June 28, 1951
Decision and Order
On April 4,1951, Trial Examiner Allen MacCullen issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation 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. The Trial Ex-
aminer also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended that the com-
plaint be dismissed with respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a sup-
porting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed 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, the brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.2
Order
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent , The American Thread
Company, Tallapoosa , Georgia, and its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interfering with the distribution to its employees of union
literature in and about its property during employees ' nonworking
time.
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations
Board has delegated its powers in connection with the proceeding to a three -member panel
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
' The Intermediate Report contains minor inaccuracies , none of which affects our ultimate
Decision and Order . The Trial Examiner found, for example , that on August 2 Elza Teal
had a revolver in his pocket , and that on August 4 the office employees cheered when the
Dalton employees were driven off . The record shows , and we find , that Elza Teal had his
band in his pocket and gave the impression he had a weapon in it , and that the office
employees waved rather than cheered . Similar unsubstantial inaccuracies in the Inter-
mediate Report do not require further comment here.
As no exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner ' s dismissal of the Section 8 (a) (3)
allegation with respect to Earlene Rochester , it is hereby adopted.
94 NLRB No. 246.
1700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Instigating, authorizing, encouraging, ratifying, or condoning
physical assaults, threats of physical. assaults, or other antiunion
demonstrations by its employees against other employees or union
representatives, intended to discourage membership in, or concerted
activity on behalf of, Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or
any other labor organization.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of
America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or 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 em-
ployment, 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) Instruct all its employees that physical assaults or other anti-
union demonstrations, intended to discourage membership in, or con-
certed activity on behalf of, Textile Workers Union of America,
CIO, or any other labor organization, will not be permitted in or about
the Respondent's property at any time and take effective action, when
required, to enforce these instructions 3
(b) Post at its Tallapoosa, Georgia, mill, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of such notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being signed by the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) con-
secutive 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 writ-
ing, 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 herein, insofar as it al-
leges violations of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act with respect to Earlene
Rochester, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
3 See Anchor Rome Mills, Inc ., 86 NLRB 1120.
4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be inserted in the notice , before the words "A Decision and Order,"
the words , "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
1701
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 :
ALL OUR EMPLOYEES ARE INSTRUCTED that physical assaults,
threats of physical assault, or other antiunion demonstrations,
intended to discourage membership in, or concerted activity on
behalf of, TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, .or any
other labor organization, will not be permitted in and about our
property at any time, and that effective action will be taken,
when required, to enforce these instructions.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the distribution of union litera-
ture in and about our property during employees' nonworking
time.
WE WILL NOT instigate, authorize, encourage, ratify, or condone
physical assaults, threats of physical assault, or other antiunion
demonstrations by our employees against other employees or
union representatives, intended to discourage membership in, or
concerted activity on behalf of, TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist TEXTILE'WoRK-
ERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to re-
frain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship 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 thereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
1702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intermediate Report
Charles M. Paschal, Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel.
Frank A. Constangy, Esq., of Atlanta, Ga., and Don B. Howe, Esq., of Bu-
chanan, Ga., for the Respondent.
Ross Groshong, Esq., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed August 12, 1949, by Textile Workers Union of America,
CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board,' by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia),
issued a complaint dated October 31, 1950, against The American Thread Com-
pany, Tallapoosa , Georgia, herein called the Respondent , alleging that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon
the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that on August 2, 4, and 19, 1949, Respondent instigated, authorized, and con-
doned threats of physical violence upon its employees and union representatives
if they did not cease and abandon their lawful, concerted, and union activities ; on
August 19, 1949, Respondent instigated, ratified, and condoned a physical as-
sault upon Earlene Rochester, and thereafter until August 29, 1949, failed and
refused to reinstate her to her former position of employment because she en-
gaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid and protection ; and on September 2 and 6,
1949, Respondent threatened its employees with discharge because of their
union activities, sympathies, and concerted activities? The complaint charged
that by the foregoing conduct the Respondent engaged in violations of Section
8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
In its duly filed answer, Respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce
as defined by the Act, but denies the other allegations of the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on November 14, 15, and 16, 1950,° at
Carrollton, Georgia, before Allen MacCullen, the undersigned Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the
Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union was represented by its
agent, and all parties participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues was afforded to all parties. A motion by General Counsel at
the conclusion of the hearing to conform the pleadings to the proof as to dates,
'' The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to herein as the
General Counsel . The National Labor Relations Board is herein called the Board.
2 General Counsel offered no proof of any activities by Respondent on September 2 and 6,
1949, and at the conclusion of his case, General Counsel moved to strike from the complaint
the charge that Respondent on these two dates threatened employees with discharge
because of their union activities, etc., which motion was granted.
