Washington Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1938

4 N.L.R.B. 970 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of WASHINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY and
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-218.-Decided January 19,1938
Cotton Garment Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint or Coercion:
spreading propaganda against outside union; advising employees not to join
outside union ; threatening to close plants if employees join union, and carrying
out such threat by closing plants ; surveillance of union meetings by supervisory
employees ; intimidating employees into withdrawing from union;; enlisting
services of chief of police in procuring withdrawals ; coercing employees to
join company-dominated unions ; solicitations by supervisory employees ; advising
employees to confer with businessmen for advice, after informing businessmen
that plant would close,down if outside union became organized ; cooperation of
respondent with town officials and businessmen ; promise by respondent of
"bigger and better things" for town if union kept out ; recruiting of citizens to
meet parade of union ; permitting mayor to talk against union in plant during
working hours ; prolonging recess period to allow businessmen of town to talk
disparagingly of union to employees in front of plant-Dtscrwnznation: lock-
out ; number of company-dominated union members reinstated out of proportion
to number of outside union members reinstated ; permission given members of
company-dominated union to exclude non-members from plant ; shortening of
stitches on machines of members of outside union ; delayed correction of condi-
tions when complained of ; respondent ordered to make employees whole for loss
in earnings occasioned by discrimination-Conipany-Domanatcd Unions: initia-
tion and sponsorship by supervisory employees ; solicitation by respondent of
services of officials and businessmen of town in formation of and sponsorship
of local union ; solicitation of members and transactioh of local union activities
within plant during working hours; prompt compliance by respondent with
requests of company-dominated union without necessity for collective bargain-
ing ; plan of organization, provision for continued cooperation and participa-
tion by respondent in activities of union and for financial contributions from
respondent ; closed shop agreement no excuse for exclusion from plant of non-
members of company-dominated union ; disestablished as agencies for collective
bargaining-Lock-outs: discharging, rather than laying-off, employees upon
closing plant temporarily an attempt to avoid obligation to reinstate employees
without discrimination ; decision to dispose of plants in attempt to avoid possible
penalty under Act ; shutting down department of plant in which outside union
most active ; permitting members of company-dominated union to exclude mem-
bers of outside union from plant; subsequent refusal to reinstate except upon
condition of relinquishing membership in outside union and joining company-
dominated union-Rcinstatement Ordered: upon reopening of plants closed
down ; immediate reinstatement in department reopened ; must not be condi-
tioned upon membership or non-membership in union-Back Pay: awarded,
970
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 971
Mr. Mortimer Kollender and Mr. Samuel M. Spencer, for the
Board.
Mr. Charles I. Dawson, of Louisville, Ky., and Mr. George H.
Armistead, Jr., and Mr. Walter Stokes, of Nashville, Tenn., for the
respondent,
Mr. Herbert G. B. King, of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Mr. F. Allan
Constangy, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Robert P. Adams, of Trenton, Tenn., for the Milan Associa-
tion.
Haile d-, Cox, of Cookeville, Tenn., for the Cookeville Employees'
Association.
Mr. Richard L. Garnett, of Glasgow, Ky., for the Glasgow Asso-
ciation.
Mr. Fredrick P. Mett and Miss Fannie M. Boyls, of counsel to the
Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, herein called the Amalgamated, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by Charles N. Feidelson, Re-
gional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued a
complaint, dated June 12, 1937, against Washington Manufacturing
Company, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act.
A copy of the complaint and notice of a hearing to be held at
Nashville, Tennessee, on June 21, 1937, were duly served upon the
respondent, the Amalgamated, the Milan Employees Association,
herein called the Milan Association, and the Southern Kentucky
Garment Workers Association, herein called the Glasgow Associa-
tion. No notice was served upon Cookeville Employees' Association.'
The complaint alleged, with respect to unfair labor practices, that
the respondent had, at its three Nashville plants, denounced the
Amalgamated and its leadership, and threatened its employees with
loss of work and jobs if the Amalgamated should become estab-
' Although in all pleadings and in the brief filed by this organization , it was designated
as Cookeville Employees' Association or as Cookeville Association, it is designated as the
Employees ' Committee in the transcript of the record and will be so designated in our
findings of fact.
972 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lished at those plants ; that for the purpose of discouraging and
preventing its employees from joining that union , it shut down its
Nashville plants on May 1, 1937 , locked out its employees , and has
refused to reinstate them.
The complaint further alleged that the respondent had aided,
fostered, and encouraged the formation of independent labor organi-
zations at its Milan, Tennessee , plant and at its Glasgow , Kentucky,
plant; that at both Milan and Cookeville , it had spread propaganda
against the Amalgamated and caused rumors to be circulated that
it would close its plants unless the Amalgamated was prevented from
organizing its employees ; that to prevent and discourage member-
ship in the Amalgamated , it shut down the playsuit division of its
Milan plant on May 24, 1937, and locked out the employees thereof;
that the respondent permitted the Mayor of Cookeville to address
the employees of its Cookeville plant at said plant during working
hours and to warn them that the establishment of the Amalgamated
at that plant might result in closing it; that the respondent at Cooke-
ville had spied upon meetings of the Amalgamated , sanctioned and
condoned physical assaults upon its organizers , and changed the
machinery and equipment of certain active Amalgamated operatives
in order to prevent them from making their production quotas and
to force them to abandon their jobs.
The complaint also alleged that the respondent at its Glasgow plant
on June 3, 1937 , ordered its employees out of its plant and permitted
one of its employees to prevent all members of the Amalgamated
union from returning to work until they had relinquished their mem-
bership in said union and joined the Glasgow Association ; that 68
of the respondent 's employees were thus prevented from returning
to work.
The hearing was commenced on June 21 , 1937 , at Nashville,
Tennessee , before E. G . Smith, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Board. At the commencement of the hearing the respondent
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint , which motion was denied by
the Trial Examiner. Without waiving its motion , the respondent
filed an answer . The motion to dismiss was based upon the claim that
the employees involved in the Board's complaint were engaged solely
in the manufacture of the respondent 's goods and had no connection
with the purchase, sale, and shipment of such goods in commerce.
The answer specifically denied that the respondent had engaged in any
of the unfair labor practices with which it was charged.
Upon motions made respectively by the Milan Association, the
Cookeville Employees ' Association , and the Glasgow Association.
each were allowed to intervene for limited purposes . Each filed
intervening motions and petitions in which each claimed to be a
DECISIONS AND -ORDERS 973
bona fide labor organization within the meaning of the Act and to
represent a large majority of the employees at its respective plant.
On June 23, at the conclusion of the Board's evidence relative to
the Nashville plants, the hearing was adjourned. It was reconvened
at Milan on June 25 for a hearing on that part of the Board's case
which concerned the Milan plant.
On June 29 the Board filed a motion to amend its complaint so as
to allege that the Cookeville Employees' Association was a company-
dominated union and to further allege that the respondent, in order
to discourage memberership in the Amalgamated, had refused to
reinstate employees locked out of the playsuit division of its Milan
plant in the work shirt division of said plant on the basis of seniority
and experience. The motion to amend was granted. In reply
thereto the respondent filed an answer denying the charges made in
the motion to amend; the Glasgow Association filed an amended inter-
vening motion and petition; the Cookeville Employees' Association
filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the Board signed by a large majority
of its employees, a motion to strike the amended complaint, and a
motion to refile its intervening petition in answer to the amended as
well as the original complaint; 2 and the Milan Association filed an
amended answer , denying that the respondent had engaged in any of
the unfair labor practices with which it was charged, at the Milan
plant.
The hearing was adjourned at Milan on July 2 and reconvened in
Nashville on July 6 for a consideration of the remainder of the
case. The hearing was concluded on July 30.
At the conclusion of the hearing the respondent filed a second
motion to dismiss, urging in addition to the allegations in its first
motion that the testimony and other evidence adduced failed to sus-
tain the charges made in the Board's complaint and amended com-
plaint. The respondent also filed a motion submitting proposed find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law, and in addition filed a brief and a
supplemental brief. The motion for findings of fact and conclusions
of law is hereby denied. The Milan Association filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, and prayed that if its motion be denied, the
Board cause an election to be held at the Milan plant to determine
who should represent the employees of that plant for the purposes
of collective bargaining; it also filed a brief in support of said motion.
The Milan Association had theretofore, during the course of the
hearing, orally requested the Trial Examiner to cause an election to
be held. The Trial Examiner denied such request. His action is
hereby affirmed, and the motion to dismiss and alternative petition for
2 The Trial Examiner upheld the jurisdiction of the Board, denied the motion to
strike, and allowed the motion to refile.
974 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an election is hereby denied. Briefs were also filed by the Cookeville
Employees' Association, the Glasgow Association, and the Amal-
gamated.
All parties, including the intervenors, were represented by counsel
at the hearing and were given full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing
upon the issues.
Numerous motions and objections to the evidence were made by
counsel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
thereon and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. All motions to dismiss not specifically
acted upon by the Trial Examiner are hereby denied. All evidence,
the admissibility of which was objected to by counsel and taken under
advisement by the Trial Examiner, but not ruled upon by him, is
hereby admitted.
On October 20, 1937, the respondent filed with the Board a "Mo-
tion to Dismiss Certain Parts of the Complaint as Moot" for the
alleged reason that material changes in the situations at Nashville,
Milan,. and Glasgow had developed subsequent to the conclusion of
the hearing. For reasons hereinafter set forth in our findings of
fact, the motion is denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
The respondent, Washington Manufacturing Company, is a cor-
poration organized and doing business under the laws of the State
of Tennessee and has its principal office and place of business in
Nashville, Tennessee. It maintains three plants in Nashville, com-
monly called the Cedar Street plant, the Public Square plant, and
the Main Street plant, respectively. It also owns and maintains
branch factories at Milan, Cookeville, Gainesboro, and Columbia,
Tennessee, and at Glasgow and Elizabethtown, Kentucky.3
The respondent at its various plants manufactures work shirts,
dress shirts, work pants, overalls, children's playsuits, and some shirt
garters. Until May 1, 1937, when all of its Nashville plants were
closed down, the respondent manufactured work shirts in its Cedar
Street plant, dress shirts in its Public Square plant, and wash pants
in its Main Street plant. The Main Street plant had operated for
only a few months prior to said date; the other Nashville plants had
operated for several years prior thereto. At its Milan plant it is
engaged in the manufacture of work shirts and children's playsuits,
8 The respondent, in November 1936, leased the Elizabethtown town plant to a Mr. Nall
who manufactures for the respondent on a cut, make, and trim basis
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 975
at its Cookeville plant it manufactures work shirts , and at its Glas-
gow plant it manufactures wash pants.
The Gainesboro plant does no work other than to stitch shirts
manufactured at the Cookeville plant. The Columbia plant manu-
factures overalls . The respondent prior to June 1936 manufactured
work pants at its Elizabethtown , Kentucky , plant. There is no charge
of unfair labor practices with respect to the Gainesboro, Columbia,
or Elizabethtown plants.
In its manufacture of the various articles of clothing above men-
tioned the respondent uses piece goods and other raw materials, about
95 per cent of which are purchased in States other than those in
which the plants are located. The total purchases of the respondent
for the fiscal year" ending May 1, 1937, amounted to $3,441,781.52.
Of this sum about 85 per cent was for piece goods and the remainder
for such materials as thread , buttons, hardware , paper boxes, woven
labels, and zippers. About 90 per cent of the piece goods are pur-
chased directly from mills located in the States of North Carolina,
South Carolina , Georgia, Virginia , and West Virginia; a small
,amount is also purchased from the States of Alabama , Maine, and
Louisiana.
Most of the piece goods are purchased under blanket contracts cov-
ering a period of 90 days and shipped directly to the respondent's
warehouses , from which they are reshipped to the various plants as
needed. The respondent maintains two warehouses in Nashville and
one in Louisville , Kentucky . Pants materials are usually shipped
directly to the plants which manufacture them, located in Kentucky.
For the fiscal year ending May 1, 1937, the value of the respondent's
finished products was $5,351,887. During that year it employed an
average of 1,727 production employees. The average number of em-
ployees in each of the plants involved in the Board's complaint for
the year ending May 1, 1937, was as follows : 257 in the Cedar Street
plant; 102 in the Public Square plant; 91 in the Main Street plant;
224 in the Cookeville plant; 241 in the Glasgow plant; 90 in the
playsuit division and 198 in the work shirt division of the Milan
plant.4 With respect to the number of employees involved, the re-
spondent's business ranks among the largest twenty in the industry.
The respondent employs, in addition to its production employees
above referred to, about 75 salesmen, of whom approximately 25 per
cent work out of Louisville and the remainder out of the Nashville
office. These salesmen work on a commission basis and cover practi-
cally every state in the Union. Approximately 75 per cent of the fin-
ished product is sold to retail dealers, about 10 per cent of which is to
chain stores. Only about 5 percent of the product is manufactured
4 Board Exhibit No 7.
976 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on orders placed in advance for future delivery; the remainder is
manufactured for inventory and sold from stock in the warehouses
or occasionally directly from the plants. Most of the respondent's
finished product in each of its plants is sold and shipped to customers
outside the state in which the plant is located.
The respondent uses at least ten trade marks registered for use in
interstate commerce. It also operates under several trade names,
among which are Heavy Duty Manufacturing Company, Old Ken-
tucky Manufacturing Company, and United Shirt Company. It ad-
vertises extensively in local newspapers throughout the country and
by circulars sent through the mails.
The respondent at its various plants during the year 1936 manu-
factured 111,592 dozen pants, 45,420 dozen playsuits, 78,520 dozen
overalls, 387,381 dozen work shirts, and 39,055 dozen dress shirts.6
These figures compared with the United States Census report for that
year show that the respondent manufactured 1.17 per cent of all
overalls manufactured in the United States, 2.78 per cent of all pants,
and 4.38 per cent of all playsuits.e Percentages were not available
for work shirts and dress shirts.
If. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.
The Amalgamated admits to membership all employees of Washing-
ton Manufacturing Company in each of its plants and warehouses,
except executives, foremen, and other supervisory employees.?
The Milan Employees Association, Cookeville Employees' Associa-
tion, and Southern Kentucky Garment Workers Association are la-
bor organizations formed during the month of May 1937 at Milan
and Cookeville, Tennessee, and at Glasgow, Kentucky, respectively.
Each organization admits to membership only employees in its re-
spective plant. None is affiliated with any national labor organiza-
tion.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. At Nashville, Tennessee
During the early part of April, 1937, the Amalgamated established
a branch office at Nashville, and set out to organize the employees in
the cotton garment industry there. Organizers openly distributed
literature among the employees, called upon them at their homes, and
6 Respondent's Exhibit No. 2.
6 Respondent's Exhibit No. 3.
7 For full information concerning membership and activities of the Amalgamated, the
Board takes judicial cognizance of the findings relative thereto in National Labor Rela-
tions Board v. Friedman -Harry Marks Clothing Company, Inc, 301 U. S 58.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 977
conducted meetings. On April 24 a huge public mass meeting was
held at the Maxwell House in Nashville. Employees from each of
the respondent's three Nashville plants attended this meeting along
with employees from other plants. By Friday, April 30, a consider-
able number of the employees at each of the respondent's Nashville
plants had signed applications for membership in the Amalgamated.
Shortly before the advent of the Amalgamated the respondent had
plainly demonstrated its hostility to self-organization by the Nash-
ville employees and its readiness to take necessary measures to sup-
press such activity. Early in 1937 Myrtle Merritt, an employee at
the Main Street plant, undertook to organize the employees at the
Main Street plant for the purpose of securing higher wages and
better working conditions. When the respondent became aware that
such a movement was under way, it quickly sought to discourage
the participation of its employees therein. Hedrick, the general
superintendent, made it clear to the employees that a labor organiza-
tion could do nothing for them in securing higher wages or better
working conditions." He told them that if they did not like the
terms and conditions under which they were working, they could get
their "hats and go home" since the respondent would do nothing to
improve them. After the first meeting of employees under the leader-
ship of Merritt, at which the organization of a union was discussed,
Hedrick addressed the employees telling them that they had better
work under the wages and working conditions then prevailing at
the Main Street plant, and added that "if any of you feel like Myrtle
(Merritt) does over there, you had just as well go home, because she
won't ever do any more good.", Immediately after the second meeting
under the leadership of Merritt, Hedrick discharged her with the
flat statement :
You are leading these girls and causing dissatisfaction through-
out the plant, and you are creating trouble, and I am letting you
go this afternoon for a £ew weeks.
With the coming of the Amalgamated it soon became apparent that
the respondent was ready to follow the same tactics with respect to
that organization. In the week following the Maxwell House meet-
ing the respondent began actively and openly to discourage its em-
ployees from joining the Amalgamated. Emma Osment, a forelady
employed at the Public Square plant, urged a number of employees
over whom she had charge not to join the Amalgamated, telling them
"it was not the proper thing to do." Osment told others that they
were signing themselves into trouble by joining the Amalgamated and
8 One of Hedrick's duties as general superintendent is the management of labor relations
at all the respondent ' s plants In this phase of his work he cooperates with L. H . Jones,
the respondent ' s secretary -treasurer.
978 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that their joining would result in the loss of their jobs. Thus,
shortly after the employees reported for work on Monday, April 26,
Osment approached Bessie Moore, an employee at the plant, and
talked to her about the Amalgamated. With respect to this conver-
sation, Moore testified :
Well, she was talking to me on Monday morning and she said
she knew of the meeting that went on on Saturday night (April
24) .. . and said that she knew of 23 of them that joined the
Union (Amalgamated) and she said that the girls had better
be careful what they are signing because the people-were just
here to get the money and leave town and we would be left with-
out a job.
Again, shortly before May 1, Osment approached Ella Howell, an-
other employee at the Public Square plant, while the latter was at
work, and urged her not to join the Amalgamated. With respect to
this conversation, Howell testified :
. .. She says, "Howell, have you signed your card ?" I says,
"No, I haven't." And she says, "Well, if I was you, I wouldn't,
it would be the worst thing you ever done, because ... I think
it will put us all out of work, ... and cause our door to be
closed."
During the same period, Le Seuer, superintendent of the Public
Square plant, in the presence of a group of packing department em-
ployees, openly denounced the C. I. O. and the Amalgamated as a
"money-making scheme."
At about the same time, Vallie Julian, a forelady at the Cedar
Street plant, asked Virdie Pate, an employee at that plant, if she
knew where application cards for membership in the Amalgamated
could be obtained. Pate, who for some time had been particularly
active in soliciting applications, gave her one. Shortly afterwards
Julian again approached Pate. With, respect to this conversation,
Pate testified :
Then on Friday (April 30) before the factory closed, she
asked me if I thought the majority had joined the Union, and
I told her that I didn't think so. And she said she did, and I
asked her what the Company would do if we did, and she said
they would close down.
At the close of work on April 30 the employees at the three Nash-
ville plants left their jobs, expecting to return on the following
Monday, May 3, the next regular work-day. The respondent at that
time gave them no indication it would not continue its operations
as usual on Monday. On May 1, however, the respondent sent a
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 979
special delivery letter to each of the employees enclosing a mimeo-
graphed notice reading :
To All Our Former Employees:
You are hereby notified that we have closed all of our Nash-
ville plants.
Enclosed find check for the amount due you for services
heretofore rendered.°
The Nashville plants did not open after this notice was sent out.
They were still closed on July 30, the date on which the hearing
in this proceeding was concluded.
No reason for the closing of the Nashville plants having been
given in the notice of May 1, the respondent's employees were con-
fused. On May 2, shortly after she received her notice and check,
Estelle Jones, an employee at the Public Square plant, called Osment,
her forelady, and asked her why the plants had closed. Osment
informed Jones that other employees had called and had asked her
the same thing, that she had already called Le Seuer, the superin-
tendent, and had asked him for an answer, and that Le Seuer had
told her he knew nothing about it. Osment, according to Jones, added
however, "that they (respondent) seemed to think that the girls
joined the Union (Amalgamated) and it would be best to close down
until they became reconciled." At about the same time, Tommie Ray,
an employee at the Cedar Street plant called Julian, a forelady at that
plant. Ray testified :
Well, I called her (Julian) because I was worried because we
was out of work and I called her and asked her what in the
world would we all do out of a job. She said, "You all ought to
have thought about that when you was signing them cards."
Both Osment and Julian continued to draw their regular weekly
salaries after May 1, although they did but little work.
Shortly before May 14, Jacob S. Potofsky, a representative of the
Amalgamated, called L. H. Jones, the respondent's secretary-treas-
urer, and requested a conference with him for the purpose of ironing
out differences between the respondent and its employees, and for the
purpose of discussing the possibility of a collective agreement be-
tween the Amalgamated and the respondent covering all of the re-
spondent's employees in Nashville as well as at other places. By
that time the Amalgamated had begun to organize the respondent's
employees at its Milan and Cookeville plants. Instead of meeting
with Potofsky, Jones referred Potofsky to the respondent's attorney,
Stokes, who admittedly had no technical qualifications to enter into
0 Board Exhibit No. 17.
980 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a discussion such as was contemplated by Potofsky in his request to
Jones.
Potofsky conferred with Stokes on May 14, 1937. At the outset of
this conference Potofsky informed Stokes that many of - the re-
spondent's employees had joined the Amalgamated and that the
respondent was obligated by the Act to enter into a discussion with
him as the duly designated representative of these employees. Stokes
thereupon remarked that insofar as the Nashville plants were con-
cerned, the respondent had no employees there, those plants having
been closed down, and that in consequence the respondent was under
no duty to enter into a discussion in respect to such plants. Potofsky
then charged the respondent with violating the Act in, closing down
its Nashville plants and in discharging its employees at these plants,
which accusation was immediately denied by Stokes. Thereupon
Potofsky informed Stokes that in any event he had come to discuss
not only the differences between the respondent and its Nashville
employees but those between the respondent and its employees else-
where. Stokes, anxious to stay close, to the Nashville situation, re-
marked that he had been given no proof that the majority of the
respondent's employees at Nashville had designated the Amalga-
mated as their representative and that such proof was d condition
precedent to any further discussion of the Nashville situation. Po-
tofsky again reiterated that he had come to discuss broader issues
than those concerning merely the Nashville employees. Despite
Potofsky's willingness to' move to these broader issues, Stokes evinced
a continuing anxiety with respect to the Nashville situation and asked
Potofsky if the Amalgamated would submit to the respondent 'its
membership cards among the employees at the Nashville plants for
comparison with the respondent's pay rolls. Potofsky informed
Stokes that the Amalgamated would not consider such action, but
would gladly submit its membership cards to a governmental agency
for comparison with the respondent's pay rolls likewise so submitted.
Potofsky also proposed a consent election under the supervision of
the Board. Stokes thereupon reverted to his original position that
the respondent no longer had any interest in the Nashville employees,
the Nashville plants having been closed down and all of the employees
at such plants having been discharged, and that in consequence a
consent election or the submission by the respondent of its Nashville
pay rolls to a governmental agency for the purpose of determining
whether the Amalgamated represented a majority of such "former"
employees, would serve no useful purpose. A short argument then
ensued between Potofsky and Stokes as to the legality of the re-
spondent's conduct in closing down its Nashville plants. Following
this, Potofsky asked Stokes whether he was familiar with the wages
which prevailed in the various plants in the cotton textile industry.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 981
Stokes replied that he was not, and the conference there broke up.
Thereafter the Amalgamated made no efforts to engage the respond-
ent in any further discussion concerning the Nashville situation or
any other matter.
On July 27, after the hearing in this proceeding had been in
progress for more than five weeks, and after it had been brought to
the attention of the respondent that the Board might readily order
the respondent to reinstate to their former positions with back pay
all of its Nashville employees, should it be found by the Board that
the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in closing down
the Nashville plants on May 1, the Board of Directors of the respond-
ent met and decided to sell the machinery and equipment in the
Nashville plants and to lease or otherwise dispose of the real estate
used by the respondent in connection with the operation of these
plants. This decision was made public the same day in a statement
submitted to the Nashville newspapers by George H. Armistead, Jr.,
one of the counsel representing the respondent in this proceeding.
Armistead's statement, quoting remarks of Guy Comer, the respond-
ent's president, reads as follows :
At a meeting of the Board of Directors of that company held
today it was definitely determined not to re-open the Nashville
plants of the company which have been closed since May 1, 1937,
but to sell the machinery and equipment in those plants, and to
lease or otherwise dispose of the real estate which the company
owns and had used in connection with the operation of those
plants.
Mr. Comer stated that the Nashville plants were closed down
temporarily because the company felt that its financial condition
required it, and the company felt and still feels that it was en-
tirely within its constitutional rights in taking such action. Mr.
Comer stated that at the time the plants were closed down it was
the purpose of the company to re-open the plants just as soon
as in the judgment of the Board of Directors conditions justified
and that when the plants were re-opened it was the intention of
the company to call back to their old jobs all of its employees
who were working for the company at the time the plants were
closed down.
He (Comer) stated that during the hearing before the National
Labor Relations Board now in progress it has become apparent
that counsel for the National Labor Relations Board intends to
insist that if and when said plants are re-opened the company
must pay its former employees full wages from May 1, 1937, until
the plants are re-opened. He stated that the Board of Directors
realized that before it could secure a vindication by the Supreme
Court of the United States of its right to conduct its business
982 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
without incurring any such penalty in the event of an adverse
decision by the Labor Board, approximately two years would
elapse, and that inasmuch as its former employees had been led
to believe that if they did not secure other employment they
would receive full pay from May 1, 1937, until the plants should
be reopened, and inasmuch as many of the employees were relying
upon such erroneous advice, the Board of Directors deemed it but
fair to their former employees to make this announcement to the
end that such employees may secure. other employment if they so
desire.1e
On July 28 the respondent began advertising in the Nashville
newspapers for the sale of all of the machinery and equipment in its
three Nashville plants.'1
The complaint alleges that the respondent closed down its three
Nashville plants on May 1 and discharged all its employees at these
plants on that day, for the reason that some of them joined and
assisted the Amalgamated, and with the purpose of preventing and
discouraging its employees from further joining, assisting, or en-
gaging in concerted activities with the Amalgamated. In the con-
ference between Potofsky and Stokes on May 14, just two weeks
after the Nashville plants had closed, Stokes denied that the shut-
down was in any way related to the activities of the respondent's
employees in the Amalgamated and stated that the plants had been
closed because of "other grounds." Stokes did not, however, indicate
what these "other grounds" were.
