Thomaston Cotton Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 278 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THOMASTON COTTON MiLLs and WARREN E. HALL, Jr.
Case No. 10-CA-26.-Decided November 30,1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Un September 8, 1949, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, 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
Respondent also requested oral argument. This request is denied as
the record and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues
and positions of the parties.1
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of
the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent with this Decision
and Order.
1. The Trial Examiner found that the surveillance activities of
employees Buchanan and Loy Wilson, as well as the activities of the
four other employees who assaulted Union Organizer Walk, are
attributable to the Respondent. We do not agree. These employees
were not supervisors. We do not find any convincing evidence that
the Respondent instigated, approved, or even knew of their conduct.
In fact, when the Respondent learned of the assault on Walk, it wrote
two letters to the appropriate public officials urging a thorough inves-
tigation of the affair. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to
show that any of those employees were paid by the Respondent for
the time they devoted to the allegedly illegal activities. Under these
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chair-
man Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray].
87 NLRB No. 44.
278
THOMASTON COTTON MILLS 279
o
circumstances, we cannot impute liability to the Respondent solely
because of the company-village setting. 2 It was incumbent, upon the
General Counsel to prove an agency relationship between the Respond-
ent and the above-mentioned employees. This, we find, it has failed
to do. The Respondent's failure to disprove the allegations of the
complaint does not establish their truth.3
2. The Trial Examiner also found that Hammond was discharged
because of his union activity and not, as the Respondent contends, be-
cause of his failure to perform his work and his repeated absences
from the sewing room. We do not agree. There is no credible evi-
dence of union animus from which a discriminatory motive might be
inferred, even assuming that no cause existed for the discharge 4
However, the record, in our opinion, supports the Respondent's con-
tention that Hammond was discharged for cause. Overseer Strick-
land testified without contradicition that he had "a lot of" complaints
about Hammond's work.5 Eula Brewer, a machine operator in the
sewing room for 8 years, likewise testified that she had heard many
complaints about Hammond's work because "he wouldn't fix the ma-
chines." Furthermore, although it does not appear in the Intermediate
Report, Hammond admitted that he had been disciplined by Strick-
land for not attending to his job approximately 2 months before his
discharge; and the evidence shows that he was also warned at that
time not to repeat the offense, but that he nevertheless did so on the
occasion of his discharge.
As the General Counsel has failed to prove that the Respondent
committed any of the alleged unfair labor practices, we shall dismiss
the complaint Vin its entirety.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint issued herein against
the Respondent, Thomaston Cotton Mills, Thomaston, Georgia, be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Shally O. 'Wise, for the General Counsel.
Mr. Frank A. Constangy, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Respondent.
Mr. Cleburne E. Gregory, Jr., of Atlanta, Ga., for the Charging Party.
2 Cf. Bibb Manufacturing Co., 82 NLRB 338.
See Tnternational Longshoremen.'s and Warehousemen's Union, CIO, 79 NLRB 1487.
4 See The Texas Company, 80 NLRB 862.
The Trial Examiner implies that Strickland admitted on cross -examination that he
received complaints about Hammond from only two employees. However, Strickland
testified that he received many complaints but could recall the names of only two employees.
280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed September 18, 1947, by Warren E. Hall, Jr., an attorney,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued a complaint dated
June 17, 1948, against Thomaston Cotton Mills, Thomaston, Georgia; herein
called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and vas en-
gaging 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) and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act as amended, 61 Stat. 136 (herein called the amended Act).
Copies of the charge, the complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon
the Respondent and Hall.
With respect to unfair labor practices the complaint alleges in substance that
the Respondent: (1) discriminatorily discharged employee Jessie Hammond on
November 5, 1946, because of his activities on behalf of United Construction
Workers, affiliatEd with United Mine Workers of America, herein called the
Union; (2) by certain named officers and agents since October 1946, has interro-
gated its employees concerning their union affiliation, has threatened to close
the plant if union activities continued, has maintained surveillance of union
activities and representatives, and has participated in and condoned a physical
assault upon a representative of the Union ; and (3) by these acts has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act and amended Act.
