The Springfield Woolen Mills Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1942

41 N.L.R.B. 921 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of THE SPRINGFIELD WOOLEN MILLS COMPANY AND J. G.
CLINARD and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH
THE C. 1. 0.
Case No. C-2110-Decided June 12, 1942
Jurisdiction : blanket and woolen material manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices:
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: signing of anti-union pledges by shift
bosses ; permitting their names to remain on list of "loyal employees" who
had signed such pledges without counteracting its effect ;anti-union statement
of head of shipping department ; threat of shift foreman-that employees would
be out of work if the union got into the plant.
Discrimination: charges of, dismissed.
Remedial Orders : employer ordered to cease and desist from unfair labor
practices.
Definitions : individual not acting in the interest of the Company and having
- no official connection with or financial interest in it, no voice in the conduct
of its business or in the formulation of its labor policies, held not an employer
of said Company's employees within the meaning of the Act.
Practice and Procedure : complaint dismissed as to an individual found not to
Abe an employer within the meaning of the Act.
Mr. John McRee, for the Board.
Mr. Cecil Sims and Mr. J. 0. Bass, of Nashville, Tenn., for Spring-
field. -
- Mr. Jake A. O'Brien and Mr. Harry L. Pepper, of Springfield,
Tenn., for Clinard.
Mr. R. H. Brazzell, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
Miss Grace McEldowney, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge duly filed 1 by Textile Workers
Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth
The original charge was filed on August 28 , 1941 ; amended charges were filed on
October 31 , 1941, and January 6, 1942.
41 N. L. It. B., No. 165.
921
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated January 10,
1942, against the respondents, The Springfield Woolen Mills Com-
pany; herein called Springfield, and J. G. Clinard, herein called
Clinard, both of Springfield, Tennessee, alleging that the respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and accompanying
notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondents and the
Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance: (1) that Springfield, and Clinard acting in the interest
of Springfield, interrogated employees of Springfield regarding union
activities; warned them not to become members of the Union;
threatened them with physical violence, with discharge, and with
removal of Springfield's plant to another city if they joined or re-
mained members of the Union ; circulated anti-union petitions and
other literature among them; published and circulated a list of em-
ployees who had signed anti-union petitions; stated that the respond-
ents appreciated the loyalty of employees who were working against
the Union ; changed the hours of work to prevent employees from
attending union meetings ; prevented the Union from having access
to a public building for use as a meeting hall; and made statements
to employees derogatory of the Union and its representatives,; (2)
that on or about October 17, 1941, Springfield laid off or discharged
Sammie Kiger,2 and-thereafter refused to reemploy him, because of
his membership in and activity on behalf of the Union, thereby dis-
criminating in regard to his hire and tenure of employment; and (3)
that, by the foregoing acts, the respondents interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced the employees of Springfield in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On January 19 and 24,
1942, respectively, Springfield and Clinard filed separate answers,
admitting some of the allegations of the complaint, but denying that
they had engaged in any unfair labor practices. Clinard further
denied that he is an employer, within the meaning of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on February 4 and 5, 1942,
at Springfield, Tennessee, before Horace A. Ruckel, the Trial Exam-
iner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the
respondents, and the Union were represented at and participated in
the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-:
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded all parties.
2 Also referred to in the record as Sammy Kiger.
THE SPRINGFIELD WOOLEN MILLS COMPANY 923
During-the course of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to
amend the complaint to,allege that on or about November 6, 19,k1,
Springfield discriminatorily laid off or discharged Carl Douglas.
Springfield waived notice of the amendment, and the motion was
granted. The Trial Examiner also granted a motion by Springfield
to amend its answer to deny the additional allegation. At the con-
clusion of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted a motion by
counsel for the Board to conform the complaint to the proof as to
formal matters, and reserved decision upon motions by Clinard to
dismiss the complaint and by Springfield to strike all evidence of
activities of Clinard insofar as Springfield was concerned. During
the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made rulings on other
motions'-and on the admissibility of evidence. The Board has re-
viewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Trial Examiner afforded all parties an opportunity for oral argu-
ment and for the filing of briefs. None of the pasties argued orally.
On February 16, 1942, Springfield, filed a brief with the Trial
Examiner. ,
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
dated February 19, 1942, copies of which were duly served upon all
the parties. In his Intermediate Report he denied the motion by
Clinard to dismiss the complaint; 3 found that Clinard was an em-
ployer, within the meaning of the Act, and that both respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act; and recommended that they cease and desist therefrom
and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. He further found that Springfield had not en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3)
of the Act, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar
as it alleged that Springfield had discriminated with respect to the
hire or tenure of employment of Sammie Kiger and Carl Douglas.