On June 21, the day on which the hearing in this proceeding com-
menced, the respondent for the first time gave a reason for closing
the plants. In its answer to the complaint, filed on that day, it
asserted that the plants were shut down "because of financial and
economic conditions." In explanation of the phrase, "financial and
economic conditions," it alleged that "the inventory on May 1, 1937,
was much larger than in previous years at that time of the season" ;
that "the plants at Nashville have not worked full time for several
years during the dull months of April, May, June and July"; that
"collections were slow"; that "the creditors of the respondent were
demanding payment"; that "the officials of the respondent for some
Lime had been endeavoring to get additional capital but had not met
with success"; that "one of the officials of respondent personally obli-
1o Board Exhibit No. 61
11 After the close of the hearing in this proceeding the respondent filed a pleading with
the Board in which it stated that it had on September 14, 1987, "sold and delivered to
Hermitage Manufacturing Company, Inc , which by amendment to its Articles of Incorpo-
ration has since changed its name to Southern Manufacturing Company, Inc , all of its
equipment and machinery of every character and kind located in its . three Nashville
plants . . " and also that it had leased its Cedar Street plant and sub-leased its 'Public
Square and Main Street plants to the Southern Manufacturing Company, Inc
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 983
gated himself on promissory notes to obtain funds to apply on claims
of creditors of respondent"; and "that this was shortly before the
closing of the plants on May 1, 1937." The respondent's answer was
verified by L. H. Jones, its secretary-treasurer.
At the hearing, neither Jones nor any of the other officers or
directors of the respondent was called upon by the respondent to
testify on the issue raised by the pleadings concerning the closing of
the Nashville plants. The record clearly shows that the respondent's
officers and directors were at all times available, and could have been
called by the respondent had it seen fit to do so. The respondent
did produce certain testimony through the following five witnesses :
Paul Davis and Parkes Armistead, president and vice-president, re-
spectively, of the American National Bank, Nashville, Tennessee;
A. H. Blair, public accountant; E. H. Hatcher, bookkeeper of the
respondent; and C. A. Edwards, cost accountant of the respondent.
None of these witnesses, however, was an officer or director of the
respondent, nor had any of them participated in the respondent's
determination to close the plants. In consequence, none of them
was able to testify directly as to the respondent's reasons for closing
the plants. Their testimony related to certain aspects of the re-
spondent's financial condition and is wholly circumstantial in nature.
Further, although all of the aforementioned witnesses professed a
close association with the respondent's officers and directors, not one
of them testified that he had been informed by any of such officers
or directors that it was necessary for the plants to close because of
"financial and economic conditions."
We have carefully reviewed all the testimony of the respondent's
witnesses. We are not convinced from this testimony that the re-
spondent closed down its three Nashville plants on May 1, 1937,
because of certain alleged "financial and economic conditions" exist-
ing at that time and prior thereto.
On the other hand, there is substantial evidence in the record
which is plainly inconsistent with the respondent's claim. On April
23 the respondent had curtailed operations at its Gainsboro, Colum-
bia, Milan and Cookeville plants from five days per week to three
days per week. Within a month after the closing of the Nashville
plants the, respondent restored the five-day week at its Cookeville
and Milan plants. These plants were engaged in the production
of the same line of work shirts manufactured at the respondent's
largest Nashville plant prior to May 1. Further, less than one week
after the closing of the three Nashville plants the respondent in-
creased wages at its Cookeville plant from 24 to 27 cents per hour.
During the middle of May, the respondent again increased wages
at the Cookeville plant, this time from 27 to 30 cents per hour. On
May 28 the respondent increased wages at its Glasgow plant from
6 7 573-33-vo1 rv-63
984 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
30 to 33 cents per hour. On June 3, the respondent granted a
10 per cent wage increase at its Milan plant. All these facts lead
us to the conclusion that the closing was not induced by "financial
and economic" considerations but by other motives.
The closing of the Nashville plants was attended by many unusual
circumstances. The respondent had operated two of its Nashville
plants, the Cedar Street plant and the Public Square plant, for a
considerable number of years prior to 1937 without a shut-down
during April, May, and June, months which the respondent would
have us believe have always been characterized by dull operations.'2
The third Nashville plant, the Main Street plant, was put into
operation for the first time during the month of January or Febru-
ary, 1937. All three of the Nashville plants were operating with
normal strength on April 30, the day before the respondent closed
them down, and had been so operating for several months prior
thereto. When the employees left their jobs at the end of the day
on April 30 there was a considerable amount of partially finished
work on hand at each plant. Moreover, in the past the respondent
had always given its employees between three and ten days' notice
in advance of all shut-downs and lay-offs. Furthermore, the re-
spondent had accomplished all previous shut-clowns in gradual stages
extending over a period of days ; employees on primary operations
were dismissed first and then in regular order those on succeeding
operations, as soon as the latter had completed all of the partially
finished work on hand. In short, never before had the respondent
closed down any of the plants without the usual previous notice, or
while in the midst of normal operations, or with a considerable
amount of partially finished work on hand. -
Another circumstance of the shut-down is significant. We have
seen that in the letters delivered to all employees on May 1, 1937,
notifying them of the closing of the plants, the respondent referred
to its employees as "former" employees. We have also seen that
Stokes, attorney for the respondent, in the conference with Potofsky,
on May 14, took the position that the respondent was under no duty
to bargain collectively with the Amalgamated concerning the Nash-
ville plants because it no longer had any employees at these plants,
its "former" employees having been discharged at the time of the
shut-down. In its answer and at the hearing the respondent took the
position that the Nashville plants had been closed down only tem-
porarily on May 1, 1937, and that it had at all times intended to re-
open them and to re-hire all of its "former" employees as soon as
"financial and other economic conditions" permitted it to do so. On
12 The respondent had in the past closed down its Nashville plants during the months of
July and December , for the purposes of remodelling and taking inventory . These shut-
downs were short in duration
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 985
the occasion of all previous temporary shut-downs the respondent
merely laid off its employees for the period that the plant was closed.
In breaking this established practice by attempting to discharge all
its employees on May 1, we can see a clear purpose on the respondent's
part to avoid the duties of an employer during the period of the shut-
down and a desire to place itself in a position of being able to take
back any or none of these employees with complete freedom upon
resumption of operations.
Also significant are the statements of the respondent's supervisory
officials noted above. As we have seen, these officials frankly indicated
to the employees immediately prior to the closing of the plants that
the respondent would shut down if they persisted in joining the
Amalgamated. The same officials made it plain, after the closing,
that the plants had been shut down because of such persistence.
In addition to the testimony already mentioned there should be
noted the testimony of Watson, head forelady at the Cookeville plant,
regarding a conversation with Padgett, resident superintendent of
that plant, on May 5, just four days after the Nashville plants had
closed. Watson's testimony is in part as follows :
Q. I will ask you whether or not he (Padgett) stated that the
Union was coming to Cookeville eventually?
A. Yes, he said it is eventually coming. He said they have
closed the plants in Nashville on account of them trying to
organize.
Q. Did he say what would happen if such an organization did
come in (to Cookeville) ?
A. He stated the plant would be closed up in Cookeville if such
a thing was organized and that he did not think it would ever
re-open.
Finally, the respondent's action in closing the Nashville plants
must be viewed in the light of the bitter hostility it has consistently
displayed toward any form of self-organization by its employees.
One instance of this, occurring at the Main Street plant, has already
been noted. in the following subdivisions of this section we describe
similar conduct at the Cookeville, Milan, and Glasgow plants. As our
findings show, the respondent has used every means at its command
to thwart the activities of the Amalgamated at these plants. At each
plant it has initiated a labor organization with which it has attempted
to organize against the Amalgamated; at each it has readily accorded
recognition and collective bargaining to these organizations, and in
at least two instances such recognition was accorded without requiring
proof of majority representation; at each it has followed the failure
of such labor organization to destroy the interest of its employees in
986 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Amalgamated by a lock-out and other discriminatory conduct
calculated to discourage activity in the Amalgamated; and at each it
has by innumerable other acts flagrantly interfered with, restrained
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act. Taking the picture as a whole, the closing of
the Nashville plants under the circumstances described above can be
explained only as a deliberate lock-out designed to crush the growing
movement among the employees toward self-organization and collec-
tive bargaining.
On the basis of all the aforementioned considerations, we conclude
that the respondent closed down its three Nashville plants on May 1,
1937, and discharged all of its employees at these plants on that day,
and has refused to reopen its Nashville plants thereafter and to rein-
state its employees at these plants, for the reason that some of them
joined and assisted the Amalgamated and with the purpose of pre-
venting and discouraging its employees from further joining, assist-
ing or engaging in concerted activities with the Amalgamated. By its
conduct the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of its Nashville employees within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act, and has thereby interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. At Cookeville, Tennessee
On May 3, 1937, two.days after the respondent had closed its Nash-
ville plants, Maggie Randolph, an organizer for the Amalgamated,
came to Cookeville and immediately began to organize the employees
at the Cookeville plant. On the afternoon of that day, Claude Dar-
win, a member of the firm of Jenkins and Darwin, Cookeville mer-
chants, called Bessie Watson, then head forelady at the Cookeville
plant, and asked her to meet with him. Watson immediately went to
the store of Jenkins and Darwin and there met with Darwin and
A. G. Maxwell. Maxwell was owner of the Tennessee Handle Com-
pany and a member of the Mayor's Committee of the City of Cooke-
ville, a committee composed of businessmen, some appointed by the
Mayor and some by the Lions' Club of Cookeville, and allegedly
existing for the primary purpose of settling labor disputes. Appar-
ently well aware of the presence of Randolph in Cookeville, both Dar-
win and Maxwell urged Watson to talk to the respondent's employees
and to advise them not to join the Amalgamated. Maxwell also prom-
ised Watson that if she would keep the respondent's employees from
joining the Amalgamated, he would make it worth her while. Dur-
ing the meeting Darwin asked Watson if she thought "it would be
advisable for Mr. (Ezra) Davis (Mayor of Cookeville) to come over
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 987
and have a talk with the girls". Watson informed Darwin that he
would have to take that matter up with E. G. Padgett, resident super-
intendent of the Cookeville plant. Before the meeting was adjourned,
Darwin and Maxwell suggested that Watson organize a committee of
the employees to meet with the Mayor's Committee.
Early in the morning on May 4, 1937, Watson went to Padgett, in-
formed him of her conversation with Darwin and Maxwell, and asked
him if it was "all right" for her to form a committee for the purpose
of meeting with the Mayor's Committee. According to Watson,
Padgett advised her that it was "all right", and told her that he knew
that the Amalgamated would eventually make its appearance among
the Cookeville employees and that "the plant would be closed up in
Cookeville if such a thing was organized". He added, according to
Watson, that "they (the respondent) have closed the plants in Nash-
ville on account of them trying to organize". Padgett admitted hav-
ing told Watson that it was her "privilege" to form a committee of
employees to meet with the Mayor's Committee, but denied having
made the other remarks attributed to him by Watson. Padgett's tes-
timony on other matters was also in direct conflict with that of Wat-
son. Watson testified at the hearing under subpoena. Her testimony,
straightforward and precise, is marked by an air of reliability not
present in that of Padgett. Conflicts in the testimony of Watson and
Padgett must be resolved in favor of Watson.
Immediately after consulting with Padgett, Watson called together
the sewing room employees, some 270 in number, and asked them to
appoint a committee to meet with the Mayor's Committee. At that
time the following sewing room employees were chosen as members of
a committee, hereinafter referred to as the Watson Committee, to rep-
resent all the employees in the sewing room, the largest department
of the Cookeville plant: Bessie Watson, chairman; Robbie Coakley;
Sammie Williams; Vera Williams; and Rebecca Johnston. Follow-
ing the appointment of this committee, Watson called Darwin and in-
formed him that the employees had organized a committee. Darwin
told Watson to bring the committee to the Jenkins and Darwin store
immediately. Thereupon the members of the Watson Committee left
their work at the plant and proceeded to the Jenkins and Darwin store.
There they met with the members of the Mayor's Committee, called to-
gether at the suggestion of Darwin by J. N. Cox, president of the
Southern Continental Telephone Company, and chairman of the
Mayor's Committee. In addition to Cox, the following members of
the Mayor's Committee attended this meeting: Maxwell; D. C. Wil-
hite, president of the First National Bank of Cookeville; and H. S.
Hargis, a Cookeville banker. Claude Darwin and his brother, Charlie
Darwin, who was also associated with the firm of Jenkins and Dar-
988 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
win, likewise attended. The two latter were not members of the
Mayor's Committee.
During the meeting the dissatisfaction of the employees with work-
ing conditions at the plant was discussed. The Mayor's Committee
apparently suggested to the Watson Committee that it might be of
service in removing any source of dissatisfaction, and the Watson
Committee requested the Mayor's Committee to do what it could in
persuading the respondent to raise the prevailing base wage rate of
24 cents per hour to 30 cents per hour. The Mayor's Committee im-
mediately promised that it would make an effort to get the base wage
rate increased in accordance with the wishes of the Watson Commit-
tee, but made it clear to the Watson Committee that it did "not want
the Cookeville factory closed up (because of the activities of the em-
ployees in the Amalgamated) like the Nashville factories had been
closed". At the hearing Cox testified that he called one of the re-
spondent's officers (either Jones or Guy Comer) at Nashville imme-
diately after the aforementioned meeting, that he informed him of
the request made by the Watson Committee and that he urged him to
grant that request because "there might be trouble". According to
Cox, this officer told him that "he would have to put it up to the di-
rectors", and would call Cox at a later time. Cox further testified
that one of the respondent's officers did call him at a later time and
informed him that the respondent had granted an increase in the base
wage rate from 24 cents to 27 cents per hour.
At about two o'clock in the afternoon on May 4, Jones phoned
Charlie Darwin from Nashville and talked to him for five minutes.
At nine o'clock at night on the same day Jones again phoned Charlie
Darwin from Nashville and talked to him for one minute. Neither
Jones nor Charlie Darwin testified at the hearing and in consequence
these phone calls, shown by the Board to have been made, remain
unexplained in the record. Shortly after the first call from Jones
to Charlie Darwin, Claude Darwin called Watson to the Jenkins and
Darwin store. There she was quizzed by Darwin and others as to
what was happening among the employees at the plant. The Darwins
promised that the Mayor's Committee would do its best to get the
requested increase. Late in the afternoon on May 5 Padgett informed
Watson that he had received a report from the respondent at Nash-
ville to the effect that the base wage rate had been increased from 24
to 27 cents per hour.
After the above incident the Watson Committee had no more con-
tacts with the Mayor's Committee or with the Darwins, and com-
pletely ceased to function. Although no issue is raised by the
pleadings with respect to the formation of the Watson Committee, we
have set forth the foregoing facts as significant background to subse-
quent events. The Watson Committee was formally replaced by
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 989
another committee which came into existence shortly afterwards. It
is in connection with the formation of this later committee , the facts
surrounding which will be set forth hereinafter in detail , that the
complaint alleges unfair labor practices on the part of the respondent.
During the noon hour on May 5, and before the respondent had
announced the increase in the base wage rate from 24 to 27 cents per
hour, Mayor Ezra Davis of Cookeville addressed the employees in
front of the Cookeville plant. This address was interrupted by a
rain-storm after Davis had made only a few remarks. Thereafter,
on the same day, Davis addressed the employees in the sewing room
of the plant . Davis testified that he made this second address im-
mediately after the first had been interrupted, at which time he was
invited into the plant by a group of the employees including Bessie
Watson, and that his second address was concluded before the regular
noon lunch hour had expired . By the overwhelming testimony of
other witnesses it was shown that Davis left the neighborhood of the
Cookeville plant after his first address was interrupted and that he
returned to the plant later in the afternoon during working hours, at
which time he made his second address.
When Davis returned to the plant , the machines in the sewing
room were in full operation . Watson testified , and her testimony on
this point is confirmed by numerous witnesses , that she shut down
the power on these machines as soon as Davis appeared. Mayor
Davis' second address was made in the presence of Watson . His re-
marks are not in dispute . Davis told the employees that Cookeville
"was too small for a union" ; he described his visit to Louisville during
the big flood, related that he there saw a union leader wearing dia-
monds as big as marbles , and stated that the money which permitted
this union leader to buy these diamonds "came off the poor working
people" who were paving dues to belong to the Amalgamated ; he
stated that if the employees joined the Amalgamated , the respondent
would close down its Cookeville plant and would never thereafter
reopen it ; he pleaded with the employees not to join the Amalga-
mated, saying , "For God's sake , stay out of the Union" ; he urged the
employees to keep right on working just as they were, stating that
there were hundreds of other girls who would be willing to take their
jobs; he urged them to use the facilities of the Mayor's Committee
to straighten out any difficulties which they had, rather than to use
those of the Amalgamated , because the Mayor's Committee charged
no dues, whereas the Amalgamated did ; he then promised the em-
ployees a full work week with a night shift within a short time, if
they "sat steady in the boat" and did not join the Amalgamated.
On May 8 the City of Cookeville passed an ordinance prohibiting
the distribution of any literature within the confines of that city
without a license. Mayor Davis testified that the passage of this
990 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ordinance was in no way related to the presence in Cookeville of the
organizer for the Amalgamated.
On May 10 another committee, similar to the Watson Committee,
came into existence. This committee, hereinafter referred to as the
Lawson Committee, was composed of the following members : H. E.
Lawson; B. H. Robinson; Floyd Hutchings; Sam Rice; Claude
Grimes; Lou Powell; and Nancy McCulley. Lawson testified that
he was merely a marker, without any supervisory powers whatso-
ever, and that Padgett was the working foreman in immediate
charge of the 14 or 15 cutters and spreaders who worked in the
cutting department with him. Padgett, resident superintendent
of the plant, did not testify as to Lawson's authority. Numerous
witnesses identified Lawson as the foreman in charge of the
cutting department. Watson, Padgett's head forelady, testified that
Lawson directed and instructed the cutters in their work. Further,
the record is clear that, although Padgett had general supervision
of the operations in all the departments, he had delegated the
power of immediate supervision to foremen and foreladies in
these departments. That this procedure was not followed in the
case of Lawson and the cutting department is hard to believe.
Employed as sole marker on the initial operation in the plant,
it is clear to us that Lawson supervised the work of the cutters
and spreaders in the cutting department who completed the work that
he laid out. Lawson's position in his department, his long tenure
with the respondent, his high rate of pay, and his general conduct
throughout the plant, are more consistent with the testimony of wit-
nesses that he was a foreman than that he was merely an employee
without any supervisory power. Floyd Hutchings was employed by
the respondent as a machinist and was as well a special deputy
sheriff of Putnam County, in which Cookeville is located. Hutchings
was appointed to the position of special deputy sheriff on May 7 or
May 8, 1937, allegedly at his own request, in order that he might "take
care of the (respondent's) factory and look after the company's in-
terest". He had the authority to make arrests on the respondent's
property. Sam Rice was employed by the respondent as a truck
driver, and was a deputy sheriff of Putnam County and a police-
man for the City of Cookeville. Claude Grimes was employed by
the respondent as a machinist. Lou Powell was, prior to June 3,
1937, a collar stitcher, employed in the sewing room. When Watson
was dismissed on June 3, Powell immediately assumed Watson's
duties as forelady in charge of the sewing room.
The exact manner in which the Lawson Committee came into ex-
istence does not appear from the record. It is clear that no formal
meeting was held at which the committee was selected. The mem-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS , 991
bers of the committee who testified at the hearing presented a vague
and incoherent story as to its formation, straining to leave the im-
pression that it was formed spontaneously without any suggestion or
encouragement from the Mayor's Committee or from the respondent.
Lawson testified that he was appointed to the committee by five
cutters; Grimes testified that he was on the committee because sev-
eral of the employees asked him to be on it; Rice testified that he was
on the committee because a group of the cutters and other employees
had asked him to be on it; Powell testified that she put herself on the
committee after Hutchings asked her to be on it. That Lawson in
all likelihood played an important part in the formation of the Law-
son Committee, despite his protestations to the contrary, can be
clearly gathered from his leadership of its activities as well as those
of Employees' Committee which grew out of the Lawson Committee.
After the Lawson Committee came into existence Lawson, ac-
cording to his own testimony, immediately sent Floyd Hutchings to
the office of Cox to arrange for a meeting with the Mayor's Com-
mittee. Early in the evening on May 10 the entire membership of
the Lawson Committee met with the Mayor's Committee, including
Mayor Davis, in Cox's office. Members of both these committees testi-
fied that the Lawson Committee asked the Mayor's Committee to
aid it in obtaining a wage increase. Although the Mayor's Committee
had participated in obtaining an increase in the base wage rate only
five days before this meeting, it apparently expressed no surprise over
this new movement for an additional increase. From the testimony of
those who participated in the meeting it is clear that the Mayor's
Committee made no immediate promises to the Lawson Committee as
it had done in the case of the Watson Committee. After a short
discussion the Mayor's Committee asked the Lawson Committee if it
represented a majority of the Cookeville employees. When the Law-
son Committee answered that it did not know whom it represented,
the Mayor's Committee suggested that authorizations be secured.
After some discussion a paper was prepared for signature by the
employees, reading as follows :
We, the undersigned employees of the Washington Manufac-
turing Company, of Cookeville, Tennessee, hereby appoint H. E.
Lawson, B. H. Robinson, Sam Rice, Floyd Hutchings, Claude
Grimes, Lou Powell and Nancy McCulley, or their successors as
an Employees' Committee to represent us for a period of twelve
months, and thereafter until revoked by a majority of the em-
ployees, in all negotiations with the Company, or the Committee
representing the City (Mayor's Committee) as to organization,
wages, and terms of employment, and bind ourselves to be gov-
erned by any agreement they may make.
992 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 11 this paper was circulated among the employees by
Hutchings and other members of the Lawson Committee. By the end
of that day approximately 336 signatures had been placed thereon.
Some of the employees testified that they signed because "it was
rumored around the plant if we did not sign it would be bad for us".
One employee testified that she was urged to sign by Hutchings under
the threat that it would "mean her job" if she didn't sign. With the
signing of this paper the Employees' Committee, a labor organization,
formally came into existence.
During the early part of the evening of May 11 the Employees'
Committee met with the Mayor's Committee. The document con-
taining the 336 signatures was submitted to the Mayor's Committee
as evidence of the Employees' Committee's authority to bargain for and
bind the employees in any negotiations with the respondent and with
the Mayor's Committee. The terms of a proposal for submission to
the respondent were then discussed. Apparently unable to give an
authoritative statement as to what was wanted from the respondent,
the Employees' Committee was told by the Mayor's Committee to go
back to the employees and find out what they wanted.
It is clear, however, that no serious effort was made by the Em-
ployees' Committee to ascertain the wishes of the employees with
respect to the demands to be made of the respondent in the contem-
plated proposal. After the Employees' Committee left the meeting
on May 11, individual members discussed possible demands among
themselves. On the following day several of them talked to a few of
the employees during working hours. No general meeting of em-
ployees was held.
On May 12, Frank Pitts, another organizer for the Amalgamated,
came to Cookeville to aid Randolph in her work. Late in the after-
noon of that day, both Pitts and Randolph stationed themselves near
the plant for the purpose of distributing literature explaining the
aims of the Amalgamated. While they were engaged in distributing
this literature, Floyd Hutchings, armed with a gun, and Harvey
Quarles, Chief of Police of the City of Cookeville, came upon the
scene from inside the Cookeville plant. Pitts testified :
... He (Quarles) walked out and took my package of litera-
ture and asked me to let him see it, and I did, and he asked me
if I had a permit to distribute it, and I told him I did not know
we were supposed to have a permit, and I asked him about the
permit, and he said "Come over here and I will explain all about
it", and instead of taking me over there, he took me over to a car,
and nothing was said until he got to the station . . .
Randolph was also taken to the police station by Quarles. No
charge was at that time filed against either Randolph or Pitts. They
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 993
were told by Quarles that "there was no use staying at the jail" and
that they "could stay at the hotel that night". On the following morn-
ing, both were served with a warrant of arrest for having distributed
literature without a permit in violation of the ordinance passed on
May 8, 1937. Subsequently, both were found guilty and fined.
On the evening of May 12, by pre-arrangement between Lawson
and Cox, the Employees' Committee again met with the Mayor's Com-
mittee in the office of Cox. The Employees' Committee asked the
Mayor's Committee to aid it in drafting a proposal for the signature
of the respondent. After a short discussion, in which Lawson and
Cox played a leading part, the following proposal was formulated :
We, the undersigned Employees' Committee, H. E. Lawson,
B. H. Robinson, Floyd Hutchings, Sam Rice, Claude Grimes,
Lou Powell, and Nancy McCulley, representing a great ma-
jority, in fact 336 out of 362 employees of the Washington Manu-
facturing Company or Heavy Duty Manufacturing Company
at Cookeville, Tennessee, as per agreement executed under date
of May 11, 1937, which is to become a part of this proposal of
contract when finally accepted upon the part of the company,
hereby propose and request through the Lions or Mayor's Com-
mittee of the City of Cookeville, namely : A. G. Maxwell, H. S.
Hargis, Mayor Ezra Davis, Jas. N. Cox, and D. C. Wilhite the
following scale of wages :
An increase from the base rate of 27-cents applied to piece
workers and to other employees now receiving 27-cents per hour
to a flat base rate of 30-cents without any bonus.
