The American Thread Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1306 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. By discharging Joseph Mason, Wade Johnson, and Shearlie Myers the
Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
THE AMERICAN TIiREAD COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 10-RM--55, 10-RC-1020, and 10-CA-
1132. December 22, 1952
Decision and Order
On June 12, 1952, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best 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 and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that The American Thread Company, Talla-
poosa, Georgia, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of
America, CIO, or any other labor organization, *by discriminating
in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of its employees, or
any term or condition of employment whatsoever.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union activities,
reprimanding and threatening employees for engaging in concerted
activities, disparately enforcing plant rules to discourage concerted
activities and membership in a labor organization, and sponsoring and
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , the Board has delegated its power in connection with this ease to a three -member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Styles].
101 NLRB No. 212.
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1307
encouraging an antiunion demonstration in its plant to influence a
Board election.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist and remain a member of 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 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 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) Offer to William (Billy) Robinson immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make
said employee whole in the manner set forth in the section of the
Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying all payroll and other records necessary to
analyze and compute back pay and other rights of reinstatement, as
required by the Order herein.
(c) Post at its plant in Tallapoosa, Georgia, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 2 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon the 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.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia), in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election of September 14, 1950, be,
and it hereby is, set aside ; and that Cases Nos. 10-RM-55 and
10-RC-1020 be remanded to the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as
he deems the circumstances permit a free choice of a bargaining
representative.
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
activities, reprimand and threaten our employees for engaging
in concerted activities, disparately enforce plant rules to dis-
courage concerted activities and membership in a labor organiza-
tion, or sponsor and encourage an antiunion demonstration in
our plant to influence a Board election.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to join or assist TExTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO, 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 bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities, except by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to William (Billy) Robinson immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent posi-
tion without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privi-
leges previously enjoyed by him, and make him whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
All of our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment because of membership in or activity
on behalf of any such 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.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The American Thread Company, Inc., herein called the Respondent, and Tex-
tile Workers Union of America, CIO, herein called the Union, entered into a
"Stipulation For Certification Upon Consent Election ." Pursuant thereto, the
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1309
National Labor Relations Board , herein called the Board, conducted an elec-
tion at Tallapoosa, Georgia , on September 14, 1950. On the same day, the Re-
gional Director for the Tenth Region furnished the parties a tally of ballots dis-
closing that of approximately 600 eligible voters, 582 cast ballots, of which 165•
were for the Union, 381 against the Union, 29 were challenged, and 7 were held
to be void.
On September 19, 1950, the Union filed "Objections to Conduct of Election and
Conduct Affecting Results of Election." Copy of the objections was served on
the Respondent by registered mail on September 26, 1950. It was alleged in
substance that the Respondent (1) promised preferential treatment and benefits
to employees opposing the Union, (2) discriminated against and threatened with
economic reprisal employees supporting the Union, (3) engaged in illegal elec-
tioneering which interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in order
to affect the results of the election.
Upon consideration of the Regional Director's "Report on Election, Objections
to Election and Recommendations to the Board" and exceptions filed thereto by
the Respondent, the Board on August 10, 1951, ordered that a hearing be con-
ducted as to issues of fact raised therein.
By reason of a charge filed by the Union against the Respondent on October 4,
1950, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein sep-
arately designated as the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued a complaint dated October 5, 1951,
alleging that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8 (a) (1) and (3)
and 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance
that during the months of August and September 1950, the Respondent (1) in-
terrogated its employees concerning their union activities, (2) threatened em-
ployees with discharge, undesirable job transfers, surveillance, and other eco-
nomic reprisals, because of their concerted activities on behalf of the Union, (3)
discriminated against union members and sympathizers in the enforcement of
plant rules to discourage membership in a labor organization, and (4) discrim-
inatorily discharged William (Billy) Robinson because of his membership in
the Union and concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection.
The Respondent filed an answer admitting the jurisdictional allegations of the
complaint concerning commerce, but denied all allegations of unfair labor
practices.
The above-captioned representation cases (10-RM-55 and 10-RC-1020) and
the complaint case (10-CA-1132) were consolidated pursuant to Sections 102.33
(b) and 102.64 (b), Rules and Regulations, Series 6, and assigned for hear-
ing to the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner.
Copies of the charge, complaint, order of consolidation, notice of hearing,
and other pertinent processes were duly served upon the Respondent and the
Union.
Pursuant to notice to all parties, a hearing was conducted by the undersigned
Trial Examiner at Carrollton, Georgia, on November 19 and 20, 1951, adjourned,
and resumed on February 6, 7, and 8,1952.' The General Counsel and Respondent
1 The adjournment was taken to enable the General Counsel to obtain an order from the
U. S. District Court to compel attendance of witnesses George B. Jackson , Maggie Jackson,
Dicie Little , Vesta Abercrombie , and Harrison Godfrey, Jr., who had refused to obey the
subpenas of the Board.
1310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were represented by counsel, and representatives of the Union were present.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties. The
presiding Trial Examiner in his discretion refused to permit the Respondent's
attorneys to transcribe the hearing by means of a wire-recording machine, because
of possible conflict with the official reporter and confusion of witnesses in testi-
fying before a microphone. At the request of Respondent, the order was later
modified, however, with respect to the testimony of the witness, Billy Robinson,
who consented to the transcription.
Motion to dismiss the Union's "Objections to Conduct of Election and Conduct
Affecting Results of Election" for failure to serve copy on the Respondent within
5 days was denied? It is found that the Respondent received a copy from the
Union by registered mail in ample time to file a reply and be heard thereon before
the Regional Director made his report to the Board. Service of a copy was made
within a reasonable time, and no prejudice resulted by reason of any delay'
When the General Counsel rested his case, counsel for the Respondent filed
an affidavit of prejudice against the presiding Trial Examiner, and moved his
disqualification for alleged violations of Section 101.10 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations , and Section 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The
motion to disqualify the Trial Examiner was denied. The record speaks for
itself.
At the close of the hearing, motion of the General Counsel to conform the
pleadings to the proof as to formal matters was allowed without objection.
Counsel for the General Counsel and the Respondent presented oral argument,
which appears in the record All parties were advised of their right to submit
written briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The time
was fixed for such submissions . In due course the Respondent filed a brief,
which has been given appropriate consideration.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The American Thread Company is a textile corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of New Jersey with its principal office and place
of business in that State. It owns and operates manufacturing plants in the
States of Georgia, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, including
manufactories at Dalton and Tallapoosa, Georgia, herein respectively referred
to as the Dalton and Tallapoosa plants.
