Wallace Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1937

2 N.L.R.B. 1081 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter Of WALLACE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. and LOCAL.
No. 2237, UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C--.6..Decided June 30,1937
Cotton Textile Industry-Company -Dominated Union: domination and inter-
ference with administration ; sponsorship and support ; discrimination in favor
of ; soliciting and coercing membership in ; disestablished as agency for collec-
tive bargaining-Interference, Restraint or Coercion: surveillance of union
meetings ; persuading employees to resign from union ; denial of right of em-
ployees to be represented by non-employees ; engendering fear of loss of employ-
ment for union membership and activity-Discrimination: discharge-
Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Walter G. Cooper for the Board.
Perrin and Tinsley, by Mr. L. W. Perrin, of Spartanburg, S. C.,
for respondent.
Mr. Joseph Rosenfarb, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Local No. 2237, United Textitle Workers
,of America, hereinafter termed the Union, the Regional Director for
the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), as agent of the National Labor
Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board, issued a complaint on
January 22, 1936, against Wallace Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
Jonesville, South Carolina, respondent herein, alleging that the re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
.affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions
(1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, hereinafter termed the
Act.
The complaint alleged in substance (1) that the, respondent, a
South Carolina corporation, with its principal office and place of
business in Jonesville, Union County, South Carolina, hereinafter
referred to as the plant, is engaged in the production, sale , and distri-
bution of sheeting cloth and cotton textile products in interstate
commerce; (2) that the respondent is guilty of unfair labor practices
in (a) discharging and refusing to employ Frank Rochester, president
of the Union, because he had joined and assisted the Union and had
engaged in concerted activities with other employees at the plant for-
1081
1082 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protec-
tion; (b) interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights gnarante,d in Section 7 of the Act; (c)
soliciting or coercing its employees into withdrawing from the Union ;
(d) dominating or otherwise interfering with the formation and
administration of the Employees Association, hereinafter referred to
as the Association, and contributing financial or other support to it;
and (e) refusing to bargain collectively with the representatives of
its employees.
The complaint and the accompanying notice of hearing were duly
served on the respondent and on the Union. The respondent filed no
answer to the complaint.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on February 10 and 11,
1936 at Spartanburg, South Carolina, before Walter Wilbur, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The respondent,
appearing specially by counsel, participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties.
At the outset of the hearing the respondent interposed a motion to
dismiss the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction on the facts alleged and
because of the unconstitutionality of the Act. The motion was denied.
The respondent also filed a plea to the jurisdiction and in abatement
of the proceedings on substantially the same grounds set forth in the
motion to dismiss. The plea was denied after testimony was heard in
support thereof. The respondent also filed a motion to strike certain
paragraphs from the complaint on the ground that they were mere
conclusions. The Trial Examiner reserved his ruling on the motion.
Thereafter the Trial Examiner duly filed his Intermediate Report,
which was duly served upon the parties. The Trial Examiner found
that the respondent had committed unfair labor practices, within the
mewling of Section8,'subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of the Act, and
recommended in substance that the respondent be ordered to desist
from interfering with and coercing its employees in the rights guaran-
teed by the Act, and to reinstate Frank Rochester, the discharged
employee, to his former position, with back pay. The respondent's
motion to strike certain paragraphs from the complaint was overruled
by the Trial Examiner on the ground that these paragraphs merely
relate the acts charged against the respondent to the pertinent sec-
tions of the Act, and therefore are in no way prejudicial. Exceptions
to the Intermediate Report were filed by the respondent, and a brief
was filed by its counsel.' Thereafter a stipulation was entered into by
counsel for the Board and counsel for the respondent whereby it was
agreed that certain facts ' pertaining to the occupations of the em-
ployees of the respondent as well as facts concerning the mode of
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1083
shipping done by the respondent should be included in the record.
Upon request made by counsel for respondent, an oral argument was
held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on May 14, 1937, in
which counsel for respondent participated.
The Board has reviewed all of the rulings made by the Trial Exam-
iner, and they are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
It.