We agree to accept this rate, to apply ourselves to the best
of our ability in production and in quality, and
We further agree that we will not encourage or participate
in any action or organization' that might tend to bring about
strife and discontent among our fellow employees.
We further request that the production scale now in force in
the factory be adjusted so as to more nearly equalize the efforts
of the various employees and place each and every one as nearly
as possible on the same earning basis.
We further request that as soon as materials can be procured
that five 8-hour days or 40 hours per week be restored and con-
tinued so long as sales and productions will justify.
. This proposal signed by the above named committees and
ratified by a majority of the employees as set out in the accom-
panying agreement becomes a contract between the company
and its employees when accepted in writing by the proper offi-
cials cf the Washington Manufacturing Company or Heavy
994 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Duty Manufacturing Company, and is to remain in full force
and effect for a period of twelve months beginning the 17th
of May , 1937, and continue thereafter from week to week or
month to month until terminated by a thirty-day written notice
from the company or from the above employees committee or
its successors supported by a majority of the employees.
The provision of the proposal with respect to an increase in the
base wage rate from 27 to 30 cents per hour was obviously the result
of a compromise between both committees , since it is indicated by
the testimony that the Employees' Committee desired a base wage
rate of 33 cents per hour covering both time and piece workers. Who
was primarily responsible for the provision of the proposal pledging
the employees not to encourage or participate in any action or organi-
zation which might tend to bring about strife and discontent among
the respondent 's employees does not appear from the record. Rice,
who participated in the discussion of the proposal , testified that this
provision was discussed at the meeting and that either Lawson or Cox
might have been responsible for its inclusion in the proposal. Grimes
testified that he remembered no discussion of this provision at the
meeting. After the proposal was typed by Cox's secretary it was
read and signed by the members of both the Employees ' Committee
and the Mayor's Committee . It was left with -Cox, as chairman of
the Mayor 's Committee , for presentation by him to the respondent.
On May 13 the proposal was taken by Cox to the respondent's
Nashville office. Cox left it with R. W. Comer, chairman of the board
of directors , and then retired to a hotel . That afternoon the pro-
posal , signed and accepted by the respondent , was returned to Cox
by one of the respondent's officers. Cox immediately returned to
Cookeville and notified the Employees ' Committee . On the follow-
ing morning , Lawson, in the presence of Watson and other fore-
ladies of the respondent , addressed the employees in the sewing room.
What he said in this address is not clear from the record. In all
likelihood , he informed them of the acceptance of the proposal by
the respondent on the day previous . That he might also at that time
have told them not to join the Amalgamated , as he did in addresses
made under similar circumstances on numerous occasions thereafter,
is indicated by the testimony of numerous witnesses who, although
they were unable to testify as to the exact dates on which Lawson
made his addresses , testified that in all of them he warned employees
not to join the Amalgamated because such action would result in the
closing of the Cookeville plant . During all this time the employees
were displaying an interest in the Amalgamated and some of them
were joining that organization.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 995
On May 17 the accepted proposal was passed among the employees
during working hours by Lawson and other members of the Em-
ployees' Committee. Accompanying the proposal was a paper which
read as follows :
We, the undersigned employees of the Washington Manufac-
turing Company hereby accept the terms and wages set out in
the foregoing agreement (proposal and acceptance) and desire
to express our appreciation for what the Committees have done
for us by signing our names hereunder.
Practically all the employees signed this ratification of the agree-
ment. Shortly thereafter the wages of the Cookeville employees were
increased in accordance with its provisions. The respondent did not,
however, immediately establish a work week of 40 hours at the Cooke-
ville plant as required by the agreement.ls
On May 24 the Employees' Committee decided to ask the respondent
to establish a 40 hour week and delegated to Lawson the duty of
enlisting the aid of the Mayor's Committee. Lawson, acting as Chair-
man of the Employees' Committee, niet with Cox at the latter's office
during the lunch hour on May 24. Cox told Lawson that he would
have to consult. the other members of the Mayor's Committee before
he could give any promise of aid. During the afternoon of May 24,
Cox phoned Lawson at the plant and told him that the Mayor's
Committee had agreed to help.
On May 25 Cox sent a telegram to the respondent at Nashville
stating that the "Employees' Committee . . . most respectfully de-
mand that their working day of eight hour maximum be increased at
once to five full days per week for forty hours" and that "we the .. .
Mayor's Committee approve their action, and recommend the im-
mediate acceptance of same". Between seven and eight o'clock in the
morning of May 25 before the aforementioned telegram was sent, Cox
phoned Comer, the respondent's president, and talked to him for
three minutes. This phone call was charged to and paid for by the
respondent. Shortly after eight o'clock that morning Comer phoned
Cox and, immediately following this latter call, W. Gordon McKelvic,
secretary-counsel of the Southern Garment Manufacturers Associa-
tion, phoned Cox. The call from McKelvie to Cox, originating in
McKelvie's office, was also charged to and paid for by the respond-
ent. Questioned as to the phone call from McKelvie, Cox testified
he had not "the remotest idea" as to what was talked about during
that call. Testifying as to his phone call to Comer, Cox at first
13 Prior to May 25 the respondent was operating the Cookeville plant eight hours per
day, three days per week, operations having been cut from five to three days per week on
or about April 23.
996 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stated that it was his "impression" that during that call he read to
Comer the telegram which he later sent; later, however, he denied
that he ever discussed with any of the respondent's officers before-
hand any of the demands which he made on behalf of :the Employees'
Committee. The call from Comer to Cox is not explained in the
record. During the late afternoon of May 25 the respondent tele-
graphed Cox that it had agreed to the demand made in his telegram
of that date. During the following week the respondent commenced
operating its Cookeville plant on a 40 hour basis.
Although the formation of the Employees' Committee, accompanied
by an increase in wages and by a lengthening of the work week,
greatly diminished the interest of the respondent's employees in
joining the Amalgamated, those employees who had joined before
and after the formation of the Employees' Committee continued to
aid and assist and participated in the activities of the Amalgamated.
Shortly before May 28 the Amalgamated announced an open meeting
for that evening. At about two o'clock on the afternoon of May 27
word having reached him that this meeting would take place as
scheduled, Cox phoned the respondent at Nashville and notified its
officers that the Amalgamated was meeting at the Cookeville Court
House on the following night. This phone call, as well as each of
a great number of other phone calls between Cox and the respondent
discussed hereinafter, was charged to and paid for by the respond-
ent. About an hour before the scheduled meeting of the Amalga-
mated took place on May 28, the respondent phoned Cox. Cox there-
after drove to the Court House Square for the obvious purpose of
checking on the success of the Amalgamated meeting. Charlie
Grimes, Lawson, and other employees of the respondent were also
conspicuously stationed near the entrance to the Court House on the
night of this meeting. At ten o'clock that night Cox phoned Jones,
the respondent's secretary-treasurer, and talked to him about the
meeting of the Amalgamated. Cox testified :
Q. Did Mr. Jones say at that time that they would have to
close down unless that kind of thing was stopped?
A. No, not as I remember it. We didn't think they got any-
where with it.
On the following morning Cox again called Jones, and again talked
to him about the meeting of the previous night as well as "about
these agitations, that was up there".
On Monday, May 51, the next regular work day after May 28,
several of the employees who were active members of the Amalga-
mated and who had attended the Court House meeting found after
their return to work that their machines were sewing 18 rather than
14 stitches to the inch as they had previously done. In consequence
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 997
of this fact the work of these employees was considerably slowed up
and they were unable to earn as much as they had previously earned.
On June 3 William Remington and Marvin Todd, organizers for
the Textile Workers Organizing Committee, a sub-committee of the
Committee for Industrial Organization, came to Cookeville to aid the
organizers for the Amalgamated in their efforts to organize the re-
spondent's Cookeville employees. They spent the entire evening of
June 3 and part of the morning of June 4 in visiting employees at
their houses and urging them to join the Amalgamated. On the
afternoon of June 4 both Todd and Remington were brutally at-
tacked by a group of the respondent's employees. Todd testified :
We also gave out leaflets, that is correct, leaflets on the Wagner
Act. We arrived in front of the mill at approximately three
o'clock. I believe the mill gets out at three-thirty. We wanted
a chance to get established before the time for workers to come
out. As soon as we had the car drawn up in front of the factory,
some of the workers started congregating down below the en-
trance to the factory. Mr. Remington and Miss Randolph were
the two that were giving out the leaflets. I was standing at the
car, and I believe two or three girls came out and passed Mr.
Remington and he started to give them leaflets and started to
explain it to them, and I remember fifteen or more workers inside
the gates started to come out of the plant and started toward
him. They attempted to knock the leaflets out of his hand; that
is, they started hitting him and kicking him and pulled his coat
over his head and he was pretty defenseless, and I walked over
to him, whereafter one-half,of the crowd that were beating him
made for me. One of them started to hit me and I dodged, and
two or three others started to close in behind me. I ducked un-
der someone's arm and started to run for the nearest telephone to
call the police. I got to, I believe it is, a flour mill about two
or three hundred yards away from the Washington Manufac-
turing Company, with the men pursuing me and throwing rocks,
and there inside of that place I got a telephone and called up the
sheriff and requested him to send around some police protection.
Returning to the scene of the attack Todd found a deputy sheriff
standing at the entrance to the plant. When Todd asked this deputy
sheriff to protect him as well as the others from further attack by
some of the employees who were still about, he was told, "The best
thing you can do is get out of town."
Immediately after this attack, Todd and Remington went to the
office of J. O. Paris in the Arcade Building, where the meeting
scheduled and advertised by them earlier that day was held. Dur-
ing this meeting Todd and Remington left the building to get some,
0
998 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
papers which they had left in their car. Upon leaving the building
both were again attacked by the same group of employees which had
assaulted them at the entrance to the Cookeville plant earlier that
afternoon. Todd testified :
We had left some of the papers which we needed for our
Union meeting, in the car. The men who had attacked us out-
side of the plant gate were now sitting outside of the office build-
ing, right in front of the town hall . . . The car was parked in
a position where they could intercept us . . . but we did not
anticipate anything of that sort, because officers of the law had
been around, deputies and constables . . . and there were also
citizens standing around ... We went down to the car .. .
and a number of men immediately intercepted us. One struck
Remington in the face, and they, seven or eight, fell . . . on
... him, and several started out for me. I was thrown down
on the ground . . . and was kicked and struck on the face .. .
for . . . perhaps a minute or so, when one of the policemen in-
terceded and took me into Mr. Paris' office. Remington was still
on the ground where he had been, where he was being kicked and
knocked around ... He was unconscious lying on the grounds,
and they brought him up to the office.
Q. Were you taken to a doctor after this attack?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were the extent of your injuries, Mr. Todd?
A. I got a broken arm and a vertebra kicked off the back of
my spine, and bruises. That was all.
After the second attack both Todd and Remington swore out war-
rants for the arrest of some ten employees of the respondent who had
taken part in the aforementioned assaults. Among these were Floyd
Hutchings and Charlie Grimes. Upon apprehension these employees
were arraigned but forthwith released under peace bonds signed by
Cox.
On June 5 or 6, some of the respondent 's Nashville employees who
were members of the Amalgamated decided to send a caravan of
motor cars to Cookeville on June 7 for the purpose of staging a
parade. Between twelve and one o'clock in the morning of June 7
Comer, the respondent 's president , phoned Padgett, the resident
superintendent of the Cookeville plant, from the Nashville offices of
the respondent. This conversation between Comer and Padgett is
not expressly explained in the record . Comer, as we have already
seen, did not testify at the hearing , and Padgett did not testify with
respect to this conversation . That the conversation concerned the
decision of the Amalgamated to stage a parade in Cookeville on that
day, however , is clear from what took place shortly thereafter.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 999
Between three and four o'clock on the morning of June 7 Cox
phoned the respondent at its Nashville offices, conversed with the
respondent and, as usual, charged the call to the respondent. At the
hearing Cox admitted that he had had phone conversations with the
respondent concerning the parade of the Amalgamated immediately
after he learned of the decision of the Amalgamated to stage such a
parade. The first of these conversations, as is clearly revealed by
Board Exhibit No. 55, which contains a record of all phone, calls
between the respondent at Nashville and any person at Cookeville
during the period in question, was the one referred to above. That
Cox's call to the respondent at its Nashville offices was related to
Comer's call to Padgett at Cookeville seems clear. Both were made
in the early hours of the morning and one followed shortly after the
other. When Cox called the respondent at its Nashville offices about
the parade, he obviously knew that there would be someone there to
receive his call. That this person was Comer is indicated by the
latter's presence in the Nashville offices earlier that morning. The
presence of Comer at the Nashville offices during the early hours of
the morning, the Nashville plants of the respondent having been
totally closed down for over a month, was most unusual and clearly
indicates that he was expecting the call from Cox. We are convinced
that Comer in his call,to Padgett told Padgett to notify Cox of the
decision of the Amalgamated to stage a parade and to instruct Cox
to call the respondent's Nashville offices immediately. At the hearing
Cox testified that he was notified of the decision of the Amalgamated
to stage a parade by an "anonymous" person. We are convinced that
this "anonymous" person was none other than Padgett and that
Padgett not merely notified Cox of the decision of the Amalgamated
to stage a parade but also instructed him to phone Comer who was
awaiting his call at the Nashville offices.
During the morning and early afternoon of June 7 the business
men of Cookeville, under the leadership of Cox, "recruited" between
two and three hundred "citizens" of Cookeville for the purpose of
"meeting the parade" of the Amalgamated. Between twelve and one
o'clock in the afternoon, Cox phoned the respondent at Nashville.
About three o'clock Jones, the secretary-treasurer of the respondent,
phoned Cox from Nashville. That these phone calls concerned the
preparations which had been made by Cox to meet the parade of the
Amalgamated is clear. At the hearing Cox testified that all of his
phone conversations with the respondent's offices at Nashville were
"in the interest of the situation that was prevailing at Cookeville".
The Nashville employees came to Cookeville in a caravan of motor
cars, apparently during the late afternoon of June 7. This caravan
peaceably skirted the Cookeville plant several times and then returned
to Nashville. During the demonstration Cox's "recruits" stood guard
67573-33-vol rv-64
1000 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the Cookeville plant. Cox himself was there, armed with a cane
which he thought was heavy enough to protect himself from the
Nashville "thugs". About five o'clock in the afternoon, apparently
after the demonstration of the Amalgamated had been concluded,
Jones again phoned Cox from Nashville. About two o'clock on the
following morning Cox phoned the respondent at its Nashville offices.
The record offers no explanation of these phone calls other than that
they were related to the situation which was then prevailing in
Cookeville.
Shortly before the regular noon recess on June 11, Lawson ad-
dressed the employees in the sewing room of the Cookeville plant. In
the presence of several other supervisors Lawson told the employees,
as he had told them under similar circumstances on numerous occa-
sions before, that the respondent would close down the Cookeville
plant and that they would all lose tfieir jobs if they joined or con-
tinued their membership in the Amalgamated.
During the early part of the afternoon of June 11 Mattie Jernigan,
one of the foreladies at the Cookeville plant, approached each em-
ployee who. was a member of the Amalgamated and urged her to
withdraw from that organization. About three o'clock in the after-
noon some 24 employees who were members of the Amalgamated were
told by Jernigan to cease work and go to the basement of the Cooke-
ville plant where they would be given a paper, the signing of which
would effect their withdrawal from the Amalgamated. These em-
ployees immediately dropped their work and retired to the basement.
There they found Lawson, Grimes, and Harvey Quarles, the Chief of
Police of Cookeville. Quarles told these members of the Amalga-
mated that he had come to the Cookeville plant to help them "get out
of the Union" because he thought that "would be best" for them, since
he did not want to see them lose their jobs. The 24 members of the
Amalgamated were then taken to the office of Haile, who during the
hearing in this proceeding acted as attorney for the Employees' Com-
mittee, in cars provided by Lawson, Grimes, and Quarles 14 There all
were urged to and did sign a paper, directed to the Amalgamated,
withdrawing their membership in that organization. At the hearing
some of these members of the Amalgamated testified that they signed
the withdrawal papers because they felt they had to do so in order
to hold their jobs. .
On June 14, two days after the complaint in this proceeding was
issued, Cox again phoned the respondent at Nashville and again
charged the call to the respondent. On June 15 the respondent
14 Fiaile is a member of the law firm of Haile & Cox ; Cox, his partner, is the son of
J N Cox , presideet of the Southern Continental Telephone Company, who played such a
promiiaent part in the events which gave rise to the present proceedings.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1001
phoned Cox from Nashville. Cox's testimony, although somewhat
incoherent, indicates that these two calls related to the complaint
issued by the Board in this proceeding.
Mayor Ezra Davis' addresses
The complaint alleges that the respondent by permitting Mayor
Davis to address its employees on May 5, 1937, interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act. In its answer and at the hearing the
respondent denied that it had directly or indirectly permitted or
authorized Davis at any time to address its employees.
Davis testified that he addressed the employees on May 5 as a
disinterested citizen of Cookeville, "with the interest and purpose to
take care, to see that those factory people did not do something, per-
haps, that they ought not to do." Davis further testified that he had
previously asked Padgett for permission to address the employees in
the Cookeville plant, but that he had been refused such permission.
Padgett's testimony coincides with Davis'. Padgett also testified he
told Davis that he would have to address the employees outside the
plant if he wanted to address them at all. Although the testimony of
both Davis and Padgett is given some color by the fact that Davis'
first address on May 5 was admittedly made in front of the Cooke-
ville plant during the noon hour, we are convinced that this address
as well as the second address, which was made inside the Cookeville
plant, were both made with the respondent's permission and authority.
Padgett at all times knew the purpose for which Davis desired to
address the employees, namely, to denounce the Amalgamated and to
urge the employees to use the facilities of the Mayor's Committee in
negotiating with the respondent. Despite this knowledge Padgett,
according to his own testimony, at least expressed his assent to any
address by Davis as long as it was made outside of the Cookeville
plant.
When Davis arrived at the Cookeville plant shortly before he made
his first address, he approached Watson, according to his own testi-
mony, and asked her to get the employees together around his auto-
mobile for the purpose of listening to an address. Furthermore,
according to Davis, Watson, the chief forelady at the Cookeville
plant, and one of Padgett's main lieutenants, immediately complied
with his request. Cleanly, this first address was made with the per-
mission and authority of the respondent.
Similarly, even if it be assumed, as Davis claims, that when the
first address was interrupted by a rainstorm Watson and others im-
mediately invited Davis into the Cookeville plant where he made his
second address, this second address must also be viewed as made with
1002 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the permission and authority of the respondent. We have already
seen that the actual circumstances under which the second address
was made by Davis were different from those claimed by him. The
weight of the evidence reveals that the second address was not only
made with the permission and authority of the respondent but was
also sponsored in the original instance by it. Watson testified that
Padgett came to her during the early afternoon of May 5, shortly
after Davis had made his first address and after the respondent's
employees had returned to work following the regular noon lunch
hour, and told her that Davis was coming to the Cookeville plant that
afternoon to address the employees. According to Watson, whose
testimony we consider reliable in all respects, Padgett at that time told
her "to turn the power off so he (Davis) could talk to the girls".
When Davis came to the plant later that afternoon, as Padgett had
said he would, Watson followed Padgett's instructions, shut off the
power and prepared the way for the speech. It was then, in the
presence of Watson and other foreladies of the respondent, that Davis
delivered his second address, condemning the Amalgamated and urg-
ing the employees to utilize the facilities of the Mayor's Committee
instead. Never after this address was made did the respondent in-
dicate to the employees that Davis had made it without its permission
or authority, or that his remarks therein were not approved by the
respondent.
Having obviously enlisted Mayor Davis for the purpose of ad-
dressing its employees on the afternoon of May 5, the respondent
is responsible for his remarks as well as for their natural and intended
consequences. We have already seen that Davis' remarks included
a bitter condemnation of the Amalgamated, a fervent plea to the re-
spondent's employees to stay out of the Amalgamated, and an ex-
hortation of the benefits to be derived from the use of the facilities
of the Mayor's Committee. Through these actions, calculated to re-
strain its employees from joining or assisting the Amalgamated, and
to encourage them to use the facilities of the Mayor's Committee, the
respondent has flagrantly interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
The Employees' Committee
The complaint alleges that the respondent dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of the Employees' Com-
mittee, contributed support thereto, and thereby engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of section 8 (2) of the Act. In
its answer the respondent denied that it had engaged in any unfair
labor practices in connection with the formation and administration
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1003
,of the Employees' Committee. Upon a careful review of the record
we find that the aforementioned allegation of the complaint is amply
supported by the evidence.
By its conduct in connection with the formation and administra-
tion of the Watson Committee the respondent clearly notified itsl
,Cookeville employees that the Watson Committee, created for the
purpose of dealing with it through the Mayor's Committee, was the
type of labor organization of which it approved. After the Watson
Committee had ceased to function, apparently because of the re-
spondent's dissatisfaction with the attitude of one of the members
-of that Committee, the respondent through Davis, in the latter's
.address on the afternoon of May 5, again notified its employees that
.a labor organization of the type of the Watson Committee met with
its approval. Furthermore, the respondent through Davis urged its
employees to organize such a labor organization and guaranteed
them definite benefits if they did. Shortly after Davis' address, the
Employees' Committee, a labor organization of the character and type
which the respondent approved, did come into existence, and the
respondent's employees thereunder were accorded some of the benefits
which had been promised them, without any actual collective
bargaining.
Furthermore, as we have seen , Lawson, one of the respondent's fore-
men, played a leading part in the formation of the Employees' Com-
mittee. It was he, apparently, who created the Lawson Committee
-on May 10, the members of which were constituted members of the
Employees' Committee on May 11. It was Lawson who suggested
the meeting between the Mayor's Committee and the Lawson Com-
mittee on the night of May 10, at which the authorization giving rise
to the Employees' Committee on the following day was prepared.
It was Lawson who was in a great measure responsible for the
preparation of this authorization at that meeting.
Again, we have seen that the Mayor's Committee and especially
,Cox, the chairman of that Committee, aided the Lawson Committee
in the formation of the Employees' Committee. At the hearing it
was claimed by the respondent and by various members of the Mayor's
Committee that the Mayor's Committee had no connection with the
respondent, that it was an independent body acting solely in the
interest of the City of Cookeville in aiding the Lawson Committee
to form the Employees' Committee. Just as in the case of the Watson
Committee, however, we are convinced that the activities of the
Mayor's Committee in connection with the formation and adminis-
tration of the Employees' Committee were authorized, encouraged,
and even engineered by the respondent itself. The activities of the
Mayor's Committee evince a zealous motive to protect the interests
1004 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the respondent. The presence of this motive is inconsistent with
any contention that the Mayor's Committee had no connection with
the respondent, and was acting as an independent body solely in the
interest of the City of Cookeville. Moreover, the remarks of Davis
to the respondent's employees prior to the formation of the Em-
ployees' Committee, as well as the remarks of other members of the
Mayor's Committee during the meetings between these two commit-
tees, indicate a definite authority in the Mayor's Committee to deal
with the situation at Cookeville within certain limits on behalf of
the respondent. Although it is true that all demands worked out
between the Mayor's Committee and the Employees' Committee were
actually presented to the respondent for acceptance, their acceptance
came immediately as a matter of course and admittedly entailed no
actual collective bargaining between the respondent and the Mayor's
Committee.
Convincing proof of the respondent's association with and sponsor-
ship of all of the activities of the Mayor's Committee can be found
not only in the above considerations, but also in the support con-
tributed to the Mayor's Committee by the respondent. We have
seen that Cox, the chairman of the Mayor's Committee, at least on
one occasion, phoned Lawson at the Cookeville plant and discussed
certain demands to be made of the respondent by the Employees'
Committee. We have also seen that Cox on numerous occasions made
phone calls to the respondent at Nashville, all of which were paid
for by the respondent. These calls admittedly related to the situa-
tion prevailing at Cookeville, namely, the current organization ac-
tivities of the respondent's employees. At least one of these calls
was made specifically in connection with the demand of the Em-
ployees' Committee for a five day, 40 hour week.
From the discussion above, it is clear that the respondent dominated
and interfered with the formation of the Employees' Committee.
That it also dominated and interfered with the administration of
the Employees' Committee is inherent in the participation of Lawson
and the Mayor's Committee in its affairs. As presently constituted
the administration of the Employees' Committee is dominated not
only by Lawson but also by Powell, another supervisory employee
of the respondent. That the respondent contributed support to the
Employees' Committee is clear from the fact that the respondent
permitted the Employees' Committee to carry on its affairs in the
Cookeville plant during working hours and apparently without loss
of pay to its employees engaged in such affairs.
We find that by dominating and interfering with the formation
and administration of the Employees' Committee and by contributing
support to that organization the respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act and
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1005
has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The
Employees' Committee having been found to be a labor organization
dominated in its formation as well as in its administration by the
respondent, the agreement between that Committee and the respond-
ent granting the committee bargaining rights for the period of a
year is null and void.
The respondent's discrimination in regard to conditions of
employment
At the hearing, four employees who were active members of the
Amalgamated and who attended the meeting of the Amalgamated on
May 28 testified that immediately after that meeting their machines
sewed shorter stitches than they had sewed before and that they were
in consequence unable thereafter to make their production quota. The
complaint alleges that the respondent deliberately brought about the
condition which lowered the production of these employees and has
thereby discriminated in regard to conditions of employment in order
to discourage membership in the Amalgamated in violation of Section
8 (3) of the Act. In its answer the respondent alleged that it was
"not informed" as to the aforementioned allegation and at the hear-
ing, through Padgett, denied that it had ever discriminated against
its Cookeville employees in any manner whatsoever because of their
membership in the Amalgamated. We find that the evidence before
us clearly supports the allegation of the complaint with respect to
discrimination.
