United Mills Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 158 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Har-
rison, New Jersey, plant, including loaders 6 and regular part-time
employees, but excluding office clerical and professional employees,
truckdrivers, watchmen, guards, and supervisors e as defined in the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 The loaders spend 50 percent of their time doing production or maintenance work and
no union is seeking to represent them in a unit with the truckdrivers . Therefore, we shall
include them in the production and maintenance unit.
ewe find that Mel Keifer and Marshall Green are not supervisors as defined in the
Act. They have no authority to recommend any change in an employee's status or re-
sponsibly to direct employees.
Garcrest Division of United Mills Corporation and International
Ladies Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 11-CA-
977. June 14,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 11, 1956, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, alleged
in the complaint to be in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint to
be in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. Thereafter,
the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered -the Intermedi-
ate 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, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Garcrest Division of United Mills Corpora-
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its power in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[ Members Rodgers, Bean , and Jenkins].
118 NLRB No. 20.
GARCREST DIVISION OF UNITED MILLS CORPORATION 159
tion, Charlotte, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Engaging in surveillance of its employees' union membership
or activities.
(b) Creating or fostering the impression among its employees that
it is engaged in surveillance of union meetings or other union activities.
(c) Interrogating, in a manner constituting interference, restraint,
or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), employees concerning
their attendance at union meetings and their expectations of benefits
to be derived from union membership.
(d) Threatening to close or move its plant if the employees
organize.
(e) Asserting to employees that it will never sign a union con-
tract.
(f) Coercively disparaging union organizers and interrogating em-
ployees about the identities of such organizers.
(g) Suggesting to employees that they are objectionable because
they are union adherents and that they seek other employment.
(h) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Ladies Garment
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing 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 author-
ized 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) Post in conspicuous places in its plant in Charlotte, North
Carolina, including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto as an Appendix.2
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Eleventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Re-
spondent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for at least sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
2 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."
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) File with said Regional Director within ten (10) days from
the date of this Order a report in writing, setting forth in detail the
steps which the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent has engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
APPENDIX
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 engage in surveillance of our employees' union
membership or activities.
WE WILL NOT create or foster the impression among our em-
ployees that we are engaged in surveillance of union meetings or
other union activities.
WE WILL NOT in a manner constituting interference , restraint,
or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), interrogate our
employees concerning their attendance at union meetings or their
expectations of benefits to be derived from union membership.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close or move our plant if the em-
ployees organize.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we will never sign a union
contract.
WE WILL NOT coercively disparage union organizers or inter-
rogate our employees about the identities of such organizers.
WE WILL NOT suggest to employees that they are objectionable
because they are union adherents or that they seek other
employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International
Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose 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 a lawful agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition- of
employment.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members in good standing of International
GARCREST DIVISION OF UNITED MILLS CORPORATION 161
Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation, except to the extent that this right may be affected by a lawful
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment.
GARCREST DIVISION OF UNITED
MILLS CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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
Charges having been duly filed, a complaint and notice of hearing thereon
having been issued and served by the General Counsel, and an answer having been
filed by Garcrest Division of United Mills Corporation, herein called the Respondent,
a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of the National
Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, was held upon due notice
at Charlotte, North Carolina, on September 24 to 27, 1956, before the duly designated
Trial Examiner. The allegations of the complaint, denied by the answer, in sub-
stance are that (a) on various dates during February, March, and April, 1956,
the Respondent laid off or discharged, and thereafter refused to reinstate, certain
employees because they had joined or assisted International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, or had engaged in other concerted
activities; and (b) during February 1956, the Respondent inter alia engaged in
surveillance of a union meeting, interrogated its employees concerning their union
activities, threatened to close its plant if the Union organized the employees, and
threatened other reprisals because of the employees' union activities; and that by
said conduct the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. All
parties were represented by counsel or other representative, were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence
pertinent to the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and pro-
posed findings and conclusions. No briefs were received, however.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
United Mills Corporation, a North Carolina corporation, operates plants in various
communities within that State, one of which, its Garcrest Division, is located in
Charlotte and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of lingerie. During the year
1955, the Garcrest Division shipped finished products valued in excess of $100,000
directly to points outside the State of North Carolina. I find that the Respondent
is engaged in commerce.