On July 7, 1948, the Respondent filed with the Regional Director a motion to
dismiss claiming, among other things: (1) that the complaint had been issued
in violation of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the amended Act; and (2) that
the alleged unfair labor practices had occurred more than 6 months before the
filing of the charge. On July 8 the Regional Director issued an order reserving
ruling upon this motion to the Trial Examiner. Thereafter, on July 26, 1948,
the Regional Director also referred to the Trial Examiner a motion by the
Respondent for a bill of particulars. On August. 6, 1948, the Respondent filed
its answer, denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Thomaston, Georgia, on August 25,
26, 27, 30, and 31, 1948, before Charles S. Donovan, a Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by
counsel; full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. On
August 20, 1948, before the hearing, Trial Examiner Donovan denied the afore-
mentioned motion to dismiss and motion for a bill of particulars. On August 22
the respondent forwarded to the Board a petition to remove cases 2 to the
Board and for intermediate exception to rulings of the Trial Examiner. On
August 23 the Board denied the petition.
At the opening and again at the close of the hearing the Respondent renewed
its motion to dismiss, as above described. Ruling was reserved by Trial
Examiner Donovan. Ruling was also reserved upon: (1) a motion by the
Respondent to strike all testimony relating to certain individuals;' and (2) a
1 The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are herein called General
Counsel, and the National Labor Relations Board, the Board.
2 This motion also related to similar issues in Cases Nos. 10-CA-20 , 21 (B. F. Goodrich
Company).
3 Oglesbee , Huckaby, and Walker.
THOMASTON COTTON MILLS 281
motion by General Counsel to amend the complaint to include the allegation
that the Respondent had "instigated" the physical assault above referred to. A
motion to conform the pleadings to the proof in minor matters was granted by
Trial Examiner Donovan.
Oral argument was waived by the parties. Following the hearing briefs were
filed by counsel for the Respondent and for Hall.
- Before issuing an Intermediate Report, Trial Examiner Donovan died. There-
after the Chief Trial Examiner ordered the undersigned Trial Examiner, C. W.
Whittemore, to prepare and issue an Intermediate Report in this case.
The undersigned Trial Examiner hereby denies the motions above described :
(1) by the Respondent to dismiss the complaint and to strike certain testimony;
and (2) by General Counsel to amend the complaint.'
Upon the entire record in the case, and having considered the briefs, the
undersigned Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS or FACT
I. THE BUSINESS Or THE RESPONDENT
Thomaston Cotton Mills is a Georgia corporation ; it maintains an office and
three plants near Thomaston, Georgia, and is engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of textile products.
During the 12-month period just before issuance of the complaint the Respond-
ent had purchased for use at said plants raw materials, consisting of cotton,
parts, and supplies valued at more than $100,000, about 50 percent of which was
purchased outside the State of Georgia and shipped in interstate commerce to
its plants. During the same period the Respondent manufactured, sold, and
distributed textile products valued at more than $100,000, about 70 percent of
which was sold and shipped to points outside the State of Georgia.
The Respondent concedes jurisdiction of the Board.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Construction Workers, affiliated with United Mine Workers of America,"
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
in. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Major events aind issues
At the time material to the major issues herein, the boundaries of the Re-
spondent's three plant properties have also largely constituted the boundaries
of an incorporated "municipality" known as East Thomaston. The three plants
are known as the Thomaston, Peerless, and Bleachery divisions. Within the
"municipality" of East Thomaston are two "mill villages"-Peerless and Thom-
aston. Bleachery employees live in either the Thomaston or Peerless village.
East Thomaston has a commission form of local government with three com-
missioners appointed by a district judge, and with the mayor being selected
from among themselves. During the latter part of 1946 the three commissioners
4 The Trial Examiner considers the allegations of the original complaint to be sufficiently
broad to cover the proposed amendment.
5 The complaint, issued in 1948, alleged that the United Mine workers was affiliated, in
turn , with American Federation of Labor. Such affiliation, as is generally known, has
been dissolved.
282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were R. J. Adams, as mayor, H. W. Ormand, and Len Deloach. Adams was
superintendent of the Thomaston plant, and Ormand manager of the Bleachery.
