Ware Shoals Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 6, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 88 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of WARE SHOALS MANUFACTURING COMPANY and THE
MACHINE PRINTERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION
Case No. C-337.-Decided July 6, 1938
Textile Industry-Interference , Restraint, and Coercion : charges of, not
sustained-Discrimination : charges of, not sustained.
Mr. John T. Mahoney, for the Board.,
Mr. M. G. McDonald, of Greenwood, S. C., for the respondent.
Mr. Eric W. Lindberg, of Cranston, R. I., for the Association.
Mr. Melvin S. Frazier, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges and amended charges having been duly filed by Machine
Printers' Beneficial Association,,- herein called the Association, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Charles
N. Feidelson, Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia), issued and duly served its complaint dated November 6,
1937, against Ware Shoals Manufacturing Company, herein called
the respondent. The complaint alleges that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, 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.
The respondent, subject to a reservation of its legal right to object
to the Board's jurisdiction, filed an answer in which it denied it had
engaged in or was engaging in any of the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice duly given, a hearing was held in Greenville,
South Carolina, on November 18 and 19, 1937, before D. Lacy Mc-
Bryde, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel.
1 Incorrectly designated "The Machine Printers Beneficial Association " in the caption of
the complaint.
8 N. L. R. B., No. 10.
88
DECISIONS AND 'ORDERS 89
The Association was represented by its secretary. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During
the course of the hearing and in his Intermediate Report the Trial
Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the
introduction of evidence. The Board has reviewed such rulings and
finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
On December 16, 1937, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions ' to the Intermediate Re-
port and requested an opportunity to argue the exceptions before
the Board. On May 19, 1938, counsel for the respondent and the
Association argued the exceptions before the Board in Washington,
D. C. The respondent also submitted a brief in support of its
exceptions.
The Board has fully considered the exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and sustains them, except as indicated below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENTS BUSINESS
The respondent, a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of South Carolina with its principal place of business and
manufacturing plant in Ware Shoals, South Carolina, employs
approximately 2,500 people.
It manufactures sheets, pillow cases, handkerchiefs, and similar
products. It also does finishing work for other manufacturers. The
respondent purchases approximately $700,000 of raw cotton annually.
Approximately 65 per cent of such cotton comes from States other
than South Carolina. It also purchases starch, dye, tallow, and gum.
Practically all of such materials originate in States other than the
State of South Carolina.
Approximately 90 per cent of the respondent's total sales, which
are in excess of $5,000,000 annually and are made through Reigel
Textile Corporation, a New York- corporation, are to customers
outside the State of South Carolina.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Machine Printers' Beneficial Association is a labor organization
which admits to membership all of the respondent's printers and
apprentice printers.
90 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Associated Workers of Printing, Finishing and Allied Industries
is a labor organization affiliated with Machine Printers' Beneficial
Association. It admits to membership all of the respondent's em-
ployees who assist in printing or finishing cloth except employees
under the jurisdiction of the Association.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that the respondent discharged Frank Cook,
C. V. Jester, W. E. Fore, and Frank Montgomery because of their
membership in and activities on behalf of the Association; that it
discharged Lee Simpson • because he joined the Associated Workers
of Printing, Finishing and Allied Industries, herein called the As-
sociated; and that the respondent has, by the discriminatory dis-
charge of such employees and by certain statements alleged to have
been made to such employees, interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
Frank Cook joined the Association about May 2, 1936, but did
not take an active part in its affairs prior to May 18, 1936. On May
18, 1936, two of the respondent's supervisory employees, Harvey
Ferguson, superintendent of the printing room, and C. S. Powell,
superintendent of the bleacheries and Ferguson's superior, called
Cook into Ferguson's office and asked him certain questions.
It appears that 6 of the respondent's 13 printers had left the re-
spondent's employ during the preceding week to accept positions at
a neighboring textile mill where a strike was in progress. Powell
testified, and it is undisputed, that it was, therefore, necessary to
reorganize the printing department. Consequently, he said, he called
each of the remaining printers, including Cook, into Ferguson's office
and questioned them individually.
According to Cook, the questions Powell propounded concerned
only his union affiliation, and when he admitted his membership,
Powell attempted to induce him to withdraw from the Association.