The respondent is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of South Carolina, having its offices and place of
business in Jonesville, County of Union, State of South Carolina. It
is engaged in the production, sale, and distribution of a cotton tex-
tile product known as narrow sheeting. In the course of production
it uses approximately 5,000 bales of cotton a year, practically all of
which originates in South Carolina. The plant is operated on com-
Inercial electric current, but it uses about 20 cars of coal a year for
steam purposes, all of the coal coming from without the State. Mis-
cellaneous supplies of oil, belting, and machinery originate partly
within and partly without the State of South Carolina.
It takes about two weeks from the time the cotton comes into the
plant until the finished product is shipped out. The capacity of the
plant is 16,344 spindles. At the time of the hearing 181 persons were
employed at the plant, of whom seven were overseers and second
hands.
According to the stipulation of counsel, outgoing shipments are
made daily. The respondent does not maintain a shipping depart-
ment, but about 10 per cent of the time of five of its employees is
used in shipping goods. The respondent has its own truck with
which it hauls incoming and outgoing freight to and from the rail-
road station at Jonesville, but about 75 per cent of all incoming
freight is delivered to the plant by trucking companies.
The entire plant production, of an average yearly value of $200,000,
is sold through J. P. Stevens and Company, commission merchants
of New York City, and most of the purchasers are located in New
York. On orders of the purchasers practically all of the finished
product is shipped f. o. b. the plant to bleacheries for further proc-
essing, at least 75 per cent being shipped to destinations outside of
the State of South Carolina. About 25 per cent of the production in
the plant is initiated on orders of purchasers.
The respondent's total production of narrow sheeting constitutes
one to two per cent of the total American output of that product. Its
1084 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
market is nation-wide, and in that market it competes with manufac-
turers in North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, and Tennessee
among others.
H. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Union
The Union was organized as a labor organization among the em-
ployees of the respondent on June 18, 1934. The membership soon
reached a total of 118 employees. After the general textile strike of
September, 1934 a marked decline in membership set in. By July 5,
11935 there were 25 fully paid-up members, and 35 members in arrears
who were carried by the Union with full membership privileges under
special permission of the national organization , the United Textile
Workers of America. Between July 5 and September 13, the num-
ber of paid-up members decreased to ten, with 28 members in arrears
but considered in good standing. As of January 22, 1936, there were-
seven paid-up members, with 30 members in arrears but considered
in good standing.
B. Domination by respondent of Employees' Association of Wallace
Manufacturing Company
In the plant of the respondent there exists an organization of its•
employees known as Employees' Association of Wallace Manufac-
turing Company, also referred to as the Loyal Workers' Association
and the Good-Will Club. The genesis of the Association is traced to
the general textile strike of September, 1934 during which the plant
of the respondent was shut down. According to A. W. Craig, an
employee of the respondent for 21 years and the prime mover in the
organization of the Association, the idea of the organization sprang
from the desire of the non-union employees of the respondent to unite
for the purpose of furnishing relief during the strike and after-
wards to the needy among them. Craig broached the plan to Cudd,
the superintendent of the plant, and was told the matter was up to
;him. During the latter part of September a meeting took place for
the purpose of organizing the Association in the community building
in Jonesville, which is owned by the respondent. At this meeting a
draft of a constitution and by-laws for the Association made its ap-
pearance and was adopted. The draft was brought to Jonesville
from a mill at Piedmont, South Carolina, of which Marshall Beattie,
brother of the president of the respondent, is president. Who pro-
duced the draft or how it was obtained from Piedmont 'is not shown
by the record. At the invitation of Craig and the others of the
executive committee of the Association, the foremen and second hands
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1085
attended several early meetings of the Association, and Cudd, the
superintendent of the plant, addressed one of these meetings.
Though the idea of the Association may not have originated with
the management of the respondent,' the record is replete with evi-
dence that the respondent fostered the growth of the Association
with all the means at its command. Thus, the Association was given
the use of the community building for meetings, though similar
accommodations in that building and in the school house which is
located on company property were denied to the Union, except on
condition that no "outsiders" attend or address the Union meetings.
Notices of meetings of the Association were posted on the plant bul-
letin board, though the same privilege was not accorded to the Union.