If. THE UNION
International Ladies Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronology of events
On February 15, 1956, the Union held an organizational meeting for employees of
the Respondent. Relatively few of the more than 200 employees attended. As time
for the meeting approached, Harry Galloway, the plant manager, was seated in his
automobile at a nearby point from which he could observe employees as they entered
the union hall. Arthur Price, a shipping clerk, was afoot, walking from one end
of the block to the other and back again, where he entered Galloway's automobile
450553-58-vol. 118-12
1.62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and pointed toward some of the employees. Lewis Baucom, production manager of
seaming and finishing, also was in the vicinity, having sat in his automobile a short
distance behind that of Galloway for a brief period, then driving away and soon re-
turning to park at approximately the same point. Shortly after the employees
assembled in the hall, two union organizers , Nick Bonano and Jerry Levin, led a
group of employees from the hall to Galloway's automobile where Bonano asked
Galloway why he was seated there during the course of a union meeting. Galloway
responded that he was waiting for a friend. It does not appear whether Price was
with Galloway then or whether Baucom was still in the vicinity.'
On the following morning shortly after the commencement of work, Wilma
Douglas, a supervisor, spoke with Ella Polk, an employee who had attended the
-union meeting. Douglas asked if Polk had had a good time the preceding evening,
saying, too, that she had remained at home minding her "own business." Douglas
identified certain employees as having attended the meeting and said that, if the
Union organized the employees and the plant closed as a result, some of the older
employees including Polk's mother would have "an awful hard time finding a job."
Later that day, Douglas asked Polk if Polk liked Galloway and, upon receiving
Polk's affirmative response, Douglas inquired why Polk had attended the union meet-
ing. Polk answered that she wished to learn "what it was all about," and Douglas
asked what Polk had learned.2 On the same day, Douglas spoke with Evelyn Beard,
an employee, asking what Beard thought the Union could do for her and saying that
it was sabotage of the plant and that she had just received notice that the plant
would be moved.3 On the same day, Virginia Crain, another supervisor, asked Irene
Batchelor, an employee, if the latter had had a good time at the union meeting and
said, "Well, you all certainly are going to hit us and Mr. Galloway a lick" and
. . . Mr. Galloway knows every one of you that was at that meeting ." Batchelor
answered, "Sure, why not, he was sitting there watching us go in." Crain also asked
Willer Cox, another employee, about the meeting and said that Cox "was either for
Mr. Galloway or the union." Cox replied that she was undecided.4 On February 21,
Crain told Batchelor and Cox that Galloway had said that if the Union "came in,"
,he "would have to close the plant." 5
On February 23, Galloway and Bernard Richter, a vice president of the Respond-
ent, spoke with Beard.6 On the preceding day, at the close of work, Beard had
i These findings are based upon the uncontradicted testimony of witnesses for the Gen-
,eral Counsel. Price was not a witness. Baucom, a witness for the Respondent, did not
testify concerning his presence near the union hall. Galloway testified that he went to the
vicinity of the meeting only to keep Price "from getting in trouble." According to Gallo-
way, he had been told earlier by Price that Price had "had a bit of a run-in" with an
unidentified representative of the Union which resulted in Price's ordering the represent-
ative to leave Price's home, that Galloway had been unsuccessful in seeking to dissuade
Price from attending the meeting, that he and Price did not go together to the vicinity
.of the union hall, that when Price joined him in his automobile he again sought to per-
suade Price not to attend the meeting, and that this time lie was successful. Galloway
did not testify concerning his conversation with Bonano. He did testify, however, that
lie was unaware that an employer's surveillance of a union meeting is proscribed by the
,Act. I cannot credit Galloway's professed reason for having been near the hall. It does
not bear the ring of truth and it is contradicted by events of the next day, described below.
2 The findings concerning these conversations are based upon Polk's uncontradicted
testimony. Although Douglas was a witness for the Respondent, she did not testify con-
cerning the incidents.
3 These findings are based upon Beard's testimony. Douglas testified that she had no
recollection of the conversation with Beard and that, although she had heard Beard testify
with respect to her remarks to Beard, she did not "remember what was said." As ap-
pears below in the discussion of Beard's discharge, I discredit certain testimony of Beard.
In this instance, however, in view of Douglas' professed lack of recollection and Douglas'
;statements to Polk, I credit Beard's testimony.
4 These findings are based upon Batchelor's and Cox's uncontradicted testimony. Crain,
ec witness for the Respondent, did not testify concerning the conversation.