Clinard, Springfield, and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermedi-
ate Report on March 11, 12, and 16, 1942, respectively, and briefs in
support of the exceptions on March 17, 24, and 16, 1942, respectively.
Upon the request of the respondents and pursuant to notice to all
parties, a hearing was duly held before the Board in Washington,
D. C., on April 7, 1942, for the purpose of oral argument. The
respondents were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing; the Union did not appear. The Board has considered the
'The Trial Examiner did not rule on the motion by Springfield to strike all evidence
of activities of Ciinard insofar as Springfield was concerned. The motion is hereby
denied.
924 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exceptions and briefs filed by the parties and , insofar as the exceptions
are inconsistent with the findings , conclusions , and- order set forth
below , finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT -
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS -
A. Springfield
The Springfield Woolen Mills Company, a Tennessee corporation,
operates a mill at Springfield , Tennessee , where it is engaged-in the
manufacture , sale, and distribution of blankets and other woolen
materials. The principal raw material used is wool . During the
year 1941, Springfield purchased , for use at the mill , wool valued in
excess of $800,000, of which approximately 50 percent .was transported
to it from places outside the State of Tennessee . During the same
period it manufactured and sold finished products of the mill having
a value in excess of $1,500,000, of which approximately 90 percent
were sold and shipped to States other than the. State of Tennessee.
Springfield admits , for the purpose of this proceeding , that it is
engaged in commerce , within the meaning of the Act.
B. Clinard, and his relationship to Springfield
J. G. Clinard owns and operates a combination grocery store and
chicken hatchery located opposite the main gate of Springfield's mill.
His store is patronized by many employees of Springfield, supervisory
and non-supervisory alike, but there is no evidence that Springfield
has any interest in, or control over, Clinard's business.
The 'complaint alleges that Clinard is an employer , within the
meaning of the Act, of persons employed in Springfield 's mill. The
record fails to show, however , that he has any official connection with
or financial interest in Springfield , any voice in the conduct of its
business or 'the formulation of its labor policies , or any authority
to act for it in any way. Nor does the record establish that his activ-
ities were instigated by Springfield . Clinard testified without con-
tradiction , and we find , that he actively opposed the Union because
he believed that Springfield's mill might close down if the Union
came in and that his business would suffer if the employees of Spring-
field were out of work. We do not believe that, in thus opposing the
Union, Clinard was acting "in the interest of an employer , directly
or indirectly ," within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.
On the basis of the record before us , we find that Clinard is not an
employer of Springfield 's employees , within the meaning of the Act.
We therefore further find that Clinard has not interfered with, re-
THE SPRINGFIELD WOOLEN MILLS COMPANY 925
strained, and coerced said employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as alleged in the complaint, and we
shall accordingly dismiss the complaint as to him.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America , affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations , is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of Springfield.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Union began organizing the employees of Springfield during
the early part of August 1941. Almost immediately a campaign of
opposition to the Union sprang up in the community . Meetings of
business and professional men were held to discuss the problem of deal-
ing with the Union, and the possibility of forcing the union organizers
to leave town was suggested . One such meeting was attended by about
100 persons . Clinard admittedly helped to arrange the meetings and
attended several of them, but the record does not show that any of
the officials or supervisory employees of Springfield participated.
Both E. B. Boyd, Springfield 's general manager, and S. L. Carter,
superintendent of its mill , testified that they knew nothing about the
meetings at the time , but it seems incredible , as the Trial Examiner
found, that such meetings , attended by leading citizens of the town and
at least some of the employees of Springfield , could have been held
over a period of several weeks without coming to their attention.
During the month of August , copies of the following pledge were
distributed among the employees of Springfield :
Believing that it is to my interest and to the interest of every
employee of the Springfield Woolen Mills, I hereby pledge myself
not to sign any agreement that will bind me to any labor organiza-
tion. This agreement to be binding upon me until it is definitely
decided that a labor organization has a membership of sufficient
strength to become the bargaining agent of the employees of this
mill.
Some of these pledges were signed in Clinard's store and at his request;
others were openly passed about in Springfield 's mill by various non-
supervisory employees, one of whom took a copy, with 10 or 15 sig-
natures attached , to General Manager Boyd, with a request that he
have it typed .' At least one other copy was taken into the mill during
t Although Boyd refused to have anything to do with this document when he saw what
it was , it is apparent from this incident that Springfield had notice of the anti -union cam-
paign being carried on among its employees.