E. M. Rochester testified that in September, 1935 he saw his foreman,
Ed Foster, post an Association notice on the plant bulletin board,
and that on September 10 or 11 C. M. Putnam, overseer of the card
room, instructed him to report if anyone took a notice of an Associa-
tion meeting off the board. R. B. Gregory, an employee of the
respondent, testified that he saw Foster, Putnam, and H. F. Roches-
ter, a section hand and half-uncle of Frank Rochester, post a notice
of an Association meeting during the week of September 13, 1935,
and that Putnam explained that the meeting was for enlisting new
members.
The solicitation of withdrawals from the Union and of member-
ship in the Association proceeded openly in the plant during work-
ing hours under circumstances which compel the conclusion that it
was done with the knowledge and tacit approval of the supervisory
staff. Though the Union had already suffered a considerable loss in
membership,'a special effort to eliminate the Union as a factor in
the plant was made during the week of September 13, 1935. Early
Moss, who was an active union man until he married the daughter
of one of the overseers, was especially active in this drive. Callie
Rochester, mother of Frank Rochester, a member of the Union, wha
had worked 16 years for the respondent, was importuned to join
the Association during working hours, first by Early Moss and then,
by W. R. Sutherland, a section hand, who intimated that she had
I Even this is open to doubt in view of the testimony of E. M. Rochester , brother of
Frank Rochester , uncontradicted on the point , that before the general strike of Sep-
tember, 1934 , Beattie, president of the respondent , addressed himself on the question of
unionism to the witness as follows :
"He (Beattie ) walked up to me one night and asked me how was the union getting
along. I told him I didn't hardly know, I didn't hear much about it, and he said :
Well, those people up North don 't care much about you people down here, and if
you get into something here like a company union , that it would be all right. Ia
this union business there is usually two or three boys around the mill that don't
want to work and don 't want anybody else to work and they study about strikes.
He said : 'I will tell you , you better think twice before you get into a thing like
that.'"
1086 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been 'seen at a union 'Meeting the night before. She at first refused
but the pressure exerted on her by arousing her fears of losing her
job was so great that she finally joined. However, she withdrew her
membership in the Association the day after she joined.
Maude Rochester, sister of Frank Rochester and member of the
Union, had a similar experience. During the week of September
13 she was alternately cajoled and threatened by Moss and Suther-
land to withdraw from the Union and join the Association. This
occurred in the plant during working hours, in the presence of J. C.
Murphy, a second hand who was also the night boss. When Miss
Rochester remained adamant, Murphy urged her : "Maude, I want
you to hurry up and get your heart right and come over with us.
You are a good hand and I don't want to let you go." That same
night Sutherland again insisted that she join the Association, and
told her that she had been seen at the Union meeting the night
before. She then signed an Association membership card. Upon
the advice of her mother she afterwards withdrew her membership
in the Association.
These were not isolated cases. Similar instances of solicitation
of membership in the Association and withdrawal from the Union
during working hours in the plant and under the observation of
the supervisory staff was related by Crawford Mabry, J. P. Tucker,
E. M. Rochester, and Gladys McKinney. There was also uucontra-
dicted testimony that the Association membership blanks were
lodged in the desk of C. W. Kennett, overseer of weaving.
The position of the respondent in respect to the Association is that
it cannot be regarded as a labor organization but is a community
club, primarily social in its functions. This is untenable in view of
the constitution and by-laws of the Association. The constitution
provides inter alia:
"The purpose of this association is to promote good feeling,
harmony and full cooperation between the employees of Wallace
Manufacturing Company and the management thereof.
"A further purpose is to deal with the management on ques-
tions relating to wages, working conditions; general improve-
ment of the plant and village, cost reductions, quality of produc-
tion, education, recreation, religious exercises, and sanitation ; in
short, to make of Jonesville a better place in which to live and
work."
Provision is further made for the investigation of employee' griev-
ances and for their adjustment by the management.
That the Association was not merely a social club is shown by the
incompatibility of membership in the Union with membership in the
Association. The constitution provides :
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1087
"All employees of Wallace Manufacturing Company, who,
subscribe to the purposes of this Association are entitled to be-
come members thereof while in the employ of said Company.
Any member hereof wishing to join any other labor organiza-
tion may do so, but the joining of any other labor organization
shall be considered his resignation from this association. No
member of any labor organization shall be eligible to member-
ship in this association."
