Waycross Sportswear, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 1, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 11 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

WAYCROSS SPORTSWEAR, INC. 1.1
(b) Post at its plant in Sylacauga, Alabama, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." I Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 10, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respond-
ent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith?
'In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
21n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
in the unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The appropriate
unit is:
All full time and regular part time employees at our Sylacauga, Alabama,
plant including the engineering department, truck drivers, laboratory em-
ployees and plant clerical employees but excluding driver-salesmen, office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
HOME TOWN FOODS, INC., D/B/A FOREMOST
DAIRIES OF THE SOUTH,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30323, Tele-
phone 526-5741.
Waycross Sportswear , Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO. Case 10-CA-6370. July 1, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 16, 1966, Trial Examiner George Christensen issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
160 NLRB No. 10.
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision. No exceptions were filed by the General Coun-
sel or the Charging Party.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to,a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in this case,' including the Trial Examiner's Decision and Re-
spondent's exceptions thereto, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's
findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as modified herein.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
with the following modifications :
[1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b) and consecutively reletter
the present paragraph 2(b) and those subsequent thereto:
["(b) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after dis-
charge from the Armed Forces."
[2. Add the following as the last paragraph :
["IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges un-
fair labor practices not found herein, be, and it hereby is, dismissed."
[3. Delete the text of the notice attached to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and substitute therefor the following :
[WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Amalgamated cloth-
ing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor orga-
nization, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating
against our employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment.
[WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about their union activ-
ities, affiliation, or sentiments in a manner constituting interfer-
ence, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act; promise benefits to them for abandoning union mem-
bership, support, or activity; threaten reprisals against them for
union membership, support, or activity ; or solicit and encourage
'A motion to correct the official transcript was filed by the General Counsel after issu-
ance of the Trial Examiner 's Decision and was therefore referred to the Board for ruling
In the absence of objections from the Respondent and inasmuch as the corrections in no
way affect our Decision in this ease, the General Counsel's motion is hereby granted
WAYCROSS SPORTSWEAR, INC. 13
employees to form, support, or utilize a "Grievance Committee"
or other similar organization as a substitute for and instead of
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, as their representative for the purposes
of adjusting their disputes over wages, rates of pay, hours, and
other conditions of employment.
[WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the
above-named, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities.
[WE WILL offer Leon Cowart immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position, and make him
whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of
his discriminatory discharge.
[All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 15, 1965,1 the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-
CIO (hereafter called the Charging Party or the Union ) filed a charge with the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board ( hereafter called the Board ) alleging that Waycross
Sportswear , Inc. (hereafter called the Respondent or the Company ) violated Section
8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (hereafter called
the Act ). On January 16, 1966 , the Board issued and served upon the Company a
formal complaint based upon the charge . On January 25, 1966 , the Company filed
its formal answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice , a hearing was conducted on March 22 and 23, 1966, at
Waycross, Georgia, before Trial Examiner George Christensen . All parties were
represented at and participated in the hearing, were afforded full opportunity to
adduce evidence , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to present oral argument,
and to submit briefs. The General Counsel and the Company have filed briefs.
Based upon my review of the entire record , observation of the witnesses, and
perusal of the briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a Georgia corporation with its principal office and place of business
at Waycross , Georgia. Through stock ownership , it is controlled by United Pioneer
Corporation of New York . It employs a work force at Waycross , Georgia, to man-
ufacture men's wear . During the preceding calendar year, it manufactured finished
products valued in excess of $50,000 and shipped same either to its parent company
in New York or to persons designated by its parent company outside Georgia. Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
i All dates refer to 1965 unless otherwise noted
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Charging Party is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and issues
The Union commenced an organizational campaign among the Company's em-
ployees in July of 1965, conducting several meetings and soliciting union authoriza-
tion cards through July, August, and early September. Leon Cowart and Richard
Chadwick,2 among others, attended union meetings. Cowart was very active on
the Union's behalf, successfully soliciting a number of union authorization cards
from his fellow employees. On September 16, , the Union caused a lettter to be
delivered notifying the Company that a majority of the employees had selected the
Union as their representative for collective-bargaining purposes, requesting recogni-
tion and bargaining, and offering to prove its majority status before a neutral party
On September 17, a committee of company employees, including Cowart and Chad-
wick, sought and secured an audience with Company Manager John Alderman to
inform him they had signed union authorization cards, that they had solicited and
secured such cards from other employees, that they intended to continue to work
actively for the Union, and their reasons therefor. Their further purpose was to
place the Company on notice concerning their identity as the union leadership
among the employees to protect themselves against possible discriminatory treatment
by the Company for their union affiliation and activities on some other pretext and
claim of ignorance of their union affiliation and activity.