That the respondent knew which of its employees were members of
the Amalgamated and which of its employees had attended the meet-
ing of that organization on May 28 is clear. Lawson had stationed
himself near the meeting place on the evening on which the meeting
was held. Cox was also there. That both of these men were keeping
this meeting under surveillance is obvious. That both were in the
service of the respondent is also obvious. Lawson's employment by
the respondent as a foreman, we have already mentioned. Cox, as
we have already seen, phoned the respondent at Nashville the day
before the meeting was held and told the respondent that the meeting
would be held. Asked why he made this phone call, he answered that
it was made in order to prevent the meeting and to secure the aid of
the respondent in preventing it. Just one hour before the meeting
was held, Jones, the secretary-treasurer of the respondent, phoned
Cox from Nashville. Immediately after the meeting was held, as
well as early the following day, Cox again phoned the respondent at
Nashville. Admittedly, all of these phone calls were charged to and
paid for by the respondent and all concerned the meeting of the
Amalgamated. That Cox kept the respondent fully posted on all of
1006 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the circumstances surrounding this meeting is indicated by his testi-
mony to the effect that in one of these phone calls he and Jones dis-
cussed the success of the meeting, and that he and Jones thought
"they didn't get anywhere with it." These phone calls and the numer-
ous other phone calls between Cox and the respondent already men-
tioned show Cox's relationship to the respondent. We are convinced
that Cox in all of his activities in connection with the events with
which we are here concerned was acting as a representative of the
respondent.
When the respondent's employees returned to work on May 31, the
next regular work clay after the meeting of the Amalgamated, the
machines of all of the employees, except those of four employees who
were members of the Amalgamated and who had attended the meet-
ing, were in good working order. These four employees were : Rosalie
Hawkins, Ruby Carter, Anna Burgess, and Robbie Coakley. Each of
them immediately complained to the respondent that her machine was
sewing shorter stitches than the machines of the other employees and
that she was in consequence slowed up in her work. No attention was
paid to these complaints by the respondent until they had been re-
newed numerous times. Hawkins testified that she complained to
Padgett four or five times before her machine was fixed. Carter testi-
fied that although she complained to Padgett numerous times he did
nothing about fixing her machine for a period of two or three weeks.
Hawkins also testified that after she had complained to Padgett sev-
eral times, Padgett sent Hutchings, a member of the Employees' Com-
mittee, to fix her machine. Hutchings, who was not regularly assigned
to repair Hawkins' machine, at that time shortened the stitches on
her machine rather than lengthened them, so that her work was
slowed up more than it had been before.
At the hearing Padgett admitted that complaints had been made
to him about short stitches by some of the aforementioned four em-
ployees, but testified that he took care of these complaints immedi-
ately. He denied that the stitches on the machines of these employees
were deliberately shortened and claimed that the machines naturally
sewed shorter stitches at that time than at any time before because
of the heavier materials passing through them. It clearly appears
from Padgett's testimony, however, that the Cookeville plant had
been operating on heavy materials for about a month prior to the
time that any complaints were made. All the machines had evidently
been adjusted for heavy materials at the time such operations began.
The maladjustment of the machines of the four employees after May
28 clearly had no relation to any change in operations from light to
heavy materials.
We are convinced that the maladjustment of the machines of Haw-
kins, Carter, Burgess, and Coakley following the meeting of the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1007
Amalgamated on May 28 did not come about accidently. That meet-
ing clearly apprised the respondent of the fact that its plan to destroy
the Amalgamated through the creation of the Watson Committee and
the Employees' Committee had not met with full success. In view of
all the circumstances, we conclude that the respondent deliberately
brought about the maladjustment of the machines of these employees
to prevent them from making their quota of production because of
their membership and activity in the Amalgamated. We find that
this action was taken by the respondent to discourage membership in
the Amalgamated. By its conduct the respondent has discriminated
against Hawkins, Carter, Burgess, and Coakley in regard to conditions
of employment, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
Other acts of interference by the respondent
We have already referred to the respondent's surveillance of the
meeting of the Amalgamated on May 28, through Cox and Lawson.
We have seen that the respondent, acting through Lawson, on numer-
ous occasions, urged its employees not to join the Amalgamated and
threatened them with the loss of their jobs through the closing of the
Cookeville plant if they did join. We have already referred to Cox's
conduct in connection with the parade of the Amalgamated at Cooke-
ville on June 7. We have seen not only that Cox on several occasions
phoned the respondent at Nashville with respect to this parade, but
also that the respondent phoned Cox from Nashville several times
with respect thereto. Before the parade was held Cox gathered
together an army of "recruits" to present a formidable display of
arms to the invading "thugs." That Cox was acting on behalf of
the respondent cannot be questioned. By all of the aforementioned
acts the respondent has clearly interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
We have seen that the respondent on June 11, through its forelady
Jernigan, urged its employees who were members of the Amalga-
mated to withdraw from that organization; that on the same day
these employees were sent to the basement of the Cookeville plant by
Jernigan in order to sign a paper which would effect their withdrawal
from the Amalgamated; that thereafter they were taken to an at-
torney's office by foreman Lawson, by Quarles, the Chief of Police
of Cookeville, and by others, where the paper was actually signed.
These events clearly indicate a conspiracy between the respondent and
the police of Cookeville to deal a death blow to the Amalgamated.
The presence of Quarles in the Cookeville plant on that day, and his
1008 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cooperation with Jernigan and Lawson, supervisory employees of the
respondent, in obtaining the withdrawals of the respondent's em.
ployees from membership in the Amalgamated, are convincing proof
of this conspiracy. That the respondent was not averse to engaging
in a conspiracy of this nature is clearly revealed by its numerous
=other acts of hostility toward the Amalgamated at Cookeville, and
especially by its use of the Mayor and various business men of Cooke-
ville in its efforts to destroy the Amalgamated. By its conduct in
obtaining the aforementioned withdrawals of its employees from
membership in the Amalgamated, as well as by other acts set forth
above, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
Although the facts herein related concerning the passage by the
:-City of Cookeville of the ordinance prohibiting the distribution of
literature within that city at a time when Amalgamated organizers
:began arriving in Cookeville, and the arrests of the organizers under
such ordinance, and also the facts relative to the brutal attacks made
upon Amalgamated organizers on June 3, appear consistent with acts
oof hostility displayed by the respondent toward the Amalgamated,
we do not, in view of our other findings herein, deem it necessary to
.decide whether the respondent was responsible for such acts.
C. At Milan, Tennessee
During 1924 a group of businessmen and city officials of Milan,
having previously persuaded the American Cigar Company to es-
tablish a manufacturing unit at Milan, organized the Milan Im-
provement Company, herein referred to as the Milan Company, for
the express purpose of erecting a plant to house such a unit. The
Milan Company immediately obtained funds through the sale of its
stock to businessmen, city officials, and townspeople of Milan, and
the plant, herein referred to as the Milan plant, was erected. The
American Cigar Company commenced operations at the Milan plant
shortly thereafter and continued such operations until 1930. Upon
abandonment of all operations by the American Cigar Company at
the Milan plant during that year, the Milan Company immediately
set out to find another manufacturer to occupy it. In the latter part
of 1931 the Milan Company succeeded in interesting the respondent.
On December 17, 1931, the respondent entered into an agreement with
the Milan Company to establish operations in the Milan plant early
in 1932. By this agreement, which was to run for a period of five
years and which was made renewable at the respondent's option at
the end of such period, the Milan Company agreed to furnish the
Milan plant to the respondent rent free, to furnish the respondent
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1009
with light, power, and water, free of all charge, and to hold the
respondent free of all city taxes. Under this agreement, the re-
spondent commenced operations at the Milan plant early in 1932 and
has at all times since continued its operations there. At the present
time the respondent is operating, at the Milan plant under the same
agreement, it having renewed the agreement of December 17, 1931,
with the Milan Company.
During 1934 the respondent threatened to abandon all operations at
the Milan plant, claiming that such plant was inadequate for its
purposes. This threat had an immediate effect. The Milan Company,
anxious to keep the respondent in Milan, determined to make the
Milan plant more adequate by building an addition thereto. Unable
to obtain funds for such an addition by the sale of more of its stock
to the businessmen, city officials, and townspeople of Milan, the Milan
Company with the aid of the City of Milan, which pledged its tax
warrants as security, obtained a loan from an insurance company
with which to build the addition. After the addition was completed
the Milan Company, with the aid of the respondent, forced the re-
'spondent's employees to enter into an agreement for the purchase of
its stock. By this agreement, prepared by the Milan Company and
distributed by the respondent among its employees with an accom-
panying admonition that they would have to sign if they wanted to
retain their jobs, each employee agreed: ". . . I will purchase ten
per cent of my net salary each pay day in stock in the Milan Improve-
ment Company, and hereby direct, authorize and instruct the mana-
ger of said factory (Milan plant) to deduct and retain out of my
salary check on each pay day, ten per cent of the amount due me, with
the provision that the amount shall not exceed $2.50 any pay day,
and turn the same over in cash to the Secretary of the Milan Improve-
ment Company for credit on said stock, just so long as I am employed,
,or until the amount purchased by all employees, and paid in, amounts
to sufficient sum to liquidate the expense of the addition to our factory
building and other improvements."
Although a considerable number of the respondent's employees
signed this agreement, no deductions were ever made by the respond-
ent thereunder, this agreement having been immediately pronounced
invalid under the National Industrial Recovery Act, then in effect.
Thereafter another agreement was passed among the respondent's
employees for signature. This agreement, which similarly was signed
by a considerable number of the respondent's employees, contained
the same provisions with respect to the purchase of stock as tim
previous one, but obligated each employee individually to make pay-
ment for such stock directly to the Milan Company at the office of the
Milan Chamber of Commerce. In order to facilitate collection of the
1010 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
amounts due under this agreement, the respondent each week sent
its payroll records to the Milan Company. When an employee failed
to make his payments, the' Milan Company immediately notified the
respondent of this fact; thereupon the respondent made every effort
to see that such payments were made.
Given to understand by the respondent that their jobs were in
jeopardy unless they discharged their obligations to purchase weekly
the stock of the Milan Company, the respondent's employees con-
tinued to purchase this stock, but with an ever-growing unwillingness.
During the latter part of 1936 or early part of 1937, the respondent
discharged Herbert Bandy, one of its employees, because, as he testi-
fied, "I wouldn't pay the ten per cent." At that time Bandy was
$29.75 in arrears. After his discharge, Bandy applied to L. E. Dietz,
the respondent's resident superintendent at the Milan plant, for rein-
statement but received no encouragement. Bandy then went to see
Hedrick, the respondent's general superintendent at Nashville. Hed-
rick informed Bandy that he could return to work "if it is all right
with Mr. Dietz." He also promised to write Dietz a letter about the
matter. About a week or ten days later Dietz called Bandy and told
him he could go back to work but that he would first have to see
Mildred Bryant, Dietz's secretary, to "fix it up with her." When
Bandy interviewed Bryant, he was told that he could go back to work
if he agreed to perform his obligation to purchase stock in the Milan
Company and if he forthwith agreed to pay the $29.75, which he al-
ready owed to the Milan Company. Bandy promised Bryant that he
would perform his obligations to the Milan Company, but stated that
he was unable immediately to pay the $29.75. Bryant then sent him
to a local bank to borrow the money. This bank loaned Bandy $30.00,
and in consideration for the loan took an assignment of a portion of
his weekly wages for a period of six weeks. Having promised the
respondent to discharge his obligation to purchase the stock of the
Milan Company, and having paid up the $29.75 that he owed to that
company, Bandy was forthwith put back to work by the respondent.
During the early part of April 1937, a considerable number of
the respondent's employees were in arrears in their weekly payment)
to the Milan Company. These employees were at that time not only
pressed for payment by the Milan Company, but by the respondent
as well. As one of the employees put the matter, the respondent was
constantly "pushing" them for payment. On one occasion during the
early part of April, Bryant called a meeting of the respondent's
employees and told them that they would have to pay up if they
wanted to continue working. Already dissatisfied with their wages
and working conditions, and concerned about the threat made by the
respondent through Bryant, the respondent's employees at that time
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1011
began discussing the advisability of organizing for the purpose of
improving their wages and working conditions and for the purpose
of insuring the stability of their jobs.
On April 20 a group of the respondent's employees, including
James Gilley and L. E. Bishop, cutter and bundle-boy, respectively,
in the respondent's playsuit department, decided to invite an organ-
izer of the Amalgamated to come to Milan, and contributed to a fund
to cover the expenses of such organizer. Later the same day Gilley
was approached by G. B. Harris, the cutting department foreman,
and was advised to stop "agitating labor." With respect to his con-
versation Gilley testified : ". . . he (Harris) said to me, `well, Gilley,
I am afraid you got yourself on the spot.' I said, `Just what do
you mean, on the spotP He said, `Well you are agitating labor.' He
said, `Well, you are saying we will get together and do this and do
that . . . That is bad business . . . They will let you out . . . May
not for that, but something else, so the best thing for you is to be
quiet."' Thereafter the group did nothing with respect to their
decision to invite an organizer of the Amalgamated to Milan.
On May 3 news of the closing of the respondent's three Nashville
plants on May 1 reached the Milan employees. On the following day,
Dietz, superintendent of the Milan plant, approached Bishop and
asked Bishop if he would let him read a clipping on the closing
down of the Nashville plants, which he evidently knew Bishop had
in his pocket. Bishop gave the clipping to Dietz who, after reading it,
entered into a discussion with Bishop about the Amalgamated. Later
that day, Dietz again approached Bishop and remarked that a rumor
had been spreading among the employees to the effect he and Bishop
were at odds as a result of the latter's interest in joining the Amalga-
mated. At that time the Amalgamated had not yet made its ap-
pearance among the Milan employees. Bishop immediately investi-
gated the rumor. He returned and told Dietz that the only rumor
which he had been able to uncover was to the effect that he had said
that an organizer of the Amalgamated was coming to Milan on
the following day. Immediately thereupon Dietz, according to
Bishop, remarked : "Well don't you let that get started.... Don't
you have anything to do with that. . . . Mr Hedrick is going to put
you over playsuits, and if he finds that out, he will never do it."
About May 5, R. W. Comer, chairman of the board of directors
of the respondent, came to Milan, addressed a meeting of Milan busi-
nessmen at the Exchange Club there, and then attended a straw-
berry festival with some of the Milan businessmen. After spending
the greater portion of the day with the businessmen of Milan, Comer
went to the Milan plant and addressed the respondent's employees.
In his address he commented upon the good work done by the Milan
1012 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees, quoted verses from the Bible, and told the employees he
was an old man and that his days were numbered. Bishop testified :
"Then he (Comer) told us he had met up with businessmen, citizens
of Milan, and they were very fine people . . . Then he went on
to say that if we ever needed any advice to go to the good citizens
of Milan, that there would be people around to try to lure us into
things we didn't know anything about, and for advice to confer with
our businessmen of Milan."
On May 13 several organizers of the Amalgamated came to Milan
and immediately began to solicit memberships in the Amalgamated
among the Milan employees.
On the following day these organizers were approached by Dr.
O'dell Fields, one of Milan's leading citizens, a dentist by profes-
sion, a member of the Exchange Club and the Chamber of Com-
merce, and a stockholder in and former president of the Milan Com-
pany. They were told by him that "it would be best for them to
leave town." When asked at the hearing why he had so spoken to
the organizers of the Amalgamated, Fields testified : "Because I had
heard that they had come to organize and there had become some
disturbance around town. Some of theloys around town had wanted
to get them out of town. I told them not to do it." Although the
organizers did not immediately follow Fields' suggestion "to leave
town," they left Milan within a day or two. The work of soliciting
membership in the Amalgamated was thereafter carried on by Bishop
and other employees of the respondent.
On Saturday, May 15, a movement was started among the Milan
employees to organize a labor organization in opposition to the
Amalgamated. The Milan plant did not operate on that day, but
the respondent's office force, including Mildred Bryant ancd Ada Mae
Kestner, the latter a timekeeper and typist, worked during the
morning of that day. At ten o'clock that morning, a group of the
employees met in the respondent's office for the purpose of discussing
the formation of a labor organization local to the Milan plant.
Among the employees present at this meeting were the following :
Mildred Bryant; Ada Mae Kestner; Ruth Williams, a shirt depart-
ment employee; Leonard Boyd, a machinist; Paul Kestner, a ship-
ping department employee; John H. Acree, a marker; Charlie Fields
(cousin of O'dell Fields), an instructor and supervisor in the re-
spondent's finishing department; Tilley Arrington; Harry Prender-
gast; and Carmen Taylor. Who called these employees- together at,
the plant on that morning is not clear from the record. That it was
unusual for all of them to be at the plant on Saturday morning, when
the plant was not operating, is apparent. Bryant testified that the
employees came to the plant without any invitation from her in order
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1013
to ask her if they should-try to form a labor organization. She ad-
mitted that she told them that if the rest of the employees wanted
their own organization, "it was well and good" and that she would
assist them in getting such an organization started.
During the afore-mentioned meeting a petition was prepared with
the assistance of Bryant and copies were given to some of the em-
ployees present. This petition was designed for circulation among
and signature by the respondent's employees. The exact wording
does not appear in the record. However, from the testimony of nu=
merous witnesses, it is clear that it was so worded as to indicate that
the signer was in favor of self-organization and pledged himself "not
to join any union until Monday morning." After this meeting,
Acree, Prendergast, Fields, and several of the office worlfprs visited
most of the employees at their homes and obtained their signatures
to the petition.
Upon leaving the plant Saturday morning, May 15, Fields met
Bishop and asked him to sign his copy of the petition, stating "that
.they were wanting to start a home organization." Bishop refused,
to sign, and when he questioned its legality, Fields remarked : "Mrs.
Bryant typed (it) off and said it was all right for us to carry it,
around." At the hearing Acree, who spent the greater part of Sat-
urday in obtaining signatures to the petition, testified :
Q. Why did you understand it was necessary to get that;
petition signed up?
A. Well I had heard that they (Amalgamated organizers),
were here, I didn't know they were here.
Q. You had heard they were in town?
A. Yes, sir, and we wanted the majority of the factory to.
have what they wanted.
Q. You wanted the majority?
A. We didn't want them (Amalgamated organizers) to get-
out here and run around at twelve or one o'clock at night, and
solicit these members and the factory not know it . . .
During the afternoon of May 15 Charles Handy, general organizer-
for the Amalgamated in Tennessee, came to Milan from Nashville
at the request of the organizers who had been accosted on the day
previous by O'dell Fields. He conferred with these organizers and,
was told by them that they had been under constant surveillance since
they came to Milan and that they had been told to leave Milan by
one of Milan's. leading citizens. Having heard their story, Handy,
called on J. M. Cresswell, the Mayor of Milan and' president of the •
Milan Company. Handy informed Cresswell that he had come to,
Milan as a representative of the Amalgamated to investigate certain
acts of interference by the citizens of Milan with, the, activities of;
1014 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the organizers for the Amalgamated. He related to Cresswell what
had been told to him by these organizers and asked Cresswell what
he knew about the matter. Cresswell. curtly replied that he knew
nothing about the activities of the citizens of Milan with respect
to the Amalgamated, and suggested that he would like to have
Handy meet with a few of Milan's leading citizens. Handy ex-
pressed his approval of such a meeting because, as he testified,
". . . I thought that as a union I had a case to put before the
gentlemen of the town, and that I was sure that talking with them
I could convince them that the Union was not such a bad thing as
they probably had heard through adverse propaganda."
Thereafter a meeting was immediately arranged by Cresswell.
This meeting was held at the Milan Bank and was attended by the
following people in addition to Handy and Cresswell: John Leslie
Haney, editor, member of the Exchange Club, a stockholder in and
former president of the Milan Company; J. D. Denney, cashier of
the Milan Banking Company and a stockholder and director of the
Milan Company ; and Clyde Alexander, vice-president of the Farm-
ers-Peoples Bank of Milan, president of the Milan Chamber of'
Commerce and a stockholder and director of the Milan Company.
With respect to what took place at the meeting, Handy testified :
There at that meeting we discussed quite at length, about an
hour and a half, what the advantages of the Union were, and in
that talk I sensed that those gentlemen with whom I was talking
did not think a whole lot of the Union.... So I asked them
why, without knowing anything about the Union, they objected
so violently.... So I asked them what they had specifically in
mind in opposition to the organization. They told me that they
were afraid that Milan being organized, the Milan employees of
the Washington Manufacturing Company here being organized
as the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, it would close
down the plant.... I asked them what they based that on. At
that time Mr. Haney said that he knew positively that they would
close down, and I asked him how he knew positively, and he said
that a group of men (including Haney) had been to see Mr
(R. W.) Comer and Mr. Comer had said it would close down if
the C. I. 0. organized.
Haney denied having made the remarks attributed to him by
Handy and also denied ever having been told by Comer that the
Milan plant would close down if the Amalgamated organized the
employees there. He admitted that he had engaged in an extended
discussion with Handy about the Amalgamated, but refused to
divulge any of the details of that discussion. Haney's obstinacy
and evasiveness on the stand warrant us in giving his denial no
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1015
credence. Both Cresswell and Denney, who were not present dur-
ing the entire meeting, testified that they did not hear Haney make
the remarks attributed to him by Handy, while they were present.
Alexander, who was present at all times denied that Haney had made
such remarks. It is clear, however, from the testimony of Cresswell,
Denney, and Alexander not only that Handy was informed at this
meeting that the Amalgamated was not welcome at Milan, but also
that there was considerable discussion as to closing down of the
Milan plant as a result of the activities of the Amalgamated. Cress-
well frankly testified that he gathered from the discussion that the
Amalgamated was not welcome at Milan. Denney, who looked upon
the activities of the Amalgamated among the Milan employees as
a case of "small pox" for Milan, admitted that he remarked to Handy
that he thought that the respondent would close down the Milan
plant. He stated, however, that his remarks merely expressed his
own opinion. Alexander testified that all of the citizens of Milan
present at this meeting expressed the opinion that the Milan plant
would close down if the Amalgamated organized the respondent's
employees and made the demands which it had planned to make.
Alexander admitted that Comer's name was mentioned frequently
during the meeting, but denied that it was ever mentioned by anyone
in connection with his statement of opinion as to the effect of the
activities of the Amalgamated on the operations of the Milan plant.
Comer did not testify at the hearing. Handy's testimony as to what
took place at this meeting, as is apparent, is supported in great
measure by the testimony of Cresswell, Denney, and Alexander.
We do not question its reliability. We are convinced that Haney
made the statement attributed to him by Handy.
Shortly after the aforementioned meeting Denney' and other busi-
nessmen of Milan met with a group of the employees, including Boyd
and Acree, at the Farmers-Peoples Bank of Milan. Acree testified
that this meeting was called by the employees interested in creating
a labor organization, and was for the purpose of advising the busi-
nessmen that the employees did not want the picnic which was being
planned for them by the townspeople of Milan, and furthermore,
that they did not want any help in getting a labor organization
started. Upon leaving the bank with some of the other employees
present at this meeting, Boyd met Warmath McConnell, another
employee of the respondent, and was asked by him, "What is all the
excitement about?" Boyd answered, "Oh, nothing," and added that
"they were going over to the factory." McConnell then entered the
bank and proceeded to one of the back rooms. There, he testified, he
saw Acree addressing the businessmen and heard him tell them that
"they (the respondent's employees) didn't want them in it . . . it was
the employees only."
67573-38-vol iv-65
1016 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the adjournment of the meeting at the bank, a meeting was
held in the respondent's office at the Milan plant. This meeting was
presided over by Mildred Bryant and was attended by some of the
employees who had met with her early that morning, including Acree,
Boyd, Charlie Fields, Ruth Williams, Dave Kestner, and Ada Mae
Kestner, as well as by other employees. McConnell came to this
meeting shortly before it was concluded. At this meeting the em-
ployees who had circulated the petitions prepared with the aid of
Bryant early that morning, deposited their signed copies of the
petition on a desk in the respondent's office. What became of this
petition thereafter, the record does not show. During this meeting
Bryant stated that if the Amalgamated organized the respondent's
Milan employees and the respondent granted a wage increase, it
"couldn't pay it and the plant would close and the best thing they
could do was to organize, get a union of their own." She also stated
"that she nor Charlie Fields nor any of the office girls could take
part" because of their official positions with the respondent. There-
upon plans were laid for the formation of a labor organization and
the meeting was adjourned.
immediately thereafter Boyd and McConnell began looking for an
attorney to, aid the group in carrying out its plans. McConnell
testified that someone passed a slip containing the names of three
Trenton, ,Tennessee, lawyers, to him when he was leaving the plant.
Where this slip originated, McConnell did not know. He testified
that he and Boyd immediately proceeded to Trenton to interview
these lawyers. Dissatisfied with their interviews with two of the
lawyers, they returned to Trenton on the following day to see the
third lawyer, Robert P. Adams. McConnell testified that they were
anxious to get a good lawyer, because they "didn't want to leave any
loop-holes for the C. I. 0." McConnell and Boyd were impressed
with Adams, even though they knew that his only previous experi-
ence in labor matters involved representing owners of cotton mills in
labor disputes with their employees. Immediately after interviewing
Adams, McConnell and Boyd went to the home of Irene Bryant, an
employee of the respondent and a sister of Mildred Bryant, to report
to a group of employees there on the results of their search for an
attorney.
Arrangements having previously been made with Odell Fields or
Mayor Cresswell for the use of the Masonic Hall of Milan by the
group interested in forming the labor organization, a meeting for all
of the respondent's employees was held at that Hall late in the
afternoon on May 19. Before this meeting was held, the employees
were urged to attend by Charlie Fields and by Martha Solomon, a
forelady. Early in the afternoon of May 19, Solomon asked Louise
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1017
Daniel, one of the employees, if she was going to attend. Daniel
testified: "I said, `I don't know whether I am or not.' She (Solo-
mon) says, `Aren't you interested enough in your work to want to go
and know what it is all about ?' I said, `I am working, ain't IV
And she said, 'Well, I would go then."' Fields approached Mattie
Meredith on the afternoon of May 19, and urged her to attend the
meeting and as well "to talk to all of the other girls and try to get
them to come." This meeting was attended not only by the respond-
ent's employees, but by businessmen and preachers of Milan as well
O'dell Fields was present and addressed the meeting and the preach-
ers did likewise. During this meeting an organization committee
consisting of Paul Kestner, Boyd, and McConnell, was chosen by the
employees. This committee was authorized to proceed with the
formal organization of a labor organization.