The fact that the Association never in fact took up any grievances
with the management or negotiated with it concerning labor condi-
tions does not argue against its being considered a labor organiza-
tion.2 It merely attests to the thoroughness with which the respond-
ent dominated the Association. Its manifold efforts of nurturing the-
Association from its inception , of granting favors to it and denying
them to the Union, in the various forms in which they took expres-
sion, both subtle and obvious, were indeed not in vain. The respond-
ent achieved its ultimate objective-an ideal company dominated
union.
C. The. discharge of Frank Rochester
Frank Rochester was discharged on September 13, 1935. He was
first employed by the respondent in 1928, and later left of his own
accord to go to school. He returned to work in 1931, and thereafter
was continuously employed in various capacities . He was a charter
member of the Union, served first as chaplain , then , secretary, and
since April, 1935, as president . He had been particularly active in
the affairs of the Union , and during 1934 was instrumental in filing
complaints with the Textile Labor Relations Board alleging dis-
criminatory discharge or lay-off of members of the Union. His.
union activities, by admission of officials of the respondent, did not
escape their notice.
For some time before his discharge , Rochester had worked at an
automatic spooler in the spinning room under the supervision of
J. C. Murphy, assistant overseer . When C. M. Putnam, overseer of
the card room , became overseer also of the spinning room he received
authority from the management to cut one worker from the spinning
room. Rochester , though senior in service to , and more skilled than,,
others who were retained , was selected to be eliminated . He was put
on a "spare hand" basis and assigned to the opening room in the
absence of another worker who was ill . At the same time he was.
told by Putnam that he had better look for a regular job elsewhere.
2 In reaching the conclusion that the Association is a labor organization , the Board does
not of course thereby place the stamp of legitimacy upon It See In the Matter of, At-
lanta Woolen Mills, Supplementary Decision , June 10, 1936 , 1 N. L. R B. 328.
1088 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rochester started to work in the opening room on Tuesday, Septem-
ber 10. His work was to keep the hopper filled with cotton. An
automatic "evener" controlled the thickness of the laps fed from the
hopper to the picker room. The work was simple and Rochester
states that he received no instructions regarding it. Putnam denies
this and says he "gave Frank a little lecture on how to run it". Ac-
cording to Rochester, his half-uncle, H. T. Rochester, a card grinder
and section hand, came out to the opening room during the morning
with a complaint that not enough cotton was being fed to the picker
room and proceeded to prop up the evener with a wad of cotton, and
told Frank that he would come back after checking the feeding in
the picker room. However, he did not return. H. T. Rochester
denied the entire incident.
According to Frank Rochester, Putnam told him on Wednesday,
the next day, to prop up the evener whenever he found it necessary
to leave the room. Nothing further transpired' until Friday morning,
September 13, when Putnam sent for him to come to the card room
and told him : "I guess I will have to let you go this morning. They
have given me orders to stretch out and cut off help. This is the
only way I can do it." Rochester claims to have protested that he
was older in point of service than any other helper, to which Putnam
replied : "Frank, I am going to tell you the truth. This damn union
is the cause of this." When challenged with the fact that he had
been a union man himself, Putnam replied, according to Rochester,
"Yes, I used to be and I stayed in it until I found out there was not
a damn thing to it and I dropped it."
On the same day, a shop committee of the Union, consisting of
Rochester, Hodge, an employee, and Gordon Chestain, a national
organizer of the United Textile Workers of America, conferred with
Cudd. After Chestain retired, under circumstances related more
fully hereinafter, Rochester inquired why he had been fired. Cudd
replied that his job was eliminated.' Cudd did not testify. Putnam
stated that he had been present at the conference and that neither
Rochester nor Hodge made any reference to the former's discharge
after Chestain left the room.
Putnam's version is at complete variance with Rochester's as to
the facts attending the discharge. According to him "the picker
room man" reported on the morning of September 10, the first day
on which Rochester worked in the opening room, that the laps were
running wrong, that he went out to the opening-room to see if the
hopper needed regulating and found the evener propped up with a
piece of cotton; that he cautioned Rochester not to do this; that the
next day the same thing occurred and again he cautioned Rochester.