Cook also claimed that when he refused to resign from the Associa-
tion, Powell told him that the respondent could not employ members
of the Association.
On the other hand Powell, whose testimony in this respect is cor-
roborated by Ferguson, testified that Cook was not questioned re-
garding his union affiliation. Instead, according to Powell, Cook
was asked whether it was his intention to continue with the respond-
ent or go to the other mill. Powell further claimed that when
Cook indicated he intended to accept employment at the other mill,
Cook was told that he had better go at that time as it was necessary
to reorganize the printing department.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 91
Unquestionably the resignation of almost 50 per cent of the print-
ers created a serious crisis in the respondent's printing department.
Under such circumstances we believe it likely that the management
did endeavor to ascertain how many more of its printers intended
to leave the respondent's employ so that plans could be made to
replace them and that Powell did, as he claimed, question Cook
regarding his intentions. As Cook claimed he was questioned only
regarding his union affiliation we believe his testimony regarding the
incident is not entitled to credence, particularly in view of the fact
that on the same date Cook's services were terminated, allegedly
because of his membership in the Association, one Frank Montgom-
ery, a printer who had told Ferguson he was a member of the Asso-
ciation a few days before, was promoted to be foreman of the print-
ers. If the respondent had been ruthlessly discharging printers
because of their membership in the Association we believe Montgom-
ery would also have been discharged. Furthermore, some of the
other printers Powell questioned on that date were members of the
Association, but none of them were discharged.
Under the circumstances we find that the respondent has not dis-
criminated in regard to the tenure of employment of Frank Cook
for the purpose of discouraging membership in a labor organization.
C. V. Jester, who had had only 2 or 3 months' previous experience,
was employed as a printer on January 25,1937. On February 20,1937,
Jester joined the Association at Greenville, South Carolina. The
following Monday, February 22, 1937, Ferguson called him into his
office and discharged him.
Jester claimed that Ferguson told him on that occasion that his
work had not been satisfactory and then asked him if Montgomery
had been talking to him about the Association, to which he replied
that Montgomery had not. Jester claimed that Ferguson then asked
him if he was a member, and, upon receiving an affirmative reply,
discharged him. Jester further testified that his time card was gone
from the card rack at the time he went into Ferguson's office and
admitted that that was unusual.
Ferguson testified that Jester was unable to operate properly
either of the two printing machines to which he had been assigned
and that he was discharged for that reason. He claimed that Jester
then asked him whether his membership in the Association was the
cause of his discharge and that he told him it was not.
Although Jester's discharge occurred only 2 days after he joined
the Association, there is no evidence which shows that the re-
spondent knew of Jester's interest or membership in the organiza-
tion before Jester entered Ferguson's office. The removal of Jes-
ter's time card from the card rack prior to the time he was called
92 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
into Ferguson's office is significant as it indicates that the respond-
ent had decided to terminate Jester's services before he was act-
ually called in, which was, so far as appears, before the respondent
knew of Jester's membership in the Association.
Furthermore, the weight which should be accorded Jester's testi-
mony regarding his conversation • with Ferguson must be viewed in
the light of all of his testimony. Jester emphatically denied that
he had received any money from the Association after he was dis-
charged and claimed that he had "barely been existing." . How-
ever, he subsequently admitted, after he was recalled to the stand
by the Board's counsel, that he had been receiving unemployment
benefit payments from the Association in the amount of $20 per
week, a sum almost equal to his salary while working. This indi-.
cates that Jester was not averse to coloring his testimony, and we
will, therefore, accept Ferguson's version of the conference.
The respondent's position is further supported by evidence that
Jester was an inefficient printer. Thus, not only did Ferguson
testify that Jester was inefficient, but John Madden, present fore-
man of the printers, testified that he was frequently called upon to
help Jester set the blades in his machine, an operation a printer
should be able to perform. Furthermore, Powell testified that Fer-
guson told him, prior to the time Jester was discharged, that Jester
was unable to perform his work satisfactorily.
We find that the respondent has not discriminated in regard to
the tenure of employment of C. V. Jester for the purpose of dis-,
couraging membership in a labor organization.
Lee Simpson had worked for the respondent about 21/2 years.