Shortly atfer receipt of the union communication and the visit by the union com-
mittee, the Company informed the Union that it doubted its majority status. On
September 20, the Board received the Union's petition for certification as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the Company's production and mainte-
nance employees.
Beginning in September and continuing through to a November 19 Board-conducted
election resulting from the union petition, John Alderman and other management
representatives conducted a series of individual interviews with most if not all of the
Company's employees in the unit sought. Over that same time period, Assistant
Plant Manager John Yarberry and other management representatives conducted fre-
quent employee mass meetings on company property during working time (the em-
ployees were compensated for the time spent in attendance at such meetings).
It is charged that in the course of the individual interviews and mass meetings
management officials not only unequivocally voiced the Company's hostility and
opposition to union representation of the employees, but also coercively interrogated
its employees concerning union membership, support, activities, and desires; promised
benefits for abandoning the Union, threatened reprisals for continued support and
activities on behalf of the Union and solicited and encouraged its employees to adjust
their differences with the Company over wages, hours, rates of pay, and working
conditions through a "Grievance Committee" (which appeared after the Company
received the Union's recognition request) instead of through the Union and as a
substitute therefor.
It is also charged that 11 days before the November 19 Board election the Com-
pany discharged Leon Cowart because of his membership in and activities on behalf
of the Union and to discourage other employees from union membership, support, or
activities.
The Company denied any coercive interrogations, promises of benefit, threats of
reprisal or encouragement, and solicitation of abandonment of the Union and sub-
stitution of a "Grievance Committee" for adjustment of employer-employee differ-
ences, alleged that it discharged Leon Cowart for cause, and denied any violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
2 While at all times pertinent to this proceeding Chadwick was in charge of the Com-
pany's shipping room and directed the work of the shipping room employees (including
Cowart), from the commencement of the Union's campaign in July to October 14, Chadwick
attended union meetings and participated in union affairs on the basis of his representa-
tion that be did not have the power to hire and fire and therefore was not a supervisor.
His union attendance and participation ceased on October 14 when the Company and
Union stipulated In a representation case proceeding involving the same parties (Case 10-
RC-0471) that Chadwick was a company supervisor. The complaint alleges and the
answer admits that at all times pertinent Chadwick was a company supervisor.
WAYCROSS SPORTSWEAR, INC. 15
The issues are whether or not the Company by its officials: (1) coercively inter-
rogated its employees concerning their or other employees ' union membership, ac-
tivities , and desires ; ( 2) promised benefits to its employees for abandoning their
union membership , activities , or support ; ( 3) threatened reprisals against employees
either for their union membership, activities, or support or unless they abandoned
same; (4) solicited and encouraged employees to form, support , and utilize a
"Grievance Committee" to adjust their differences with the Company over wages,
rates of pay , hours and conditions of employment instead of and as a substitute for
forming, supporting , and utilizing the Union for that purpose ; and (5 ) discharged
Leon Cowart because of his union membership, support, and activities and to dis-
courage other employees' union membership , support, and activities or for cause.
B. The alleged 8(a) (l) violations
1. The nature of the Company's campaign against the Union
On becoming aware in September of the success the Union was experiencing in its
organizational campaign among the Company's employees, and particularly after
receipt on September 16 of the Union's notice of majority status and request for
recognition and bargaining , the Company commenced a countercampaign to wean
employee support away from the Union, intensifying its efforts as the election date
(November 19) neared . The countercampaign was conducted primarily through
compulsory employee attendance at individual interview sessions, mostly with Plant
Manager Alderman, who interviewed 75 percent of the employees, and mass meet-
ings, whose frequency accelerated to a daily basis immediately prior to the election,
which were usually addressed by Assistant Plant Manager John Yarberry. Super-
visors Jeanette Bryant and Richard Chadwick also conducted the individual em-
ployee interviews. The employees did not suffer any loss in compensation for the
time spent at the many interviews and meetings , held on company property during
working hours. Shortly before the election, a union committeeman was discharged
for, as company officials put it at the time, soliciting union membership on company
time and property.