On Thursday the laps were again running to waste and when Putnam
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1089
went to investigate he found the evener propped as before, and
Rochester about 100 yards away. Rochester was discharged the next
morning.
In deciding as to what version is the correct one we should be
mindful of the fact that there was no direct evidence produced to
show that Rochester propped up the evener. He denied having done
so and no one corroborated Putnam's testimony. Likewise, there is
no claim that the propping up of the evener was done for the purpose
of sabotage. It is true that propping up the evener would make it
possible for Rochester to indulge his alleged proclivity of absenting
himself from his job and strolling off to talk with workers in other
departments. This is the habit which the respondent claims caused
Rochester's demotion. However, that this claim lacks credence is
shown by the fact that the first time that Rochester heard this reason
for his demotion was at the hearing when Putnam and Murphy
testified to this effect. It is worthy of notice that an offense which
was considered grave enough to cause Rochester's demotion was never
called to his attention. This is significant for it shows that Rochester
was discriminated against in being transferred to a "spare hand"
basis. Therefore the circumstances connected with his discharge
from the opening room lose their importance, for though the dis-
charge was consummated on September 13, it was admittedly deter-
mined upon on the day of his demotion to the opening room.
Rochester's claim that his demotion and discharge were dictated
by his union activities is corroborated by Callie Rochester, his
mother. She testified that she asked, Putnam if Frank could get
his job back if she got him out of the Union. Putnam replied that
Frank had not been laid off on account of the Union but because
"Mr. Beattie and Mr. Cudd had necessity to stretch out and lay him
off". Later in the conversation he informed her : "You know I am
not allowed to talk, but naturally when you are fighting the com-
pany, the company is going to fight you, you know that. You go
ahead and get Frank out of the Union-you know what I mean."
Putnam admits, and in this he is corroborated by J. C. Murphy,
that Mrs. Rochester approached him to discuss Frank's withdrawal
from union membership as a condition for his reinstatement, but
denies the rest of the conversation. Neither Putnam nor Murphy
testified, however, that any explanation had been given to Mrs.
Rochester as to the reason for Frank's discharge.
In judging which of the two conflicting versions should be ac-
cepted, we are bound to consider the circumstances surrounding the
discharge. Counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent
is completely indifferent to the Union affiliation of its employees.
But this contention flies in the face of an overwhelming array of
,1090 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evidence showing the , respondent 's active hostility to the Union.
Since, during the week of September 13, 1935, the respondent was
making a special effort to eliminate the Union as a factor in the
plant, it is reasonable to conclude that the respondent did not shrink
from resorting to the one means unmistakable in its intent and most
deadly in its effect . That the respondent retained the services of a
} rother , a mother, and a ' sister of the discharged employee does
not militate against the conclusion that Frank Rochester was dis-
criminatorily discharged . He was the most active member of the
Union and its president . His discharge on September 13, in con-
junction with the other unfair labor practices in which the respondent
engaged during that week , was, an object lesson the point of which
could not be lost on the employees.
D. Other interference with union activities
The means employed by the respondent in interfering with Union
activities already enumerated were not the only ones in which the
hostility of the respondent to the Union took expression . Meetings
of the Union were spied .upon. Because of this, and in the light of
Frank Rochester 's discharge , meetings of the Union were discon-
tinued altogether early in October, 1935 because of the fear engen-
dered in the Union members of being discriminated against by the
respondent.
On the same day that Rochester was discharged , a shop committee
of the Union , consisting of Rochester , A. W. Hodge, one of the em-
ployees of respondent, and Gordon Chestain , a national organizer
of the United Textile Workers of America , called upon Cudd, the
superintendent of the respondent , to discuss Rochester 's discharge
and to protest against the solicitation of membership for the Asso-
ciation during working hours. When Cudd learned that Chestain
was not an employee of the respondent he refused to deal with him
and ordered him to leave . This conformed to the established policy
of the respondent to oppose the representation of its employees for
purposes of collective bargaining and presentation of grievances by
representatives not on the , payroll of the respondent ; as already
pointed out, the respondent, refused to permit the Union to hold
meetings in its community building except on condition that no
"outsider" attend or address the meetings.