At its Tallapoosa plant the Respondent engaged in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of cotton threads and combed cotton yarns. During the representa-
tive year ending December 1950, it purchased raw materials valued in excess of
$250,000, approximately 50 percent of which originated outside the State of
Georgia and was shipped in interstate commerce to the Tallapoosa plant. During
the same period it manufactured and sold finished products valued in excess of
$400,000, approximately 75 percent of which was shipped to customers outside the
State.
® Section 203 . 61, Rules and Regulations , Series 5, required such objections to be filed
within 5 days after the tally of ballots has been furnished, but did not prescribe a time
limit within which to serve copies on the other parties.
s Northwest Engineering Corporation, 63 NLRB 121x ; Minnesota Mining et Mfg. Co ,
81 NLRB 557; North America Aviation, Inc, 81 NLRB 1046; and F. W. Woolworth
Company, 86 NLRB 36.
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1311
I therefore find, and the Respondent admits , that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.4
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. This was admitted by the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Plant and management
The Respondent regularly employs approximately 600 textile workers at
Tallapoosa, Georgia. Situated upon a tract of 4 or 5 acres enclosed by fence,
the plant is comprised of a 3 -story brick mill building, warehouses, and a main
office building.
J. R. Jolly, of Marietta, Georgia, is at present assistant general manager of
the Southern Division of The American Thread Company, having over-all super-
vision of the Dalton and Tallapoosa plants. During August and September 1950,
he was director of industrial relations for that division, acting in an advisory
capacity to local plant managers concerning industrial and personnel problems,
labor relations, public relations, training and safety programs, etc. W. G.
Littlefield is, and was at all times pertinent herein, superintendent or manager
of the Tallapoosa plant. Operation of the plant and all overseers, foremen,
and other supervisors hereinafter mentioned were under his control and super-
vision. Walter 0. Saturday is overseer of the twisting and finishing department.
B. The organizational campaign
Having received a letter from the Union dated July 31, 1950, requesting recog-
nition as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees, the Respondent
made a determined effort to suppress and defeat the organizational activities.
On August 5, 1950, Superintendent W. G. Littlefield distributed the following
letter "TO OUR EMPLOYEES AT TALLAPOOSA" :
For the past several years CIO organizers have been trying to get you to
join their Union but they have had no success. Last Monday, much to my
surprise , they wrote me a letter in which they "demand" recognition for this
plant and the right to represent you.
As I am confident that an overwhelming majority of you do not want
any outsiders to stand between you and your supervisors in the Company,
I have asked the National Labor Relations Board to hold an election so that
we can have this settled and all get back to work in the cooperative and
efficient way which has brought the Tallapoosa Mill and our community to
their present important position.
Feeling that this is a matter of vital interest to all of you , I am attaching
a copy of my reply to the Union's letter. I am sure that you will read my
reply very carefully so that you will know how the Company feels about this
matter.
I will continue to keep you advised as to further developments.
Littlefield's reply to the union demand for recognition, copy of which was dis-
tributed to employees, reads as follows :
A RtaniBlaus Implement if Hdw. Co ., Ltd., 91 NLRB 618.
1312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I have your letter of July 31 in which you say you want to "advise me"
that a majority of the employees of the Tallapoosa plant of The American
Thread Company are members of the Textile Workers Union, CIO, and in
which you further state that you want me to recognize the CIO as the Col-
lective Bargaining Agent for all those employed. In other words, you are
asking me to turn over to you all the individual rights of our employees to
deal with their supervisors.
It has been our policy, and will continue to be our policy, that matters
of this sort must be determined by the employees themselves. I cannot ac-
cept your claims as to what their wishes are.
You do not seem to realize it but our employees at Tallapoosa are neither
green nor ignorant. They know about Unions and about your Union. They
know a great deal about a lot of things that you and your organizers have
avoided telling them. For instance, they know-
1. That the workers at Dalton lost eight weeks work in the strike last
summer.
2. They are fully aware of the fact that if this happened at Tallapoosa
on today's basis of operation it would cause the employees at Tallapoosa to
lose a total of $275,341.77.
3. They know that this would mean an average loss of $442.64 for each
employee at Tallapoosa.
4. They also know that this strike was useless , that at the end of the
eight weeks strike the Union accepted substantially the same contract which
the company had offered them right before the CIO called the strike.
5. They further know that they would have to pay your organization ap-
proximately $15,000.00 per year in dues for the above type of representation.
You see, I do not believe in going behind peoples back and making a deal
with somebody else to take away their rights. I will not surrender the
bargaining rights of the employees at Tallapoosa to the CIO, nor will I
turn over to you any of the rights that belong to them. Therefore, this is to
advise you that I AM NOT going to recognize you or the CIO. Our people
are fully qualified and competent to decide themselves whether they want the
CIO. As of yesterday, on behalf of The American Thread Company, I filed
a petition with the National Labor Relations Board requesting a secret
ballot election to enable all of the employees of this plant at Tallapoosa to
decide by their VOTES, and not by your sales talk, whether they want the
CIO to represent them.
You may not be very happy to find out but I am confident that a great
majority of our people, when they get this opportunity to vote, will vote
against your union and their answer will be the same as mine-"NO." If
you sincerely want to know how our people feel, all you have to do is to
consent to this election we have asked for and they will get a chance to vote
in the near future and dispose of this matter once and for all.
On August 12, 1950, Superintendent Littlefield distributed the following letter
to the employees :
In my letter to you last week I told you that I would keep you advised as
to further developments in the attempted CIO organizing campaign.
Before giving you further details, I want to tell you how much I appreciate
your splendid reaction to my letter to you, and the copy of my reply to the
CIO, which I sent you last week. A great majority of you have told us that
you very much appreciate having a statement of the Company's position.
Your assurances that you do not want outsiders to come between us were
very welcome.
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1313
Now To Get You Up-To-Date
As I advised you last week, the Company petitioned the National Labor
Relations Board for a secret ballot election to determine whether the ma-
jority of you wanted to give the CIO your rights of dealing with the Com-
pany and its supervisors, or whether you wanted to continue dealing with
your Company and supervisors as individuals, as we have always done here.
Under this system of cooperation and working together we have moved
steadily forward to accomplish greatly improved working conditions, steady
employment, and considerable expansion of our mill.
This petition has been received by the Labor Board and is assigned as
Case No. 10-RM-55.
In the Union's handbill of July 31, they told you they had filed a petition
for an election. Upon checking with the Labor Board, we find that the CIO
has not filed any petition for an election.
Because so many of you have told us that you were tired of the CIO or-
ganizers annoying you, and that you were anxious to get this matter settled
once and for all, we requested the Board to set the date for this election as
early as possible. We suggested the date of August 18, 1950. But the Union
would not agree to this date. Nor has the CIO even agreed to an election.