5 This finding is based upon Batchelor's uncontradicted testimony. Cox was not asked
about the conversation. Crain, a witness for the Respondent, was asked whether she told
"any of these girls anything about the company would close down if the union came in
:there?" and she answered, "I don't remember."
On February 17 Galloway and Baucom had spoken with Beard. The testimony con-
.cerning the conversation, is not set forth herein. The General Counsel asserts, on the
basis of Beard's testimony, that statements violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the-Act were
spade by Galloway and Baucom. As noted elsewhere herein, I am unable to credit the tes-
timony of Beard concerning the events preceding her discharge. In this instance her
GARCREST DIVISION OF UNITED MILLS CORPORATION 163
talked to another employee, Mamie Lilly, about showing the latter a union card.
Beard's reference to a union card was overheard by Supervisor Crain. Douglas
'Lilly's supervisor, became aware of the incident .7 On the following morning, Gal-
loway called Lilly to his office and required about the events Thereafter Beard was
.called to his office and during the course of their conversation, which was extensive,
Richter went into and out of the room from time to time. Richter said to Beard
that the Union "was nothing but Communists trying to get hold of the Government"
and he asked if she knew whether the organizers were citizens, to which she re-
sponded that she could ascertain by inquiring of the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion, and he said that he was not asserting that the organizers were not citizens.
Richter said also that his father would discharge Galloway if the employees believed
that they needed a union and that his father would "never sign a union contract." 9
Richter asked Beard about a card which she had signed in connection with the Union,
.and she answered that she had executed an affidavit that Galloway had been near
the union hall on the night of the meeting. Galloway asked Beard to inform Rich-
ter of the source of dissatisfaction in the plant and who was causing the trouble,
.and Galloway inquired of her concerning the identity and abodes of the Union's
organizers. Beard answered concerning the organizers. Galloway said also that
the Respondent would not sign a union contract, that it would close the plant
:rather than do so, and he expressed surprise at having seen Batchelor and Cox go
to the union meeting "because he just had kept them working out of the goodness
of his heart." Galloway suggested that Beard commence a search for other em-
ployment, and she inquired as to his intentions concerning the other employees who
had attended the meeting. He answered that he was going to ask each one to quit
her employment. Galloway asked Beard to "go home and pray over this thing,"
saying that he had been praying since the organizational campaign began, and she
:agreed to do so.lo
On February 24 Galloway received from the Union a letter dated 2 days earlier
in which he was informed that an organizational committee had been created with
,the following employee-members:
Irene Batchelor Martha Gunter
Evelyn Beard Ollie Maye
Doris Chavis Ella Polk
Ruth Ginn Nan Potts
Chloe Gordon Billie Smith
testimony is contradicted by the other two participants in the conversation, Galloway,
whose testimony I have rejected above, and Baucom. Under all the circumstances, I find
that the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proof in connection with the
conversation of February 17.
a Lilly was a witness for the Respondent. Her testimony is self-contradictory. She testi-
fied that she was not crying after the conversation with Beard, that she was "not too
much" upset, and that she did not complain to a supervisor, but she testified also that she
was so "obviously upset and crying" that her emotional condition was apparent. Crain
testified that she observed Lilly crying and that she notified Douglas but that she did
not tell Douglas of having overheard Beard speak of a union card.
8 Galloway and Lilly gave inconsistent testimony for the Respondent. According to
Galloway, he "talked to Mamie Lilly the next morning when she was so upset and tried
to find out what it was about and she would not say a thing." On the other hand, Lilly's
testimony furnishes no indication that she was upset when talking with Galloway and
she testified that when the conversation ended she "was as calm as a cucumber." She
testified further that Galloway asked what she and Beard had said to each other and
that she "told him exactly what was said."
0 The record does not disclose the relationship, if any, of Richter's father to the
Respondent.
10 These findings are based upon the testimony of Beard which is largely uncontradicted.
Richter, called as a witness for the Respondent, did not testify concerning the conver-
sation. Galloway made certain denials, however. He testified that he did not suggest to
Beard that she seek employment elsewhere, that he did not inquire of her concerning
the union organizers, that he did not speak of moving the plant, and that Richter did
not ask her about signing a union card. Although I discredit Beard's testimony on an-
other issue, I believe that it should be credited here. In view of the circumstances under
which this conversation occurred, the failure of Richter to testify concerning remarks
attributed to him, the fact that I have discredited Galloway's testimony elsewhere herein,
Galloway's failure to give a convincing explanation of the conversation, and the fact that
upon recent occasions the Respondent had engaged in coercive conduct, I credit Beard's
testimony.