Immediately following its appointment the organization committee
went to Adams, employed him as its attorney, and asked him to draw
up a constitution and by-laws. Without the aid of any of the com-
mittee members, Adams immediately prepared a plan of organization
with rules and by-laws. Thereupon the organization committee called
a meeting of the employees for May 21. Employees were urged to
attend this meeting in the same manner as they were urged to attend
the meeting of May 19. The meeting of May 21, also held in the
Masonic Hall of Milan, was attended by more than 200 employees,
including Charlie Fields and other supervisory employees. At this
meeting the plan of organization with its rules and by-laws, formu-
lated by Adams, was read to the employees and approved. Thereupon
the original copy of the plan of organization with its rules and by-
laws was passed among the employees for formal adoption by signa-
ture. Employees were urged to sign by Fields. The plan of organi-
zation having been approved by practically all the employees pres-
ent, the Milan Association formally came into existence. The officers
and employee representatives of the Milan Association provided for
in the plan of organization were immediately chosen and inducted
into office. W. B. Foster, head machinist employed by the respondent,
was chosen president; John Acree, vice-president; and Irene Bryant,
secretary-treasurer. The employee representatives chosen were the
following: Paul Kestner; Irene Bryant; John H. Acree; Warmath
McConnell ; and Mrs. Virnell Davidson. Since the Milan Association,
under the provisions of its plan of organization, which will be fully
discussed at a later point, could not properly function before the
respondent had approved the plan, had appointed representatives as
provided therein, and had agreed to assume certain obligations set
forth therein, it was decided at the meeting on May 21 to present the
plan of organization immediately to the respondent for its acceptance
and approval in writing.
1018 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 22 a committee representing the Milan Association and
Adams met with Hedrick, the respondent's general superintendent. At
that time Adams laid before Hedrick the plan of organization of the
Milan Association and asked him to accept it and approve it in writ-
ing. Whether a list of those employees who had joined the Milan
Association was turned over to Hedrick at that time is not clear from
the record. All members of the committee testified that certain docu-
ments were turned over to Hedrick by Adams; some however were not
sure whether a list of members of the Milan Association was among
these documents. Foster, the president of the Milan Association, who
attended the meeting with Hedrick, testified at first that the list of
members was turned over to Hedrick at that time. After affirming
this testimony on numerous occasions, he retracted all that he had
said and testified that he did not know what documents were turned
over to Hedrick by Adams. Upon examination of the plan of organi-
zation of the Milan Association, Hedrick orally approved and accepted
it., Unauthorized to approve and accept the plan in writing, Hedrick
took a copy of the plan to Nashville and submitted it to Comer, the
respondent's president. On May 25 the respondent, through Comer,
notified the Milan Association that it had approved and accepted the
plan of organization in all respects, and furthermore, that it had ap-
pointed Hedrick and Jones, the latter being the respondent's secretary-
treasurer, as its bargaining representatives under the plan.
Immediately upon the receipt of this notification of approval and
acceptance of its plan of organization by the respondent, the Milan
Association posted the notification in the Milan plant and wired* the
respondent at Nashville "requesting and demanding that you oper-
ate factory here forty hours, five days per week beginning this week.715
On May 26, without having discussed this demand with the Milan
Association, the respondent wired the Milan Association as follows :
"Your wire of yesterday received we agree to the demand made
therein." Although some of the employees thereafter worked five days,
40 hours per week, not all of them were put on this schedule. On
June 1 the representatives of the Milan Association, accompanied by
Adams, went to Nashville in Mayor Cress-,,ell's car, and there met with
Jones and Hedrick. The Milan Association at that time asked the re-
spondent for a 10 per cent wage increase for both time and piece work-
ers. On June 3 Hedrick came to Milan, called together all of the
representatives of the Milan Association at the plant on that day, and
notified them that the respondent had granted their request for a wage
increase.
'- At that time the respondent was operating the Milan plant eight hours per day, three
days per week, operations having been cut down from five to three per week on or about
April 23.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1019
Among those employees who joined the Milan Association on
May 21 were a number who had previously signed application cards
for membership in the Amalgamated. However, the bulk of those
employees who had previously signed such application cards failed
to join the Milan Association on that day. These employees, as well
as others who failed to join on May 21, were thereafter made the
object of a drive for membership in the Milan Association. This
drive was openly carried on in the Milan plant during working hours
by Foster and Charlie Fields. The activities of Foster and Fields
in this connection are clearly portrayed in the record before us.
Fields spent a considerable part of his time urging the employees
in his department as well as in other departments to join the Milan
Association. He told them, among other things, that the respond-
ent would close down the Milan plant as it had closed down the
Nashville plants on May 1 if they did not join the Milan Association
and if the Amalgamated won out. In urging one of the employees to
join the Milan Association, Fields stated that joining "would be the
best thing that ever happened" to her, and added that if she knew
"what he knew" she "would run to sign the card (in the Milan
Association)." Lillian Fuchs, a presser working under Fields testi-
fied: ". . . Charlie Fields asked me to join the home union
(Milan Association) ... and I asked him then if I didn't what
would he do to us. He said it would be hard, he would hate
to see us girls get into trouble." Essie McAlexander, another em-
ployee who had been approached on numerous occasions by Fields
and had been urged by him to join the Milan Association, testified
that on one occasion Fields said "he was not satisfied for me to go
home without signing a card." When Fields was successful in per-
suading an employee to join the Milan Association, he immediately
sent for Foster who "signed up" that employee.
Several days after the Milan Association came into existence Fields
discussed it at a restaurant in Milan with Pauline Bennett, an em-
ployee in the playsuit department. Bennett testified :
Q. What did he (Fields) have to say on that occasion?
A. Well, he just said the factory would shut down if the
girls didn't sign up.
Q. Did he offer you a card at that time?
A. No; he said I could get one at the factory from Mr. Dietz.
That all of the records of the Milan Association, including its
membership cards, were at times in the constructive possession of
Dietz is clear from the testimony of Foster. Foster, who as chief
machinist had ready access to the respondent's office, testified that
he from time to time kept all of the records of the Milan Association
1020 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in a desk in the respondent's office. Furthermore, Bryant -admitted
that at least on one occasion she placed the records of the Milan
Association in the respondent's safe. Foster, like Fields, openly
urged the employees to join the Milan Association during working
hours. The record indicates that Foster used the respondent's office
as the headquarters of the Milan Association and clearly shows that
he at least on one occasion there, in presence of Hedrick and Dietz,
"signed up" an employee for membership.
Foster did not restrict himself to urging the employees to join
the Milan Association, but also promised them benefits in return.
This clearly appears from the testimony of Herbert Bandy, a mem-
ber of the Amalgamated. Until shortly before the hearing in this
proceeding Bandy worked as a belt boy, assigned to Boyd, and took
orders from Boyd as well as Foster, Boyd's superior. About a week
prior to the hearing Ault, the foreman in charge of the stitching
room, upon orders from Dietz, assigned Bandy to work as a bundle-
boy and told him to work for Boyd in his spare time. Bandy on
numerous occasions thereafter complained to representatives of the
Milan Association that he was being worked too hard. Nothing,
however, came of his complaints. Bandy testified :
Q. Mr. Foster has never told you anything in regard to your
work, and the lessening of your work, should you do certain
things?
A. Yes, sir, he told me if I would sign up his card, his Union,
that he would make it easy on me.
Q. Nov, you said Foster told you if you joined his associa-
tion that he would take it up with the Committee and see what
he could do for you?
A. He said he would make it light on me.
Q. Sir?
A. He said he would make it easy on me.
Q. By taking it up with his committee?
A. He didn't say anything about the Committee.
Hostile toward the Amalgamated and sympathetic toward the
Milan Association, Mayor Cresswell also devoted some of his time to
urging the employees who had not yet joined the Milan Associa-
tion to "sign up" with that organization. He visited some of these
employees at their homes, had others come to his office, and told
them that joining the Milan Association was "the thing to do."
Although the record does not indicate whether other town officials
of Milan actively sought to increase the membership of the Milan
Association, it does clearly show that they as well as the Milan
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1021
businessmen all favored that organization as against the Amal-
gamated. Thus the businessmen displayed placards in the windows
of their establishments reading as follows :
We Are 100% For The Organization of Milan Employees
Association A Local, Southern, White American Organization-
And against C. I. O. and all other Communistic or outside labor
interference.
On May 24, just three days after the Milan Association was or-
ganized, the respondent began discharging its playsuit department
employees. By May 27 it had discontinued all its playsuit opera-
tions and had discharged practically all its employees who had bit n
employed on such operations. Those employees who had been en-
gaged in cutting cloth for playsuits and those who had been engaged
in finishing playsuits were not discharged. Between May 24 and
May 27 the former were assigned to cutting cloth for work shirts,
while the latter were assigned to finishing work shirts. As the re-
spondent discharged its playsuit department employees, it drafted
some of the workers in that department for use on work shirts.
Several of the playsuit department employees who were discharged
between May 24 and May 27 were reinstated to employment on
work shirts on the day following their discharge, while others were
reinstated to such work within several days thereafter. By May 31
the respondent had reinstated 14 of its playsuit department em-
ployees and had assigned them to employment on work shirts. Be-
tween June 1 and June 24 the respondent had similarly reinstated
29 other of its playsuit department employees. On June 21 the
respondent added four employees to its work shirt department, these
having been hired for the first time since the closing of the playsuit
department. At the close of the hearing in this proceeding the re-
spondent had not resumed operations in the playsuit department
and a considerable number of its playsuit department employees were
still out of work.
Although the organization of the Milan Association, followed
by the closing of the playsuit department, an Amalgamated strong-
hold, dealt a serious blow to the efforts of the Amalgamated to
organize the Milan employees, the bulk of the employees who had
previously joined the Amalgamated continued their association with
that organization and participated in its affairs. On or about June
14 a campaign was started to reduce the Amalgamated to innocuous-
ness as an organizational movement among the Milan employees.
At the meeting of the Milan Association on May 21 several em-
ployees who had previously joined the Amalgamated had asked how
they might effect their withdrawals. At that time Adams, the
1022 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
attorney for the Milan Association, announced that he would pre-
pare a letter to be signed by members of the Amalgamated who
wanted to withdraw. Such a letter was formulated by Adams
shortly before June 14, and was given by him to members-of the
Milan Association, who drew up similar letters therefrom.
These letters, addressed to the headquarters of the Amalgamated at
Nashville, all contained a statement that the signer desired to revoke
his signature previously placed upon an application for membership
in the Amalgamated. Between June 14 and June 30 McConnell,
Boyd, and Virnell Davidson solicited signatures to these letters
among the members of the Amalgamated at the Milan plant during
working hours. By June 30, 36 of the employees had placed their
signatures upon these letters.
The Milan Association
The complaint alleges that the respondent dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of the Milan Associa-
tion, contributed support to that organization, and thereby engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the
Act. In its answer the respondent,flatly denied that it had engaged
in any unfair labor practices in connection with the formation and
administration of the Milan Association. Upon a careful review of
the record before us we find that the aforementioned allegation of
the complaint finds ample support in the evidence.
We have, seen that the meeting in the respondent's office in the Milan
plant on Saturday morning, May 15, was the first step in the organi-
zation of the Milan Association. The unusual circumstances under
which this meeting was held, as well as the prominent part played
by Mildred Bryant in this meeting, clearly leads us to conclude,
despite Bryant's testimony to the contrary, that Bryant called the
meeting. We are led to the same conclusion with respect to the
meeting held in the respondent's office at the Milan plant on the same
night. We have seen that Bryant during the first meeting told the
employees present that if the rest of the employees wanted their own
organization "it was all well and good" and that she would assist,
them in getting such an organization started. She also, during this
meeting, helped prepare a petition for circulation among the em-
ployees to test their sentiment with respect to the organization of a
local labor organization and told the employees present "that it was
all right for . . . them to carry it around." At the second meeting
these petitions were obviously turned over to Bryant and Bryant
suggested to the employees present that in view of the presence of the
Amalgamated among the Milan employees, "the best thing they could
do was to organize, get a union of their own." The movement which
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1023
culminated in the formation of the Milan Association on May 21,
having been put well on its way by the conduct of Bryant on May 15,
her further participation therein became unnecessary. It is clear
to us that Bryant planted the idea of a local labor organization in
the minds of the Milan employees and that but for her conduct on
May 15 neither the Milan Association nor any other local labor
organization would probably ever have come into existence.
The responsibility for Bryant's conduct clearly rests with the re-
spondent. Her activities carried on in the respondent's place of
business are as attributable to the respondent as would be similar
activities on the part of Dietz, the respondent's resident superintend-
ent of the Milan plant. Bryant's position with the respondent and
her authority clearly identify her as a representative of the manage-
ment in the dealings with the employees. Bryant occupies the same
private office with Dietz and is in constant contact with him. She
acts as Dietz's private secretary and in some measure as his admin-
istrative assistant. She also has charge of the respondent's office
workers and at times interviews applicants for employment. The
record is clear that on at least one occasion she rehired an em-
ployee after that employee had been laid off by Dietz. She has in
her possession the keys to the Milan plant and to the respondent's
office therein. As is clear from her conduct on May 15 she has the
authority to use the respondent's offices for any purpose. That she
possesses at least the power to recommend the discharge of any em-
ployee is apparent from her remarks to a group of the respondent's
Milan employees during April 1937.18 At that time, as we have seen,
Bryant called a meeting of the employees in the Milan plant, during
working hours, and told them that they would have to pay up their
obligations to the Milan Company if they wanted to continue work-
ing for the respondent. Finally, although Bryant testified at the
hearing, she did not deny having stated at the meeting on the night of
May 15, "that she nor Charlie Fields nor any of the office girls could
take part" in the actual formation of a labor organization because of
their official positions with the respondent.
When Bryant on the morning of May 15 told the employees that
"it was all right" for them to circulate the petition which she helped
to prepare, they immediately responded to her suggestion. That
these employees knew that the petition was being circulated for the
respondent's benefit and at its suggestion is clear from the testimony
of Acree. As we have already stated Acree testified that the petition
was circulated because "we didn't want them (the Amalgamated
organizers) to get out here and run around at twelve or one o'clock
19 Ault, the foreman In charge of the stitching department , testified also that Bryant had
the power to recommend to Dietz that an employee be discharged.
1024 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at night, and solicit these members and the factory not know it."
Furthermore, when the copies of the petition had been signed by
the employees, they were put on a desk in the respondent's office.
The speed with which the employees circulated the petition and the
speed with which they set out to organize the Milan Association upon
the suggestion of Bryant is highly indicative of their respect for her
authority. That the respondent's Nashville officers at least knew of
Bryant's activities if they had not actually ordered them, is clearly
indicated by Hedrick's personal call to Bryant at the plant on the
night of May 15, at a time when the plant was normally closed and
when the respondent's .Nashville officers had no reason to believe that
anyone would be at the plant, much less Bryant specifically.
Among those who were present at and participated in the meetings
in the respondent's offices on May 15 was another besides Bryant who
was vested with the cloak of management, namely Charlie Fields.
Fields claimed at the hearing that he was merely an employee work-
ing in the finishing department and that he had no supervisory
powers. It is clear from the testimony of innumerable witnesses,
however, that Fields was in charge of the finishing department, that
he instructed the employees in that department and supervised their
work. Employees who worked in the finishing department identi'
fled Fields as their foreman and instructor and testified that they
took orders from him. Employees in other departments clearly rec-
ognized Fields as a foreman. Further, whereas employees generally
in the finishing department are paid on a quota basis, Fields is paid
by the hour and his pay is not dependent on the amount of work
which he turns out. Moreover, his rate of pay is considerably higher
than that of any other employee in the finishing department. Again,
Fields had the authority to tell the employees in the finishing depart-
ment when to come to work and when to cease work. One witness
testified that she had been laid off by Fields on one occasion. Al-
though Fields testified that he did not have the power to hire and
discharge any of the employees in the finishing department, it is
clear from the testimony of other witnesses that he did possess
tantamount power, in that he could call Dietz's attention to the fact,
that someone should be hired or discharged.
In addition to his participation in the meetings with Bryant in the
respondent's offices on May 15, at which the idea of a local labor
organization was born, and in addition to his activities in connection
with the petition prepared on that day, Fields thereafter played an
active part in the actual formation of such a labor organization.
We have seen that he, during working hours, urged the respondent's
employees to attend the meetings held on May 19 and May 21, that
he participated in both of these meetings, and that he, at the latter
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1025
meeting, urged the employees present to sign the plan of organization,
rules, and by -laws of the Milan Association . For these activities of
Fields the respondent is responsible.
The respondent is also responsible for the activities of Martha
Solomon. At the time of the organization of the Milan Association,
Solomon was a forelady in the stitching department , having, like
Fields, virtual power to hire and discharge . We have seen that she,
like Fields , urged the employees to attend the meetings of May 19
and May 21 which resulted in the formation of the Milan Association.
Even were Nye to assume , which we cannot under the facts before
us, that these activities of Bryant , Fields, and Solomon were un-
authorized by Dietz and by the other officials of the respondent, the
approval and acceptance of the plan of organization of the Milan
Association by such officials , with the obvious knowledge of the cir-
cumstances under which it was brought into existence , clearly con-
stitutes a ratification by the respondent of the activities of these
persons. On the basis of all of the foregoing considerations, we
find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the forma-
tion of the Milan Association.
That the respondent contributed to the support of the Milan Asso-
ciation after its formation is clear. It permitted the Milan Associa-
tion to use its bulletin boards to announce that it had approved and
accepted the plan of organization of the Milan Association , and also
permitted the Milan Association to keep its records in , its offices. It
furthermore openly countenanced the activities of Foster and Fields
in connection with the drive for membership in the Milan Associa-
tion during working hours.
It appears also that the expenses of the employees ' representatives
of the Milan Association on their trip to Nashville to negotiate with
the respondent were paid by the respondent . Section 9 ( e) of the
plan of organization rules and by -laws of the Milan Association,
approved and accepted by the respondent, provides in part as follows :
The company shall arrange a suitable place for the regular
and called meetings of the joint committee ( composed of em-
ployee and employer representatives ) and the expense of which
and which are necessarily incident to the discharge of the duties
of the joint committee shall be paid by the company . . .
At the hearing Foster , the president of the Milan Association,
testified :
Q. Now Mr. Foster , will you explain the purpose of that Sec-
tion ( 9e) of your by-laws?
A. Well, the Company Union-I mean the company repre-
sentatives and the Association 's representatives, if they had to
1026 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
travel to Nashville, or the . . . company had to come down here;
there is an expense involved, and why shouldn't they take care
of it.
Q. In other words, if there were an expense incidental to
collective bargaining it was your intention that the company
should pay it?
A. Of course.
That the respondent has dominated and interfered with the admin-
istration of the Milan Association at all times since its formation is
clear from the membership and participation of the respondent's sup-
ervisory employees in the Association. Foster, Fields, Solomon, and
Mildred Bryant, all joined the Milan Association at or shortly after
its inception. The supervisory character of the employment of each
of these employees except Foster has already been discussed. Foster
admitted at the hearing that he was the chief machinist of the Milan
plant and that he had two employees working for him. His high
station in the respondent's employ is clearly indicated by the fact
that he, next to Dietz, is the highest paid employee in the Milan plant.
Further, whereas all of the other employees except Dietz are paid on
a quota or hourly basis, Foster is paid on a monthly salary basis.
All of the aforementioned supervisory employees, except probably
Mildred Bryant, participated in the meeting of Milan Association on
May 21 at which the officers and employee representatives were
elected. We have seen that Foster was elected president. He there-
after participated in negotiations with the respondent's representa-
tives under the plan of organization of the Milan Association. At no
time did the respondent raise any objection to the membership of its
supervisory employees in or their active participation in the affairs
of the Milan Association. Further, immediately after the complaint
in this proceeding was issued, the Milan Association met and decided
to hire an attorney to represent it in the proceedings before the Board.
Although it is not clear from the record whether all of the respond-
ent's supervisory employees who were members of the Milan Associa-
tion attended this meeting it is clear at least that Ault, the foreman
of the stitching department, and who at the hearing identified himself
as being next in authority to Dietz at the Milan plant, attended and
participated.
By the membership of the respondent's supervisory officials in the
Milan Association and by the participation of these supervisory
officials in the affairs of the Milan Association, the respondent has
dominated and interfered with and is dominating and interfering
with the administration of that organization.
An examination of the plan of organization of the Milan Associa-
tion clearly reveals that this instrument insures to the respondent
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1027
continued domination of and interference with the administration
of the Milan Association. In addition to providing for an em-
ployees' committee composed of five representatives chosen by the
members of the Milan Association, the plan further provides that
"the company shall be requested to appoint at least two manage-
ment's representatives . . ." Under the plan of organization the
employees' representatives and the management's representatives
"constitute a joint committee which shall select its own chairman
and officers and arrange their own procedure." The plan sets forth,-
in detail the functions of this joint committee. Only a few of these
need here be pointed out as indicating a vested right in the respond-
ent to participate in the internal affairs of the Milan Association. By
the plan it is provided that the joint committee shall "direct and
supervise" and shall act as a committee of judges of all elections of
the Milan Association; and further, that "in event of a controversy
concerning any nomination or election, it shall be referred to and
be decided by the joint committee, which may make such provisions
as considered necessary for assisting any voter, who may so request,
in properly marking the ballot." Section 12 of the plan gives the
respondent a vested right in the perpetuation of the Milan Associa-
tion as originally organized. This section reads as follows :
Section 12. Amendments : This plan, rules, and by-laws may
be amended in any respect at any meeting and which amendment
shall become valid and binding only when approved by the com-
pany's representatives and at least two of the employees'
representatives.
We are asked to believe from the testimony of witnesses for the
respondent as well as the Milan Association, that Adams was hired to
prepare the plan of organization in good faith by McConnell and
Boyd acting solely on behalf of and in the interest of the employees.
We have already herein set forth the mysterious circumstances under
which the name of Adams was suggested to McConnell and Boyd at
the close of the meeting in the respondent's office on the night of
May 15, and as well the qualifications of Adams which particularly
recommended him to McConnell. The circumstances under. which
Adams was hired, when viewed in the light of the provisions of the
plan of organization prepared by him without any aid from the
employees, lead us to believe that Adams was hired to champion
the interests not so much of the respondent's employees as of the
respondent itself.
In any event, by dominating and interfering with the approval of
the plan of organization by its employees, the respondent clearly
adopted the provisions of the plan as its own. The provisions of the
plan looking toward the participations by the respondent in the
1028 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 'B OARD
internal affairs of the Milan Association invite the respondent to
violate Section 8 (2) of the Act. The limitations expressed in Sec-
tion 12 of the plan of organization constitute a continuing form of
domination and interference by the respondent with the adminis-
tration of the Milan Association.
We find that the respondent by dominating and interfering with
the formation and administration of the Milan Association and
contributing financial and other support to it, has engaged and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(2) of the Act, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and
coerced, and is thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing,
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
The closing of the playsuit department
The complaint alleges that the respondent by closing its playsuit
department discriminatorily locked out its employees in that depart-
ment in order to discourage membership in the Amalgamated. In its
answer the respondent alleged that it "did not shut down the playsuit
division of the plant or discharge and lock out any of its employees
in that division because of any affiliation or interest they might
have had in any union." It further alleged that "the normal season
in that division had ended and respondent had a big stock and sup-
ply of finished products on hand and production had been reduced
to the minimum."
These allegations, although verified by L. H. Jones, the respond-
ent's secretary-treasurer, were not supported at the hearing by the
testimony of Jones or any of the other officers or officials of the
respondent who were responsible for the decision to close as well as
the actual closing of the playsuit department. The respondent was
content to rest its case on the testimony of several witnesses that the
respondent had a large inventory of finished playsuits at the Milan
plant at the time the playsuit department was closed, that it was cus-
tomary to close that department for a short time during the summer
months of each year, and that both members of the Amalgamated
and members 'of the Milan Association were discharged in connection
with the closing. Although some of these witnesses (Fields and
Foster) were supervisory employees, none had participated in the
respondent's decision to close the department and could not in con -
sequence testify, within their knowledge, that the respondent had
closed the department for the reasons alleged in the respondent's
answer. The record is thus void of any testimony by any responsible
officer or official that the respondent did close its playsuit division
for the reasons alleged. The failure of the respondent to give any
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1029
direct testimony on this point, when viewed in the light of other
considerations hereinafter set forth, leads us to the conclusion that
the respondent closed down the playsuit department and discharged
its employees in that department in order to discourage membership
in the Amalgamated.