The CIO now knows that it will never get the right to speak for you unless
a majority of you, in a secret ballot election, give them that right.
As I stated in my letter last week, these rights are yours, and neither
The American Thread Company, nor I as its representative, will ever give
your rights away. If this election is held, it will be by secret ballot in
spite of anything the CIO may try to tell you. You will be free to vote
exactly as you please, regardless of any cards you may have signed for
anyone, and regardless of any promise you may have made to anyone. You
have the right to vote as you honestly believe. No one has the right to
threaten or intimidate you. We shall not attempt to do so, and if the CIO
organizers try to, you have a right to prevent them from doing so by law.
We have the utmost confidence in your judgment and ability to make up
your own mind when the time comes.
We will continue to keep you advised of all other developments.
The third letter distributed "TO OUR EMPLOYEES AT TALLAPOOSA" dated
September 4, 1950, reads as follows :
I am writing you this third letter in keeping with my promise to inform
you on what has happened as a result of the Company's petition for a
National Labor Relations Board election. The only new development is
that the Labor Board has now officially set September 14th as the election
date. The voting booths will be in the second Warehouse, which is in front
of the Warehouse gate. The polls will be open from 5: 30 to 9: 00 in the
morning, and from 2: 00 to 4: 00 in the afternoon. You can vote any time
the polls are open. We have arranged it so that those of you who do not
wish to lose time or pay while voting can wait until you come to work and
vote with your department in accordance with posted time schedules. ONLY
those who are on the plant payroll are eligible to vote. We will get official
notices from the Government within the next few days confirming these
election details and showing samples of the ballot. I will have these notices
posted all over the plant so that you will know exactly what is involved.
As you well know, the real purpose of this election is to find out whether
you want to keep your rights to deal directly with your supervisors, as you
have done so successfully here over the past years, or whether you want to
1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
give away those rights to the CIO organizers who have been hanging around
here.
Some of you will remember that in the beginning of this campaign, the
CIO, through fast talk, high pressure, and in some instances trickery, got
a few of you to sign cards. Well, the CIO is so desperate now that they are
going around to these few and trying to tell them that because of having
signed a Union card they will have to vote for the CIO in this election.
You know that this is a lie and they know it is a lie. This election is a
secret ballot election. You are free to vote exactly as you want to vote, as
you think best regardless of what you may have signed, or what you may
have promised any organizer or anyone else. No one has a right under
the laws of the United States and the State of Georgia, to threaten you or
coerce you into voting for the Union or anything else. It also is and has
always been the policy of your Company to comply with these laws.
When the time comes to vote, I know that you will vote as you think best,
with the full knowledge that no one will ever know how you voted, and with
the full knowledge that it is a decision that you alone must make.
Respondent's next letter to employees was dated and distributed on September
11, 1950, as follows :
I am sure each of you have seen the posters announcing the NLRB election
to be held in the warehouse on next Thursday. The purpose of this election
is clear. It is to decide whether you want the CIO to come in and deal with
me and your supervisors in this plant instead of you dealing with us your-
selves. This is a determination that you and you alone must make, no
matter what anyone says or what you may have heard. You will decide
this issue by your votes on Thursday.
Because it is your decision, it is important that you do vote. Some people
are already trying to keep you from voting. They tell you, "Don't get mixed
up in it." Don't let them fool you. All of us are already mixed up in it and
the only possible way that I know of for you to get "unmixed" is to vote NO
on Thursday.
This election will be decided by those who vote. If only a few of you
vote the CIO has a chance to get a majority of those voting and thereby,
through a minority, be able to speak for all of you. If each of you votes,
then we can all be certain of the outcome of the election and be certain that
the CIO has no chance whatsoever. But whether you agree with me or not,
and whether you vote Yes or No, I still believe that it is your duty to vote and
I urge you to do so.
In this campaign the Union has promised you many things. Promises are
cheap and campaign promises are cheaper than any other kind. I know
you have not been fooled into believing that the CIO can get more from us
here than they have been able to get from us at Dalton in nearly ten years.
Remember, they are not promising you what they were able to get at Dalton,
they are promising you something else. I can't see how any employee could
honestly believe that I or this Company would do more for the CIO or Mr.
Rieve, or Mr. Baldanzi, or Mr. Chupka, or Mr. Kocher, and the rest of the
Union crowd than we would do for you.
The CIO has not made any promises about helping you and the Company
to make a better product, or to make the same product with less effort, or to
help us to get more for what we make here together. They know that the
money that comes from the sale of the products that we make here is di-
vided between the Company and the workers, not equally but with you get-
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1315
ting a much better share than the Company. That is all there is to divide
between us ; it is now divided TWO WAYS-part to you and part to the
Company. The CIO is not interested in getting us more to divide, THEY
WANT TO BE SURE THAT THEY GET PART OF THAT WHICH YOU
HAVE BEEN TAKING HOME EACH WEEK. The experience of the Tex-
tile Industry has been that when they come in they are interested in their
share and they try to get it, regardless of what it costs the employees.
Mr. Rieve, the President of the CIO Textile Union, gave some real facts
THE OTHER DAY IN WASHINGTON. The organizers here haven't told you
these facts. The CIO has spent several million dollars down here in the last
few years and when they got all through, THEY HAD 30,000 LESS MEM-
BERS than they had when they started ! They had 22 STRIKES WHICH
THEY CALLED and LOST, involving hardships and loss of pay for 11,000
textile workers. They REPRESENT LESS THAN 15 PER CENT of all
textile workers in the South. I DIDN'T SAY THAT-MR. RIEVE SAID
IT-but I do think I can tell you what that means. It means that the great
majority of the Southern textile workers realize, as I am sure the great
majority of you realize that the CIO has nothing to offer and you want no
part of it. You realize better than anyone else that if the Union could do
any of the things that they have tried to promise they could do, they would be
GAINING MEMBERS INSTEAD OF LOSING THEM. They wouldn't be
calling and losing strikes, and they would be representing a large part of the
Textile Industry, instead of a very small part of it.
I am not really interested in what the CIO wants. What I am in-
terested in is the welfare and the prosperity of all of us here and the
happiness and security of all of our children and our families, and the
good will and good name of our community. I want us to be able to live
at peace and friendship with each other ; and our Company wants to pro-
vide as many and as good jobs as possible, to make those jobs and all of
our work as pleasant as possible. I am interested in seeing the opportunity
for each of us, according to his ability and his willingness to work and
learn , to get more out of life. I think that is what all of you want also.