Since the Union at this time did not represent a majority of the
production employees of the respondent, constituting the alleged ap-
propriate unit, we cannot find that the respondent refused to bargain
collectively , in violation of Section 8, subdivisions ( 1) and (5): In
the Matter of Mooresville Cotton Mills and Local No. 1221, U. T. W.
of A., Case No. C-85, decided June 10, 1937 (supra , p. 952).
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
E. Conclusions, regarding the unfair labor, practices
1091
We conclude:*
1. That the respondent has dominated and interfered with the
administration of the Association, and has contributed financial
and other support of it;
2. That the respondent has discriminated against the Union ' in
favor of the Association;
3. That the respondent, by discharging Frank Rochester, has dis-
criminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment, thereby
discouraging membership in a. labor organization;
4. That Frank Rochester was an employee of the respondent at
the time of his discharge and ceased work because of the afore,
mentioned unfair labor practices;, '
5. That the respondent, by all of the acts above set forth, has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act;
6. The activities of the respondent set forth in Section II above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed 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.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes
the following conclusions of law:'
1. Local No . 2237, United Textile Workers of America , is a labor
organization , within the meaning of Section 2 , subdivision ( 5) of the
Act.
2. Employees ' Association of Wallace Manufacturing Company
is a labor organization , within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision
(5) of the At.
3. Frank Rochester is an employee of the respondent , within the
meaning of Section 2 , subdivision ( 3) of the Act.
4. By its domination and interference with the administration
of the Employees ' Association of Wallace Manufacturing Company,
and by contributing financial and other support thereto, the respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within
the meaning of Section 8, subdivision ( 2) of the Act.
5. By discriminating against Local No. 2237 ,- United_ Textile Work-
ers of America , in favor of the Employees ' Association of Wallace
Manufacturing Company, the respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaged in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section s_
subdivision ( 1) of the Act.
5727-37-vol n--70
1092 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment,
-thereby discouraging membership in the labor organization known
as Local No. 2237, United Textile Workers of America, the respond-
-.ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (3) of the Act.
7. By all of the acts above set forth, the respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has engaged in and is
-.engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8,
subdivision (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
.affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions
(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and
-pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders the
respondent, the Wallace Manufacturing Company, and its officers,
-agents, successors and assigns to:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Local No. 2237, United Textilt;
Workers of America, or in any other labor organization of its em-
_ ployees, or encouraging membership in the Employees' Association
of Wallace Manufacturing Company, or in any other labor organi-
zation of its employees, by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment, or by threats
of such discrimination ;
(b) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the
-Employees' Association of Wallace Manufacturing Company, or any
other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing
financial or other support thereto;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or co-
ercing its employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization,
-to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
acerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Frank Rochester immediate and full reinstatement to
his former position as automatic spooler in the spinning room, or
• equivalent employment on a full-time basis, with all rights and
privileges previously enjoyed;
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1093
(b) Make whole Frank Rochester for any loss of pay he has
suffered by reason of his discharge by payment to him of a sum
equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages at his.
position as automatic spooler in the spinning room during the period
from the date of his discharge to the date of such offer of employ-
ment, less the amount earned by him during such period;
(c) Prohibit the use of the community hall or other property of
the respondent for meetings of the Employees' Association of Wal-
lace Manufacturing Company, or any other labor organization of
its employees, unless free and unconditioned privileges as to the use
thereof shall also be extended to Local No. 2237, United Textile
Workers of America, and any other labor organization of its em-
ployees;
(d) Withdraw all recognition from the Employees' Association
of Wallace Manufacturing Company as representative of its em-
ployees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or conditions of work, and disestablish said association as such repre-
sentative;
(e) Post notices in conspicuous places in its plant, stating (1)
that the Employees' Association of Wallace Manufacturing Com-
pany is so disestablished, and that the respondent will refrain from
any recognition thereof; (2) that the respondent will cease and de-
sist in the manner aforesaid; and (3) that such notices will remain
posted for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the
date of posting;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.
3. The complaint that the respondent has refused to bargain col-
lectively within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (5)
of the Act is hereby dismissed.
6