The commissioners serve in such offices without pay, and thus it follows that
Adams and Ormand are economically dependent upon the Respondent. The
"city" judge, A. A. Hardy, was purchasing agent of the Thomaston plant. The
chief of police, George Wilson, was employed by and works for Mayor Adams.
Wilson has no office, but has "headquarters" at a filling .station, lives on company-
owned property, and spends a good deal of his time at the Thomaston mill office.
Wilson's assistant, according to the chief's testimony, stays at the Peerless
mill office. The Respondent either owns or purchases for operation at its plants
and its mill village properties such utilities as water, gas, electricity, and sewer
systems, the mills employing crews for their maintenance.
In September 1946, Robert Walk, a union representative, came to Thomaston
for the purpose of organizing employees of the Respondent and of the B. F.
Goodrich Company, at a neighboring mill. Soon after his arrival he was joined
by two other organizers, Grady Watson and Otis Stewart. Sometimes together
and again separately they called on mill employees at their homes. On several
occasions between October 16 and November 1 they were followed by persons
also in cars. Whether or not this following of union organizers was surveillance
and the question of the Respondent's responsibility for it are among the major
issues.
On November 1, Walk was physically assaulted while in the company town
after visiting an employee. That the assault occurred is not disputed; the
Respondent's connection with it is in issue:
On or about November 5 employee Jessie A. Hammond, who had been dis-
tributing union application cards in the mills, was discharged. The discharge
is in issue.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Surveillance
The preponderance of credible, uncontradicted evidence establishes and the
undersigned finds that the union organizers, as they made visits to employees
at their homes in the mill villages, were followed almost daily and for hours at a
time, by at least two of the Respondent's employees, Loy Wilson and R. J.
Buchanan, for a period of about 3 weeks, beginning in mid-October. Work
records of these two employees show that from October 17 to November 7 both
Wilson and Buchanan, the first a plumber and the latter a section man, served
no hours at all in the mill, although each of them for 6 weeks before and
after this period worked 40 or more hours per week. No explanation was
offered by the Respondent for the absence of the two men, nor were they called
as witnesses. Circumstances established by unchallenged testimony support
the inference and the undersigned finds that Buchanan and Wilson were engaged
in surveillance of the organizers in order to discourage them in their union solic-
itation and to discourage employees whom they visited from joining. In the
setting of the company village, so completely controlled by the Respondent as
described in Section A above, and because their repeated and continuous acts
of surveillance were performed for the benefit of the Employer and with its
tacit, if not open, approval, the activities of Wilson and Buchanan are clearly
attributable to the Respondent.'
6 See Bibb Manufacturing Co., 82 NLRB 338.
THOMASTON COTTON MILLS 283
It is therefore concluded and found that by the above-described surveillance
the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.'
.2. The assault upon Organizer Walk
Credible and undisputed evidence establishes and the undersigned finds that
on November, 1, 1946, Union Organizer Robert Walk was severely beaten on the
street in the company village by one of four employees of the Respondent:
Aliver (Pepper) Martin, Henry Cantrell, A. P. Daniel, and Tom Alsobrook.
Company records were introduced to show that none of these four men were at
work that day; the Respondent offered no explanation of their absence.
In summary, the assault and surrounding circumstances were as follows.
After talking with Cantrell for about an hour at a filling station, Walk drove
to the home of Cecil Lee, in the mill village, to pick up some signed union cards.
As he came out of Lee's house, a few minutes later, a car approached in which
were Cantrell, whom he recognized, and three others whom he apparently did
not recognize. One of them, whom he heard called "Pepper," got out of the,
car, struck him over the head several times with a blackjack, kicked him in
the back, and threatened to finish him if he did not leave town. Lee was called
to the scene just after the attack, and saw Martin with "something" in his
hand, standing beside Walk, and heard him say, "I told you what would happen
when you cane in here, and if you come back in here you know what's going to
happen." Lee also saw Daniel standing by the car, and noted that Tom Also-
brook was driving it. Audrey Montgomery, a mill employee living with her
mother near the scene, also saw Martin standing near Walk. the latter covered
with blood.