It is my sincere belief that by working together here we can come nearer
to getting these things than we can if any Union is given the right to Inter-
fere. You know, as well as I do, that the Union here has tried to divide
us in our work , in our community, in our churches, and even in our fam-
ilies . They have caused unhappiness, rather than security ; strife and bit-
terness, instead of peace and friendliness.
Your vote on Thursday will be a vote which will affect your future and
the future of all of us. I have the fullest confidence in your ability to decide
what is right, what is best for you and for all of us, and I am certain that
when you go to vote on Thursday, you will vote-not for DISCORD AND
UNREST as represented by the CIO-but for the WAY OF LIFE THAT
WE HAVE BUILT HERE TOGETHER.
A final letter dated September 15, 1950, was addressed to employees by Su-
perintendent Littlefield expressing his appreciation for their expression of con-
fidence by ballot in the election :
Thursday, by your votes, you determined overwhelmingly that a majority
of you did not wish to be represented by a Union. By the same decision,
you determined that you wish to continue to deal with me and your Com-
pany as you have in the past. I cannot help but feel that this is an expres-
sion of confidence, and I hope to be able to continue to deserve your con-
fidence , as does every official of this Company.
242305-53 84
1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The election is over. The majority has decided it in the American way.
The time has now come for us to forget all our differences and get back to
working together as a team, and make the Tallapoosa Mill not only the best
in this Company, but the best in the whole country. By working to this
end, we will all benefit.
Now that we have decided the principal issue, if there are individual
differences , I hope you will forget them. If there are grievances or ques-
tions about your Company, or about our policies, or what goes on in the
plant, as it has in the past, my door will continue to be open in the future
to each and every one of you.
With my deepest appreciation and Best Wishes, I am,
Because of the fact that its plant at Dalton , Georgia , was operating under
a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union as exclusive representative of
its employees there, the Respondent prepared a booklet showing comparative
working conditions between the two plants with respect to (1) overtime pay,
reporting pay, and holidays , ( 2) wages or rates of pay , ( 3) vacation pay, (4)
insurance , ( 5) workloads , ( 6) competency , ( 7) management , ( 8) shift differ-
entials, weekly guarantees , and dead time , and (9 ) cost of Union to employees in
dues.' This booklet was made available to its employees at Tallapoosa, and on
September 2, 1950, the Respondent issued the following written instruction
"TO ALL SUPERVISORS" :
This booklet has been prepared to give you actual facts concerning several
points for comparison between Dalton and Tallapoosa.
As you all know, we have a union election set for September 14th at this
plant and the union organizers have exaggerated , lied , and put out lots of
propaganda about certain conditions at Dalton where we have a union being
better than at Tallapoosa where we do not have one. I feel that this fac-
tual information will help you to correct this misinformation.
All of you know, it is Company policy that no employee shall be inter-
rogated, threatened or intimidated in any way because of union affilia-
tion or non-union affiliation . We want our people to be free to decide for
themselves whether they want to he represented by the union or whether
they want to continue to represent themselves.
However, when any question is raised about any of these points you cer-
tainly may use this information to give any interested person the true facts.
The Union likewise distributed literature principally outside the plant gate,
some of which was carried into the mill by the employees themselves . One item
was a mimeographed letter (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 8) dated Septem-
ber 13, 1950, signed by 25 supporters of the Union including Billy Robinson,
George Jackson, Maggie Jackson, Dicie Little, Vesta Abercrombie, Henry
Winkles, and Harrison Godfrey, Jr., as follows :
We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere apprecia-
tion to each and every worker in the Tallapoosa Mill for their cooperation
in helping us to get an Election in our plant-an election conducted by the
Federal Government , by Secret Ballot. We have felt from the beginning
that it was our right in America to join a union, if we so desired, and we
want you to understand that we do not feel badly toward anyone because
they might not have seen fit to join during this campaign.
The most important thing facing us, is the election on Thursday. We
want you to know that we have worked to get the union in our plant-not
5 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 11.
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1317
because of any special benefit we would get from it personally-but because
of the many benefits it would bring to all of us-our families and friends.
We want to make it very clear that no one individual will be permitted to
Run Things in our union. We will all have an equal voice, that is the
democratic way of doing things.
We also want to point out that the CIO did not send organizers into
Tallapoosa to CRAM the union down our throats . We asked them to send
organizers here to help us organize . We also asked the people in Dalton
to help and they have spent their own money and given of their own free
time to help us in any way they could . Certainly we appreciate all the
help we have received because without it we might not have been able to
have an Election at all.
We hope that you will give the question of how you are going to vote
lots of thought , because we may never have another chance to get a union
and we all know that the only chance a working man has for a square deal
is for him and his fellow workers to Stick Together. Everyone else has
their own organization to look out for their interests and there is simply
no reason why we who work in the mill shouldn 't have ours.
Unlike some members of the Lions Club , we have not circulated any
"petition" against anyone , nor do we intend to. We think that the question
of whether or not the workers in the mill want a Union should be settled by
them and not by a "privileged few" who do not even work in the mill and
who have no idea of how hard we work or what we have to contend with.
Instead of circulating petitions against us they should thank God for the
workers and their pay checks and be perfectly willing for the workers to
have anything that would make his hours of toil just a little more pleasant
or a little easier.
So regardless of how you may feel toward any of us personally , lets let
bygones be bygones and join together and build for ourselves and our children
an organization that will insure all of us a square deal and a few more
of the good things in life, by marking our ballots "YES" for the Union on
Thursday.
The Union also distributed cards ( General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 7) exhibiting
a large red dot with the following inscription :
"Blow On This Red Dot"
If it turns black , you do not need a Union . If it does not turn black, VOTE
YES and protect yourself from SPEED UPS, STRETCH-OUTS, FAVOR-
ITISM , DISCRIMINATION, UNJUST LAYOFFS and DISCHARGES.
DON'T GUESS-VOTE "YES"
Gelatin capsules were also distributed containing pithy sayings concerning
the advantages of employee organization.
C. Disparate enforcement of plant rules
The Respondent had a standing rule to prohibit the distribution of all litera-
ture on its premises without specific permission from the superintendent.'
It is apparent, however, that little or no effort was made to enforce the
rule, except in the case of Billy Robinson, hereinafter shown, and on one other
occasion second-hand Travis Laney sent word to J. D. Stephens on the day
before the election that he might be laid off if he distributed union literature.'
e Testimony of Overseer Walter C. Saturday.
+ Testimony of Donald A. Whitman.