That the respondent harbored a bitter hostility toward any form
of real collective activity among its employees and especially toward
the activities of its employees in the Amalgamated, we have already,
seen from its conduct at Nashville. As soon as its Milan. employees
showed an interest in joining the Amalgamated, the respondent re-
vealed this hostility toward these employees. On April 20, 1937,
immediately after a group of employees, including Bishop and Gil-
ley, two playsuit department employees, had decided to invite an
organizer of the Amalgamated to come to Milan, Harris, as we have
seen, told Gilley that he was "agitating labor," that he was in con-
sequence "on the spot," and that the best thing for him to do was
"to be quiet." On May 4, just three days after the respondent's
Nashville plants had closed and immediately after Dietz, the resi-
dent superintendent of the Milan plant, had heard a rumor based
upon certain remarks of Bishop that an organizer of the Amalga-
mated was coming to Milan on the following day, Dietz approached
Bishop and told him not to "let that get started" and not to "have
anything to do with that," that Hedrick, the general superintendent,
was going to put him in charge of the playsuit department, but that
ound out that Bishop had let the organiza-he would no do so' if he found"
tion of the Milan employees in the Amalgamated "get started" and
if he in any way "had anything to do" with such organization. Im-^
mediately after the Amalgamated began organizing the Milan em
ployees on May 13, the respondent through Bryant and othe rs" set
out to head off the movement toward the Amalgamated by gettin3b 1
the employees to sign a petition in which they pledged themselves
not to do anything about joining a labor organization until the
following week and signified their interest in the formation of a local
labor organization. The respondent's actual participation in the
formation of this local labor organization-the Milan Association-
we have already set forth in detail. The primary purpose of the
Milan Association-to assist the respondent in its war on the Amal-
gamated-is obvious' from the speed with which it was formed and
from all of the surrounding circumstances.
Further, Bryant specifically told the respondent's employees that
it was necessary to form a local labor organization in order to avoid
the closing of the Milan plant, which would follow if the Amalga-
mated' was successful in organizing the Milan employees. Immedi-
ately after the formation of the Milan Association, the respondent
1030 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
through its supervisory employees not only urged the employees to
join, but also threatened that the Milan plant would close down if
they did not join and if the Amalgamated in consequence won out.
Further, it was the playsuit department which showed the most
interest in the Amalgamated and in which the Milan Association was
able to make the least headway. Dissatisfaction with working con-
ditions at the Milan plant, although general among the respondent's
Milan employees, was especially acute among the playsuit depart-
ment employees. Shortly before the Amalgamated organizers came
to Milan, these employees were talking of a strike to secure better
working conditions. Obviously inclined to organization, they im-
mediately responded to the opportunity to join the Amalgamated.
Prior to May 21, the day on which the Milan Association came into
existence, a considerable number had joined. On May 21 about 50
of approximately 110 playsuit department employees joined the Milan
Association. Among these were a group of about 15 who had pre-
viously joined the Amalgamated. The bulk of the playsuit depart-
ment employees who had previously joined the Amalgamated failed
to join the Milan Association. After May 21 not more than 7 other
playsuit department employees joined the Milan Association. Among
these also were four employees who had previously joined the Amal-
gamated.
The efforts of the Amalgamated to organize the respondent's
Milan employees did not cease with the organization of the Milan
Association. On the days immediately following May 21, and before
the respondent began discharging its playsuit department employees,
Bishop continued his activities on behalf of the Amalgamated and
succeeded in persuading several more of these employees to join
the Amalgamated. Among these were some who had already joined
the Milan Association. Indicative of the strength of the Amal-
gamated among the playsuit department employees is a list submit-
ted in evidence by the Amalgamated at the hearing, containing the
names of 63 playsuit department employees who had joined the
Amalgamated at one time or another.
The organization of the Milan Association having obviously failed
to accomplish its purpose. in the playsuit department, the respondent
began on May 24 to discharge the employees in that department.
The record indicates that some were discharged on.May 24, May 25,
and May 26, but that the majority were discharged on May 27. The
record indicates that the discharge of these employees followed no
definite order. Previously, in the case of shut-downs, the employees
on primary operations were discharged first and then those in order
on secondary and succeeding operations. Furthermore, no notice was
given to any of the employees prior to their discharge that the re-
spondent was closing the playsuit department.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1031
Again, the fact that the respondent had not intended to close the
department during the late spring or early summer of 1937, as it
had done in previous years, is strongly indicated by the following
uncontradicted testimony of Bishop :
Q. In the Spring of 1937, did you have a conversation with Mr.
Dietz concerning the playsuit division?
A. Well, not especially a conversation. He told me that
playsuits would be better this summer than they had-been, they
were going to make a new kind.
Q. Did he say what new kind?
A. No, he didn't say. It was a kind to take the place of the,
summer blow up.
Although both members and non-members of the Amalgamated
were affected by the closing of the playsuit department, the majority
affected were members of the Amalgamated. We have seen that some-
of the employees were soon reinstated to employment on work shirts,
and that shortly afterwards others were given similar employment.
Of the 43 employees who were so reinstated 3 were neither members
of the Amalgamated nor of the Milan Association; 11 were members
of both organizations ; 22 were members solely of the Milan Asso-
ciation; and only 5 were members solely of the, Amalgamated. Of
the 11 who were members of both organizations, the majority had
joined the Amalgamated first and had joined the Milan Association,
just before the playsuit department closed. These figures reveal that
of those reinstated the overwhelming proportion were members of-
the Milan Association.
Although work shirt operations -are in some cases ,identical, or at
least similaN , to some of the playsuit operations, only about half of
the playsuit department employees who were reinstated to employ-'
ment on work shirts were put on operations similar to those in which
they had engaged in the playsuit department. That the employees
who were members of the Milan Association and who were reinstated
to employment on work shirts were better "all around" operators
than the members of the Amalgamated who comprise the bulk of the
playsuit department employees not reinstated, does not appear from.
the record. There is testimony, however, to show that several oper-
ators who had had much experience on both playsuit and work shirt
operations were not reinstated. These were members of the Amalga-
mated. Furthermore, Bishop who had obviously been singled out for
promotion to foreman of the playsuit department by the respondent,,
apparently because of his "all-around" ability in the department, was
not reinstated.
That the respondent knew which of its employees were members,
of the Milan Association is clear from its relations with that organiza-
07573-38-vol iv-66
1032 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion. That the respondent's conduct in reinstating mainly employees
who were members of the Milan Association, not merely tended to
discourage membership in the Amalgamated and at'the same time to
encourage membership in the Milan Association, but was also calcu-
lated to accomplish those ends, appears plain to us. Enlightening
testimony on this point is that of Lela Mae Chapman, a member of
the Amalgamated who was not reinstated to employment on work
shirts. Shortly before the hearing in this proceeding, Chapman had
a conversation with Cresswell, the Mayor of Milan. During this
conversation, Cresswell asked Chapman why she was not at work.
Upon answering "because the playsuit department is closed down,"
Cresswell asked if she had joined the Milan Association. When Chap-
man answered that she had not, Cresswell remarked, You had better
go up there and ask them to let you sign it (the Milan Association
plan of organization) then maybe you will go back to work."
The respondent's conduct in closing its playsuit department and in
discharging its employees in that department must again be in-
terpreted in the light of its evident determination to destroy the
Amalgamated. The shutting down of this department, the stronghold
of the Amalgamated, under unusual circumstances, and immediately
after the respondent had failed to eliminate the Amalgamated through
the formation of the Milan Association, plainly appears to us as a
resort by the respondent to a lock-out in order to fully accomplish
what it had failed to accomplish by other means.
On the basis of all of the aforementioned considerations we conclude
that the respondent by closing down its playsuit department and by
discharging its employees in that department, discriminated in regard
to hire and tenure of employment of such employees in order to dis-
courage membership in the Amalgamated. By its conduct the re-
spondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent's responsibility for the acts of interference by the
businessmen and Mayor of Milan
We have seen that R. W. Comer, the chairman of the Board of
Directors of the respondent, came to Milan on May 15, just four days
after the Nashville plants had closed down, and just one day after a
rumor had spread among the Milan employees that an organizer of
the Amalgamated was on his way to Milan. On that day Comer inet
with a group of Milan businessmen as well as with the Milan em-
ployees. That Comer at that time told the businessmen that the
respondent would close down the Milan plant if the Amalgamated
came in and organized the Milan employees, can readily be inferred
from the remarks attributed at the hearing by Handy to Haney, one
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1033
of the businessmen who had acted as Comer's host. Handy, as we
have already pointed out, testified: ". . . At that time (May 15, 1937)
Mr. Haney said that he knew positively that they would close down,
and I asked him how he knew positively, and he said that a group
of businessmen (including Haney) had been to see Mr. (R. W.)
Comer had said it would close down if the . . . Amalgamated organ-
ized." That Comer on the occasion of his visit to Milan enlisted the
aid of the Milan businessmen in the respondent's cause against the
Amalgamated is clearly indicated by his remarks to the Milan em-
ployees after he had spent a considerable portion of the day with the
Milan businessmen. From the uncontradicted testimony of Bishop, it
is clear that Comer during that address stated that "he had met up
with businessmen, citizens of Milan, and they were very fine people."
`Then," according to Bishop, "lie went on to say that if . . . the em-
ployees ever needed any advice, to go to the good citizens of Milan,
that there would be people around to try to lure . . . them into things
... (that they) didn't know anything about, and for advice to confer
with . . . (the) businessmen of Milan."
That the activities of Comer resulted in active interference by
various Milan businessmen as well as by the Mayor of Milan with
the exercise of the right of the Milan employees to join and assist a
labor organization of their own choosing, is not surprising. As we
have already pointed out O'dell Fields, a Milan dentist, on May 14
told the Amalgamated organizers that it would be best for them to
leave Milan. On May 19 he addressed a meeting of the employees
at which the organization of the Milan Association was discussed.
O'dell Fields also played an active part in the preparation of inflam-
matory literature directed against the Amalgamated. This litera-
ture was distributed by a supervisory employee of the respondent and
by others among the respondent's Milan employees during the course
of the hearing Further, after the Milan Association came into ex-
istence, Cresswell, the Mayor of Milan, urged the respondent's em-
ployees to join that organization, while various businessmen of Milan
displayed placards in their show-windows indicating their sympathy
toward the Milan Association and their disrespect for the Amal-
gamated.
All of the aforementioned activities of the Milan businessmen and
of the Mayor of Milan constitutes a deliberate and drastic interfer-
ence with the exercise of the right of the respondent's employees to
join a labor organization of their own choosing. Responsibility for
these activities must rest with the respondent. Having enlisted the
aid of these men in its war on the Amalgamated and having incited
them to action by its threats to close down the Milan plant if the
Amalgamated organized its employees at that plant, the respondent
must bear the responsibility for their conduct. We find that through
1034 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the activities of the Milan businessmen and of the Mayor of Milan, the
respondent has interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. At Glasgow, Kentucky
During the week prior to May 24, 1937, the Amalgamated sent sev-
eral of its organizers to Glasgow for the purpose of making an organi-
zational survey among the employees at the Glasgow plant. During
this week the businessmen of Glasgow, under the leadership of Ed
Kerley, secretary of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce and secre-
tary of the Glasgow Industrial Foundation'17 began a campaign to
organize a local labor organization for the purpose of preventing the
Amalgamated from gaining any foothold among the respondent's
Glasgow employees. Kerley testified that he had been interested in
getting such a local organization started a long time before the Amal-
gamated made its Glasgow survey; that his interest in the matter was
a purely personal one, prompted, however, by his appraisal of the
reaction of other employers to the advent of the Amalgamated among
their employees. He testified that he had met W. Gordon McKelvie,
secretary-counselor of the Southern Garment Manufacturers Asso-
ciation, in Louisville, during the early part of May, 1937, at which
time he discussed with him the formation of a local labor organization
among the respondent's,aGlasgow employees. He did nothing with
respect to the creation of such a labor organization, however, until
the week prior to May 24, 1937. It appears that he had several con-
ferences with the businessmen of Glasgow during that week; that
the businessmen pledged their support to any movement toward the
formation of a labor organization; that it was suggested by the busi-
nessmen that Robert S. Terry, employed as a bundle boy by the re-
spondent at the Glasgow plant, head such a movement; and that
immediately thereafter Kerley met with Terry to discuss the pro-
cedure to be followed in getting a labor organization started.
The first meeting between Terry and Kerley took place on May 19
or 20, 1937, at the offices of Kerley. Kerley promised Terry financial
and other aid in forming a labor organization and suggested that an
attorney be employed to formulate a plan of organization. After the
names of several Glasgow attorneys were suggested to Terry it was
decided that Richard L. Garnett be retained. Terry immediately
called Garnett and arranged to have the latter meet with the em-
ployees. Although it was planned to have this meeting on May 21,
no meeting was actually held until the evening of May 24.
17 The Glasgow Industrial Foundation was organized approximately nine years ago for
the purpose of building the plant which the respondent now occupies at Glasgow All of
the businessmen of Glasgow own stock in the Foundation . Under an agreement between
the respondent and the Foundation , the respondent has at all times since the plant was
built occupied it free of all rent and taxes.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1035
Early in the morning on May 24 Bess Cunningham, an organizer
for the Amalgamated , came to Glasgow and immediately set out to
organize the respondent 's employees there. During the afternoon of
that day word was spread among the employees that a meeting for
the purpose of organizing a local organization would be held at the
High School auditorium at Glasgow that evening . This meeting was
held at 7:30 o'clock and was attended by a considerable number of
the respondent 's employees , including Jennie Mae Adwell , a forelady,
and Nina Pedigo, an office employee and wife of the resident super-
intendent of the Glasgow plant. The meeting was called to order by
Terry. Terry was thereupon elected temporary chairman and Zora
Stovall , a supply clerk , temporary secretary . Terry explained that
the purpose of the meeting was to form an organization for collective
bargaining among the Glasgow employees , and then called upon Gar-
nett to explain the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
Garnett spoke about these provisions in detail , informed the employees
of their right to form a local labor organization , and told them that
there was definite need for such an organization. Terry then read
the following resolution , obviously prepared by Garnett :
Whereas, under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, all
employees of manufacturers are permitted to organize an asso-
ciation to promote their own welfare , and to select representa-
tives or co -employees to negotiate with their employer for any
lawful purpose, particularly to the end that any grievances or
difference , real or imaginary , between employer and employee be
adjusted, and that mutual satisfactory working conditions be
achieved, and
Whereas, it is the belief of employees of the Washington Man-
ufacturing Company that their financial and physical interests
and their general welfare can be best promoted and conserved by
banding themselves together into an association of employees,
Now, therefore , we, the undersigned employees of the Washing-
ton Manufacturing Company , do hereby voluntarily agree to
become members of such an association and until such time as
said association is formed the following : R. S. Terry, Zora Sto-
vall, and Ed Crowe, shall be and they are hereby constituted a
special committee of employees to represent us, individually and
collectively , in bargaining or negotiating with our said employer.
At this point one of the employees asked Terry, "Who is going
to bear the expense of this Union , what dues do we have to pay?"
Terry answered, "You don't have to pay any , there won 't be any
dues. ... You can throw in a nickel or a dime along sometimes if you
want to for to buy the flowers for some one that is sick or a funeral ...
I think that would be nice." Thereupon , some one asked , "Who is
paying this lawyer?" Terry answered , "Well , the Chamber of Com-
1036 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
merce is paying our lawyer." A copy of the resolution read by Terry
was then passed among the employees for their signature. Before
the meeting was adjourned, it was announced that another meeting
would be held on the following night.
On May 25, during working hours, the resolution was passed- among
the employees for signature. In the course of work that morning
LaVerne Combs asked Aclwell, her forelady, whether she should join
the local association or the Amalgamated. Adwell replied that be-
cause of her position as head of a department she was not allowed
to give any advice, but added that if the employees "go C. I. 0." the
respondent would move from -Glasgow. On another occasion during
the same day, Adwell stated to a group of employees :
Well, I am not supposed to tell you all what to do (about sign-
ing the resolution) . . . I will tell you one thing, if you don't sign
the company's union or the local Union, whatever you want to
call it, the plant will move away from here and you will be left
sitting flat.
Throughout the entire day of May 25, during working hours, Ad-
well and Edna Mae Ring, another forelady, kept urging the em-
ployees to attend the meeting of the group organizing the local
association scheduled for that evening.
At four o'clock in the afternoon between 30 and 40 Glasgow business-
men, including Kerley, Gordon Brown, and George J. Ellis, met with
McKelvie at the offices of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce. This
meeting had been called by Kerley. Kerley testified that he had
phoned McKelvie at Nashville on the day previous and had invited
him to address the Glasgow business men on the subject of local em-
ployee organizations under the Wagner Act. Kerley also stated that
McKelvie had phoned him from Nashville on May 24 and 25 with
respect to the meeting. Board's Exhibit No. 54 shows that these
phone calls from McKelvie to Kerley were charged to and paid for
by the respondent. The record does not indicate the exact nature of
McKelvie's address at the meeting with the Glasgow businessmen.
Kerley testified that McKelvie explained the provisions of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act and told the businessmen that they had a,
right under the Act to aid the respondent's employees in the forma
tion of a local labor organization.
Immediately after this meeting Brown called on Ruby Bradshaw,
an employee of the respondent, allegedly for the purpose of examining
a refrigerator which he had sold her shortly before. With respect
to her conversation with Brown, Bradshaw testified :
He said, "Well, what happened up there at the factory today?"
I said, "Nothing special; why?", and he said, "Let me tell you
something, ... you folks get behind this Union, this local Union,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1037
and put it over . . . I have worried myself over it until I've got
a sick headache". I said, "Well, what is the trouble anyway?"
He said, "Well, it is just this . . . I have just come from a con-
ference of the businessmen meeting at the Chamber of Com-
merce, 51 of us have met there . . . there is a bunch of us went to
see Mr. Comer today and . . . Mr. Comer says "if you will put
this local Union over I will give you bigger and better things next
year; I will put you a bigger plant there. . . ." He (Comer}
says, "Now, this is confidential about the bigger plant but . . . I
will do bigger and better things for you, next year, but if you let
the C. I. O. come in.we will move the plant in twenty-four hours.'r
On the evening of May 25 the second meeting of the group inter-
ested in forming a local association was held at the High School audi-
torium. Jack Pedigo, resident superintendent of the Glasgow plant,.
Forelady Adwell, and various Glasgow businessmen were present.
Terry again presided. He explained that the purpose of the meeting
was to give the employees further information regarding the need for
organization and then called upon Garnett again to explain the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act and to list the benefits which a local
organization would afford the employees. Thereafter those employees,
who had not already signed the Terry resolution were given an oppor-
tunity to do so. They were urged to sign by Terry, who told them
they would have to sign in order to keep the respondent from moving
away from Glasgow. Before the meeting was concluded Terry
announced that another meeting would be held on the night of
May 27.
At 9: 30 on the morning of May 26 the employees, taking advantage
of the morning recess period, gathered in front of the Glasgow plant.
Several of the Glasgow businessmen, who had attended the meeting
at the Chamber of Commerce with McKelvie on the previous day,
came to the plant at about that time and began talking to the em-
ployees in small groups. The remarks of one of these, Ellis, are re-
lated by Bradshaw as follows :
Mr. Ellis said practically the same thing Mr. Brown said, about
that he said Mr. Comer said that he would move the plant if we let
the C. I. O. come in, but if we would support this local union that
he would give us bigger things next year, and he also in the talk
told of the organization of a home Union in Cookeville and its,
success, and how well it had worked and everybody was working
and everybody happy, and we could do the same thing if we
would put it over, and that the businessmen would back us in it.
Although the morning recess period normally lasted only ten
minutes, on the morning of May 26 the employees remained outside-
1038 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Glasgow plant for half an hour listening to the talks of the
Glasgow businessmen. The respondent made no effort to have the
employees return to their jobs until the businessmen concluded
their talks.
During the afternoon of May 26 Garnett, acting on behalf of
the employees interested in forming a local association; wired Guy
Comer, the respondent's president at Nashville, as follows :
Sixty per cent employees Washington Manufacturing Company
have organized under tentative name Southern Kentucky Gar-
ment Workers Association-We desire conference at early date to
discuss employee-employer contract-Will you meet us for that
purpose-Wire Western Union reply.
At the time this wire was sent to the respondent, 60 per cent oi
the Glasgow employees had signed the Terry resolution, appointing
'Terry, Stovall, and Crowe as a temporary committee to bargain with
the respondent. Between seven and eight o'clock in the morning of
May 27 Comer phoned Garnett from Nashville, apparently notifying
him that the respondent would meet with the representatives of the
Southern Garment Workers Association at their convenience. Be-
tween 11 and 12 o'clock that morning, the respondent confirmed this
by a wire addressed to Garnett.
During the entire day of May 27, during working hours, the re-
-spondent's foreladies urged employees to attend the meeting scheduled
for that evening by the group interested in organizing the local. asso-
ciation. These foreladies spread word among the employees that
demands would be formulated at this meeting and that in order to
participate in the formulation of such demands those employees who
lead not already signed the Terry resolution would have to do so
before hand. During the course of the day, Ruth Finn, an employee
of the respondent, had the following conversation in the respondent's
office with Nina Pedigo, office employee and wife of the resident
superintendent :
I went by the office and I says to Nina, "They tell me I
can't get in the meeting tonight unless I join the company's union.
I want a little advice, if you will tell me what to do." . . . She
says, "My advice would be, Ruth, the best thing you could do was
to join the company's union."
Jack Pedigo, resident superintendent, was present during this conver-
sation.
The meeting on May 27 was attended by a great number of the em-
ployees, by forelady Ring, Nina Pedigo, and other office workers.
Before the meeting opened Ring stationed herself at the entrance and
admitted to the meeting only those who had previously signed the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1039
Terry resolution. Prior to the meeting all these employees had been
given an identification card certifying that they were members in
good standing of the Southern Kentucky Garment Workers Associa-
tion. By the presentation of this card to Ring, they secured ready
admission to the meeting. The employees who had no identification
card were not permitted to enter until they obtained a card from
Ring.
Terry again presided. He reported that 222 of the 266 employees
of the Glasgow plant had signed the resolution presented by him at
the meeting of May 24. He then suggested that the, employees pro-
ceed immediately with the formal organization of an association.
Thereupon Garnett read a plan of organization he had previously
prepared. This plan was immediately adopted and the Southern
Kentucky Garment Workers Association hereinafter called the Glas-
gow Association, came into formal existence.18
After the adoption of the plan of organization the following officers
were elected : R. S. Terry, president; Jennis Jenkins, vice-president;
Zora Stovall, secretary; and Nina Pedigo, treasurer. None of the
employee representatives provided for by the plan of organization
were elected at this time.19 Terry, Jenkins, and Stovall were, however,
designated at this meeting as a special committee for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent until such time as the employee repre-
sentatives were chosen. Terry then, read a formal statement of de-
mands to be made of the respondent. Among these was a request for
a 20 per cent wage increase. The demands were approved without
much discussion. A considerable number of the employees who
attended this meeting did not participate in the proceedings., Having
been previously promised that they would have full opportunity to
discuss at this meeting the demands to, be made of the respondent, and
having found that such demands had already been decided upon by
Terry, they were displeased with the manner in which the de-
mands were formulated and immediately afterwards joined the
Amalgamated.
On the morning of May 28 Terry, Jenkins,' Stovall, Garnett, and
Kerley went to Nashville to confer with the respondent's officers there
concerning the demands adopted the previous night. J. F. Nall, super-
intendent of the respondent's Kentucky plants, testified that word of
the request by the Glasgow Association for a 20 per cent wage increase
reached him during the early part of the morning of May 28; that he
immediately phoned Jones, the respondent's secretary-treasurer at
Nashville, and told him that such an increase was not justified and
18 Some time after May 27 Garnett prepared an elaborate set of by -laws for the Glasgow
Association which were adopted at a meeting held on June 18.
3e The following employee representatives here elected at a meeting on June 4: Carlos
Wood ; Louis Howard ; and Catherine Crow.
1040 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he would like to see him with respect to the matter; that he there-
upon went to Nashville, arriving there before the special committee
of the Glasgow Association; that he then urged Comer, the respond-
ent's president, and Hedrick, the general superintendent, not to grant
any demand for a wage increase made by the Glasgow Association;
and that the aforementioned officers of the respondent at that time
indicated that they would not grant a wage increase.
Later in the morning the special committee of the Glasgow Asso-
ciation met with Jones and Hedrick at the Nashville offices. Exactly
what took place does not appear. Evidently the demands decided
upon at the meeting on the previous night were presented and dis-
,cussed. In any event the respondent's officers submitted to the com-
mittee a letter addressed to the membership of the Glasgow Associa-
tion, reading as follows :
GENTLEMEN :
Through your committee . . . Terry . . . Jenkins . . . Sto-
vall, who have represented to us and filed with us proof that they
represent a large majority of the total number of workers in the
Washington Manufacturing Company plant, Glasgow, Kentucky,
we make the following proposition :
With reference to wages in the ... (Glasgow plant), we pro-
pose an increase of 10 per cent on the base rate of 300 per hour,
that is, advancing the base rate from 300 per hour to base rate of
33¢ per hour for operators on piece work basis, and the same 10
per cent advance on -time workers in the plant, to be effective
beginning May 31st.
This proposal is made subject to your immediate acceptance and
notification to company of such acceptance.
At the conclusion of the meeting word was immediately sent to the
`Glasgow plant by one of the members of the committee that a meeting
of the Glasgow Association would be held that evening for the pur-
pose of acting on the proposal made by the respondent in the forego-
ing letter. Upon receipt of this information, forelady Ring notified
the Glasgow employees that a meeting would be held that night, told
them that it would be a very important meeting, and urged them to
attend. Before returning to Glasgow with the committee, Kerley met
with several of the respondent's officers. At the hearing Kerley testi-
fied that he did not recollect the matters discussed at this conference.
The meeting on the evening of May 28 was attended by practically
all the employees, by several Glasgow businessmen, including Kerley,
and by forelady Ring. Terry, as usual, presided. He read the letter
submitted to the committee by the respondent and urged acceptance of
the proposal for a wage increase set forth therein. According to Finn,
,one of the employees present, Terry remarked :
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1041
If you all don't accept this three cent raise ... your plant will
be closed Monday morning and if you do accept it you all come
on back Monday and go to work.
Following the remarks of Terry, Garnett and Kerley, in turn,
addressed the meeting. Garnett's remarks do not appear in the
record. Kerley, according to several witnesses, pleaded ferv'ntly for
acceptance of the respondent's proposal, declaring that he had talked
with one of the Comers at Nashville that day and had asked him
"with tears in his eyes to leave the plant there . . . for the benefit of
Glasgow". Kerley also told the employees that "he wanted . . .