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Of these persons, Chavis did not attend the union meeting of February 15. The re-
maining 9 persons along with 3 additional persons were the only employees to at-
tend the meeting, and those 3 left early because they were unwilling to be asso-
ciated with the Union. As recited below, six of the above-mentioned employees al-
legedly were laid off or discharged in violation of the Act.
On March 1 an amendment to the Federal wage law became effective, requiring
the payment of at least $1 per hour. According to the Respondent, this event
coupled with declining orders for its products caused the layoff of employees named
in the complaint.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
I find that the Respondent, by the following conduct, violated Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act: First, its surveillance of employees who attended the union meeting of
February 15; second, the statements of Douglas, Crain, and Galloway to employees
that the Respondent knew the identities of employees who had attended that meet-
ing; third, Crain's comments to Batchelor and Cox about that meeting; fourth,
Douglas' inquiries of Polk and Beard concerning the Union; fifth, the threats to
employees by Douglas, Crain, and Galloway that the plant would be closed or
moved if the employees organized; and sixth, Richter's and Galloway's statements
and inquiries in the conversation with Beard on February 23.
C. The discharge of Beard
On January 3, 1955, Beard was hired as a new employee although she had worked
for the Respondent during 1954 and earlier. She worked in the nylon tricot section
where employees performed sewing operations on a particular type of material.
Because of the nonporous quality of that material, garments made therefrom are
unsuitable for hot weather wear, and in the winter months production is curtailed.
On April 4, 1956, Production Manager Baucom laid off Beard and 2 other em-
ployees of the approximately 6 persons in the nylon tricot section. A few minutes
later, Beard walked over to Supervisor Douglas and made an offensive remark
concerning Douglas which involved the use of a four-letter synonym for excrement.
Beard acknowledges that she made the remark. She testified, however, that it was
provoked by Douglas' offensive direction to her involving a three-letter synonym
for anus, but for the reasons set out in the footnote, I find that Douglas did not
use the synonym and did not provoke Beard's remark." Douglas reported the
incident to Lewis Baucom who interviewed Rogers and McKellop. At that time
Galloway was out of town and Baucom reported to him later. On the following
Monday, April 9, Galloway made a written report to the State Unemployment
Security Commission, copy to Beard, as follows:
Employee dismissed; Unsatisfactory-Insubordination-Extremely Offensive
words and conduct.
The question whether Beard was unlawfully discharged must be resolved in the
Respondent's favor. It is true that the Respondent was hostile to the employees'
union activities, as is reflected by the violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
described above. It is also true that Beard appears to have participated as much
as, if not more than, other employees in those activities although the activities
themselves appear to have been few. On the other hand, Beard, without provo-
cation, engaged in vulgar and offensive conduct toward a supervisor which was of
such a nature as to warrant disciplinary action. While the record contains evidence
"The finding that Beard walked over to Douglas and made the offensive remark with-
out any preliminary remark by Douglas is based upon the testimony of Douglas, Jessie
Rogers, and Cora McKellop, the latter two employees having overheard. In crediting
the testimony of Rogers and McKellop, I am mindful that each of them acknowledged
being opposed to the Union and that Rogers also acknowledged hostility toward Beard,
but such opposition and hostility do not warrant a conclusion that those employees gave
false testimony concerning the incident. On the other hand, Beard's testimony is uncon-
vincing. She testified that she was engaged in conversation with another employee who
was being laid off, Myrtle Baucom, that Douglas came over and stood close in order to
overhear the conversation, and that Beard said to Douglas that Beard was no longer an
employee and that Beard's conversation with Myrtle Baucoin was none of Douglas' busi-
ness, at which point Douglas made the offensive remark which precipitated the offensive
answer by Beard. If Beard's version of the event be true, the remarks could have been
overheard easily by Myrtle Baucom. Nevertheless, Myrtle Baucom was not a witness.
GARCREST DIVISION OF UNITED MILLS CORPORATION 165
of the use of vulgarity in the plant, it cannot be said that the Respondent has been
confronted with, or has condoned , such an incident in the past . I find that Beard's
discharge was not violative of the Act.