1318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Supervisors of the Respondent delivered letters concerning the Union from
Superintendent W. G. Littlefield to employees at work in the plant, and some
received them through the mails. Supervisors exhibited and explained to em-
ployees, individually and in groups, the Respondent's booklet (General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 11) illustrating by comparison the working conditions, etc., at the
Dalton and Tallapoosa plants. Overseer Walter C. Saturday kept a copy on
his desk, and employees were invited to examine it at any time. The uncontra-
dicted testimony of Helen Windon (a double tender), shows that it became a
daily practice of employees to bring in and display literature in the plant.
During the week prior to the election she saw Mary Morris, Myrtle Goodman,
and Adrene Banks distributing antiunion literature, and on the night before
the election she engaged in a fight with Adrene Banks. Banks came to the
place Windon was working, exhibited a picture of a man that had his throat
cut, and said, "That is what the union is good for." Then she knocked
Windon's eyeglasses off, and said, "That is the way I am going to do you to-
morrow." She went away and came back with a piece of colored chalk, and
said to Windon, "I am going to `vote no' on your skirt." The annoyance con-
tinued until Windon slapped Banks in the face, and a fight ensued. Both women
were reprimanded and sent home on account of the disturbance, but returned
to work the next day. The literature being distributed by these women included
poems referring to the Lord's Prayer, and paraphrased something about "the
Union is my shepherd and on it, whoever joint it will come to want and live
in torment hereafter" or words to that effect.
George W. Brooks (a card tender) testified that both union and antiunion
literature was much in evidence throughout the plant. Ray Woods (a polisher)
exhibited pictures of Negroes and whites working together and an automobile
shot full of holes. Henry Winkles (a twister tender) recalled seeing the
picture of a white woman and a Negro together posted on the bulletin board.
Walter Scott Roberts saw the picture of a man with his throat cut being passed
around among the employees. Myrdie Bentley had it in the spinning room.
D. Interference, restraint , and coercion
George B. Jackson reluctantly testified that he had been an active worker
on behalf of the Union. When the charges in this case were being investigated,
he rode around with a field examiner of the Board to locate witnesses. Second-
hand Charlie Morris inquired whether they found whom they were looking
for. Soon thereafter, Jackson was called to the office of Overseer Walter C.
Saturday. The Overseer exhibited to him a bobbin of yarn with a match
fastened to it, and inquired whether he knew anything about it. He further
inquired whether Jackson was satisfied. Jackson repeatedly asserted that
be could not remember exactly what was said.
Jackson admitted signing several written statements and affidavits while
this case was being investigated by the field examiner, but refused to either
affirm or deny their contents, stating that he could nither read nor write, and
could not remember what information he furnished the field examiner
Jackson testified that his brother-in-law, Yard Foreman Clarence Price, talked
to him about the Union, but he declined to remember what was said. He re-
ceived letters concerning the Union from the Respondent both through the mail
and by personal delivery to him while at work in the plant. Second-hand
O These written statements were read over to George B Jackson, and admitted in
evidence to determine his credibility as a witness, but will not be made the basis of findings
in this case.
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1319
Charlie Morris showed to him and other employees, the Respondent's book of
comparison between the Dalton and Tallapoosa plants . He received one of the
Union's red dot cards from Billy Robinson, and just prior to the election he
observed employees wearing pasteboard spittoons as hats. Second-hand Charlie
Morris asked him if he wanted one, and told him not to take up any time talking
to Billy Robinson.
I credit the testimony of George B. Jackson, except his oft-repeated statements
to the effect "I do not remember."
Mrs. George B. (Maggie) Jackson reluctantly testified that she had been an
active supporter of the Union. She admitted signing written statements when
this case was being investigated by a field examiner of the Board and a repre-
sentative of the Union, but declared that she did not read them over and was
under such an emotional strain that she hardly knows what she told them.'
Mrs. Jackson testified that the welfare officer interceded with the Respondent
and procured jobs for her and her husband (George B. Jackson) at a time when
they were in destitute circumstances, physically and financially. During the
organization campaign her shift foreman, Jess Barton, talked to her about the
Union. He said that John L. Lewis was head of the CIO, and was born in
Russia. He delivered letters to her in the plant from the Respondent concern-
ing the Union. He said that it might be all right if all the mill went union, but
if they didn't it was a mess, because there would always be bickering between
the employees and no cooperation.
Mrs. Jackson testified that her brother, Yard Foreman Clarence Price, talked
to her several times about the Union (as a brother and not as a foreman). He
advised her and George not to tell everybody how they felt about the Union.
He said that Mr. Littlefield had been good to them, and given them jobs when
they needed it. He reminisced what would happen if they should lose their
jobs at the plant, saying, "Just think what you and George have been able to
get since you all have been employed at the American Thread Company." When
she admitted that Mr. Littlefield and all of them had always been good to them,
Price said, "Well, I would respect Mr. Littlefield." He admonished them to be
careful, and said to let him know if she voted "NO." In view of other testimony
in the case the Trial Examiner does not find it necessary to pierce the veil of
brotherly advice and admonition to determine whether the conduct of Foreman
Price is imputable to the Respondent as an unfair labor practice.
Henry L. Winkles, a twister tender on the third shift," credibly testified that
whenever he was seen talking to anyone in the plant, second-hand Malone Ayers
would come by and say, "Some more of the damned union you are talking," or
-words to that effect. Finally the shift foreman (Claude O'Hara) called Winkles
into the office and asked him if he didn 't know Malone was the boss , and that he
was supposed to take orders from him. Winkles told the foreman that he un-
derstood that Malone was boss , but that it wasn't any of his business how he
felt about the Union.
Winkles' name appeared on the mimeographed letter distributed by the
Union to employees (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 8) on or about September 13,
1950, just before the election. On the morning of the election Foreman O'Hara
asked if he signed it, and received no answer. Then O'Hara came to him in
company with Overseer Walter C. Saturday , and both asked Winkles if he
signed it. Winkles admitted that he did sign the letter. Saturday said, "If
9 The written statements made by Maggie Jackson prior to the hearing will he considered
in evaluating her testimony , but not as evidence of unfair labor practices by the Respondent.
10 Winkles was discharged about 6 months prior to the hearing for the alleged reason
that he tied up some greasy yarn.
1320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
there is any way that I can help you, or if there is any way You want to get out
of this, if I can help you in any way, I will help you." Winkles said, "And if I
needed to. he would help me in any way-get a lawyer. He said that I would
have grounds to sue the Union if I wanted to deny signing the paper."