2. Privileged communications
One common and unmistakable message was communicated to the employees at
all the interviews and meetings-that the Company was hostile and opposed to union
representation of its employees . This was communicated , inter alia, by statements
that: the Company could not afford a Union, since it could not meet the union stand-
ards because it was not a profitable operation and could not increase its labor costs;
the Union could not get anything from the Company for the employees that the
employees couldn't secure directly from the Company; and choosing union representa-
tion would expose the employees to increased obligations for union dues and other
union levies of undefined magnitude without any corresponding benefit, etc.
Yarberry, Chadwick, and Bryant did not testify. Alderman, who did, described
the interviews and meetings as intended to "find out what their gripes were .
and . to explain to them my position regarding the union activity." Had he
and the other company officials truly confined themselves to this, to expression of
the Company's opposition and hostility to union representation of the employees, to
the Union itself, and the reasons therefor , as set forth above, such communication
with its employees would be privileged under Section 8(c) of the Act.
3. Communications violative of the Act
I find , however , that various statements made by company official in the course of
the interviews and meetings to communicate the Company' s antiunion views and
learn the nature of the employees ' grievances exceeded the permissible limits of such
communication and constituted the acts charged ; i.e., coercive interrogation , threat
of reprisal-including carrying out of such threat ( discharge ), promise of benefit, plus
support and encouragement for employee abandonment of the Union , and substitu-
tion therefor of a "Grievance Committee " to adjust employer-employee disputes, all
as set forth below:
a. By Plant Manager John Alderman
At a September 17 conference held between Plant Manager Alderman and a union
committee of company employees the day after Alderman received notice of the
union majority and demand for recognition and bargaining, the spokesman for the
committee informed Alderman that each of the committeemen had signed union
authorization cards and secured them from others "in case he fired one of us and
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
didn't say why." Alderman then asked the spokesman to identify the employees
who had signed cards and also wanted to know how many employees had signed
cards.3
On October 1, Alderman called employee Flora Harris into his office. Upon
her arrival, he informed her he had called her in to discuss the Union. Alderman
solicited Harris' views on just how she thought the Union would help the employees.
After she mentioned job security, then insurance, and then wages, Alderman stated
that he "was fixing to go out and give you people a raise without you having to pay
union dues." Alderman further stated that if the Union were voted in, he would
lose his job, and asked Harris to vote against the Union.
Near the end of October, Alderman called employee Mary Wood into his office
and asked her if she knew what was going on. She told him she knew a little.
Alderman asked her if she knew that when members of the Union went on strike out
west, the Union could take money out of the checks of the Company's employees who
were members and send it to the strikers. He also asked her what she would do if
any union people became sick (she had been off sick since August 25 and did not
return to work until November and had stopped in to sign an insurance form at the
time Alderman saw her and called her into his office). She replied that she did not
know. Alderman also asked her what she would do if the union people came to
see her.
b. By Shipping Room Supervisor Richard Chadwick
During the latter part of October, Shipping Room Supervisor Chadwick questioned
employee Leon Cowart concerning the activities of the Union, who was supporting
the Union, and whether he (Cowart) continued to support the Union. Cowart
asked the Union what he should tell Chadwick. He was advised to tell Chadwick he
no longer supported the Union. (Chadwick knew Cowart previously had been a
union supporter and committeeman-see footnote 2, ibid.) On November 1, Chad-
wick again approached Cowart and told him he could help him get out of the Union,
that he could get Alderman to let him back with the Company. Cowart asked what
he would have to do. Chadwick said Cowart would have to publicly renounce the
Union, make a speech for the Company and against the Union. Cowart said he
did not think he could do that because he would not like to let down the people he
had secured cards from (he had secured 11 union authorization cards from other
employees), but that he would think about it. On November 2, Chadwick asked
him if he had thought about it. Cowart said he had and decided not to come out
of the Union. Chadwick then stated that the Company had something on Cowart
that would cause him trouble, might cause loss of his job. Cowart said he had not
done anything. Chadwick said he didn't know of anything either and didn't know
what it was the Company had on him. Chadwick again asked Cowart what he was
going to do. Cowart said he didn't know. On November 3, Chadwick again ap-
proached Cowart and asked him if he was staying with the Union or coming out.