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
working hours by Clinard while he was delivering soft drinks and
lunches to the employees, as he was permitted to do under a long=
established practice.
Approximately 300 of Springfield's employees, including several
shift foremen, signed the pledge. Clinard had their names printed on
a large poster which he mounted in his store window, where it re-
mained for approximately a month. As printed, the names were pre-
ceded by this statement :
The following.is a list of Loyal Employees of the Springfield
Woolen Mills, Inc., who have pledged themselves not to join any
labor organization. Those people should be commended for their
good judgment, and loyalty to the mill management. I am sure
the management appreciates this loyalty, and I wish to thank
each and every one myself.
J. G. CLINARD.
At the bottom of the poster, employees whose names had been "omit-
ted by mistake or otherwise" were urged to get in touch with Alma
Johnson or Maggie Sanders, two of Springfield's non-supervisory
employees, or with Clinard.
A few days after Clinard had posted the list of "loyal employees"
in his store window, he received 400 or 500 copies of the August 25
edition of the Springfield Herald and Robertson County News, the
local newspaper, and had them distributed to employees at the mill
gate. Prominently displayed on the first page of the paper was an
editorial entitled, "Mill Workers Commended," of which the follow-
ing excerpts are typical:
The fact that there is only one major industrial plant in the
city . . . leads the citizens of the town to the belief that the mill
employees can successfully and with dignity, treat at all, times
with the mill management, and obtain consideration of their just
claims for wage and working changes and improvements.
It is felt that these ends can be accomplished without bringing
in any outside influences, whatever the type, and at less cost to
the individual worker, as initiation fees, monthly dues and assess-
ments, . . . take a high percentage of the workers' salary. All
this too, without the danger of lost time from work by strikes,
sympathetic walkouts or other reasons dictated by some organi-
zation or official, with headquarters elsewhere.
... At least it is known that in many towns jobs have been
lost, plants permanently closed and allowed, to go to rust, and
breadlines have been formed by the actions of such groups . . .
Therefore it is the consensus of expressed opinion that- the
judgment and thoughtfulness of the more than three hundred
THE SPRINGFIELD WOOLEN MILLS COMPANY - 927
employees who have pledged not to organize at this-time, should
be given hearty commendation, and that-they should be congratu-
lated upon the soundness of their opinion as set out in these
pledges.
It appears from the above facts and from other uncontradicted
evidence that Clinard was particularly active in opposing the union-
ization of Springfield's employees. However, in view of our finding
that he is not an employer of Springfield's employees, within the mean-
iiighof the Act,5 we,do not consider his anti-union activities, or those
of the other residents of the community, except as they show the back-
ground against which the unfair labor practices charged to Springfield
took place.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Activities in opposition to the Union were not confined to individuals
outside the mill management. As stated above, several of Spring-
field's-shift bosses signed anti-union pledges.6 The circulation of the
pledges or petitions bearing their names and the-posting of their names
in Clinard's store window publicly proclaimed their position. Both,
General Manager Boyd and Superintendent Carter admittedly saw
the poster, yet no attempt was made by Springfield to counteract the
natural effect of the notice on its employees. The notice, subsequently
posted in the plant, forbidding the circulation of petitions for or
against any labor organization,? cannot be regarded" as dissipating
the effect of the anti-union attitude which had thus been openly dis-
played by Springfield's supervisory employees.s-
5 See Section I B, supra:-
6 The foremen in the various' departments work on the first shift and have assistants,
referred .to as "shift bosses .' or "second hands," who work on the second and third shifts,
Although these shift bosses have no authority to hire or discharge , they are admittedly"in
charge of the work on their respective shifts . We, therefore , find that they are supervisory
employees , and that Springfield is responsible for their anti-union activities.
This notice read as follows :
From - this date on (September 22, 1941 ), the mill management positively forbids on
the penalty of the guilty parties losing their jobs . . . the circulation of any petition
of any kind by anybody either for or against any labor organization or any discussion
of any controversial questions while in line of duty.
This applies to every employee.
Although proposed by an agent of the Board , this notice did not purport to be a settlement
of the pending charges against Springfield.