8 Upon the conclusion of the testimony at Carrollton , Georgia , Respondent filed a motion
to take the deposition of Gordon Enloe, a witness to material facts. who then resided in
Sao Paulo, Brazil. This motion was granted, and the formal closing of the hearing was
delayed pending receipt of return of the answers to written interrogatories and cross-
interrogatories filed by Respondent and the General Counsel. By written order entered
on February 28, 1951, the testimony of Gordon Enloe in response to the interrogatories
and 'cross -interrogatories , together with exceptions filed by General Counsel, was incor-
porated as a part of the record, and the hearing formally closed.
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1703
spelling, and- minor variances was granted. 'Respondent filed a brief with the
undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case and from observation of the witnesses;
and after due consideration of the brief filed by Respondent, the undersigned
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The American Thread Company is now and has been at all times material
to this proceeding a corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the
laws of the State of New Jersey, maintaining its principal office and place of
business in New Jersey, with manufacturing plants in the States of Georgia,
North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, including a manufacturing
plant at Tallapoosa, Georgia, where it is now and has been continuously en-
gaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cotton thread and combed
cotton yarns.
The Respondent in the course and conduct of its business operations at its
Tallapoosa, Georgia, plant during the year ending December 31, 1949, which
period is representative of all times material to the present proceeding, purchased
raw materials valued in excess of $250,000, of which value approximately 50
percent originated outside the State of Georgia and was shipped in interstate
commerce to the Tallapoosa plant.
During the same period the Respondent at its Tallapoosa plant manufactured
and sold finished products valued in excess of $400,000, of which value approxi-
mately 75 percent was sold and shipped in interstate commerce to customers
located outside of the State of Georgia.
The undersigned finds that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the-
meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization as defined by'
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The events
1. Respondent's organization ; the plant and the physical setting
At all times material hereto Respondent's Tallapoosa plant was operated under
the direction of Wesley G. Littlefield, as superintendent. Littlefield and his
clerical staff occupied offices in a building separate and apart from the mill
building, but adjacent thereto. Gordon Enloe was assistant superintendent
with his office in the mill building, and he was in direct charge of the operations
of the mill. Other members of Respondent's supervisory hierarchy, insofar as
they are material to this proceeding, were Monroe Brooks, overseer of the winding
room, who also acted as shift foreman over the first shift; Paul Jacks, shift fore-
man over the second shift ; and Lorenz Gress, shift foreman over the third shift.
G. H. Gordon was overseer in charge of the spinning department, and Jesse
Parton was shift foreman over the first shift ; J. M. Woods was shift foreman over
the second shift; and Fred Amerson was shift foreman over the third shift.
Respondent's plant in Tallapoosa extends approximately 1,000 feet along the
east side of West Atlanta Street. Its entire plant is enclosed by a wire fence
1704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about 6 feet high, with gates at various points. As only two of these gates
are material to this proceeding, the other gates will not be described. One gate
at the northwest corner of the property supplied entrance to the parking lot
provided for the employees. This gate will be referred to herein as the parking
lot gate. The other gate used by the pedestrian employees entering and leaving
the mill building, was approximately 500 feet south of the parking lot gate,
and will be referred to herein as the main .gate. Running parallel with the
fence along West Atlanta Street was a concrete sidewalk.
The office building housing Littlefield and his staff was immediately off of
West Atlanta Street and approximately half way between the parking lot gate
and the main gate. The mill building was approximately 300 by 400 feet, and
extended in a southerly direction from the rear of Littlefield's office approximately
300 feet along West Atlanta Street to a point approximately 25 feet inside of
the fence adjacent to the main gate. At this point there was a double door to
the mill, the upper half of which was glass, which door was used by the pedes-
trian employees to enter and leave the mill. Through this door there was a small
vestibule approximately 10 by 10 feet from which there was an open archway
leading into the mill next to the winders. There were eight windows about 4 feet
wide in the mill building fronting on West Atlanta Street.
The winders were set up in the mill on the side facing West Atlanta Street.
These machines were about 4 feet high, and activities throughout the winder
room were visible to anyone walking through the mill. Spinning machines were
set up in the other end of the building back of the winders. These machines
were about 61/2 feet high and blocked the view of anyone walking through, ex-
cept up and down broad alleyways maintained on either side of the mill building,
and through the center. On the south side of the building immediately adjacent
to the winders there was a separate room used as a machine shop, the door to
which was approximately 125 feet from the entrance door to the mill. The over-
seer's office was on the north side of the building approximately midway between
the winders and spinners. This office was glass enclosed and was elevated about
0 feet above the floor level furnishing a clear view of the entire operations in
the winder and spinning sections.