He was first employed as an inspector for about 3 months. He was
then transferred to washing "gray cloth." He was again trans-
ferred about November 1, 1936, to a position as "back tender" on
one of the printing machines. He joined the Associated on March
21, 1937. At the same time he joined the Associated about 14 other
employees also joined the organization. He was discharged on
March 23, 1937.
Simpson testified that on March 22, 1937, Ferguson asked him if
Montgomery had been talking to him about the union and he re-
plied that he had not. He `further testified that the next day
Ferguson called him into his office and told him that "if I wasn't
true to him and the Company it was his business to find it out." He
claimed that Ferguson then asked him with whom he had talked
after their conversation on the preceding day and, when he refused
to tell, discharged him.
Ferguson and Powell testified that Simpson had been transferred
from his previous positions because he did not attend strictly to 'his
duties but would "wander around" the plant talking to the other
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 93
employees. They further testified that despite repeated warnings,
including one lay-off, Simpson continued to absent himself from his
machine and that he was discharged for that reason. Ferguson
also denied he had asked Simpson whether he had talked to Mont-
gomery or anyone else regarding unions and claimed, on the con-
trary, that he did not know until some months after Simpson's
discharge that he was a member of a union.
Simpson's testimony is replete with contradictions and is, there-
fore, not entitled to full credence. For example he claimed that he
had never been reprimanded but later admitted that he had been
laid off for 2 weeks when he was an inspector for not attending to
his work, and that he had been warned on other occasions. On,
the other hand, Ferguson's testimony is straightforward and is, in
our opinion, credible. We will, therefore, accept Ferguson's testi-
mony as the correct version of what happened between Simpson
and himself.
We are satisfied that Simpson did not attend strictly to his' duties.
This is evidenced by the frequent warnings which had been given
him and the lay-off which he had received. That his discharge was not
due to his union affiliation is, we believe, established by the fact
that not one of the other 14 employees who joined the Associated
on the same day Simpson joined it was discharged.
We find that the respondent has not discriminated in regard to
the tenure of employment of Lee Simpson for the purpose of dis-
couraging membership in a labor organization.
W. E. Fore was hired as a printer in May 1936. He joined the
Association in February 1937, and was appointed to the "shop com-
mittee." As one of the members of the shop committee he col-
lected dues and attempted to induce other eligible employees to
become members of the Association and the Associated. He was
discharged on April 8, 1937.
Fore testified that the day before his discharge a fellow employee
named Bolt asked him for an application card, telling him that
Ferguson wanted it. He told Bolt to tell Ferguson that if he
(Ferguson) wanted a card, he could come to Fore's house and get it.
He further testified that the following day, Powell called him into
his office and, after showing him a piece of cloth,,asked him if he
had printed it. When Fore admitted that he had, Powell asked
him if he knew that 6,000 yards of the combination were improperly
printed and thereupon discharged him. Fore claimed that there
were not more than 500 yards in that particular combination and
that, therefore, he could not have incorrectly printed 6,000 yards
of the cloth.
Powell testified-and his testimony is corroborated by Fergu-
son's-that Fore printed about 10,000 yards of the combination in
94 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
question and that more than 3,500 yards of it was unfit to sell, even
as seconds. Although employees are not usually discharged for
printing 500 yards of "bad cloth," incorrectly printing 3,500 yards is
unquestionably considered good and. sufficient cause for discharge,
and other printers have been discharged for faultily printing even
less yardage.
Fore's claim that he printed only 500 yards of the combination
is not persuasive in view of his failure to remember the predom-
inant color of the combination. Furthermore, at the oral argu-
ment before the Board, the Association's counsel did not question
the Trial Examiner's finding that Fore had incorrectly printed ap-
proximately 3,500 yards of cloth.
Strong proof that Fore's membership in or activities on behalf
of the Association were responsible for his discharge was necessary
to rebut the presumption that he was discharged for a reason which
had always been considered a sufficient cause to discharge an em-
ployee. • Satisfactory proof that the respondent was arbitrarily and
discriminatorily discharging union members was not presented.
We therefore find that the respondent has not discriminated in
regard to the tenure of employment of W. E. Fore for the purpose
of discouraging membership in a labor organization.