8 See Matter of Iowa Electric Light and Power Company and International Union of
Operating Engineers , Local 275, affiliated with the A. F. of L, 35 N. L. R. B . 1145 and
Matter of Charles C. Hobart, doing business as Hobart Cabinet Company and American
Federation of Labor, 25 N L R. B. 727, enf'd, Hobart Cabinet Co v. N L R B , May 8, 1941
(C. C. A 6), cert. den , 314 U S 679 The cessation of unfair labor practices does not
prevent the Board from determining how the effects of such practices shall be expunged or
from barring their resumption. See N. L R B v . Link-Belt Company, 311 U - S -584;
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v N L. R B, 305 U S 197 ; N L. R ,,B
V Calumet Steel Division of Borg-Warner . Corporation, 121 F ( 2d) 366 (C C A 7) ;
N. L' R. B. v Ford Motor Company , 119 F. (2d) 326 (C. C. A 5) ; N. L, R. B. V. Pacific Gas
and Electric Company, 118 F. ( 2d) 780 (C. C. A. 9),; Pueblo pas and Fuel Co v N. L R.B,
118 F. ( 2d) 304 (C C. A. 10). -
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In other ways supervisory employees expressed even more unmistak-
ably the antagonism of Springfield toward the Union. Thus, Davis
Chilton, principal proponent of the Union in the mill, testified without
contradiction that, during the latter part of August, Loyd Clinard,
head of Springfield's shipping department,9 asked Chilton "how - in
the hell" the Union was getting along, and how many members it had,
and declared, "We are not going to have no God damned CIO down
there." 10
Furthermore, Sammie Kiger, an employee whose alleged discrimina-
tory discharge is hereinafter discussed, testified that about-the middle
.of August 1941, Jesse Henderson, his shift foreman, told him that if
the Union succeeded in getting into the plant the employees would all
be out of a job because Springfield would not "work under" the Union.
Although Henderson denied making this statement to Kiger, the Trial
Examiner, who heard and observed the witnesses, found that Kiger's
testimony was more credible than Henderson's. We find, as did the
Trial Examiner, that Henderson made substantially the statement
attributed to him by Kiger.
We find that, by the signing of anti-union pledges by some of its
shift bosses, by permitting their names to remain on the list of "loyal
employees"-who had signed such pledges without counteracting the
effect of this proclamation of opposition to the Union, by the anti-union
statement of the head of its shipping department, and by the threat of
one of its shift foremen that the employees would be out of work if the
Union got into the plant, Springfield interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act. _
C. The alleged discriminatory discharges -
Sammie Kiger. Kiger first went to work for Springfield on No-
vember 11, 1940, as a drier on the second shift in the dye house. Dur-
ing his employment, he worked steadily except for, occasional brief
lay-offs when the second shift was shut down. His employment was
terminated on September 12, 1941.
Kiger joined the Union on August 23, 1941, and thereafter on one
or more occasions accompanied union organizers calling at the homes
of employees. On - the evening, of September 6, he accompanied
Charles Wilson, an organizer from a nearby town, and Davis Chilton,
hereinbefore identified as the most active proponent of the Union
among the employees of Springfield, to the home of Jim and Leonard
Pugh, fellow employees. When the automobile in which Kiger and
e Loyd Clinard, who is not related to J. G Clinard,^ is a second hand in charge of.the
shipping room, under the general supervision of the foreman of the finishing department.
10 These remarks were made during a conversation at_a dance hall near Springfield when,
according to Chilton, Loyd Clinard was "pretty well lit up." Loyd Clinard. did not testify.
THE SPRINGFIELD WOOLEN MILLS COMPANY 929
Chilton were riding arrived at the Pugh home, Amos Cole, general
foreman of the dye house, was parked at the curb in another auto-
mobile, in the company of another of Springfield's employees. Cole
or his companion remarked of Wilson, "that must be a union man."
Cole remained in front of the Pugh home for about 10 minutes, during
which time Kiger alighted from Chilton's automobile and engaged
Wilson in conversation. Cole testified at the hearing but was not asked
whether he knew of Kiger's membership in, or activity on behalf of,
the Union. By reason of the circumstances above stated, we find, as
did the Trial Examiner, that Cole was aware of Kiger's interest-in
union organization.