D. The layoffs
Two considerations should be recited at this point . First, the Respondent pro-
duced evidence showing that at times material it had an abundance of unsold gar-
ments on hand , having manufactured quantities well in excess of orders , and that
the number of production and maintenance employees decreased from 226 to 206
in the period of January to July 1956 . Second, the Respondent does not have a
policy, in times of decreased job opportunities , of assigning available work to em-
ployees with seniority and of laying off other employees who were hired more
recently.
Irene Batchelor and Willer Cox were utility operators of sewing machines. Their
work was largely in performing a particular sewing operation on slips, but neither
performed the operation consistently . They performed odd tasks and, as a conse-
quence, they worked primarily at hourly rates and had limited opportunities to
become versatile so as to earn at piece rates amounts which exceeded their hourly
rates. It is clear from their testimony that their piece-rate earnings infrequently
equaled $1 an hour, the minimum wage rate which became effective on March 1, 1956.
It is also clear from their testimony that in the first 2 or 3 months of 1956 the work
was slack. On February 16, the day after the union meeting which they attended,
there began for them a series of layoffs, some of which they acknowledge were
due to slack work in the one operation at which they were proficient . Thus, ac-
cording to Batchelor, she worked only a half day on February 20 for that reason.
According to Cox, when she was laid off on February 21, she was "caught up" in
her work. On February 29, according to both Batchelor and Cox, Crain told them
with good reason that the scarcity of work had become such that thereafter they
would work on different days so as to have alternate opportunities to perform it.
This information caused them to call upon Galloway. He told them that work was
slack and they discussed the matter . Batchelor expressed a dislike for occasional
work and she asked that she and Cox be laid off in order to draw unemployment
compensation . 12 Galloway brought up the subject of the Union . He referred to
the letter which he had received from the Union on February 24 and he said that
Batchelor , but not Cox , was listed as a member of the Union 's organizational com-
mittee. He said also that the Union was "no good" and that the Respondent might
move the plant if the Union organized the employees.13
On the next day, March 1, Cox worked . On March 2 , Batchelor worked. The
latter day was a payday and Cox went to the plant for her check . She and
Batchelor received copies of notices to the State Unemployment Security Com-
mission , effective immediately , as follows:
Since employees ' job has been discontinued we have only had part-time work
for her. She asked that we give her a lay-off slip , so that she could draw
unemployment compensation . This we have done.
Upon uncertain later days , Batchelor and Cox had separate telephone conversations
with Galloway in which they sought reemployment . 14 He told Cox that her job
had been discontinued . He told Batchelor that he did not have work for her, that
he thought there would be work eventually , and that he would call her. Neither
employee was recalled to work, nor was either replaced by a new employee. Work
which they performed has been done by other employees.
1a There is a dispute ' concerning whether Batchelor , who did most of the talking with
Galloway , asked for a "partial layoff" or a full layoff . This dispute need not be resolved.
There is also an inconsistency in the testimony concerning whether a layoff for Cox was
requested . Batchelor testified that Cox did not "express herself " on the subject. Cox
testified that Batchelor asked Galloway "if we [Cox and Batchelor] could not draw the
unemployment insurance . . . Galloway testified that he was asked to arrange for
them both to draw unemployment compensation.
13 The findings concerning Galloway 's remarks about the Union are based ' upon the
testimony of Batchelor and Cox.
14 Batchelor testified that on March 2, Supervisor Crain told her to report for work on
Monday, March 5 . Cox testified that on March 1 Crain gave her a similar direction.
Cox testified further, however , that on March 2 , after she received the layoff notice, she
talked with Crain who said "well , she [Crain ] did not know that that is what be [Gallo-
way] had said to do." The quoted remark is ambiguous to me.
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record will not support a finding that Batchelor and Cox were laid off or dis-
charged for union activities. It is true that they attended the union meeting of
February 15, that Batchelor became a member of the Union's organizational com-
mittee, and that Galloway regarded their conduct with considerable displeasure
which he made known to them and to other employees. On the other hand, it is.
also clear that their qualifications were limited, that they could not be expected to
earn at piece rates amounts equal to the higher minimum hourly wage which became
effective on March 1, that work for them was scarce in the particular operation at
which they were proficient, that they requested layoffs in view of the scarcity of work,
and that they have not been replaced. Under these circumstances, I find that the lay-
offs or discharges of Batchelor and Cox were not in violation of the Act. I find also,
however, that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by Galloway's.
remarks to Batchelor and Cox on February 29 that the Respondent might move
the plant if the Union organized the employees.