(them) to accept ... (the respondent's proposal), that he didn't want
the factory to leave Glasgow . . . that it would leave Glasgow and
(that) he knew what he was talking about." Immediately after
Kerley's address, the employees accepted the proposal for a wage in-
crease of 10 per cent. At the hearing several employees testified that
they voted for acceptance of this proposal in order to keep the plant
in Glasgow and to save their jobs.
On May 29 the special committee of the Glasgow Association, by
letter, notified the respondent at Nashville that the members of the
Glasgow Association had accepted the respondent's proposal for a 10
per cent wage increase. The wage increase went into effect on May
31, in accordance with the terms of the respondent's proposal.
Between May 28 and June 3 there was considerable confusion and
unrest among the employees in the Glasgow plant. On May 31
Pedigo, resident superintendent, called all the employees together
and told them that there were a few amongst them who thought they
could not be discharged because they had affiliated themselves with a
labor organization. He added that these employees "had another
thought coming, that the Washington Manufacturing Company had
hired him to run the plant and he was going to run it". During the
late afternoon of June 2, as well as during the early morning of June
3, the respondent shipped several truck loads of unfinished materials
from its Glasgow plant to its other plants "in anticipation of labor
troubles". The trucks were loaded in the presence of some of the
employees, who were told by Pedigo that the respondent was
expecting labor trouble.
During the early part of the morning of June 3 word was spread
among the employees by the members of the Glasgow Association that
there would be a "show down" between the Glasgow Association and
the Amalgamated later that morning. Finn testified :
Well, that morning when I went in they had already hauled
out some of the material out of the basement and said they were
moving the plant, that the C. I. O. had aot them and they were
1042 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
moving the plant ... so there was a lot of confusion among the
hands, standing in groups, talking first one place and then
another, and didn't seem to be interested in work whatsoever.
We went on until twenty minutes until nine and our vice-presi-
dent of the company union (Glasgow Association) Mr. Jennis
Jenkins, came around and said to a girl that worked by the side
of me, said, "Mary Bee, you are one of us, aren't you?" Mary
Bee said, "Yes." I understood him to say something about
C. I. 0. but I didn't catch it. I said, "What was that?" And
he said, "Will it be all right to tell her ?" Mary Bee says, "Yes.
she is one of us too." She didn't know at the time I had joined
the C. I. 0., so he said, "Well, at 9:30 we are going to have a
show down and all of the C. I. 0. members must leave fhe plant
and not return to work any more. We can't have them in our
plant". I said, "Well, suppose that a party had joined both
unions?" I knew I had done the thing, and I wanted to know
what to do, so he said, "Well, if they are, they must leave too".
Before the morning recess period, the respondent's foreladies and
several of the employees who were members of the Glasgow Asso-
ciation passed through the plant during working hours and notified
the employees that there would be a meeting outside the plant during
the recess. At 9: 30 the power was shut off and all the employees
gathered outside the plant. They were addressed by Terry, whose
remarks are not in dispute. Terry told the employees that the Glas-
gow Association had among its members a majority of the employees
and was, in consequence, going to run the Glasgow plant. He stated
that only employees who were members of the Glasgow Association
and not affiliated with the Amalgamated would be permitted to
return to their jobs after the recess period. During Terry's remarks,
Pedigo was standing at one of the entrances to the Glasgow plant
within hearing distance of Terry's voice.
While Terry was talking, a group of employees who were mem-
bers of the Glasgow Association, including Jenkins, its vice-presi-
dent, stationed themselves at the employees' entrance to the Glasgow
plant. Terry joined this group immediately after he had concluded
his remarks. All but 59 of the employees then returned to their jobs.
All those who did not return were members of the Amalgamated.
Approximately 44 of them were also members of the Glasgow Asso-
ciation. Although it is not clear that all the 59 employees made an
effort to return to their jobs immediately after Terry's remarks, it is
clear that they would not have been permitted to return had they
tried. When some of them attempted to enter the plant, they were
prevented from so doing by members of the Glasgow Association,
including Terry and Jenkins, who blocked the employees' entrance
to the plant. Furthermore, when some of these employees sought to
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1043
enter the plant through the office entrance, where Pedigo was sta-
tioned, the latter told them that they would have to enter through
the employees' entrance. Pedigo told one employee that he knew
why she was not working, but that there was nothing he could do
about it since the Glasgow Association was "running things". Sev-
eral of the 59 employees were permitted to enter the Glasgow plant
under the escort of members of the Glasgow Association, for the
purpose of collecting their belongings. They were escorted out of
the plant immediately afterwards.
All the employees who were permitted to return to their jobs were
members of the Glasgow Association. Six of these, however, were
also members of the Amalgamated. It is clear that these six em-
ployees were permitted to return because they were known to be
members of the Glasgow Association and at the same time not
known to be members of the Amalgamated.
Between June 7 and July 12, 11 of the 59 employees who were not
permitted to return to their jobs on June 3, resumed work at the
Glasgow plant. Nine of these 11 employees were members of the
Glasgow Association as well as members of the Amalgamated on
June 3. The other two were solely members of the Amalgamated.
The conditions under which all these 11 employees were permitted
to return to work do not appear in the record. From the circum-
stances surrounding the reinstatement of one of them, however, it can
readily be inferred that their reinstatement was predicated not
merely upon membership in the Glasgow Association but also upon
renunciation of all affiliation with the Amalgamated. At the hear-
ing this employee, Marjorie Doyle, who before her reinstatement had
been a member of the Amalgamated but not of the Glasgow Associa-
tion, testified that she made numerous efforts to return to work
through the Glasgow Association, and that she was permitted to re-
turn only after she had joined the Glasgow Association and had sent
a letter to the Amalgamated, at the suggestion of the Glasgow As-
sociation, renouncing her membership in the Amalgamated.
On June 5 the Glasgow Association placed an advertisement in
one of the Glasgow newspapers, stating that only members of the
Glasgow Association would thereafter be permitted to work in the
Glasgow plant. On the same day Lohden, who had previously
joined the Amalgamated as well as the Glasgow Association, had a
conversation with Stovall, secretary of the Glasgow Association, at
the latter's home. Lohden testified :
Q. For what purpose did you go over to see her (Stovall)
that evening?
A. I had been off for the week sick and they had advertised
in the daily paper anyone recognizing the C. I. O. couldn't come
back to work unless they joined the local Union . . . so I had to
1044 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
go over town on Saturday and I drove over to see Mrs. Stovall
as she was on the committee when I asked for the week off. And
I asked about my going back to work and she said "Did you
join the C. I. O.?" And I said, "Yes, ma'am". She said, "Well,
I don't know whether you can come back or not, you will have to,
go through a lot of red tape, . . . You go over there and see
Bob Terry Monday morning and the other committee."
According to Lohden, Stovall also remarked :
Nell (Lohden), I know what I am talking about, I have been
in Nashville and talked to Mr. Comer, personally, and Mr.
Comer told me . . . that he would close every plant he had
before he would recognize the C. I. O.
On June 7 Lohden went to the Glasgow plant. She testifies :
I went to the lower door and Mr. Bob Terry said I don't have
any job, or anyone else that recognized the C. I. O. was fired,
they don't have any jobs for the time being, anyway.
Upon being refused admission to the plant by Terry, Lohden went
to the respondent's office and talked to Pedigo. With respect to this
conversation she testifies :
I went in the office and I said "Jack, are you boss?,, and he
said, "Yes, sir", and I said, "well, Bob Terry tells me I am
fired" . . . he said, "Well, not so far as I am concerned ... You
all got into this Union mess and you will have to get out of it
the best way you can". And I said, "Well, if you are the boss
and I am not fired, why can't I go to my machine and go to
work just as I always did?" He said "Well, you can as far as
I am concerned". I said, "Well, you can say I can and you say
you're the boss, but yet when I started to work Bob Terry
stopped me". He said, "Well, I am the boss of the plant but
Bob Terry is in full charge of everything else". I turned
around and said, "Well, if he is the boss then I am fired."
On Tuesday, June 8, Finn, a member of the Amalgamated as well as
a member of the Glasgow Association, went to the plant for her check
which had not as yet been sent to her. The check was not given to
her and on the following day she addressed a note to Pedigo stating,
"You stood by and let Mr. Terry fire us, and so you should pay us
in full when we are fired". On the same day Pedigo mailed a check
to Finn with an accompanying letter, reading as follows :
We are enclosing your check for week ending June 5, not be-
cause you were fired, but because of sickness in your family. You
state in your note that you were fired and should have been paid in
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1045,
full. That is a mistake. We have not fired anyone, and so far
as the management of this plant is concerned, your machine is
here waiting for you as soon as you all settle this fight among
yourselves.
On Monday, June 13, apparently assured of the fact that she would be
permitted to return to work, Finn went to the plant and talked to
Pedigo. Finn testified :
I walked in and I said, "Mr. Pedigo are you busy?" He looked
up and saw who it was and he said, "No, I am not busy," .. .
and I told hint I had come for my machine and come to work.
He said, "all right, so far as I am concerned, Ruth (Finn), you
shall go to work". I said, "I want to get my machine then and
go back to work". He said, "all right, . . . go down to the lower
floor and see if you have got a time card in the rack, and if you
haven't come back and I will make you one out". So I went
clown. Two of my girls that worked there with me pretty close
stopped me for a talk. I didn't hurry on to see about my card.
We were standing there talking and I reckon Hubert Wilson
(who was present in the office during the above conversation
between Finn and Pedigo) thought I had already gone in the
lower office. He came to the door and he said, "Catherine Crow,
Jack (Pedigo) said come here a minute". So she (Crow) went
on in and I hurried on to see about my card and hurried back.
Then I started to enter the door and Catherine (Crow) caine
out (of Pedigo's office) and she closed the door behind her and
stood against it and wouldn't let me in there, and told me I must
send a letter to the head office, a registered letter and get my
C. I. O. card back before I could work there. We just stood
there and disputed the matter . . . (and) I seen then she wasn't
going to let me work and I just turned around and walked off.2O
On June 15, one of the members of the Amalgamated who had
been prevented from returning to work on June 3, told Nall, super-
intendent of the respondent's Kentucky plants, "I think you did us
kind of dirty", and accused him of having failed to keep his promise
made on May 25 not to discriminate against employees because of
union affiliation. According to this employee, Nall thereupon re-
marked that things were "different now".
On June 14 Terry was promoted from bundle boy to cutter in the
cutting department. At the same time he received a seven cents per
hour wage increase.
20 Catherine Crow was a member of the Glasgow Association and one of that organiza-
tion 's employee representatives. She testified at the hearing that she was merely an
employee and had no supervisory authority . The capacity of Hubert Wilson , also a mem-
ber of the Glasgow Association , does not appear from the record.
1046 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Between June 3 and July 2, as we have already seen, only a few
of the employees who had been excluded from the plant on June 3
had been returned to work. During this period, production at the
Glasgow plant decreased substantially because of the fact that among
the excluded employees were many skilled operators who had oc-
cupied key positions in the plant . During the period between July
Q and July 12 the plant was shut down for the purpose of taking
inventory . On July 8, Pedigo, on orders from Jones, secretary-
treasurer of the respondent at Nashville , sent the following letter
to those employees who had been excluded from the plant on June
S and who had not been returned to work:
The places of those who left our employ on June 3, 1937 have
been held open for them but we find we can not hold their posi-
tions available for them after Monday next , July 12, 1937.
Those who desire their old jobs must report by that time.
The next day Pedigo, again acting on instructions from Jones,
sent the following letter to the same group of employees :
We wrote you on yesterday in regard to your position in our
plant stating that it could not be held open for you any longer
than Monday next . Since writing that letter the Southern Ken-
tucky Garment Workers Association , through its collective bar-
gaining agents , have made demand on us that we retract the
letter. We entered into an agreement with the Association today
by which the letter is retracted with the understanding , however,
that there will be employment for you in the plant if you see
fit to return to work Monday morning.
We trust that the job available for you will be satisfactory.
On July 13 all the employees to whom the two aforementioned
letters were sent by the respondent reported to Pedigo at the Glas-
gow plant ready for work. None of them were put to work . Pedigo,
however, took down their addresses and telephone numbers and
promised that he would call them to work as soon as work was avail-
able on operations in which they were experienced . - When asked by
some of the employees upon what conditions the call to return to
work was predicated, Pedigo stated that it was predicated upon no
conditions other than his own and that he wanted them back "union
or non-union".
On July 13 Pedigo notified seven of the aforementioned employees
to return on the following day. When these seven reported on the
following morning they were prevented from entering the plant by a
committee of employees who were members of the Glasgow Associa-
tion. While these employees were endeavoring to enter the plant,
Pedigo was standing at the office entrance to the Glasgow Plant
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1047
surveying the activities of the members of the Glasgow Association
at the employees' entrance. Pedigo made no effort to enlist the aid
of several' Glasgow policemen who had been stationed in front of
the plant as the result of a rumor that there would be a difficulty
there during that morning.
The Glasgow Association
The complaint alleges that the respondent has dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration of the Glasgow
Association and contributed support thereto, and has thereby engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the
Act. In its answer the respondent denies this charge.
At the hearing several witnesses for the Glasgow Association,
including Terry, testified that the respondent was in no way respon-
sible for its formation. These witnesses testified that a group of the
respondent's employees had considered the formation of a local labor
organization like the Glasgow Association for a considerable period
of time' prior to the advent of the Amalgamated. That such may
have been the case is possible; that nothing was done until the
Glasgow businessmen began to take an active interest in the matter
is clear . It was not until after the meeting between Terry and
Kerley on May 19 or 20 that any steps were taken toward the creation
of the Glasgow Association. Both Terry and Kerley testified that
this meeting took place without any pre-arrangement between 'them.
This is hard to believe, in view of the prior activities of the Glasgow
businessmen and in view of the matters transacted at the meeting.
That Kerley's interest in the formation of a local labor organization
was not a personal one, as he sought to indicate by his testimony,
is clear from his position as secretary of the Glasgow Chamber of
Commerce, of which the respondent is a member; from his position
as secretary of the Glasgow Industrial Foundation, which owns
the respondent's Glasgow plant; and from his relationship with
McKelvie. Convincing proof that Kerley was acting on behalf of
the respondent are the phone calls from McKelvie to Kerley which
were charged to and paid for by the respondent.
McKelvie's address inspired the businessmen to take an active in-
terest in the formation of the Glasgow Association. They not only
attended the meetings of the employees which gave rise to the Glas-
gow Association, but also visited the employees at their homes and
urged them to join in the movement for the creation of that organiza-
tion. From the remarks made by several of these businessmen it is
clear that their activities were prompted by the respondent's promise
of "bigger and better things", if they kept the Amalgamated from
organizing the Glasgow employees. That they were plainly informed
67573-38-vol. tv-67
1048 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the respondent in this connection that the formation of a local
labor organization was a convenient way to offset the activities of
the, Amalgamated, is clear from the remarks attributed to them. We
are convinced that the respondent through McKelvie and Kerley, as
well as the other Glasgow businessmen, planted the idea of a local
labor organization in the minds of the Glasgow employees.
The respondent's domination and interference with the formation
of the Glasgow Association is further shown by many other facts.
We have seen that at least one of the respondent's foreladies attended
and participated in each of the meetings which gave rise to the
Glasgow Association. We have seen that the second of these meet-
ings was also attended by Pedigo, resident superintendent of the
Glasgow plant. ' It was during this meeting that the employees were
urged by Terry to sign the resolution in favor of the creation of a
local labor organization, with the accompanying threat that they
would have to sign the resolution in order to keep the respondent
from moving away from Glasgow. That Terry's threat was prompted
by the respondent is apparent from Pedigo's acquiescence. We have
seen that forelady Adwell and forelady Ring urged the employees
during working hours to attend the various meetings called to or-
ganize the Glasgow Association. We have seen that forelady Ring
took an active part at one of the meetings in preventing employees
from attending who did not possess' the proper identification' card.
We have recorded numerous other acts of respondent's supervisory
employees and officials, which were designed to encourage member-
ship in the Glasgow Association and discourage membership in the
Amalgamated.
The respondent's continued domination and interference with the
administration of the Glasgow Association is clear from the member-
ship and participation of its supervisory employees in the affairs of
that organization after it had been -formed. The-record shows that
foreladies Adwell and Ring, as well as foreman Robert Gross, signed
the resolution in favor of the creation of a local labor organization
and, upon the formation of the Glasgow Association, became members
of that organization. We have seen that forelady Ring played a
leading part in the meeting of May 27 at which the Glasgow Associ-
ation came into formal existence. We have also seen that on the
following day, after word had reached the Glasgow plant that the
Glasgow Association would meet on the evening of that day, Ring
spread word among the employees that such meeting would be held
and urged the employees to attend. Ring attended and participated
in that meeting. Following the meeting of 'May 28, Ring attended
and participated in other meetings of the Glasgow Association.
Further evidence of the respondent's domination and interference
with the administration of the Glasgow Association are the activities
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1049
of Kerley at the meeting of the Glasgow Association on May 28. We
have already seen that Kerley, in his previous conduct in connection
with the formation of the Glasgow Association, was acting in the
interest of the respondent. At that meeting, Kerley, as we have seen,
urged the employees to accept the respondent's proposal for a 10 per
cent wage increase and told them that it was necessary to accept this
10 per cent wage increase in order to keep the respondent from mov-
ing away from Glasgow. He also informed the employees that he
had met one of the respondent's officers, at Nashville earlier that
day and, had been told by that, officer that the respondent would
move away from Glasgow unless they did accept this wage increase.
Continuing domination and interference by the respondent with
the administration of the Glasgow Association is inherent also in
the contemplated operation of the Glasgow Association under its
plan of organization. This plan of organization in addition to
providing for employee representatives also provides that :
The management . . . shall be requested to appoint an em-
ployer's representative, whose duty it shall be to represent the
employer in any negotiations had with this Association, its offi-
cers or committees, the duty of such (employer's) representative
it shall be to meet with the representatives of this Association
from time to time as they shall request, and consult with refer-
ence to any matter concerning this Association or its members,
and to attend the meetings of this Association and its commit-
tees, and furnish this Association or its committees such infor-
mation as it shall desire, or is deemed advisable or proper to
make public.
On the basis of all the aforementioned facts, we conclude that the
respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and
administration of the Glasgow Association and has contributed
support to it.
The events of June 3
The complaint alleges that the respondent on June 3, 1937, dis-
criminatorily discharged 59 of its employees because of their mem-
bership in the Amalgamated, thereafter refused to reinstate them
because they declined to renounce the Amalgamated and join the
Glasgow Association, and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. In its answer the
respondent denied all responsibility for the conduct of Terry and
others in excluding members of the Amalgamated from the Glasgow
plant on June 3. The answer further alleges : "As a matter of fact
the Glasgow Association endeavored to get respondent to enter into
a contract with it calling for a closed shop, but respondent refused
to enter into such a contract".
1050 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Terry, Nall, and Pedigo all testified concerning the events of June
3. Terry's story is that, although the respondent's officers refused
to grant the Glasgow Association a closed shop at the conference on
May 28, the Association did obtain a closed shop agreement from
Nall on May 31, to be effective immediately; that Nail nevertheless
permitted employees to work who were not members of the Glasgow
Association ; and that consequently on June 3 the Glasgow Associa-
tion put the closed shop agreement into effect itself. Nall testified
that he entered into a closed shop agreement with the Glasgow Asso-
ciation on May 31 but that it .was not to become effective until a
subsequent date to be agreed upon later; that he was out of town
on the morning of June 3 and did not know of the Glasgow Associa-
tion's action until his return; that he did not protest against such
action but told Terry that he would maintain the Glasgow plant as
a closed shop for the Glasgow Association; that since June 3 no old
or new employees have, been put to work who were not members of
the Glasgow Association; that he has left the enforcement of the
closed shop agreement to the Glasgow Association ; and that he in-
formed Pedigo of the closed shop agreement for the first time on
June 3 and informed his superior officers at Nashville on June 24.
Pedigo testified that he knew nothing of the closed shop agreement
until the afternoon of June 3; that he knew nothing of the plans of
the Glasgow Association to exclude non-members on June 3 and was
powerless to stop it; that he did not at any time prior to June 24
inform the respondent's Nashville officers of the closed shop agree-
ment in effect at the Glasgow plant; that the letters of July 8, sent
out by him to all of the employees who had been excluded on June 3,
were ordered to be sent out by Jones, the respondent's secretary-
treasurer, after Pedigo had protested to Jones that such letters were
in violation of the closed shop agreement; that after sending out
these letters he went to Nashville where he attended a meeting with
the respondent's Nashville officers, including Jones, and with repre-
sentatives of the Glasgow Association who had come to Nashville to
force a retraction by the respondent of the letters of July 8; that
the letters of July 9 were sent out by Pedigo at the order of Jones
immediately after this meeting in Nashville; that the letters of
July 8, as well as those of July 9, were in violation of the closed
shop agreement; that the exclusion from the plant of the seven
employees by the Glasgow Association on July 14 was in no way
prompted by the respondent; that because of the strained relationship
between the respondent and the Glasgow Association and, because of
the rumors of a strike by the Glasgow Association on that day, there
was nothing that Pedigo could do about reinstating any of these
employees.
I
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1051
The only testimony in the record that Terry and the other members
of the Glasgow Association were acting under a closed shop agree-
ment in excluding members of the Amalgamated on June 3, is that of
Terry and several other witnesses for the Glasgow Association.
From the testimony of Nall and Pedigo it is clear that the closed shop
agreement, if it existed at all, became effective only after the events
of June 3.
That there never was any agreement, oral or otherwise, between
the respondent and the Glasgow Association for a closed shop is
indicated by numerous facts. We have already referred to the re-
spondent's answer, in which it is alleged that the Glasgow Associa-
tion had requested the respondent for a closed shop agreement, but
that such request had been refused. This answer was filed on June
21, nearly three weeks after the alleged closed shop agreement was
supposed to have been made. At the hearing, the respondent through
Pedigo and' Nall sought to show that it was not apprised of the
closed shop agreement until June 24, several days after its answer
was filed. Armistead, counsel for the respondent who drafted the
answer, stated at the hearing that he was not familiar with the
facts of the case at the time the answer was drafted and that the
allegations thereof were based on information that he had received
from Terry. Armistead added : "I fully appreciate the fact that
Mr. Terry's testimony here was to the effect in substance that he
had a closed shop agreement with Mr. Nall which was made on May
31st. When this answer was drafted . . . I had no knowledge at
all of any closed shop agreement and it was not until June 24th that
I did have any knowledge of any closed shop agreement or any
counsel in the case had any knowledge of any closed shop agreement,
and that was disclosed to us by'Mr. Terry . . . on that date. . . .
This statement was made by Armistead more than one month after
he allegedly first learned of the existence of a closed shop agreement.
The respondent's answer was never amended after June 24 to make
it conform with the matters allegedly brought to the respondent's
attention on that day, not alone by Terry, but by Pedigo and Nall
as well. Such failure to amend its answer, which positively denied
that the respondent had a closed shop agreement with the Glasgow
Association, seems incredible.
Further, that counsel for the respondent did not discuss with
Nall and Pedigo the allegations of the complaint prior to the filing
of the respondent's answer seems likewise incredible. These two men
were in immediate charge of the operations at Glasgow and would
obviously be the first to consult regarding the matters alleged in the
complaint. Counsel for the respondent would have us believe he
conferred only with Terry and based the allegations of the answer
1052 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
solely on information obtained from Terry. It seems far more prob-
able that counsel for the respondent did consult Pedigo and Nall with
respect to the allegations of the complaint and was not told by either
that there was a closed shop in existence between the respondent and
the Glasgow Association.
Moreover, that Nall, as is claimed, entered into a closed shop agree-
ment with the Glasgow Association on May 31 or June 3 without
consulting the respondent's Nashville officers, either beforehand or
immediately thereafter, is impossible of belief. Nall admitted that he
at all times knew that the respondent's officers at Nashville objected
to a closed shop with any labor organization, and that he was not
quite certain of his authority to enter into agreements with labor
organizations at the time the closed shop agreement was allegedly
made. We have seen that when the Glasgow Association made the
request for an increase in wages on May 28 it consulted with the
respondent's Nashville officers and not with Nall ; that Nall rushed
to Nashville immediately after he learned that this request was going
to be made and urged the respondent's officers not to grant it; and
that the respondent's officers granted it nevertheless.
Again, it is clear that between May 31 and June 3 the officers
of the Glasgow Association made no mention to anyone of their
alleged closed shop agreement of May 31 with Nall. Pedigo ad-
mittedly knew nothing of such an agreement during this period.
Witnesses for the Board in their testimony gave-no indication that
it had ever been brought to their attention, either before or after
June 3, that the respondent had a closed shop agreement with the
Glasgow Association. In his speech to the respondent's employees
in front of the Glasgow plant on the morning of June 3 Terry
made no reference to a closed shop' agreement. Nall and Pedigo in
all their dealings with the excluded employees after June 3 gave no
indication any such agreement existed.21 From the remarks of
counsel for the respondent at the hearing and from the respondent's
answer it is clear that Terry made no mention of a closed shop agree-
21 As we have seen , after the letters were sent out by the respondent on July 8, inviting
the employees to return , the officers of the Glasgow Association met with the respondent's
officers at Nashville and demanded that these letters be retracted It was admitted at the
hearing by witnesses for the Glasgow Association that the retraction of these letters was
demanded , not because they invited the employees to return to work in violation of'any
closed shop agreement , but because they offered the employees who had been excluded on
June 3 the positions which they had previously occupied . Between June 3 and July 8 the
most favorable of these positions were taken over by employees who were members of the
Glasgow Association and who were permitted to return to work on June 3. These em-
ployees , among which was Terry , were loath to relinquish their recently acquired positions
and; in consequence , sought to forestall any action on the part of the respondent which
would remove them from such positions . From the letters of July 9, it is clear that the
Glasgow Association agreed to the return of the employees who were excluded on June 3,
not upon the condition that they be made to join the Glasgow Association upon their
return, since most of these were already members of the Glasgow Association , but solely
upon the condition that they be given only such positions as were available in the plant.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1053
ment to such counsel before the respondent's answer in this pro-
ceeding was filed. Furthermore, the petition for intervention of
the Glasgow Association, signed by Terry and filed on June 21, 1937,
although it denies the allegations of the complaint with respect to
discrimination on the part of the respondent in connection with the
events of June 3, makes no mention of a closed shop agreement.