E. Reperersstons from a hearing in Washington
On August 21-22, 1950, the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations of
the Senate of the United States conducted an inquiry at Washington, D. C.,
into labor-management relations at The American Thread Company, Tallapoosa
Plant, Tallapoosa, Georgia. Certain officials and employees of the Respondent
were notified and required to appear and give testimony at this hearing. In-
cluded among those who attended were J. R. Jelly, assistant general manager
of the Southern Division, W. G. Littlefield, superintendent, Billy Robinson,
Dicie Little, Vesta Abercrombie, Earline Rochester, Durwood Teal, Elzie Teal,
and Marie Kilgore. Subpenas were duly issued for these witnesses by the
Senate Subcommittee. All received notices that they were required to attend
the hearing, but some did not actually receive the subpenas until after they
arrived in Washington, D. C. In some instances the Union advanced expense
money to employees required to attend.
Billy Robinson received notice to appear as a witness before the Subcommittee
in Washington on August 21, 1950. He received subpena on Thursday, August
17, 1950, which appears in the record as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 9, and
is dated August 15, 1950. On the following Friday he applied to Superintendent
Littlefield for leave of absence. Littlefield said, "I can't let you off. Go see Mr.
Saturday." There is a serious conflict of testimony as to whether Robinson
showed his subpena to Overseer Saturday, but the upshot of that interview was
that the Respondent declined to grant Robinson a leave of absence for the pur-
pose of going to Washington, and threatened to discharge him if he went.
Robinson proceeded to Washington that Friday night, testified before the Sub-
committee, and was released along with other witnesses on Tuesday afternoon,
August 22, 1950. He left Washington on Wednesday and arrived back in
Tallapoosa about noon on Thursday, and reported back to work at 3 p. in. on
Friday with the second (c) shift.
During the absence of Robinson, Overseer Saturday instructed Shift Foreman
Frank Jenkins to bring him into the office before allowing him to return to work.
Consequently Robinson was called to the office and reprimanded by Overseer
Saturday in the presence of Superintendent Littlefield, Foreman Jenkins, and
second-hand Charlie Morris. Saturday forbade his leaving his job again with-
out permission, and warned him to improve his work record.
Billy Robinson credibly testified that the overseer said, "Don't you know you
can't stay off a week and come in on your job? If I was as sorry and low
down as you are, I would quit. You know how we feel about you. If Mr.
Littlefield hadn't said in Washington that you would still have your job, I would
fire you now. If you mix any blue head bobbins with plain head bobbins, I will
get your job." Foreman Frank Jenkins remarked , "You can't tell a dumb
idiot nothing." Thereupon, Robinson was put back on his job as a doffer.
Mrs. Dicie Little, an employee in the spinning department, was notified to ap-
pear as a witness before the Subcommittee but did not receive a subpena until
she arrived in Washington. Without first obtaining leave of absence from the
Respondent, she left Tallapoosa with a group of other employees on Friday,
August 18, 1950, and returned with the same group on Thursday, August 24,
1950. The group comprised J. P. and Vesta Abercrombie, Earline Rochester,
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1321
Billy Roliinsoh, and others whose names' she did not recall. Upon return to,
work she and Earline Rochester were called into the office in the presence of
Assistant Superintendent Kenneth Harris, Overseer Monroe Brookes, and Fore-
man Gordon. She credibly testified that Harris started the interview by in-
quiring whether they had a nice time on their trip. Then Harris said, "Well,
I can't help if you belong to the union or if your husband were the president of
the union, you are working for The American Thread Company. Well, why
don't you just quit and get on out, let us write your time? You know how we,
feel about you." With some additional explanation, she informed Harris that
she would not quit, and that the only way for him to get rid of her was to dis-
charge her. Thereupon Harris said, "One more peep out of you and you will
be gone. The only reason you are going to get to work is because Mr. Littlefield
promised them in Washington that you wouldn't be fired."
Mrs. J. P. (Vesta) Abercrombie (a winder operator) also attended the hearing
in Washington. She obtained leave of absence from Overseer Monroe Brookes on
Thursday, and traveled with the afore9aid group on Friday, August 18, 1950.
Upon her return to work she was called into the office in the presence of As-
sistant Superintendent Kenneth Harris and Overseer Monroe Brookes. She sum-
marized the interview, as follows :
When I went in there Mr. Harris was just sitting there. He was kind of
picking his shirt sleeve, that (demonstrating) and said he was just picking
a ravel off his shirt sleeve. And he told me to sit down, he wanted to talk
to me. And I sat down and he asked me did I know we had bosses. And I
said yes. And he said well, he just wanted to talk to me, said he couldn't
talk to me like he did Mrs. Little and Mrs. Rochester, because he said I
asked off, he felt I did what was right. Said they didn't, and that he really
chewed them out, and he could do that when it was necessary and he felt
like that was necessary. And he said we couldn't have outsiders and organi-
zations coming there, running the plant.
And I said, "Well, I know that." But I said, "If you are talking about the-
union," I said, "I signed a card and belonged to it and I don't care who
knows." I said, "That is my business and my privilege."
And he said why did I think we needed a Union. And I said "Because
they show too much partiality and have too many 'Big I's' and 'Little
You's.' " I said , "Some of us get the best of everything and the rest of us
have to take what is left."
He said he would like to convince me I was wrong, he would like to change
my mind. I said if he could show me where I was wrong I wouldn't mind
changing. He said he enjoyed talking to me and would like to talk to me
again . And that was all.
F. Disoriminatory discharge of William (Bally) Robinson
Billy Robinson was a doffer in the twisting room, and had been employed by the
Respondent for a period of approximately 41/2 years prior to September 1950.
He joined the Union in April 1950, and became an active worker in its organiza-
tional, activities. , In August and September 1950, Robinson worked as a doter
team with John Wesley Sheffield and Clyde L. Cates. Sheffield and Cates were
opposed to the Union. Sheffield was chief doffer, and exercised supervision on
the job as a work leader. It is the work of a doffer to remove filled bobbins of
thread from the twister frames, and replace them with empty bobbins. To
prevent mixing of different type yarns, the bobbins were painted on top with paint
of different colors-blue, white, and plain. While the twister frames were
1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
running , the doffers were not allowed to leave the department, but they could
roam around the twisting room, talk to other employees, go to the rest room
or on the outside platform, but were expected to be on the job when the frames
stopped in order to change the bobbins and keep up production. It was Sheffield's
duty to watch the frames, and keep the other doffers on the job. Mixing different
colored bobbins was an offense for which doffers were often reprimanded, laid
off, or even discharged for repeated offenses." The amount of work for doffers
to perform varied with the number of frames running, and during a normal shift
the intervening rest periods were sometimes as much as 15 or 20 minutes per
hour. In those periods the doffers just sat around and talked, or went out on
the platform to smoke, eat, or drink Coca-Colas. That was accepted practice.