Cowart said he was staying in.
c. By Assistant Plant Manager John Yarberry
On November 8, her first day back at work following an absence dating from
August 25 due to illness, employee Mary Wood was approached by Assistant Plant
Manager John Yarberry. He said she was the only one he had not talked to yet;
that he knew her husband Raymond had been "done dirty," but that "when things
was over with, and when business picked up, he would make him a cutter." 4 Yar-
berry then told Wood not to let what he said influence her vote.
3 Alderman partially corroborates the committeeman testimony with regard to the state-
ment by his testimony that "I asked if there were any more," after being informed by the
committeeman that they had signed cards. Note : The complaint does not specify this
statement as one of the alleged violations of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act However, it
occurred in the course of the employee interviews and meetings, grew out of and is closely
related to the other 8(a) (1) charges, there was no objection to its admission, and it was
fully litigated, so findings are entered with regard thereto. (New England Web, 135
NLRB 1019; Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc., 132 NLRB 993; Rocky Mount Natural Gas
Company, 140 NLRB 1191.)
4 Yarberry left the Company in December and formed his own company Shortly there-
after, he hired both Mary Wood and her husband. Mrs Wood, however, had no knowledge
whatever of Yarberry's intention to leave the Company and open his own plant at the
time of the November 8 conversation.
- WAYCROSS SPORTSWEAR, INC. 17
Between the time it received the Union 's notice of majority status and demand for
recognition and bargaining and the time the Board election was held (September 17-
November 19 ), the Company required its employees to attend numerous mass meet-
ings during working hours at the plant . Assistant Plant Manager John Yarberry
was the most frequent speaker . Plant Manager John Alderman , the president and
secretary of the Company 's parent organization , Messrs. Keesler and Besen of
United Pioneer Corporation of New York, Company Counsel Bennett, and others
also attended and participated in varying degrees
The meetings increased in frequency as election time drew closer. In the later
phases ( during October through November 19), Yarberry repeatedly exhorted the
employees to keep employer -employee relations within the four walls of the plant.
He first suggested they bring their grievances to a committee consisting of himself
and other supervisory employees ; he changed his position, however, during the same
meeting, to advocate formation of a "Grievance Committee " of employees to which
aggrieved employees might bring their grievances over wages , rates of pay , hours or
conditions of employment for handling by that committee with* first , first line super-
vision ( departmental supervisors ); second, Yarberry; third, Alderman; and , finally,
Keesler. Yarberry stated that by employee resort to the "Grievance Committee"
instead of the Union to resolve such matters , "we could keep it in the plant"; "we
wouldn 't have to pay union dues "; "we could settle our grievances inside the plant";
"There wasn 't anything that we couldn 't do ourselves without having the outsiders
called in to do it for us."; "He would like for us to drop the Union and form a
grievance committee ." Yarberry also stated that a "Grievance Committee" had
been formed and that the "Grievance Committee" and he had agreed to conduct a
fish fry on company time and property immediately prior to the election.
At a mass meeting held November 5, Yarberry also told the assembled employees
that if they would vote against the Union, all would be forgiven and no one would be
fired for union activity.5
d The context of the statements
I find that all the remarks set out above were made by the company officials to
which they are attributed and credit the testimony to that effect . The testimony
concerning the remarks of Assistant Plant Manager Yarberry, Shipping Room Super-
visor Chadwick , and Counsel Bennett was uncontradicted ; the testimony concern-
ing the remarks of Plant Manager Alderman and United Pioneer President Keesler
was for the most part uncontradicted and for the most part corroborated on rebuttal.
It should be further noted that the remarks discussed in detail above were made
in conjunction with and as part of the general and consistent company expression of
its hostility and opposition to union representation of its employees.
4. Borderline statements
The complaint charges that on Septetmber 15, Sewing Room Supervisor Bryant
coercively interrogated an employee concerning union membership , activities, and
desires. The evidence discloses that on that date Supervisor Bryant approached
employee Flora Harris at her machine and asked if Harris had heard anything more
about the Union Harris explained that Bryant was referring to a preceding con-
versation between Harris and employee Taylor when Taylor in July asked Harris
about the union campaign and Harris truthfully told Taylor she had not heard any-
thing about the Union-apparently Bryant was present at the conversation . Harris
replied that yes, she had heard about the Union. Bryant then commented "Well, I
don't believe it.", stood a few minutes , then said "Flora, it it so'?", to which Harris
replied, "Yes , I'm afraid it is, Jeanette ." Bryant repeated "I just don't believe it."
Harris further testified that she believed Bryant was attempting to draw information
from her concerning the union campaign.