Finally, it should be observed that the conduct of Terry and the
other members of the Glasgow Association on June 3 was not moti-
vated by a desire to enforce a closed shop agreement between the
respondent and the Glasgow Association. We have seen that among
the 59 employees excluded from the plant on that day, all of whom
were members of the Amalgamated, approximately 44 were also
members of the Glasgow Association. None of the provisions of the
plan of organization of the Glasgow Association or of the by-laws
of that organization prohibit the members thereof from joining any
other labor organization such as the Amalgamated. The exclusion
of those employees who were members of the Glasgow Association is
therefore plainly inconsistent with any claim that the exclusion of
the 59 employees was motivated by a desire to enforce a closed shop
agreement in favor of the Glasgow Association.
Viewed in the light of ' all of the aforementioned considerations,
we are convinced that the testimony in the record with respect to
a closed shop agreement between the respondent and the Glasgow
Association was purely the result of an afterthought and was fabri-
cated to suit the exigencies of the occasion.
In any event, assuming that the respondent did enter into a closed
shop agreement with the Glasgow Association effective May, 31, such
an agreement plainly could not justify the exclusion from the plant
and the discharge of employees who were members of the Amalga-
mated. In view of our finding that the respondent dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration of the Glasgow
Association, a closed shop agreement between the respondent and
that organization could not, under the express terms of the Act,
warrant such discrimination.
Nor can the respondent plead in defense that Terry and other
members of the Glasgow Association were acting solely upon their
own initiative in excluding members of the Amalgamated from the
plant on June 3 and thereafter. In the first place, even if this were
true, it would not relieve the respondent of liability under the Act.22
In the second place the record shows that the actions of Terry and
his associates were not spontaneous but were sponsored, encouraged,
and assisted by the respondent itself. We have already seen that
22 See In the Matter of Star Publishing Company and Seattle Newspaper Guild, Local
No. 82, 4 N. L. R. B. 498.
1054 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent's foreladies spread the word among the employees
on the morning of June 3 that there would be a meeting in front
of the Glasgow plant during the recess period and thus laid the
groundwork for the exclusion of the members of the Amalgamated.
That morning the respondent also permitted its employees who were
members of the Glasgow Association to pass among its employees
during working hours for the purpose of notifying them of the
meeting. When the recess period arrived, the power in the plant
was shut off and the employees were told by the respondent's fore-
ladies and by members of the Glasgow Association that they would
have to leave the plant to attend the meeting. Terry's address in
front of the plant during the recess period was made not only in
the presence of the respondent's forreladies, but also in the presence
of Pedigo, the resident superintendent. Neither the foreladies nor
Pedigo made any objection to Terry's remarks.23 It is most signifi-
cant that Pedigo prevented some of the employees who were members
of the Amalgamated from entering the plant through the office
entrance after they had been stopped from entering through the
employees' entrance which was blocked by members of the Glasgow
Association. Pedigo remarked, in explanation of this action, that
the Glasgow Association was "running things."
From Pedigo's conduct, as well as from the conduct of the fore-
ladies, it is obvious that the respondent was acting in concert with
the members of the Glasgow Association. Pedigo would have us
believe that there was nothing he could do to get any of the em-
ployees who were excluded by the members of the Glasgow Associa-
tion into the plant. It is clear that he not only made no effort to
get any of them back into the plant, but that he actually helped
keep them out. From Pedigo's statement that the members of the
Glasgow Association were "running things," which statement re-
peated the words of Terry, which Pedigo testified he did not hear,
it is clear that Pedigo at least knew beforehand what was going to
happen in front of the plant that morning. This statement, viewed
in, the light of all of the surrounding circumstances, is convincing
proof that the respondent had, previous to the exclusion, given the
members of the Glasgow Association, especially Terry, full authority
to act in the manner in which they did.
It is admitted that none of the members of the Glasgow Associa-
tion who participated in the events of June 3 were ever reprimanded
by either Pedigo or Nall. They were in fact rewarded. Some of
them, as we have seen, were permitted to take over the more favor-
' Pedigo who, during Terry's address , was admittedly standing at the office entrance to
the Glasgow plant and within hearing distance of Terry's voice, testified that he did not
hear what Terry told the employees in his address . If this be true it renders Pedigo's,
conduct thereafter doubly incriminating. ,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1055
able positions of employees who were excluded. Terry, the ring-
leader, was not only given a better job, but was also given a large
increase in wages immediately afterwards.
The conduct of the respondent after June 3 shows its complete
sponsorship of the Glasgow Association's subsequent activities.
Pedigo, and especially Nall, admittedly acquiesced in these activities.
By their own testimony it is clear that Terry had complete charge
of the respondent's labor after the exclusion of the members of the
Amalgamated. Following their exclusion the respondent did nothing
toward getting these employees back to work. Although some of
them were reinstated between June 7 and July 12, their return to
work was arranged for by Terry and other members of the Glasgow
Association. These employees were forced by Terry and the Glasgow
Association to relinquish their membership in the Amalgamated and
join the Association before they were allowed to return to work.
We have seen that some of the employees who had been excluded
from the plant on June 3 and who sought to return to work there-
after by applying to Pedigo, were told by him that as far as he was
concerned they could return to work immediately. His display of
helplessness with respect to actually reinstating these employees was
clearly a screen by which he sought to hide the respondent's collusion
with the members of the Glasgow Association in preventing them
from returning to work.
We are also convinced that the respondent's letters of July 8 and
July 9, which on their face invited the excluded employees to return
to work on July 12, were not sent out in good faith. When these
employees reported for work on that date, they were told there was
no work for them at that time, but they would be called as soon
as work became available. Nevertheless, on July 14 seven of these
employees who were told to return to work by Pedigo were again
prevented from entering the plant by the members of the Glasgow
Association. Pedigo who was present at that time made no effort
to assist these employees to return to work.
The respondent insists that the members of the Glasgow Associa-
tion were out of hand and that it could not control their actions. For
reasons already expressed we do not believe this to be the fact.
Nevertheless, assuming even that the respondent did not directly
sponsor or participate in the activities of the Glasgow Association,
and that the members of the Association did in fact arise in a spon-
taneous demonstration to rid the plant of all members of the Amalga-
mated, the respondent's responsibility would still be plain. When
the Amalgamated began organizing the Glasgow employees, there
was no unrest among these employees. Only after the respondent
began its campaign of interference did unrest. become apparent. We
1056 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have seen that the respondent during the week of May 24 dominated
and interfered with the formation of the Glasgow Association, an
organization obviously created for the purpose of combating the
efforts of the Amalgamated to organize its employees; that it prom-
ised bigger and better things if the Amalgamated were kept from,
organizing the Glasgow plant; and that it threatened its employees
with the removal of the Glasgow plant unless they joined the Glasgow
Association and refrained from joining the Amalgamated. The
natural consequence of its conduct was the creation of fear and un-
rest in the minds of its employees. This unrest and fear assumed
great proportions between May 28 and June 3, particularly as a
result of the fact that a considerable number of the employees joined
the Amalgamated during this period. In the midst of this unrest
and fear the respondent on June 2 began shipping raw materials
from the Glasgow plant to its other plants, and at the same time
frankly told its employees that it was doing this in preparation for
the closing down of the Glasgow plant, since it expected "labor
trouble" there. Its conduct in so doing was followed immediately
by the exclusion from the Glasgow plant of the employees who were
members of the Amalgamated. From these circumstances we would
be compelled to find the respondent responsible for the conduct of
the members of the Glasgow Association in excluding the members
of the Amalgamated from the plant on June 3. The motivating
force behind such conduct can readily be found in the unrest and
fear instilled in the minds of these employees by the respondent's
illegal acts of interference, restraint and coercion. Having given
rise to such fear and unrest by its illegal acts, the respondent must
suffer the liability for the natural and obviously intended conse-
quences of such illegal acts.
We therefore conclude that the respondent on June 3 discharged,
and has since refused to reinstate, many of its employees because of
their membership in the Amalgamated. The respondent has thus
discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
its employees in order to discourage membership in the Amalga-
mated and has thereby interfered with, restrained and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
E. Conclusion
We have considered the respondent's conduct at each of its plants
separately. It is only by viewing the respondent's activity as a
whole, however, that we can grasp the full picture of its efforts to
prevent self-organization among its employees. Beginning with the
advent of the Amalgamated in Nashville and shifting successively
to the Cookeville, Milan and Glasgow plants the respondent has used
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1057
every weapon at its command-intimidation, discrimination, the crea-
tion of company-controlled associations of employees, lock-out, pres-
sures of every description-in a veritable war upon the attempt by
its employees to exercise the right of self-organization and collective
bargaining. The record before us leaves no doubt that in every situa-
tion and at every turn the respondent has been ready to employ
the most extreme measures to crush any sign of independent collec-
tive action among its employees. Its individual acts in particular
instances must be viewed throughout in the light of this steadfast
policy.
IV. THE I.FFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent in
the cotton garment manufacturing industry described in Section I
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease aid desist
from further engaging in such practices. Moreover, we shall order
the respondent to take certain affirmative action which we deem
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since the respondent has dominated and interfered with the forma-
tion of the Employees' Committee, the Milan Association, and the
Glasgow Association, and has dominated and interfered with and is
dominating and interfering with the administration of these organi-
zations, we shall order the respondent in accordance with our regular
practice to withdraw all recognition from these organizations as rep-
resentatives of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and to completely disestablish them as such representatives.
We have found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of its Nashville employees in locking
them out of its three Nashville plants on May 1, 1937. At the close
of the hearing in this proceeding the Nashville plants were still
closed down. On July 27, 1937, as we have seen, the respondent de-
cided to sell the machinery and equipment at these plants and dis-
pose of the real estate used in connection with their operation, in
order to avoid any liability for its conduct in closing them down.
On October 20, 1937, in a pleading filed with the Board, the respond-
ent, as we have already pointed out, stated that it had on September
0
1058 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
14, 1937, sold all the machinery and equipment at the Nashville plants
to another corporation and had disposed of all the real estate used
in connection with the operation of these plants to this corporation.
From this pleading it does not appear that the Nashville plants had
reopened by October 20, 1937. In order to effectuate the policies of
the Act we shall order the respondent, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns to offer to the Nashville employees on the respondent's
pay roll on April 30, 1937, reinstatement to their former employment,
either at once, if the plant is now operating, or upon the reopening
of such plant.
Furthermore, we shall order that all the Nashville employees on the
respondent's pay roll of April 30, 1937, be made whole for any losses
of pay that they have suffered by reason of the respondent's illegal
conduct in discharging them in closing down the Nashville plants.
The amount to be paid each employee is to be computed upon tha
basis of his average weekly wage for the four-week period immedi-
ately prior to May 1.
Having found that the respondent discriminated in regard to terms
and conditions of employment of Rosalie Hawkins, Ruby Carter,
Anna Burgess, and Robbie Coakley, four of its employees at the
Cookeville plant, by tampering with their machines and thereby
preventing them from making their quota of production during a
period of approximately two weeks after May 28, 1937, we shall order
the respondent to make whole each of these employees for any loss
of pay that she has suffered as a result of such discrimination. The
amount to be paid each of these employees is to be computed at the
rate of her average weekly wage for the four-week period immedi-
ately prior to May 28, and shall be based upon the five-day week
which existed in the plant after May 28.
We have found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of its playsuit department employees
at its Milan plant, by closing down that department in May 1937 and
locking out its employees therein. In its pleading filed with the
Board on October 20, the respondent stated that it had reopened the
playsuit department on August 9, nine days after the hearing in this
proceeding was concluded; that it had, on August 5, sent a letter to
each of the employees who had been working in the playsuit depart-
ment at the time it was closed down, except one, Bishop, inviting
such employees to report for work on August 9; that in response to
this letter all but 13 of the employees to whom such a letter was sent
returned to work on August 9, and were reinstated to their former
positions held prior to the closing of the department, or to others
satisfactory to them; that on August 30 the respondent sent a reg-
istered letter to each of the aforementioned 13 employees calling at-
0
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1059
tention to the letter of August 5 and requesting a reply as to why,
such employee had not reported for work on August 9; that the
respondent thereafter, in answer to these registered letters, received
a reply from 11 of the 13 employees; that two of these letters were
returned to the respondent with a notation thereon that the addressee
could not be located ; that the 11 employees who responded, declined
to return to work for one reason or another; and that Bishop was
never invited to report for work for the reason that it had developed
at the hearing in this proceeding that he had used abusive language
toward some of the respondent's employees prior to the closing of the
playsuit department. In so far as the respondent may have made a.
bona fide offer of reinstatement we shall not require a further offer.
Our order will therefore simply direct the respondent to offer reinstate-
ment to their former positions or to substantially equivalent positions,
to the extent that it has not already done so, to all the,employees of its
playsuit department, including Bishop'24 whose work ceased in con-
sequence of the respondent's illegal conduct in closing down that de-
partment and locking out the employees therein.
Furthermore, we shall order the respondent to make whole all of
its playsuit department employees for any losses of pay that they
have suffered in consequence of the respondent's illegal conduct in
closing down that department and locking out the employees. The
amount to be paid each playsuit department employee is to be com-
puted at the rate of his average weekly wage for the four-week period
immediately prior to May 27, 1937, and shall be based upon the
five-day week existing at the Milan plant after May 27, 1937. Fur-
ther, since the figure thus obtained is based upon a scale of wages 10
per cent lower than that prevailing at the Milan plant after June 3,
1937, it should be corrected to conform to the higher prevailing
wage rate after that date.
We have found that the respondent on June 3 discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of 59 of its Glasgow
employees by discharging these employees on that day. We have seen
24 Bishop was locked out along with the other playsuit department employees in order to
discourage membership in the Amalgamated, and his discharge was not in any manner
motivated by any consideration of abusive language. It first came to the attention of the
respondent that Bishop had used abusive language during the latter part of June 1937,
when the respondent had reinstated 43 playsuit department employees to work on work
shirts Had the respondent ever had any intention of reinstating Bishop to any type of
work in the Milan plant, we believe that it would have done so prior to the time of the
hearing in this case when it was reinstating some less experienced of its employees to
work on work shirts As we have already pointed out, Bishop had been singled out by the
respondent to take charge of the playsuit department before he began his activities in
behalf of the Amalgamated and was experienced in all of the playsuit operations In view
of this fact and. in view of the fact that Bishop at all times after the close of the playsuit
department took a leading part in the activities of the Amalgamated at Milan, it clearly
appears that Bishop was refused reinstatement not because of any alleged abusive language
attributed to him but because of his membership and activities in the Amalgamated.
1060 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that 11 of these employees were returned to work by the respondent
before the hearing in the proceeding was concluded. Whether or not
these 11 employees were reinstated to their former positions does not
appear from the record. Since the employees of the respondent who
were members of the Glasgow Association took over the best positions
that were made vacant by the respondent's illegal conduct on June 3,
it is more than likely that these employees were not reinstated to their
former positions. In its pleading filed with the Board on October 20,
1937, the respondent stated that all of the remaining 59 employees,
except three, Nellie Lohden, Pearl Church, and W. W. Sorrell, had
been returned to work since the hearing had been concluded; that
Pearl Church was given an opportunity to work but that she refused
-employment; that Nellie Lohden was also given an opportunity to
work but that she refused employment because she "did not desire
to work under (the) closed shop agreement" allegedly existing be-
tween the respondent and the Glasgow Association; that W. W. Sor-
rell was not a regular employee prior to June 3, but was only called
from time to time as an extra and was not on duty on June 3, 1937; 25
that one of the 59 employees whom we have found to have been dis-
criminatorily discharged on June 3, Dorsey Dean, after his return
to work following the hearing, "quit because he, did not desire to con-
form to the closed shop agreement between the respondent and the
-Southern Kentucky Garment Workers Association" ; that another
employee, Audrey Matthews, returned to work after the hearing was
concluded but was discharged on. September 28 "because of wilful
refusal to properly perform her work"; that six other of the 59 em-
ployees, Imogene Walthal, Evelyn Goodman, Ruby Parrish, Myrtle
Grimsley, Lorine Pace, and J. R. Landrum, returned to work after
the hearing was concluded but "voluntarily" quit for one reason or
another; that on October 15, 1937, "in accordance with a notice there-
tofore given to its (Glasgow) employees, the respondent temporarily
closed down its Glasgow plant, in order to reduce inventory and be-
.cause of lack of orders; and that it temporarily laid off all its
employees on that date." -
It does not appear from the respondent's pleading that any of the
59 employees who were discharged on June 3 were reinstated to their
25 The facts before us with respect to Sorrell clearly point to the contrary . Paragraph
16 of the complaint alleges that 65 employees weie discharged by the respondent on
June 3 , 1937. Among these was Sorrell . At the hearing counsel for the respondent
entered into a stipulation with the counsel for the Board that six of the 65 employees
listed in paragraph 16 of the complaint "did not quit" work on June 3, 1937, and that
the remaining 59 employees "ceased to draw pay after 9: 30 A. M on June 3, 1937",
except in so far as some of these were shortly thereafter and before the hearing was con-
cluded , returned to work Among the 59 employees , who, according to the stipulation,
"ceased to draw pay after 9. 30 A. M on June 30 , 1937", was Sorrell . In view of this
stipulation and other facts , we find that Sorrell was among those who had been excluded
from the plant on June 3 , 1937, and had been discriminatorily discharged on that day.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1061
former positions upon their return to work. The record indicates
that the contrary was the case. Also, it is apparent on the face of
the pleading that the respondent's offer of reinstatement was con-
ditioned upon, and that employment at the Glasgow plant has been
since June 3 and is now conditioned upon, membership in the Glas-
gow Association. For these reasons we cannot consider the respond-
ent's offer of reinstatement as compliance with its obligations under
the Act and we shall order the respondent to offer full reinstate-
ment to all of the 59 employees who are not now employed in the
plant at their former positions or at positions substantially equiva-
lent to those they held on June 3, without attaching thereto any
illegal conditions of employment such as membership in the Glasgow
Association or non-membership in the Amalgamated. If the Glas-
gow plant is still closed such offers of reinstatement shall be made
upon its resumption of operations.
Furthermore, we shall order the respondent to make whole all the
59 discharged employees for any losses of pay that they have suffered
.in consequence of the -respondent's illegal conduct in discharging
them. The amount to be paid each employee is to be computed at the
rate of his- average weekly wage for the four-week period immedi-
ately prior to May 28; 26 but since this average weekly wage is based
upon a scale of wages 10 per cent lower than that prevailing at the
Glasgow plant after May 31, the next regular workday after May 28;
it should then be corrected to conform to the higher prevailing wage
rate.27
We shall furthermore, in accordance with our usual practice, order
the respondent to take certain other affirmative action which it is
unnecessary to set forth at this point.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board make's the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Cookeville Em-
ployees' Association , Milan Employees Association , and Southern
Kentucky Garment Workers Association are labor organizations,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent , by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of the Cookeville Employees' Association,
20 We have chosen May 28 rather than June 3 as the date from which such average
weekly wage shall be determined , because the period between May 28 and June 3 was
marked by turmoil and slow production in the respondent 's plant, caused , as we have seen,
by the respondent 's illegal conduct of interference , restraint and coercion with the exercise
by its employees of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
27 The periods during which the Glasgow plant was completely closed down in the month
of July 1937, or at any time thereafter , are not to be included.
1062 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Milan Employees Association, and the Southern Kentucky Gar-,
ment Workers Association, and by contributing support to those
organizations, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of its employees at its three Nashville plants,
its Milan plant and its Glasgow plant, and thereby discouraging
membership in the Amalgamated, has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the terms and
conditions of employment of Rosalie Hawkins, Ruby Carter, Anna
Burgess, and Robbie Coakley, four employees at its Cookeville plant,
in order to discourage membership in the Amalgamated, has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
5. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining and coercing its
Nashville, Cookeville, Milan, and Glasgow employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Washington Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents,
successors and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From dominating or interfering with the administration of
Cookeville Employees' Association, Milan Employees Association, or
Southern Kentucky Garment Workers Association; or with the for-
mation or administration of any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, and from contributing support to said organizations or to
any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) From discouraging membership in the Amalgamated or any
other labor organization of its employees by discharging or refusing
to reinstate any of its employees or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to their, hire and tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment, because of their membership in,
activity in behalf of, or sympathy toward the Amalgamated or any
other labor organization of its employees;
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1063
(c) From in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organiza-
tion , to form, join or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , or to engage in con-
certed activities , for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action , which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Cookeville Employees' Asso-
ciation, Milan Employees Association and Southern Kentucky Gar-
ment Workers Association as representatives of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances , labor dis-
putes, wages , rates of pay , hours of employment , or conditions of
work, and completely disestablish said organizations as such repre-
sentatives;
(b) If the Nashville plants or any of them are now operating, or,
if not, upon the reopening of said plants or any of them , offer to the
Nashville employees who were employed by it on April 30, 1937, full
reinstatement to the positions held by them on April 30, 1937, or to
substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges ;
(c) Make whole all the Nashville employees who were employed
by the respondent on April 30, 1937 , for any loss of pay they have
suffered by reason of the closing of the Nashville plants on May 1,
1937 , by payment to each of them, respectively , of a sum equal to
that which each of them would normally have earned as wages dur-
ing the period from May 1 , 1937, to the date of the offer of reinstate-
ment, such sum to be calculated in the manner set forth in section V
of this decision , less the amount , if any, which each has earned during
said period ;
(d) Make whole Rosalie Hawkins, Ruby Carter , Anna Burgess,
and Robbie Coakley, for any losses of pay they have suffered by
reason of the respondent 's conduct in discriminating against them
in regard to terms and conditions of employment, by payment to each
of them, respectively, of a sum equal to, that which each of them
would normally have earned as wages during the period from May
31 to June 11, 1937, inclusive , such sum to be calculated in the manner
set forth in section V of this decision , less the amount earned by them
during said period ;
(e) Offer to its Milan playsuit department employees whose work
ceased in consequence of the closing of that department in May 1937
to the extent that it has not already done so, full reinstatement to the
positions held by them prior to the closing, or to substantially
67573-38-vol rv-68
1064 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority rights and
other rights and privileges.
(f) Make whole all its Milan playsuit department employees whose
work ceased in consequence of the closing of said department in May
1937 for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of said closing
by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum equal to that
which each of them would normally have earned as wages during
the period from the date each was discharged to the date of offer of
reinstatement, such sum to be calculated in the manner set forth in
section V of this decision, less the amount, if any, which each has
earned during said period.
(g) Offer to its 59 Glasgow employees discharged on June 3, 1937,
whose names are set forth in the Appendix attached to the Decision
and who are not now employed at the positions held by them on June
-3, 1937, or at substantially equivalent positions, full reinstatement to
such positions or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and without attach-
ing to any such offer of reinstatement any illegal conditions of em-
ployment such as membership in the Southern Kentucky Garment
Workers Association or non-membership in the Amalgamated.
(h) Make whole alt of said 59 Glasgow employees for any loss of
pay they have suffered by reason of their discharge by payment to
each of them, respectively, of a sum equal to that which each of them
would normally have earned as wages during the period from, June
3, 1937, to the date of offer of reinstatement, such sum to be calculated
in the manner set forth in section V of this decision, less the amount,
if any, which each has earned during said period.
(i) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
within and without its Nashville, Cookeville; Milan, and Glasgow
'plants, stating: (1) that it will cease and desist in the manner afore-
said; and (2) that it will take the aforementioned affirmative action;
(j) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
within and without its Glasgow plant, stating that neither member-
ship in the Southern Kentucky Garment Workers Association nor
nonmembership in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.
is a condition of employment at that plant;
(k) Maintain the aforementioned notices for a period of at least
sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting;
(1) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within twenty (20) days from the date of this order what steps it
has taken to comply herewith.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1065
Appendix
Barton, Cloda
Bradshaw, Ruby
Bransetter, Mary Agnes
Brewer, Flossie
Brooks, Elizabeth
Brooks, Winnie
Brown, Roxie
Caldwell, Lorene
Chastain, Verna
Church, Pearl
Claspell, Alice
Claspell, Florence
Claspell, Maude
Combs, LaVerne
Dean, Dorsey
Dean, Ethel
Delk; Grace-
Doyle, Marjorie
Foster, George
Foster, Mrs. George
Ferguson, Anna B. -
Ferguson, Annie (Nan-
nie) D.
Finn, Ruth
Goodman, Evelyn G.
Goodman, Ova
Grimsley, Myrtle
Guffey, Anna
Guffey, Ollie
Hauck, Hattie
Higgason, Bess
Houchens, Ethyl
Houchens, Olive
Huffman, Leola
Johnson, Jewell
Johnson, Mary Lewis
Kidd, Ruth
Landrum, J. R.
Landrum, Maggie
Lohden, Nell
McCoy, Annie
Martin, Gertrude
Matthews, Audry Smith
Ninn (Nunn), Lizzie
Norris, Ellen
Pace, Lorine
Palmore, Vangie
Parrish, Ruby
Rains, Pauzetta
Reels, Joyce-
Rutledge, Bernice
Sharp, Mayme
Smith, Hazel
Sorrell, W. W.
Thomerson, Herbert
Walthal, Imogene
Wilhelm, Marie
Wilson, Ella
Wilson, Laura
White, Loudelle