It has been shown, supra, that Robinson was severely reprimanded by Overseer
Walter C. Saturday for going to Wbshington in August 1950 to testify before
the Senate Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations contrary to instruc-
tions from his employers. He was allowed to retain his job only for the reason
that the plant superintendent promised the Subcommittee that he would not be
discharged. Saturday threatened to get his job if he mixed any bobbins.
On Tuesday, September 5, 1950, both Clyde L. Cates and Billy Robinson were
charged with mixing bobbins. Robinson was laid off for approximately 1 week.
Cates was reprimanded, because it was his first offense.
Following his layoff, Robinson returned to work with the second shift at 3
p. in. on Monday, September 11, 1950. Before entering the department he handed
out some of the union red dot cards and some in the rest room. On Tuesday,
September 12, 1950, he passed out more of the cards. Before the supper hour
at approximately 6 o'clock that afternoon, second-hand Charlie Morris conducted
him to the back platform into the presence of Overseer Walter C. Saturday,
Shift Foreman Frank Jenkins, John Wesley Sheffield, Clyde L. Cates, Coy Mc-
Pherson, and others. Several of the antiunion employees had previously com-
plained during the day that Robinson was annoying them by his union activities
and literature" Overseer Saturday asked Robinson had he been giving out union
literature. Robinson admitted that he had done so, and pulled some of the red
dot cards from his pocket. Thereupon the overseer forbade his giving out any
more, and instructed Foreman Jenkins to watch him. Saturday said , "If you
see him or if one of these fixers sees him, or tells you that he has left his job
with a frame down, supposed to be working, going out over this department,
passing out literature, you send him home right then, and tell him to come back
and see me the next day." " Then the overseer went home. Immediately after
leaving the back platform Robinson remarked in the presence of Sheffield that
he would give out as many cards as he pleased, and handed one to Levi Patterson.
Later he offered one to Frank Richards. During the supper hour Robinson and
others were again on the back platform eating. At that time he gave cards to
George Jackson and Ivy Boldin. After supper he insisted that Sheffield take
some of the cards to his wife and brother-in-law.
Shortly after the supper hour, second-hand Charlie Morris summoned Sheffield,
Cates, and Robinson to the office to see Foreman Jenkins . Thereupon Jenkins
asked Robinson if he had handed out more of the cards. Robinson did not
deny it. Jenkins then told Robinson that his pay stopped at 7 o'clock, and in-
structed Morris to put him outside the plant gate . Robinson remonstrated
about leaving without his pay, and was told that he could get it the next morning.
Jenkins then escorted Robinson to the gate and let him out. A written report
of the incident was placed on Overseer Saturday 's desk.
ii See testimony of John Wesley Sheffield.
12 See testimony of Frank Jenkins.
ee testimony of Walter C. Saturday.13 0
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1323
Robinson reported to Overseer Saturday the next morning ( September 13)
about 9 o 'clock , received his pay , and was formally discharged on the eve of the
election . Robinson reported his discharge to the Union , and later that day
distributed copies of the following personal letter to employees outside the
plant gate :
Dear Friends,
By now you have probably heard that I was fired last night because I
had given out some cards while I was eating supper , asking the people to
Vote for the Union . These cards did not critize anyone. We all know
there have been cards given out criticizing the Union . I had as much
right to give mine as they did !
I'm not in the least worried about my job . I'm sure that the company
will be made to put me back to work and that I will not lose a day's pay as
a result of my discharge.
They fired me to scare you people into voting against the Union . This kind
of UNJUST treatment is all the more reason why we all need a Union.
I know that most of you are working for families as large as mine-and
what happened to me could just as well happen to you, anytime the Com-
pany wants it.
Don't worry about my vote-I'll be voting YES for the Union tomorrow
and the Company knows it.
Billy Robinson
G. A gala election
Following the discharge of Billy Robinson on the eve of the election , a spirit
of festivity pervaded the plant at Tallapoosa. The Respondent customarily
utilized pasteboard cuspidors filled with sand to promote sanitation on the
premises. A sweeper was the custodian of these supplies. From an open carton
conveniently placed on the open door of the plant near the scales, employees
helped themselves to the pasteboard cuspidors , and converted them into hats
by cutting out the bottoms. Approximately three-fourths of the employees wote
such hats while at work and at the polls on September 13 and 14 , 1950. In
keeping with the spirit of the occasion and to express the sentiments of the
wearers, these hats were inscribed with such mottoes as "VOTE NO," "VICTORY,"
"HELL NO-CIO," "OH NO-CIO," and similar aphorisms. A few brave souls-
not more than half a dozen-wore hats marked "VOTE YES." One bore the
inscription "E. PLURIBUS UNUM." Some hats were gaily decorated with
string, ribbon, and other ornamentations left over from the Christmas holidays-
It is not clear from the record just who made the paraphernalia available, but
,it plainly appears that none of the supervisors or officials of the Respondent
raised any objection to this apparent confiscation of company property or com-
plained of time lost from regular duties by the employees. Harrison Godfrey,
Jr., reluctantly testified that he saw Overseer Walter C. Saturday with some
of the ribbon in his hands, and looking at some of the bats . Henry L. Winkles
saw the sweeper himself wearing a hat marked "VICTORY. VOTE NO." He
jokingly inquired whether the boys were messing up so badly that he must,
carry a spittoon on his head . Shift Foreman Claude O 'Hara reprimanded
Winkles for teasing the old man. When Winkles offered to apologize, O'Hara
said, "Just don't be talking about the hats on either way." The pasteboard hats
were much in evidence at the polls. The festive spirit was so contagious that
even a representative of the Board assisting in the conduct of the election was
seen wearing a hat on which the words "VOTE NO" had been erased. When a
union adherent objected, he removed the hat with some embarrassment.
1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Concluding Findings
I cannot find that letters addressed to employees herein expressing the opposi-
tion of the Respondent to the Union and its activities constitute a violation of the
Act. Neither does the Respondent's book of comparisons of working conditions,
etc., at the Dalton and Tallapoosa plants exceed the bounds of free speech
permitted by Section 8 (c) of the Act. In the letters and the booklet I find
simply the expression of Respondent's views, arguments, and opinions without
threats of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.