Frank Montgomery was hired by the respondent in 1934. He
joined the Association about May 2, 1936. On May 18, 1936, he
was promoted to the position of foreman of the printers over
printers who had been longer in the respondent's employ, although
he had told Ferguson several days before that he had joined the As-
sociation. In February 1937, he was relieved of his foreman's posi-
tion, according to Powell and Ferguson, because the printing was
not coming up to standard.
A short time later Montgomery had a conference with W. A.
Sibley, general manager of the plant. Powell and another super-
visory employee named Jackson were also present. Montgomery
testified that Sibley called him into the office and questioned him
for over an hour regarding the Association and the benefits which
employees would receive from membership therein. He also claimed
that Sibley asked him whether he had "talked union" and upon
receiving an affirmative reply, told him that "they could not have
a union there."
Sibley testified that pursuant to Montgomery's request he was
granted an audience and that when Montgomery came into the room
he complained that he was being discriminated against and
"couldn't get anywhere" because he was a member of the Associa-
tion. Sibley claimed that he assured Montgomery that although
the respondent pursued an open-shop policy it did not discriminate
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 95
in any way against union men. He admitted that he did tell Mont-
gomery not to talk about union matters in the plant but denied that
he had said anything to Montgomery -regarding not having a union
in the mill.
As the conference was unquestionably at Montgomery 's request
and no doubt he did feel his demotion was undeserved , we feel sans
fied that Montgomery did, as Sibley testified, open the conversation,
by implying that his demotion was due to his union affiliation.
Furthermore, Sibley's testimony is corroborated by Powell's. We
will accept Sibley's testimony as to what was said on this occasion.
On June 28, 1937, almost a month after the original charges had
been filed, Montgomery was discharged. The respondent contends
that Montgomery was discharged because he was "irregular" in that
he had failed to come to work 8 different times during the preced-
ing 4 months and that on several of those occasions he had failed to
report his intended absence prior to the starting hour in accord-
ance with the respondent's custom. Ferguson testified that on each
of such occasions he reprimanded Montgomery . He admitted that
Montgomery told him each time that he had been absent because he
was ill. Ferguson claimed, however, that Montgomery always ap-
peared to be in good health the day following such absences. Mont-
gomery admitted that he had been absent as alleged by Ferguson
and did not deny that on several occasions he had failed to report
his intended absence but contended that he was ill and taking med-
ical treatment. However, no other evidence to substantiate his testi-
mony was introduced.2
in view of the respondent's previous preferential treatment of
Montgomery at a time when it knew he was a member of the As-
sociation, we find it difficult to believe that the respondent discrim-
inatorily discharged him, particularly as it knew that charges that
it had discriminatorily discharged Cook, Jester, Simpson, and Fore
were then pending before the Board.
Furthermore the numerous warnings the respondent had given
Montgomery prior to his discharge indicate clearly that the re-
spondent believed that Montgomery was not telling the truth about
the reason for his absences and was deliberately laying off from
work. Such an inference the respondent was not unjustified in mak-
ing in view of the fact that the absences were, in the main, of but
1 day's duration and that Montgomery did not furnish a doctor's
certificate although lie knew Ferguson doubted his word.
Tinder the circumstances we find that the respondent has not dis-
criminated in regard to the tenure of employment of Frank Mont-
2 A doctor's certificate was introduced in evidence, apparently to substantiate Montgom.
ery's testimony that he was ill, but such certificate does not cover the period here involved.
96 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gomery for the purpose of discouraging membership in a labor
organization.
We have not found that any of the employees named in the com-
plaint were discriminatorily discharged and, as we have heretofore
pointed out, we do not believe that the coercive statements attrib-
uted to the respondent's supervisory employees were in fact made.
We will, therefore, dismiss the complaint.
Upon the basis cf the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the respondent , Ware Shoals Manufacturing
Company , Ware Shoals , South Carolina , occur in commerce , within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. Machine Printers ' Beneficial Association and Associated Work-
ers of Printing , Finishing and Allied Industries are labor organ-
izations , within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not, by discharging Frank Cook , Lee Simp-
son, W. E. Fore, C. V. Jester , and Frank Montgomery , discouraged
membership in a labor organization , thereby engaging in an unfair
labor practice , within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained , or coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7,
thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice , within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the complaint against Ware Shoals Manufacturing Company be,
and it is hereby, dismissed.