Ruth Ginn and Nan Potts performed various operations during the course of
their employment, but their principal work was to perform the initial sewing opera-
tion on children's slips, called first seaming kiddy slips. No one else was assigned to
that work regularly, although from time to time some of it was performed by other
employees as the workload demanded. During the early months of 1956, the pro-
duction of kiddy slips was curtailed. During February and March, respectively, Ginn
and Potts were laid off for 1 day and about 2 days. On April 4, they were laid off
indefinitely by Lewis Baucom who said that there were inadequate orders to furnish
work for them. Ginn asked Baucom if they were being laid off because of having
attended the union meeting, to which he answered in the negative, and Ginn said
that "everyone" had said that Batchelor and Cox were laid off for having done so
and that "they will say" the same thing about the layoffs of Potts and herself.
Baucom answered that no one had been laid off for attending the meeting and that
he did not think that the Union was needed at the plant.15
During the ensuing months, Ginn and Potts made several requests for reemploy-
ment. Upon one occasion Supervisor Crain told Ginn that few kiddy slips were being
made, that the work was being done by employees who regularly made larger slips,
and that Ginn was receiving more money through unemployment compensation
than she would receive if she worked infrequently for the Respondent. Upon other
occasions Lewis Baucom told Ginn that work was still slack and that she would be
recalled when needed. She had not been recalled at the time of the hearing, but
Potts was recalled during the latter part of July. According to Potts' testimony, since
her return to work the quantity of first seaming on kiddy slips has been little more
than enough to keep her busy and, in accord with the practice before her layoff, upon
occasion an employee who works regularly on larger slips has performed the first
seaming operation if the quantity exceeded the amount which Potts could do.
Again the evidence does not warrant a conclusion that the Respondent unlaw-
fully laid off employees. On the one hand, it is clear that the Respondent was.
hostile to the employees' union activities and sought by threats to discourage them.
Both Ginn and Potts attended the union meeting of February 15 and both were
members of the Union's organizational committee. On the other hand, there was
a limited amount of work on kiddy slips, which fact necessitated layoffs, and Ginn
and Potts were below average in their production. Thus, Potts testified that Galloway
informed her during February that her "production was lower than anybody else's,"
that she already "had an idea" to that effect, and that Ginn produced "about the
same amount of work" as she did. Moreover, the slack work continued until the
time of the hearing and had improved only enough to warrant the reemployment of
Potts. I conclude that Ginn and Potts were not laid off because of their union
activities.
Ollie Maye was experienced in various operations, but her principal work was
in sewing shoulders on garments. Two other employees, Ada Rhyne and Mary
Gilstrap, also performed the shoulder sewing operations. Maye was a competent
employee and Galloway described her as a "hard working woman."
On February 21 a series of layoffs began for Maye.16 According to her testimony,
on that day Galloway came to her, told her that he wanted to take her sewing machine,
refused to give an explanation, and told her to quit work for the day. On the follow-
ing day, in company with another woman who had been laid off on February 21,
ss The findings concerning this conversation are based upon the uncontradicted testi-
mony of Ginn and Potts.
'° The findings concerning these. layoffs are based largely upon Maye's testimony and
it should be observed that she*testified that she had a poor memory for dates. In some
instances the dates she gave are wrong.
GARCREST DIVISION OF UNITED MILLS CORPORATION 167
Billie Smith, Maye called upon Galloway and asked why she had been laid off,
saying that if she could not work she wanted an appropriate layoff form so that
she could draw unemployment compensation. He refused to give her the form,
saying that she had not been laid off, that she would return to work as soon as he
could obtain a machine for her, that the one she operated had been taken because
a need for it had arisen, and that the machines of Rhyne and Gilstrap were unsuitable
for that need.17 Two days later, on February 24, Maye was recalled to work by
Galloway who told her that he had a machine of the same kind for her. She was
given tasks other than sewing shoulders, however, and she testified that such work
continued for about 10 days at which time it was completed and Lewis Baucom
told her that he would call her when other work became available. She was laid off,
she testified, for a total of 7 days between that time and April 27.