Shortly after the assault, Overseer Dawkins twice drove to the scene, on
the latter occasion being accompanied by the mill village Police Chief Wilson!
Dawkins remained in the car each time. Wilson asked questions of neighbors
but, according to his testimony, "none of them didn't know nothing."
Walk remained in the vicinity for a few days, long enough to recover, and then
left Thomaston.
There is no evidence that the Respondent has ever reprimanded any of the
four employees involved in the assault.' Alsobrook was a section man ; Cantrell
an overhauler; Aliver (Pepper) Martin and Daniels were doffers. All were
still employed by the Respondent at the time of the hearing. None was called
as a witness.
P The undersigned considers it unnecessary here to discuss undisputed evidence that
union organizers were similarly followed by certain employees of the B. F. Goodrich Com-
pany, during the same period. Their conduct will be described in an Intermediate Report
in Cases Nos. 10-CA-20 and 21, B. F. Goodrich Company. Not does the undersigned
find the evidence conclusive that the organizers were followed, in the sense of intended
surveillance, by Julian Hightower, the Respondent's vice president, and Overseer F. T.
Dawkins.
'Dawkins admitted going once to the scene, with Wilson, but denied the first visit.
The undersigned accepts the testimony of employees Lucille Dawson and her daughter,
Audrey Montgomery, as the more credible on the disputed point. Dawkins' testimony, in
general and where lacking in credible corroboration, falls short of being trustworthy. He
denied knowing anything about union organization activity until after the assault.
° The record contains a good deal of testimony relating to a purported investigation
made thereafter by local authorities. The undersigned considers it immaterial to the
issue of the Respondent's responsibility. There is no evidence that the Respondent ever
disavowed to its employees generally its responsibility, made known to them its disapproval
of such acting, or disciplined the actual participants.
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although officials of the Respondent denied knowledge of the assault until
after it occurred , the circumstances defy belief of the denial . For more than
2 weeks two of its employees were openly trailing Walk and other organizers.
Surveillance continued after the assault. The four men were absent on Novem-
ber 1, and no explanation was offered for their absence. Dawkins visited
the scene twice, and according to his own testimony merely sat in the car. The
subservience of the police chief to the Respondent 's interests has already been
described.
The undersigned Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondent
clearly condoned , and under the circumstances above described by the acts
of its employees in effect participated in a physical assault upon Organizer
Walk, thereby discouraging union activity and interfering with, restraining, and
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act10-
C. The discharge of Jessie A. Hammond
1. Events surrounding the discharge
Hammond was a machine fixer at the time of his discharge on November 5,
1946, a few days after the attack upon Walk in the mill village. He had
worked for the Respondent in preceding years ; his last period of uninterrupted
service began in February 1946, upon his leaving the U. S. Navy.
He became interested in union activity about 3 weeks before being discharged.
He was visited at his home. by union organizers, who were followed there by
Wilson during the surveillance above described. He signed a union application
and distributed about 25 such cards for signature among the employees in the
mill. The undersigned is convinced and finds that Hammond's interest in
and activity on behalf of the Union became known to officials of the Respond-
ent before November 5.
At the end of his shift on November 5 he was discharged by Overseer William
Strickland. Hammond asked why. Strickland replied that it was because
of complaints, but gave him no further particulars..
2. The Respondent's contentions as to the discharge
Overseer Strickland testified that for a period of 2 months before November
5 Hammond continuously left his job and could not be found, and that "nearly
every day" he had complaints from sewers, and was obliged to hunt for Ham-
mond. He testified that he had to search twice for Hammond on November 5,
and on the last occasion discharged him.
In apparent support of its contention that Hammond was discharged for cause,
the Respondent introduced two documents, claimed by Strickland to be con-
temporary. One, a "Termination Card" bearing the date of November 5, 1946,
states as the "reason for separation" :
Work not satisfactory left job on 9/12/46 and went to Five Points when
he Returned I could smell Bear (sic) or wine on his breath the same day
It was signed by Strickland.
lU The record contains flatly contradictory testimony as to certain remarks, clearly
coercive if made, which former employee Peaster testified were uttered to him by second-
hand Stallings. Not having observed the demeanor of the two witnesses as they testified,
the undersigned Trial Examiner considers it unnecessary to attempt resolution of the con-
flict in testimony. Conduct of the Respondent's agents has already been found coercive.