As Yarberry had informed the employees at a preceding mass meeting , a fish fry
was held at the plant during working hours about November 17, 2 days before the
election. The assembled employees were addressed by Keesler , Alderman, and
Bennett. Bennett spoke of his efforts to bring new businesses to Waycross and the
difficulty he had experienced in persuading the parent organization to locate the Com-
pany at Waycross , Georgia. He was later queried concerning whether employees who
voted for the Union in the election would be discharged and replied in the negative.
See Note, footnote 3, sbid.
257-551-67-vol 160-3
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He was then asked the reason for Cowart's discharge 9 days previous and replied it
was his understanding that Cowart was discharged for soliciting union membership
on company time and property. President Keesler of the parent organization fol-
lowed Bennett, confirmed that United Pioneer had originally intended to locate in
Alma but had been persuaded to come to Waycross; that expenses were heavy and
the Waycross plant was operating in the red; and that if necessary, he could close
the plant.6
C. The alleged 8(a)(3) violation
In July of 1965, Leon Cowart was employed in the Company's shipping room.
He signed an authorization card for the Union at its first (July) meeting and sub-
sequently secured 11 cards from other company employees. His supervisor, Richard
Chadwick, attended union meetings with Cowart up to October 14 (see footnote 2,
supra).
On September 17, both Cowart and Chadwick were part of the union committee
which met with Plant Manager Alderman for various purposes (see III, B, 3, a,
supra).
After the October 14 disclosure of Chadwick's status as a supervisor (see footnote
2, supra), Chadwick questioned Cowart concerning his union affiliation, support, and
activities, solicited his withdrawal from and public denunciation of the Union and
threatened his job if he did not comply (see III, B, 3, b, supra).
On November 5 (a Friday), Cowart tore up a leaflet distributed by the Company
at one of its mass meetings. The following Monday, at another mass meeting called
by the Company, Assistant Plant Manager Yarberry referred to an employee tearing
up a company leaflet the preceding Friday and commented that some people have
their minds made up and cannot be changed.
That afternoon (November 8), Cowart was called into Plant Manager Alderman's
office in the presence of Assistant Plant Manager Yarberry and United Pioneer
Corporation Secretary Besen and informed by Alderman that he was discharged for
breaking the law-either the National Labor Relations Act or the Taft-Hartley Act,
Alderman didn't know which-by soliciting employees to sign union authorization
cards on company time and property. Cowart denied the charge. Alderman replied
that he had a signed statement proving the charge and could get more
At a subsequent visit to Alderman's office, Cowart asked if he could see the state-
ment to learn what he was supposed to have done. Alderman refused to show it
to him or disclose its contents, saying it was in the hands of the Company's attorney.?
There have not been any further contacts between Cowart and the Company. The
Company at all times since the discharge has refused to reinstate Cowart to his
former or substantially equivalent employment.
About November 17, Company Counsel Bennett confirmed that Cowart had been
discharged 9 days previous for soliciting other employees on behalf of the Union on
company time and property (see III, B, 4, supra).
No evidence was produced concerning the existence of any company rule prohibit-
ing solicitation for the Union on company property during working hours. On the
contrary, it is clear that solicitations were permitted by the Company freely for nu-
merous causes on company property during working time, including solicitations for
gifts to management officials, churches, etc.
At the hearing, the Company cited a different reason from the one given Cowart
for his discharge and announced to all the employees at the November 17 mass meet-
ing. At the March 22, 1966, hearing, the Company stated that Cowart was dis-
charged for committing an illegal trespass by entering the plant after working hours,
thereby violating a rule against employee presence at the plant outside his scheduled
working hours.
The only evidence concerning this "rule" was testimony by Plant Manager Alder-
man and Plant Janitor William A Daughtry to the effect that sometime after
Daughtry's hire in 1965 Alderman told Daughtry not to permit anyone in the plant
after working hours. There was no evidence that this alleged rule was ever published
to the employees. Cowart denied any knowledge of any such rule; his denial is
credited.
Employee Courson testified that Keesler said "He (Keesler) could close the doors, if
necessary" , Plant Manager Alderman testified that "When somebody asked him (Kessler)
if he could close the plant, I think he said he could if he wanted to." Also see Note, foot-
note 3, ibad.
?Plant Manager Alderman corroborated Cowart's testimony concerning these exchanges
between them. Yarberry and'Besen were not called to testify.