The dissemination of the aforesaid letters and booklet of comparisons was not
in itself unlawful, but I am constrained to find that such dissemination by
personal delivery by supervisors to employees while at work in the plant, and
the assembly of employees as individuals and in groups by supervisors during
working hours to exhibit and explain to them the prepared tabulation of com-
parisons between its unionized plant at Dalton, Georgia. and its nonunion plant
at Tallapoosa, Georgia, constituted a relaxation of its rule prohibiting the distri-
bution of literature of any kind in the plant. Having itself initiated a violation
of the rule by distributing antiunion literature, the Respondent cannot be heard
to say that it was a violation for supporters of the Union to do likewise. It
appears from uncontradicted evidence that both union and antiunion literature
and propaganda was much in evidence throughout the plant, and the Respondent
made no effort to prohibit it until a day or two before the election when Billy
Robinson was discharged and J. D. Stephens was warned not to pass out union
literature under threat of being laid off. It is, therefore, found that the disparate
enforcement of its rule against distribution of literature constituted inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act 14
The issue presented is not whether an employer has a right to prohibit the
distribution of literature during working hours on its premises, or to itself
engage in antiunion propaganda. The question is whether it may reserve such
rights to itself, while at the same time interfering with, or preventing employees
from engaging in conduct of a like nature on behalf of the Union. It is well
established that discriminatory conduct of that nature violates the Act36
Having found that the Respondent violated the Act by prohibiting the
distribution of union literature while itself engaged in and permitting dissemina-
tion of antiunion literature, it follows that the discharge of Billy Robinson was
discriminatory. The Respondent thereby discriminated in regard to his hire
or tenure of employment to discourage membership in a labor organization.
Robinson's disobedience of an order from his supervisors under the circumstances
does not furnish cause for discharge within the meaning of the Act.
It is not clear what prompted Overseer Saturday and Foreman O'Hara to
approach Henry L. Winkles concerning the authenticity of his name on the
mimeographed letter distributed by the Union to employees on the day before the
election. Their inquiry as to whether he signed the original of that letter con-
stituted interrogation of employees concerning their activities to promote collec-
tive bargaining, which has often been denounced by the Board as illegal16 Satur-
14 Maryland Drydock Co., 88 NLRB 1305 ; Allen-Morrison Sign Co., Inc., 79 NLRB 903 ;
Macon Textiles, Inc., 80 NLRB 1525.
16 Goodall Company, 86 NLRB 844 ; N. L. R B. v. M E. Blatt Co, 143 F 2d 268 (C A.
3), certiorari denied, 323 U. S. 774; N. L. R. B. v Peyton Packing Co, 142 F 2d 1009
(C. A. 5), certiorari denied, 323 U. S. 730; N. L. It. B. v. Harbison-Walker Refractories Co.,
135 F. 2d 837 (C. A. 8),; N. L. R. B. v. Winona Knitting Mills, Inc., 163 F. 2d 156 (C. A.
8) ; N. L. R B. v. American Furnace Co., 158 F. 2d 376 (C. A. 7).
16 Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Co , 85 NLRB 1358.
THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY 1325
,day's suggestion that Winkles had grounds to sue the Union if he denied signing
the letter , coupled with an offer of assistance in getting a lawyer was clearly an
effort to persuade him to repudiate his affiliations with the Union.
The Respondent was fully cognizant of the nature and importance of the
hearing in Washington . Officials and some employees attended the hearing in
the interest of the Respondent. Billy Robinson, Dicie Little, Earline Rochester,
and Vesta Abercrombie were witnesses for the Union. The Union advanced
expense money, and they traveled together as part of a group. It could hardly
be contended that they were not engaged in concerted activities on behalf of a
labor organization, whether they went voluntarily or in obedience to subpenas.
Attendance at this hearing was merely incidental to other concerted activities
in which they engaged both before and after the hearing. The fact that the
Respondent reprimanded and threatened only these union witnesses with loss of
their jobs when they returned to work indicates that the Respondent intended
to discourage membership in the Union and suppress their union activities in
general ; and not merely to preserve discipline and efficiency in the plant. Dur-
wood Teal, Elzie Teal, and Marie Kilgore did not receive similar treatment. I
,shall, therefore, hold that the aforesaid reprimands and threats constituted
interference, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of the rights
,guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
It is contended by Respondent that the episode of the cuspidor hats during
working hours and at the polls was privileged electioneering and the spontaneous
expression of views by its employees. Had there been no interference, restraint,
or coercion of employees, some weight might be given to this contention. Ac-
companied by unfair labor practices herein found, the Respondent sponsored,
encouraged, and controlled an antiunion demonstration by permitting the utiliza-
tion of its premises and production time and the use of its property and para-
phernalia-all in the presence of responsible supervisors. Such conduct was
calculated to, and did in my opinion, through fear of economic retaliation make
free and untrammeled balloting impossible . Without rehearsing in detail the
objections filed by the Union, I find that the Respondent interfered with the free
choice of a bargaining representative in the election of September 14, 1950. I
shall therefore recommend that the election be set aside.
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 subgta`ntial 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
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent interrogated its employees concerning
their union activities ; reprimanded and threatened employees with economic
reprisal for attending and testifying at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Labor-
Management Relations of the Senate of the United States in Washington, D. C.,
after refusing to grant a leave of absence for that purpose ; disparately enforced
against the Union a plant rule prohibiting the distribution of literature, while
itself engaging in and permitting others to engage in the distribution of antiunion
literature and propaganda in its plant during working hours ; and sponsored and
1326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
encouraged an antiunion demonstration in its plant during working hours on the.
eve and day of a Board-conducted election ; thereby discouraging membership in
a labor organization , and otherwise interfering with, restraining , and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
It will, therefore, be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from
the conduct herein found to be a violation of the Act.
Further finding from the past conduct of the Respondent, and the nature of
the aforesaid unfair labor practices, a likelihood that such .practices may be
continued in the future, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and
desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 17
Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged William (Billy)
Robinson because of his membership in and activities on behalf of a labor or-
ganization , it will be recommended that the Respondent offer to said employee
immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position 1B without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination
against hint by the payment to him of a sum of money equivalent to that which
he would have earned as wages since the date of his discharge to the date when
such offer of reinstatement is made less net earnings
1° to be computed on a
quarterly basis in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289.
Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability
for any other such period. It will also be recommended that the Respondent
make available to the Board upon request its payroll and other necessary records
to facilitate the computation of back pay herein awarded.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make 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, admitting to membership employees of the
Respondent.
2. The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating employees concerning their union
activities, reprimanding and threatening employees for engaging in concerted
activities protected by the Act, disparately enforcing plant rules to discourage
concerted activities and membership in a labor organization, and by sponsoring
and encouraging an antiunion demonstration in its plant to influence an election.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of its em-
ployee, William (Billy) Robinson, to discourage membership in a labor organiza-
tion, thereby discouraging membership in Textile Workers of America, CIO, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 8 (a) (3) 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.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
17 Mail Department Stores V. 1 L R. B., 326 U S 376.
is The Chase National Bank of the City of New York , 65 NLRB 827.
19 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440.