2. The issues
During the month of August 1949 the employees at Respondent's Dalton,
Georgia, plant were out on strike. On August 2, 1949, 5 of the Dalton employees
stationed themselves outside of the parking lot gate and the main gate at the
Tallapoosa plant and attempted to distribute union literature explaining their
position at Dalton to the employees entering and leaving the plant. On August
4, 1949, about 20 of the Dalton employees returned to Tallapoosa and again
attempted to distribute the union literature to the employees. On both occa-
sions the Dalton employees were forced to abandon the distribution of the
union literature by the coercive and threatening activities of certain rank-and-
file employees in the Tallapoosa plant. On August 19, 1.949, a representative
of the Union attempted to distribute literature at the main gate and was as-
saulted by a rank-and-file employee in the Tallapoosa plant and forced to
abandon his activities. There was.very little conflict in the testimony as to
the activities of the Tallapoosa rank-and-file employees on these 3 days. The
principal question was if such activities were instigated, authorized, encouraged,
ratified, and condoned by supervisory employees of Respondent, thus raising the
issue of a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
On August 19, 1949, Earlene Rochester, one of the Tallapoosa employees who
was the wife of the Union's representative distributing literature at the main
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1705
gate , sought to intervene in the assault being made on her husband , and'was
severely assaulted , raising the issue as to whether Respondent authorized, in-
stigated , encouraged , ratified, and condoned the assault , and by reason of the
physical condition of Earlene Rochester after the assault failed and refused to
reinstate her to her former position between August 19 and Ai gust 29, 1949, in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act.'
3. Interference, restraint, and coercion
O
On August 2, 1949; about 2: 30 p. in., five employees at the Dalton plant of
Respondent gathered at the parking lot gate and the main gate of the Talla-
poosa plant and attempted to distribute union literature to the employees
entering the plant, Shortly after the distribution started and employees came
into the mill with the circulars, Elza Teal and his son, Durwood Teal, rank-
and-file employees, together with four or five other employees left their work
and gathered at the door to the machine shop. Gordon Enloe, the assistant
superintendent, was with the group at the machine shop door. Shortly there-
after the group left Enloe and walked-up to the entrance door to the mill. Each
of the employees was armed with sticks, or what one of the witnesses testified
"looked like base ball bats." The group then left the mill and approached two
of the Dalton employees who were distributing leaflets at the main gate, and by
threatening them with the sticks or clubs forced them to leave the main gate
and proceed up to the parking lot gate where they were joined by the other
three Dalton employees. Elza Teal had a revolver in his pocket and directed
the Dalton employees to leave. While the group of Tallapoosa employees were
driving the Dalton employees up the street, Enloe walked up to the window
in the front of the mill and looked out, the activities of the Tallapoosa em-
ployees and the union representatives being plainly visible. After Elza Teal
and his group had driven the union representatives away, Teal reported to Enloe
and had a talk with him.' This was about 2: 50 p. in. The shift changed at
3 p. in. All of the men_ in the group left their regular employment at the time
they departed from the mill and forced the union representatives to leave.
On August 4, 1949, at about 2:30 p. in., about 1S or 19 of the Dalton employees
returned to the Tallapoosa plant to distribute union leaflets. They were accom-
panied by a former employee of the Tallapoosa mill, J. P. Abercrombie, and by
Ross Groshong, a representative of the Union. Two or three of the group started
to distribute leaflets at the parking lot gate, and about three of four attempted
to distribute leaflets at the main gate. The other Dalton employees were gathered
in the vicinity of the main gate as a protection to the men distributing the leaflets.
Shortly after the distribution began, a woman employee came out of the mill,
asked for one of the pamphlets, and then returned to the hill. William Robinson,
one of the employees at Tallapoosa, testified credibly that about this same time
Enloe came to him and asked "if he would like to go out and help run some
4 As the testimony of witnesses as to the activities of the Tallapoosa employees on
August. 2, 4, and 19 , 1949 , is in the main uncontradicted and is based on the credited
testimony of the Dalton and Tallapoosa employees and of uninterested witnesses not
employed by Respondent, no attempt will be made to quote from the testimony of
individual witnesses , other than for minor discrepancies between the testimony of wit-
nesses produced by General Counsel and those produced by Respondent. The only exception
is the denials by Gordon Enloe, assistant superintendent , of certain activities and state-
ments attributed to him by witnesses which will be specifically commented on herein.