WAYCROSS SPORTSWEAR, INC. 19
The Company attempted to establish Cowart's violation of the alleged no-
solicitation and/or no-trespass rules by Janitor Daughtry.
Daughtry testified that during the afternoon of Friday, September 9, Cowart told
him he was coming to see Daughtry that evening at the plant; that he found the front
door of the plant open about 7 or 7:30 p.m.; about 7:30 p.m. he telephoned Plant
Manager Alderman, informed him the front door was open and requested that
Alderman come lock it (Daughtry did not have a key to it); Alderman agreed to do
so; about 8 p.m. he saw Cowart inside the plant near the front door; Cowart engaged
him in conversation, soliciting his support of the Union; they talked about 5 to 15
minutes and then he went back to work; he did not see Cowart enter the plant and
did not see him leave the plant; he checked the front door about 10 p.m. and found
it locked; and he did not see Alderman at any time that evening.
Daughtry on cross-examination conceded that he discussed the Union several times
with Cowart at the plant during breaks in Cowart's working hours at the plant (there
was one shift at the plant-on which Cowart worked-which ended at 4 p m.;
Daughtry normally arrived about 2 p.m. and worked to 10 p.m.), that in one of those
conversations Cowart offered to send a union representative to Daughtry's home,
that he accepted Cowart's offer and a union representative did call on him at his
his home. Daughtry reiterated on cross-examination that he did not see Cowart
enter or leave the building and that he did not see or talk to Alderman He also
testified that he neither told Cowart not to come to the plant after working hours nor
to leave the plant when he saw him there, and that Alderman about a month later
asked Daughtry to confirm that Cowart had been there.
Daughtry was then confronted with his sworn affidavit executed December 8 in
which he stated:
He (Cowart) got to the plant around 8 or 8.30 p.m. on this night and come in
the front door. . . This was the only time I talked to him. I talked to
Cowart close to the front office in the plant as this was where I was clean-
ing . This was the only time that I ever talked to him about the Union.
During the time that we were talking, Mr. Alderman came to lock the door and
found him talking to me. . Mr. Alderman did not speak to me. .
When I saw Mr. Alderman, he came in the front door and came into his office
and I never saw him again. Cowart left by the front door he came in and Mr.
Alderman had to be in his office at the time because the front door was not
locked at the time. . . . Quite a while after this, Mr. Alderman called me
into his office and he asked me what Mr. Cowart was in the building for and
I told him it was concerning the Union.
Daughtry was then asked whether the affidavit was true and responded that it
was. He later attempted to explain one major discrepancy between the affidavit and
his testimony (whether he saw or talked with Alderman) by saying that "In my vision
I thought I saw a man come in and go in Mr. Alderman's office and I thought it was
him, but it was really my imagination is what it was." Daughtry did not explain the
other discrepancies
Daughtry's veracity was further impugned by Plant Manager Alderman. After
verifying his September 9 receipt of a telephone call from Daughtry requesting he
come and lock the plant's front door, driving to the plant with his family to do so,
Alderman stated that he entered the plant, that he saw and conversed with Daughtry,
that he did not see Cowart at any time, and that he entered and spent some time in
his office, thereafter leaving and locking the door as he left.
Alderman further stated that he heard an automobile leave the vicinity while he
was in his office, which later caused him to suspect someone had been there, but that
he did not see any automobile 8 or the driver either in the parking lot in front of
the plant (his car was parked at the front door) when he arrived nor when he left.
Alderman also contradicted Daughtry's statement that he asked Daughtry if
Cowart had been at the plant that night; that he asked Daughtry if someone was at
the plant that night and received the reply that Cowart "and another boy" were
there (Alderman said he "asked some questions" but never learned the identity of
the alleged "other boy").
8 There was no credible evidence concerning the description, ownership, or driver identity
regarding the automobile allegedly at the plant about 8 p in September 9 ; Alderman testi-
fied he heard an automobile drive off but saw neither the automobile nor its driver. Alder-
man's testimony that he received a report of the presence of a white car at the time was
admitted for the sole purpose of establishing the reason he conducted an investigation and
questioned Daughtry and not as evidence that a white car was present. In any event,
Cowart's testimony that his automobile is green and white is credited.