During March, Maye was recalled and assigned to work on a zigzag machine'
(so called because of the motion of the needle) which carried a higher rate of pay
than sewing shoulders, but she testified that she had difficulty in operating the ma-
chine and that she was unable to earn remuneration at piece rates, was paid at an
hourly rate, and therefore earned less than she had earned when sewing shoulders.
On April 4, Maye asked Galloway to transfer her to sewing shoulders, saying that
it was difficult for her to operate the zigzag machine because of a back ailment..
Galloway answered that there was not enough work for Maye, Rhyne, and Gilstrap,.
and she asked why she had been the one selected for removal from that work. He'
answered that Rhyne and Gilstrap were better producers than she was, to which she
agreed but countered that her work was neater, and he said that their work pleased'
him "all right." 18 Galloway also told Maye that production would begin soon'
on an order which involved work to Maye's liking and that she would be assigned.
to it. At about that time Robert Levin, one of the Respondent's engineers, came
into the room and discussed the prospective work with Maye, arranging for a piece
rate increase to her advantage. Maye's employment was interrupted that day for
an uncertain but brief period of time, following which she returned to work on
the new order. -On April 27 she was laid off indefinitely. According to Lewis Bau-
com, he made the layoff because of lack of work.
During July, Maye went to the plant in company with her daughter, Polk, who'
has been mentioned above and who was not working during July. They sought re-
employment. Galloway said that he expected to have work for one of them, and
he asked which one was in greater need. Maye suggested that the work be given
to Polk. Galloway said, however, that he preferred to give it to Maye. On August
7, Maye returned to work and she was employed at the time of the hearing. In
view of the decreased number of job opportunities at the plants at times material,
plus Maye's admission that Rhyne and Gilstrap were better producers than she was,
I am constrained to find that her temporary layoffs were not in violation of the Act
' According to Mayo, Galloway was incorrect in saying that the machines of Rhyne'
and Gilstrap were not identical with her machine. According to Galloway, however,
the "feed" on Maye's machine was unlike the feeds on the two other machines, and he
had an order which required the use of machines with a particular type of feed. Although'
the record contains considerable evidence on this issue, I cannot resolve it with any
degree of certainty. Rhyne and Gilstrap were witnesses for the Respondent on another'
issue and Rhyne did not testify concerning the machines. Gilstrap testified on cross-
examination that all three machines were alike, but she was not asked whether there was
a difference in the feeds. Since feeds are not permanently attached to machines, and
one type is substituted for another by mechanics as the materials require, I do not believe
that Gilstrap's testimony was sufficiently pointed to have probative value. Moreover,
Galloway testified that he also took Smith's machine for the same reason that he took
Maye's and, as noted, Maye testified that Smith had been laid off on February 21. Smith
was not a witness, however, and the record discloses that her employment was terminated
during March and that she moved to Texas. In any event, I do not believe that the issues
concerning Maye's layoffs are controlled by the circumstance that Galloway took her
machine.
Is After the direct examination of Maye was completed and she had testified at some
length about the conversation of April 4 with Galloway, she left the witness stand over-
night and returned to testify that Galloway, in addition to expressing a preference for'
the work of Rhyne and Gilstrap, said, "well, it seems that you was tired or did not like
may arrangements or my management and wanted to get someone else in over me." Gal-
loway did not contradict that testimony. Under all the circumstances, however, I do not
believe that the quoted testimony furnishes a basis for holding that Maye was removed
from the work of sewing shoulders because she was a member of the Union 's organiza-
tional committee.
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of the nature and
extent of the unfair labor practices committed, including surveillance of attendance
at a union meeting, fostering the impression of surveillance, and threats to close the
plant if the employees selected the Union to represent them, I am persuaded that the
Respondent's conduct indicates a purpose to defeat the self-organization of its em-
ployees and that a danger exists that in the future the Respondent, unless restrained,
will engage in other unfair labor practices. Accordingly, in order to make effective
the interdependent guaranties in Section 7 of the Act, I shall recommend that the
Respondent cease and desist from, in any manner, infringing upon the rights guar-
anteed in said section. Cf. L. C. Products, Inc., 112 NLRB 872.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The allegations that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act have not been sustained.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Mohawk Business Machines Corp . and Local 431, International
Union of Electrical , Radio, and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner .'- Case No. 2-RC-7494. June 17,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur A. Greenstein,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
1 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended pursuant to paragraph numbered 3
of our decision herein.
118 NLRB No. 23.