6 The activities of Enloe are based on the credited testimony of Mrs. J. P. Abercrombie,
an employee who at the time was working on one of the winders adjacent to the entrance
to the mill. Her testimony , although contradicted by Enloe, was very convincing. For
reasons herein later given , I do not place any credence in Enloe's denials.
1706 DECISIONS .OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union fellows off." He refused . Robinson further credibly testified that Enloe
then turned to Durwood Teal and said "Durwood do you have your gun ready?"
and Durwood replied, "No, but I can get it." Shortly before this conversation
with Robinson, Enloe and Eiza Teal were standing in one of the broad alleys in
the mill room, about 30 or 40 feet from the front of the mill. They then went up
to the shift foreman's office where they remained for several minutes. Enloe
,then left Teal and went in the direction of the spinning room. Teal left the mill
room by a side door. Shortly thereafter Teal returned to the mill room accom-
panied by his son, Durwood, who had a shotgun in his hands clearly visible to
anyone. About this same time Enloe returned to the winder room accompanied
by Leroy Hudgins, one of the rank-and-file employees, with several other em-
ployees following, and joined the Teals at the entrance to the machine shop
Enloe and the employees then entered the machine shop. In a few moments all
of these employees returned to the mill room and gathered at the entrance to the
mill. Enloe was not with the employees when they left • the machine shop.6
There were at least 12 or more employees in the group that gathered near the
entrance door, and in addition to the shotgun held by Durwood Teal, Elza Teal
had a revolver and the other employees were armed with hammers and clubs.'
Shortly before the 3 o'clock shift whistle sounded, the employees gathered at
the entrance and left the mill. They were led by Durwood and Elza Teal. Dur-
Wood pointed the shotgun at the stomach of one of the Dalton employees and said
"You g. d. redheaded s. b., I told you day before yesterday to stay away from
down here. Now I mean it. Get going and get going now." Elza Teal punched one
of the other Dalton. employees with his revolver and told him they could not dis-
tribute pamphlets at the Tallapoosa mill, and for the Dalton employees to get in
their automobiles and leave . Durwood Teal with the shotgun and Elza Teal
with the revolver followed the Dalton employees to their automobiles, both of
the Teals continuing to threaten the Dalton employees. On the way to the auto-
mobiles, Durwood Teal said to other Tallapoosa employees and spectators in the
vicinity "Don't anybody get in between us, I might shoot." One of the Dalton
employees asked Ross Groshong , the Union's representative who was present,
what the Dalton employees should do , and Groshong said that under the cir-
cumstances they could do nothing more, and the Dalton employees got in their
automobiles and left. As the Dalton employees were getting into their auto-
mobiles, one of the employees had some trouble starting his car , and Elza Teal
came up to the car, pointed his revolver at the driver and told him to hurry up.
As the Dalton employees drove down the street , Durwood Teal followed them and
discharged the shotgun in the air.
During all of the time of the above occurrences , the windows of the mill facing
on West Atlanta Street were filled with mill employees , and the employees in
Littlefield's office came out on a balcony overlooking the street and cheered the
Tallapoosa employees in their efforts to drive the Dalton employees away.
On August 19, 1949, at about 2: 30 p. m., Bernel Rochester , a former employee
at the Tallapoosa mill, attempted to distribute union literature at the main gate.
9 The findings as to the activities of Enloe are based on the credited testimony of
Mrs. Abercrombie . See footnote 4, supra.
' Julius A. Adams , an employee at Tallapoosa , testified that he saw J. M. Woods, shift
foreman on the second shift, with the group near the entrance door . Woods testified
that he probably passed through the group on his way to the laboratory which adjoins
the entrance lobby, but that he had no conversation with any of them. Woods, who
had just entered the mill observed the men passing out pamphlets at the gate. Wood's
testimony was frank and convincing , and I attach no significance to the fact that he may
have been observed passing through the group gathered at the entrance door.
01
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1707
Shortly after the distribution started, Durwood Teal went to one of the front
windows in the mill and looked out. He appeared to be very agitated and finally
picked up one of the brooms used by the sweepers and broke off the handle which
he put in his pocket. At the 3 o'clock whistle blew, Mrs. J. P. Abercrombie and
Earlene Rochester, Bernel's wife, left the mill by the entrance door, followed
immediately by Durwood Teal and his father, the latter carrying a shotgun.