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alderman stated that he debated the advisability of telling Cowart that he was
discharging him on November 8 either for theft or for an illegal trespass committed
on September 9, but decided against giving Cowart either of those reasons because
he could not find anything missing and he doubted that an illegal trespass had been
committed because the plant's front door was open, and Cowart might sue him and
the Company for damage to his reputation by reason of a false charge of commission
of an illegal act; that he therefore decided to tell Cowart he was being discharged for
soliciting for the Union on company time and property because "that seemed to be
the best reason to give since I didn 't have any direct proof of illegal entry or theft "
Alderman then stated his real reason for deciding to discharge Cowart-because
Cowart "had made statements to the effect that he couldn 't be fired because he was
a member of the Union" and "You don 't like anybody going around in your plant
making a statement that the boss can't do so and so."
Cowart testified that he had several conversations with Daughtry during breaks at
the plant with regard to the Union , that he offered to have a full -time union rep-
resentative call on Daughtry at his home and did cause such a call to be made, that
he didn 't have any reason to talk to Daughtry after working hours since he had that
opportunity during working hours, and that he never visited the plant and talked
to Daughtry outside hours he was at the plant to work.
Cowart 's timecard for September 9 does not contain a time stamp for the end of his
workday but rather shows a handwritten entry, in the same hand and red ink as the
daily and weekly totals, of "5 : 45," which confirms Cowart's testimony that shipping
room employees such as he often work at the plant after the 4 p.m. close of the
single production shift and lends added credence to his denial of entry into or pres-
ence upon the plant premises outside the hours he was assigned to work.
In view of the many contradictions between Daughtry's testimony and his affidavit,
Alderman's testimony , and Cowart 's testimony, plus Daughtry 's evasiveness, hesi-
tancy, and the lame and unconvincing nature of his explanation or failure to explain
the inconsistencies between same , and in view of the straightforward , reasonable,
corroborated , and unhesitating testimony of Cowart , I credit Cowart's statement that
he never entered into nor was present upon the plant premises on September 9 or any
other date outside of the times he was scheduled to work there and discredit any
Daughtry testimony to the contrary.
It is my further finding that Alderman , searching for a pretext to discharge Cowart
because of his resentment that Cowart had the temerity to proclaim that the labor
laws of the United States protected him against discriminatory discharge for his open,
known, and aggressive union membership and activity and his refusal to renounce
same and "come out for the Company" and in order to intimidate other employees
from similar free exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act , prevailed upon
Daughtry to support his admittedly fabricated statement to Cowart that the reason
for his discharge was his solicitation of other employees for the Union on company
time and property or the later fabrication that the reason was his commission of an
illegal treaspass on company property on his own time ( a reason which he had
originally thought about , plus theft , but rejected as indefensible and possibly exposing
him and the Company to legal liability)
The foregoing credibility resolutions are entered in the event further review of this
Decision necessitates their consideration ; the delay of a remand may thereby be
avoided.
D. Concluded findings
I find and conclude that in the course of an antiunion campaign conducted by the
Company among its employees between the time the Union notified the Company
of its majority status and requested recognition and bargaining and the time the Board
conducted a representation election with regard to such employees , the Company
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act:
1. On September 17, by Plant Manager John Alderman's coercive interrogation of
the spokesman for a group of the Company 's employees who had formed a union
committee concerning the identity and number of the Union 's supporters among the
employees;
2. On October 1, by Alderman 's coercive interrogation of employee Flora Harris
concerning her union desires and indirectly promising a wage increase to the em-
ployees if they abandoned the Union;
3. Near the end of October, by Alderman's coercive interrogation of employee
Mary Wood concerning her union desires;
4. On November 1, 2, and 3, by Supervisor Richard Chadwick 's coercive inter-
rogation of employee Leon Cowart concerning his union membership , support, and
WAYCROSS SPORTSWEAR, INC. 21
activities, solicitation to renounce his union membership, support, and activities and
publicly denounce the Union, and implied threat of disciplinary action for failure to
so renounce and denounce;
5. On November 8, by Assistant Plant Manager John Yarberry's effort to influence
employee Mary Wood's union desires with regard to union representation by promis-
ing to recall her husband Raymond;
6. On various dates in October and November, by Assistant Plant Manager John
Yarberry's solicitation and encouragement of the Company's employees to form,
support, and utilize a "Grievance Committee" composed of employees favored and
recognized by the management for the purpose of adjusting employee disputes with
the Company over wages, rates of pay, hours, and other conditions of employment
rather than and as a substitute for the formation, support, and utilization of the Union
for such purpose.