Until about September 1, the. second shift in the dye house was com-
posed of the following employees : Jesse Henderson, the shift foreman,
Kiger, Bill Brown, Oris Anderson, Denzil Alley, Dotson Moses, Wiley
Williamson, Garland Draughon, and Bill Head. Of these, Brown,
Anderson, and Alley had started working for Springfield at a later
date than Kiger. The others preceded him in time of original em-
ployment 1l Toward the beginning of September, work on a Govern-
ment contract was reaching an end, as a result of which it was decided
to close down the second shift. At about this time L. C. Garrett, fore-
man of the finishing department, asked Foreman Cole that three men
on the second shift be transferred to the finishing department to install
new machinery and to do other work. General Manager Boyd and
Cole testified, and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Garrett par-
ticularly mentioned Brown, Anderson, and Draughon in this connec-
tion, because they had previously done occasional work under his
supervision. Accordingly, on September 6, Brown, Anderson, and
Draughon, the first two of whom followed, and the last ,of whom pre-
ceded Kiger in time of employment, were transferred to the finishing
department. Williamson, whose seniority over Kiger is unquestioned,
had previously been'transferred to another part of the plant.
On Friday, September 12, work on the second shift in the dye house
was suspended. Foreman Henderson told Kiger that the shift was'
being laid off and suggested that he see Cole about being transferred
to work elsewhere in the mill. On Monday, September 15, Cole told
Kiger, in effect, that there was no work for him. Since then, neither
Kiger nor Alley has been reemployed, nor have any new employees
been hired, so _far as the record shows. However, during the week
following the lay-off, illoses, who had been employed before Kiger,
was transferred to work installing the new machinery in the finishing
department and to work on the first shift in the dye house; and on
"Springfield had no clearly defined seniority policy In general , employees with the
longest employment iecord were given preference , at times of lay-off , over other employees
doing the same work.
463892-42-N of 41--59
930 DECISIONS OF:NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
September 15, Head was also given work on the new machinery, and
he thereafter worked in the dye house on occasion when the second
shift was used for a day or so. Head had started to work for Spring-
field on July 2, 1940, several months prior to Kiger, but had a broken
employment record. He had worked from July 2 to September 7,
1940; when he quit; had returned in October 1940, and worked until
March 29, 1941; and had then been laid off until August 30, 1941, 2
weeks before the shut-down of the second shift, when he was rehired.
In explanation of Head's being retained instead of. Kiger, Cole
testified that the contractor in charge of installing the new machinery
asked him for "a big stout man" for this work. Head was tall and
weighed approximately 200 pounds. Kiger, according to his own testi-
mony, weighed approximately 140 pounds.
The net result of the lay-off on September 12, 1941, was that Kiger
and Alley who, with the possible exception of Head, had the shortest
employment record of any employees on the second shift at the time
of the lay-off, were never reemployed. The others were transferred
to other work or were rehired with only a few days' loss of work.
Head was the only member of the shift at the time of the lay-off who
might be regarded as having less seniority and yet was given preference
over Kiger.
Aside from the fact that Head was a bigger man physically than
Kiger, there appears to have been no good reason for Head's having
been retained by Springfield in preference to Kiger. He had been
separated from Springfield's employ several times for substantial
periods, and had returned to work the last time only 2 weeks before
Kiger's lay-off on September 12. Although the fact that Head was
given such preference, coupled with Springfield's knowledge of Kiger's
interest in union organization, raises the suspicion that Springfield
laid off and failed to reemploy Kiger because of his union interest, we
find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the evidence is not sufficient
to sustain the complaint in this respect. We shall, therefore, dismiss
the complaint ass to Kiber.
Carl Douglas. Douglas started to work for Springfield in August
1940 as a stripper on the second shift in the carding room. Later
he worked as a feeder on the third shift, and still later he was given the
job of running two finishers. On November 11, 1941, he was dis-
charged.
Although Douglas had,signed one of the pledges not to join the
Union until it received a majority, and although his name was there-
fore among those posted in Clinard's store window, he joined the
Union on September 20, 1941. Shortly thereafter, Clinard, who had
learned of Douglas' union membership, pasted a strip of paper over
Douglas' name. It was still possible, however, to distinguish it, and
..THE SPRJNGFIEDD WOOLEN MILLS COMPANY ' 931
the effect was to emphasize Douglas' withdrawal from ' the ranks. of
the "loyal employees ." _ About 2 weeks before his discharge Douglas
met Carter 12, on the street .- Carter on this • occasion told Douglas,
according to the latter's testimony , that he understood that Douglas
had joined the Union . Douglas made a non-committal reply. Al-
though Carter denied having made ' this comment , the Trial Exi m-
iner - found that ` Carter's testimony was unreliable in this and other
respects . We find, as did the Trial Examiner , that Carter made, in
substance , the remark attributed to him by Douglas, and that Spring=
field knew that Douglas had joined the Union.