Earlene Rochester went directly to her husband and urged him to leave. Before
Bernel could reply or make any move, Durwood Teal arrived and asked Bernel
"What's that you got there, Bernel?" Before Bernel could reply, Durwood Teal,
who was a muscular, heavy set man weighing in excess of 200 pounds, hit Bernel
knocking him to the ground. Durwood then straddled Bernel, and as the latter
endeavored to get up, Durwood hit him again and again knocking him back to
the ground. Earlene Rochester then sought to pull Durwood from her husband,
and Elza Teal intervened and pulled Earlene away from Durwood and pushed
her with considerable force on to the ground and into the fence surrounding the
mill property. During all of this time, Durwood was still straddling Bernel
who was on the ground, and beating Bernel with his fists. Earlene arose from
the ground and again sought to pull Durwood away from her husband. Durwood
then caught Earlene around the neck with the crook of his left arm and hit her
a number of times in the face with his right fist, finally knocking her unconscious
over against a telephone pole nearby. During this whole occurrence, Elza Teal
was standing nearby with his shotgun warning" spectators not to intervene.
When a local cab driver, who was standing nearby, attempted to pick up Earlene
Rochester after she had been knocked unconscious, Elza Teal pointed the shotgun
at him and told him to leave Earlene alone or "he would blow my damn head off."
Another Tallapoosa employee came up about this time, and told Durwood "you
should not have done that," and Durwood and Elza Teal then left with this
employee. At this time, both Bernel and Earlene Rochester were unconscious
and lying on the ground. Bernel Rochester never at any time said one word to
Durwood Teal, nor did Bernel have an opportunity to strike Durwood.
All of the above findings are based on credited testimony of witnesses produced
by the General Counsel. The only testimony, other than the deposition of Enloe
hereinafter set forth, offered by the Respondent to rebut the testimony of General
Counsel's witnesses, was the testimony of Coy McPherson, who was alleged to
have participated in the activities on August 4, and Tyrus Manuier, who'ad-
mitted participating in the activities on August 2, 4, and 19.' McPherson
attempted to relate some of the events that occurred outside of the mill building
on August 4, but admitted on cross-examination that he started in the mill building
about 2: 45 p. in., and was at his machine ready to work at 3 o'clock. All of the
witnesses who testified, including Tyrus Manuier, produced by Respondent,
agreed that all of the events on March 4 occurred after the 3 o'clock whistle
New. Accordingly McPherson's testimony as to happenings outside of the mill
on August 4 are not persuasive and are not credited. McPherson gave some
testimony that he had seen Bernel Rochester on August 19 shortly before Bernel
started to distribute pamphlets, and that at that time Bernel showed some indi-
cations that he had been drinking . Assuming this to be a fact, here was no
evidence from any witness that Bernel's alleged condition in any way affected his
conduct while he was distributing pamphlets at the gate. On the contrary, all of
the evidence disclosed that Bernel's conduct on August 19, and the same is true
of the conduct of the Dalton employees on August 2 and -4, was above reproach,
and was wholly peaceful and lawful in all respects.
8 The testimony of J.. M. Woods has been referred to herein. (See footnote (3, supra.)
1708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tyrus Manuier's testimony on the whole corroborated the testimony of General
Counsel's witnesses. Manuier further testified that no supervisor ever said
anything to him about running the Dalton employees away, but testified that
Elza Teal initiated the activities of the Tallapoosa employees. Manuier, how-
ever, gave no testimony as, to Teal's authority for initiating these activities.
He testified that on August 4 he saw Enloe about 2: 30 o'clock "walking around
and looking at the hands when they started coming in."
Gordon Enloe, in response to leading and suggestive questions propounded
by counsel for Respondent, has denied the statements attributed to him by
Robinson and his activities as testified by Mrs. Abercrombie. General Counsel
has objected to all of these questions as being leading and suggestive, and
points to the fact that Enloe admits receiving a copy of the questions from
Respondent's counsel sometime before he appeared and gave his testimony.
While there is merit to General Counsel's position, under all the circumstances,.
I find it more appropriate to, and do hereby overrule General Counsel's objections
and deny his motion to strike. However, by reason of the leading and sugges-
tive character of the questions I am giving less weight to Enloe's testimony than
1 ordinarily would. For the reasons hereinafter stated, Enloe's denials of the
testimony of Robinson and Mrs. Abercrombie are not convincing and are not
credited by me.
Respondent's personnel records disclose, and Respondent stipulated, that no
reprimand or any other action was taken by Respondent against any of the
Tallapoosa employees who participated in the events of August 2, 4, and 19,
1949. Respondent's records also disclose that no deductions were ever made
from the compensation of any of these employees who abandoned their work
and participated in these activities. After the incident on August 19, 1949,
Durwood Teal reported at the mill with part of his right hand in a cast due to a
broken finger and for some time thereafter he was apparently unable to perform
his usual duties. Respondent's records disclose that Durwood Teal received
full compensation for each workday after August 19, 1949.