I further find that the Company during and as part of that same antiunion cam-
paign violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging Leon Cowart 11 days be-
fore the Board election because of his union membership, activities, and support and
to discourage other employees from such membership, activity and support, and not
for cause; that the reason the Company gave on November 8 to Cowart, the reason
the Company gave in its opening statement to me on March 22 and the reason the
plant manager gave on his testimony on March 23 were all pretexts to disguise the
Company's real motive as just expressed above.
I also find that in view of the foregoing concluded findings and the closeness of the
September 15 exchange between Supervisor Bryant and employee Harris and the
remarks of United Pioneer President Keesler to the assembled employees about
November 17 to the dividing line between the permissible under Section 8(c) and
the coercive under Section 8(a)(1), the purposes of the Act will be best served by
dismissal of these charges as violations of the statute, and their dismissal is therefore
here recommended.
IV. EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices it is
recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to
take affirmative action of the type conventionally ordered in such cases as provided
in the Recommended Order below, which I find to be necessary to remedy and re-
move the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
by discharging Leon Cowart, I shall recommend that Respondent offer him im-
mediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against
him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would
have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the Respondent's
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period, with backpay and
interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W.
W'nhvorth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
Because the Respondent by its conduct violated fundamental employee rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and it appears from the nature and manner of the
commission of those acts a disposition to commit other unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that Respondent cease and desist from committing the specific acts found
to infringe upon those rights as well as generally desist from in any other manner
infringing thereupon.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I have
reached the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an Employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Charging Party is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By discouraging union membership through discrimination in employment and
interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
under the Act, as found above , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1)
and (3 ) and 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, I shall recommend that Waycross Sportswear, Inc., Way-
cross, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from
a. Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging, laying off,
or refusing to reinstate any of its employees because of their concerted or union
activities, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
b. Interrogating employees concerning union affiliation or activities in a manner
constituting interference, restraint, or coercion violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
c. Attempting to discourage or discouraging membership in, support of, and
activities on behalf of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization of its employees by promise of benefits or threats of
reprisals.
d. Encouraging and soliciting employees to withdraw membership in and support
of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor orga-
nization of its employees as their representative for the purpose of adjusting employee
disputes over wages, rates of pay, hours or other conditions of employment and to
form, support, and utilize a "Grievance Committee" of employees favored by and
recognized by Waycross Sportswear, Inc. as a substitute therefor.
e. In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
a. Offer Leon Cowart immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges.
b. Make whole Leon Cowart in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section of
this Decision.
c. Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents all payroll
and other records as set forth in "The Remedy" section of this Decision.
d. Post in conspicuous places at its place of business in Waycross, Georgia, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of such notice shall be furnished to
Respondent by the Regional Director for Region 10 and shall be signed by a rep-
resentative of Respondent and posted immediately upon Respondent's receipt of such
notice and maintained for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced
or covered by any other material.
e. Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 20 days from the
receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'°
e In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, "a Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
"a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted
for "a Decision and Order "
10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified by the substitution of "10 days from the date of this Order" for "20 days
from the receipt of this Recommended Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor orga-
CLARK PRODUCTS, INC. 23
nization , by discriminating in any manner with regard to hire, tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor orga-
nizations , to join or assist the above -named or any other labor organization, to
bargaining collectively through representatives of their own choosing or to engage
in other concerted concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Leon Cowart immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent employment without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges and will make him whole for any loss of earnings and
benefits suffered as a result of our discrimination against him.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights set out in the second paragraph above by coercively interrogating
them concerning membership in or activities on behalf of Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization ; by directly
or indirectly promising benefits to them for abandoning union membership, sup-
port, or activity ; by directly or indirectly threatening reprisals against them for
union membership , support, or activity ; by directly or indirectly soliciting and
encouraging them to form, support , and utilize a "Grievance Committee" or
other similar organization as a substitute for and instead of Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, as
their representative for the purpose of adjusting their disputes over wages, rates
of pay, hours, and other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights set out in the second paragraph above.
All our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becom-
ing or remaining , members of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WAYCROSS SPORTSWEAR, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree -Seventh Building , 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta , Georgia, Telephone
526-5741.
Clark Products, Inc., Subsidiary of Nopco Chemical Company and
Upholsterers ' International Union of North America, AFL-
CIO, Local Union 227. Case 25-CA-2249. July 1, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 16, 1966, Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Decision. He
also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor
practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to them.
160 NLRB No. 5.