0
THOMASTON COTTON MILLS 285
Another document , bearing the date 11-7-46 , was prepared a few days later,
according to Strickland , at the request of the personnel office. Its text reads :
After first warned on several occasions sewers complained that it was
difficult to get Hammond to work on stopper machines and whin ( sic) I looked
for him I found him standing around talking or in rest room this caused
sewer to be dissatisfied due to loss of production.
On day of Discharge 11-5 sewer complained of machine being broke down
and unable to find Hammond I found him in rest room smoking and killing
time. Since repeated warnings did not seam to Straighten him out I gave
him his time.
I told him when I discharged him that I had talked to him several times
about not staying on his job and it did not do any Good I would have to
get someone else.
On cross-examination Strickland admitted that he had never had any colu-
plaints about Hammond during his previous employment periods, and said he
could recall but two . persons who had ever complained about him . One of the two
had no complaint about his work, but about an entirely different matter, which
occurred long before the discharge , and was noted ' nowhere in the documents
as a reason for the discharge.
3. Conclusions as to the discharge
The circumstances surrounding the discharge. including the open violence
against a union organizer, the following of an organizer to Hammond's home,
and the inadequacy and inconsistency of the evidence offered to support the
claim of discharge for cause, persuade the undersigned Trial Examiner, and it is
concluded and found, that there is no merit in the reasons advanced by Strick-
land, but that Hammond was in fact discriminatorily discharged because of his
interest in and activity on behalf of the Union, and in order to discourage union
activity among the employees, and that by the discharge the Respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed by the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The activities of the Respondent.set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with its operations described in Section I 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 the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of Jessie Hammond. It will, therefore, be recom-
mended that the Respondent offer to Hammond immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position,11 without prejudice to his
11In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wher-
ever possible and if such position is no longer in existence then to a substantially equiva-
lent position." See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto
Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827.
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against
him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally
would have earned as wages as an employee from the date of his discharge to
the date of the offer of reinstatement less his net earnings during such period.
The undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor practices found manifestly
indicate a disposition on the part of the Respondent to thwart self-organization
of its employees and to deprive them of their rights under the Act. There is a
likelihood not only that such acts may be repeated but that other unfair labor
practices proscribed by the Act may be resorted to or committed by the Re-
spondent. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights as guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Construction Workers, affiliated with the United Mine Workers of
America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act and amended Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Jessie
Hammond , thereby discouraging membership in United Construction Workers,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended 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 and amended
Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the
entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the amended Act, the
Trial Examiner recommends that Thomaston Cotton Mills, Thomaston, Georgia,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Construction Workers, affiliated with
United Mine Workers of America, or in any other labor organization of its
employees, by discriminatorily discharging, refusing to reinstate, or by dis-
criminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of employment;
(b) By surveillance, assault, or in any manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist United Construction Workers, affiliated
with United Mine Workers of America, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and amended Act.
THOMASTON COTTON MILLS 287
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Jessie Hammond immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make him whole in the manner set forth in Section
V above, entitled "The remedy" ;
(b) Post at its plants in East Thomaston, Georgia, copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region, after being signed by representatives
of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (G0) days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within
twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is also recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days, from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report,, the Respondent notifies the said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recom-
mendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the
Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Washington 25, D. C.,
an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions
to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (in-
cluding rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with
the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may,
within the same period , file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the
Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of ex-
ceptions and/or briefs, the party tiling the same shall serve a copy thereof upon
each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate
by precise citation the portions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly
printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof
of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly
made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the
date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the afore-
said Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and
recommended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said
Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, con-
clusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 8th day of September 1949.
C. W. WHITTEMORE,
Trial Exantiiier.
288' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor .
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist UNITED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS , affiliated with
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA or any other labor organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the . employee named below immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent position without preju-
dice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and
make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Jessie Hammond
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
THOMASTON COTTON MILLS,
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. .