About November 1, 1941 , Springfield decided to combine the func-
tions of feeding and finishing on each of the three shifts ' in' the card-
ing room in which Douglas worked ; and Ebb Anderson , the' shift
foreman , told Douglas that thereafter he would have to run his carding
machines by himself . 13 Hunter , who had assisted Douglas, was trans-
ferred to another job. Later the same day Croft , general foreman,
repeated these instructions . Douglas exclaimed , according to his
own testimony , "The hell you say," to which Croft replied, "That is
the orders ." During the course of further conversation between them,
Douglas in effect expressed dissatisfaction with his combined duties.
At noon on the same day Douglas asked for and obtained leave to
be off that evening to have his feet treated , and during the afternoon
he asked Foreman Anderson for a helper in operating his machine.
Anderson assigned one to him for the remainder of the day. That
evening Douglas went to the office and complained to Carter and Mur-
ray, production manager, that his new duties were too difficult. For
about a week thereafter , however, Douglas performed the work by
himself, although complaining that it was too much for one man to
do. On Friday, November 7, Douglas complained to Croft that his
feet were in bad shape , and obtained leave of absence for 2 days to
consult a doctor. On Douglas ' return to the mill on Tuesday , Novem-
ber 11 , Anderson told him that his place had been taken by- another
employee. Douglas then saw Carter , who told him that he had- been
away from work too much and that he was discharged. -
The record shows that , during his employment , Douglas had been
absent for various periods due to his own illness , illness in his family,
and other reasons. Douglas admitted at the hearing that he had had
12 In November 1941, Carter became superintendent of the mill For-'about 5 months
prior to that time, he had been assistant superintendent -
' It seems clear from the record that the same change was put into effect on the
other shifts shortly thereafter, and has been continued on all three shifts ever since.
Although Douglas testified that there were two men on each of the other shifts during
the last week of his employment, he admitted having heard that the change was made
throughout the card room immediately after he left Carter's testimony was that they
tried out the new method of operation during the 2 ,days when Douglas was away
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a bad case of athlete 's foot for some time , that- it had become worse
because of the additional duties imposed upon him, and that, at the
time he asked for leave of absence the weekend before his discharge,
he was unable to work. He testified , however , that - when he talked
with Carter on Tuesday , November 11, 1941 , he had recovered suf-
ficiently to perform his work, and that he so informed Carter.
Carter testified that, prior to the time of Douglas ' return to work
on Tuesday , November 11, he had looked up Douglas ' employment
record and had learned that , in 20 of the 65 weeks of Douglas ' employ-
ment, he had failed to put in a full week 's work because of voluntary
absences . Carter further testified that Douglas, when he returned to
work on November 11, said that he was not physically able to do his
work; that Carter believed Douglas was not seriously trying to do
his work; and that he therefore decided to discharge Douglas.
The fact that Douglas ' membership in the Union was known to
Springfield and that Carter on one occasion questioned him about it
gives rise to the suspicion that his union membership was the cause of
Douglas' discharge , rather than his physical condition or an unwilling-
ness on his part to perform the combined work of feeding and finishing.
However, we find, as did the Trial Examiner , that the evidence does
not' do more than raise a suspicion . Douglas was , by his own admis-
sion , physically unable to perform his new duties . It is evident from
his statements to his foreman , quoted above , that he *was reluctant to
assume the additional work required of him . On the record as a
whole, we find that Douglas ' discharge was not due to his membership
-in and activity on behalf of the Union . We shall , therefore, dismiss
the complaint as to Douglas.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of Springfield set forth in Section III B
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Springfield
described in Section I A above, 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
Having found that Springfield has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices , we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom , and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. .
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
THE SPRINGFIELD WOOLEN MILLS COMPANY 933
CONCLusIONs of LAW
1. Textile Workers Union'of America, affiliated with-the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization, within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. I
. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Spring-
field has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (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.
4. Springfield has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
5. Clinard is not an employer of Springfield's employees, within
the meaning of the Act.
6. Clinard has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in
the complaint herein, within the meaning of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ent, The Springfield Woolen Mills Company, Springfield, Tennessee,
and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its Spring-
field, Tennessee, mill, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating that The Springfield Woolen Mills Company will not engage
in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in para-
graph 1 of this Order;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,.
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
934 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AND IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that The Springfield Woolen Mills Com-
pany discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employment
of Sammie Kiger and Carl Douglas.
AND rr is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that J. G. Clinard engaged in unfair
labor practices as alleged in the complaint herein, within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) of the Act.,