Littlefield testified that he heard.of the August 2 incident the next day and
talked with some of the supervisors about it; that he heard of the August 4 inci-
dent that afternoon, and talked with the supervisors of Elza and Durwood Teal
about it; that he heard of the August 19 incident that afternoon and talked with
Enloe about it; that he personally made no investigation of any of them, and
did not at any time talk to any of the employees involved ; that he did not
reprimand any of the employees, and' so far as he knows no employee was ever
reprimanded.
Littlefield admitted that the employees handbook issued by Respondent con-
tained rules prohibiting. the destruction or damaging of company property,
fighting or scuffling in or about any of the company's plant buildings (emphasis
supplied), employees leaving work during working time without permission of
the supervisors, injuring or damaging any fellow employee, and carelessness
that endangered self or others. When questioned as to whether any of the
activities on August•2, 4, or 19 violated any of these rules, Littlefield sought
refuge in the position that the incidents occurred off of Respondent's property,
ignoring the fact that. the preparations for the activities all occurred on Re-
spondent's property and during working hours, and that the remainder of the
activities occurred in or about Respondent's property and at a place where em-
ployees entering and leaving the mill were intimidated, threatened, and seriously
endangered by the use of the shotgun on August 4 and 19.
Enloe testified that Littlefield asked him to make an investigation of the events
on all 3 days, and that he talked with some of the supervisors, but at no time
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1709
questioned any of the employees; that he reported to Littlefield that Bernel
Rochester cursed Durwood Teal when Teal came out of the gate, and that Teal
hit Rochester and a fight ensued. If Enloe made such a report to Littlefield,
the latter did no so testify, and such a report was clearly false as there.was
no testimony that Rochester made any statement to Teal.
4. Conclusion as to interference, restraint, and coercion
The right of the Union to distribute proper literature in and about Respond-
ent's premises has been settled by the Board and the courts.° In the present!
case, Respondent has raised no question as to the type of literature being dis,
tributed, or as to the method of distribution or the conduct of the Union's repre-
sentatives making the distribution. The evidence clearly established and I
find that the distribution by the Union was peaceful and lawful, and violated
no rules of Respondent.
The evidence clearly establishes, and I find that there was interference,
restraint, and coercion exercised against the Union in the latter's attempts
to make a lawful distribution of its literature at the Tallapoosa mill. Respond-
ent has taken no position with respect to this question, but has urged that such
interference, restraint, and coercion was the act of rank-and-file employees
which was not instigated, authorized, directed, condoned, or ratified by Re-
spondent; and further that the action occurred off Respondent's property, and
Respondent does not "feel that we have the right to dictate how our employees
shall conduct themselves when they are off duty." '0 For these reasons, Respond-
ent urges that it is not liable for the acts of its rank-and-file employees.
There is so little merit in Respondent's position that these occurrences hap-
pened off of its premises, and while its employees were off duty that it deserves
little consideration. The place of the occurrences was not remote to Respond-
ent's property, but was in and about its mill property, and seriously interfered
with and intimated employees entering and leaving the property at shift change
time, and had a coercive effect upon employees who might then have been con-
sidering joining the Union. Certainly Respondent cannot seriously urge that
it has no control over employees who are on duty, desert their work, assault other
employees and union representatives engaged in lawful and peaceful activities,
because they crossed that mysterious "38th parallel" before the actual assault.
Yet that is what the evidence clearly shows happened on August 2. 'And
what action did Respondent take against these employees when they returned to
the mill, still before the shift whistle? None. Both Littlefield and Enloe
admitted that although advised of this occurrence, according to their testimony
after it occurred, they did not question any of the employees involved and
further admitted that none of these employees were reprimanded or even warned
that such conduct would not be tolerated.
And again on August 4, 1949, the same thing happened only this time it was
more violent and more employees were involved. If differed from the August 2
incident in the timing. The actual assault did not take place until the shift
change whistle had blown. But the evidence clearly shows that the preparations
were made on Respondent's property and that the employees left their work
before shift change time, collected their weapons, and gathered together near
the entrance door, in the mill in plain view of everyone in the room, particularly
those in the winder room, that they had a shotgun, hammers, clubs or
sticks which could be seen ; that other employees were gathered at the windows
° Maryland Drydock Company V. N. L. R. B., 183 P. 2d 538 (C. A. 4, 1950) ; Republic
Aviation Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 324 U. S. 793
10 Respondent ' s letter of August 24 , 1949; to the employees.
1710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
looking out ; that about this time Enloe was in the mill "walking around and
looking at the hands when they started coming in." What did Respondent de
as to this second occurrence ? Littlefield and Enloe said that nothing was done,
none of the employees were questioned , reprimanded , or warned by Respondent.,
Where was Enloe while all of this was going on? Mrs. Abercrombie placed
him on the mill floor conferring with Elza Teal, the admitted leader of the
group, and later returning to the winder room with a group of employees and
joining Elza and Durwood Teal, the latter with his shotgun ; Robinson said
Enloe asked him about this time to join in the assault , and urged Durwood
Teal to get his shotgun ; Manuier places Enloe as on the mill floor watching the
employees . Yet Enloe denies that he saw or knew of any of these activities,
and did not know of the assault until later that afternoon . That it was of
such general knowledge to all of the employees is shown by the uncontradicted
testimony of one of General Counsel's witnesses that the employees in Little-
field's office in the next building had gathered on the balcony overlooking the
street to see the excitement . Enloe's denials are so improbable as to be worthy of
no belief and are not credited.
If as Respondent contends Mrs. Abercrombie and Robinson were testifying
falsely, where were Elza and Durwood Teal, who took an active part in the•
occurrences on all 3 days , and where was Leroy Hudgins who, according to
Mrs. Abercrombie , came out of the spinning room with Enloe followed by other
employees who participated in the assault . Respondent did not produce any
of these witnesses nor did it account for its failure to produce them. If Mrs_
Abercrombie and Robinson were not telling the truth , these three witnesses were
certainly in a position to contradict them.
The evidence does not show that Enloe or any other supervisor, instigated
or authorized the activities of the Teals on August 19, 1949. That the Teals,
may have been encouraged in their efforts by the previous conduct of Respondent
with respect to prior occurrences may be true , but this is not sufficient to
charge Respondent for their activities on this day . However, following the
assault, what action did Respondent take? It clearly condoned and ratified
the offense . Neither Elza nor Durwood Teal was questioned , reprimanded, or
warned. On the contrary , when Durwood Teal reported at the mill the next
workday with his right hand in a cast incapacitating him from his usual
duties, he was fully paid by Respondent for this day and each day thereafter..
Respondent offered no evidence that Durwood did perform his usual duties, or
any other work, during this period justifying the payment to him of his usual
wages. Was this a reward for his conduct ? It was certainly not a reprimand.
Finally on August 24 , 1949, Respondent issued a letter to its employees. This
letter clearly expresses Respondent 's antiunion attitude . As there is no charge
in the complaint that this letter violated the Act, it is not necessary to decide
if the letter was covered by the exemptions granted in Section 8 ( c) of the
Act. This letter did not condemn the activities on August 2, 4, and 19, nor did
Respondent attempt to repudiate these activities or prohibit similar activities
in and about its property . At the time of the preparation of this letter, and a
week before it was distributed to the employees , Respondent had been served
with a copy of the first charge filed by the Union . Respondent merely sug-
gested to its employees that they "refrain from any sort of violent action,"
that Respondent was opposed to violence , and that if the employees "feel you
are being molested or improperly provoked by outsiders or others ," that they
appeal to the Tallapoosa law enforcement officers. Why this suggestion?
There was no testimony from any witness that the Union 's representatives or
the Dalton employees molested or improperly provoked any of the Tallapoosa
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1711
employees. The only evidence of molesting and improper provocation was as
to the conduct of the Tallapoosa employees which Respondent apparently seeks
to ignore.
The testimony convinces me, and I find that Respondent, acting through
Gordon Enloe, assistant superintendent, on August 2 and 4, 1949, instigated,
authorized, and encouraged the antiunion activities of its employees, and rati-
fied and condoned the antiunion activities of its employees as herein related
on August 2, 4, and 19, 1949. I therefore find that Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act"
5. Alleged discriminatory refusal to reinstate Earlene Rochester
Following the assault on Earlene Rochester by Durwood Teal on August 19,
1949, as herein found, Rochester did not return to the mill until August 24, 1949,
at which time she reported that she had been sick. Her supervisor advised
Rochester that she must obtain a doctor's certificate. Rochester left the mill
and did not return until August 29, 1949, at which time she presented a doctor's
certificate dated August 26, 1949, which certificate gave no information as to
the reason for Rochester's absence from the mill or her physical condition, but
merely stated that the doctor ordered her to return to work on August 29.
When Rochester reported on August 29 with the doctor's certificate, she was
immediately reinstated to her former position and continued therein until a
later time when she voluntarily left the Respondent's employ. Rochester did
not appear and testify at the hearing, General Counsel stating that he had made
an effort to locate her and failed.
whether Rochester's absence from the mill from August 19 to August 29 was
due to the injuries she suffered by reason of the assault does not appear. from
the testimony. That she was physically able to go to the mill on August 24 is
clear, but there was no evidence as to whether she was physically able to work
this day. When her supervisor directed her to get a doctor's certificate on
August 24, she apparently did nothing about it until August 26, the date of the
doctor's certificate. The record is silent as to why she was absent from August
19 to 29. It is not sufficient to presume that this was because of the assault
on her.
It was Respondent's policy to require all employees absent from work by
reason of illness to present a doctor's certificate upon their return. This policy
was still in effect and being enforced in August 1949, and Respondent was
clearly within its rights in requiring Rochester to produce such a certificate
when she reported on August 24.12
The complaint charges that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act
by reason of the physical assault on Rochester. I do not agree. I have found
that Respondent ratified and condoned this assault: Such conduct was clearly
in derogation of the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7, and in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. What the situation might be had Rochester
been incapacitated from work by the assault it is not necessary to decide as there
was no testimony on this matter.
The complaint also charges that Respondent discriminated against Rochester
by failing and refusing to reinstate her to her former position between August
19 and 29, 1949. The evidence does not sustain this charge.
" Fred P . Weissman Co., 71 NLRB 147; Donnelly Garment Co ., 50 NLRB 241; Taylor.
Colquitt Co., 47 NLRB 225; Yale Filing Supply Co ., 91 NLRB 1490; E. B..f,aw and Son,
92 NLRB 826.
12 The American Thread Company, 84 NLRB 593, 604.
1712 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For the reasons stated above, I shall recommend that paragraphs 4, 5, and 6
of the complaint insofar as they charge a violation of Section S (a) (3) of
the Act be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, hereof, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, hereof,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent has instigated, authorized, encouraged,
ratified, and condoned antiunion demonstrations by its employees in and about
its property which interfered, restrained, and coerced union activities of other
employees, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from such
practices.
It having been found that Respondent ratified and condoned assaults upon
union representatives and employees engaged in union activities in and about-
Respondent's property, it will be recommended that Respondent reprimand the
employees participating in such assaults, and advise its employees that such
activities in the future will not be tolerated.
It having been found that Respondent interfered with the distribution of union
literature in and about its property by employees and by the Union's representa-
tives and members during employees' nonworking time, it will be recommended
that Respondent cease and desist therefrom.
The violations of the Act which Respondent committed are, in the opinion of
the Trial Examiner, persuasively related to other unfair labor practices pre-
scribed by the Act, and the danger of their commission in the future is to be antici-
pated from Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the
Act will be thwarted unless the order is coextensive with the threat. In order
therefore to make more effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to
prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices and thereby minimize the indus-
trial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the policies
of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from
infringing in any manner the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
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, CIO, is a labor organization 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, Respondent has engaged in and
is enagaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1
PACIFIC WOODCRAFT 1713
4. Respondent did not discriminate against Earlene Rochester, nor did it
fail or refuse to reinstate said Earlene Rochester to her former position in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
HOWARD W. SAVELAND AND THELMA B. SAVELAND, COPARTNERS, DOING
BUSINESS AS PACIFIC WOODCRAFT and UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS
OF AMERICA, LOCAL 576, CIO. Case No. 21-CA-720. June 08,
1951
Decision and Order Dismissing Complaint
On June 1, 1951, Trial Examiner Robert L. Piper issued an Order
(a copy of which is attached hereto) granting the Respondents'
motion to dismiss the complaint in the above-entitled proceeding, on
the ground that the assertion of jurisdiction would not effectuate the
policies of the Act because the Respondents' operations fail to satisfy
the Board's minimum requirements. Thereafter, Furniture Work-
ers, Upholsterers and Wood Workers Union, Local 576, Independent,
alleged successor to the charging union, filed a "Motion for Review of
Order Dismissing Complaint," in which it does not dispute the Trial
Examiner's commerce findings but urges nevertheless that the Board
should assert jurisdiction.
To the extent here material, the Board 1 has reviewed the rulings
made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no preju-
dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Order issued by the Trial Examiner, the
motion for review of that Order, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint issued herein against the
Respondents, Howard W. Saveland and Thelma B. Saveland, co-
partners doing business as Pacific Woodcraft, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
Order
Charges having been duly filed in the above-captioned case, and a complaint
and notice of hearing having been issued on June 26, 1950, by the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region ;
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Members Houston , Reynolds,
and Styles].
94 NLRB No. 242.
953841-52-vol. 94--109