Wellman Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 639 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

WELLMAN INDUSTRIES 639
Wellman Industries , Inc. and Textile Workers Union
of America , AFL-CIO, CLC. Cases I I-CA-5091,
11-CA-5101, and 11-CA-5233
June 17, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On October 15, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Lowell Goerlich issued the attached Decision in the
above-entitled matter in which he recommended that
the Respondent's defense based on the testimony of
Baxley be denied. Additionally, he found that the
Respondent had made the unilateral changes alleged
in Cases 11-CA-5101 and 11-CA-5233, and con-
cluded by stating, "it is recommended that, if an
order to bargain is entered in Case 11-CA-5091, an
order also be entered in these cases, with an
appropriate notice, ordering the employer to cease
and desist from making unilateral changes in wages,
hours, and working conditions of its unit employees
without prior notification to and consultation with
the Union." Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions 1 and a supporting brief and simultane-
ously filed a motion stating that: "In the event that
the Board finds that the Administrative Law Judge
did not have to make appropriate findings of fact,
conclusions of law and write a remedial order
together with an appropriate notice to employees,"
the Board grant a bargaining order together with
appropriate relief in these cases. The Petitioner,
herein Charging Party, filed exceptions and a
supporting brief and the Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief. Subsequently, the Charging
Party filed a reply brief to the Respondent's
exceptions and the Respondent filed a "Resistance to
Motion" that had been filed by the General Counsel.
On April 19 and 20, 1972, a secret ballot election
was conducted at Respondent's plant under the
supervision of the Regional Director for Region 11 of
the Board. The Union received a majority of the
valid votes cast in that election. On April 25, 1972,
Respondent timely filed its Objections and Supple-
mental Objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election of April 19 and 20, 1972. On June 14,
1972, the Regional Director issued a Second Supple-
mental Decision and Certification of Representative
I
The General Counsel excepted as follows:
1. To the Administrative Law Judge 's failure to make conclusions of
law, findings of fact , and to recommend an order in Case 11-CA-5091.
2. To the Administrative Law Judge's failure to make conclusions of
law, findings of fact, and to recommend an order in Case 1l -CA-5101.
3. To the Administrative Law Judge 's failure to make conclusions of
law, findings of fact, and to recommend an order in Case 11 -CA-5233.
4. To the Administrative Law Judge 's failure to recommend a
bargaining order in Case 11-CA-5091.
in which he overruled Respondent's Objections and
Supplemental Objections and formally certified the
Union as the exclusive representative of Respon-
dent's employees. On July 10, 1972, the Respondent
filed with the Board a Request for Review of the
Regional Director's Second Supplemental Decision
and Certification of Representative. On August 1,
1972, the Board issued an Order Denying Respon-
dent's Request for Review. On September 26, 1972,
the Union requested that Respondent meet with it
for the purpose of conducting bargaining negotia-
tions. On October 4, 1972, the Respondent informed
the Union that it would refuse to bargain.
On October 5 and 13, 1972, the Charging Party
filed a charge and an amended charge in Case
11-CA-5091 alleging that Respondent had refused to
bargain with it in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the Act. After a complaint and notice of hearing
issued in that case on October 20, 1972, and
Respondent filed its answer thereto on November 3,
1972, counsel for General Counsel on November 9,
1972, filed a Motion to Strike Affirmative Defense,
Portions of Answer, and for Summary Judgment. On
March 8, 1973, Respondent filed its Motion to Deny
General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment
due to newly discovered evidence. The newly
discovered evidence involved three affidavits from
one Kenneth Baxley concerning his activities imme-
diately prior to the April 1972 election.
On May 30, 1973, the Board issued an Order
denying General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment and Remanding Proceeding to Regional
Director for Hearing. It further ordered that "a
hearing before a duly designated Administrative Law
Judge to be designated by the Chief, Division of
Judges, for the purpose of taking evidence limited to
the allegation of newly discovered evidence relating
to the information contained in the Baxley affida-
vits." The Board further ordered that upon conclusion
of the hearing which it had directed the Administra-
tive Law Judge "shall prepare and serve upon the
parties a Decision containing findings of fact,
conclusions of Law, and recommendations based
upon the evidence received pursuant to the provi-
sions of this Order, and that following service of such
Decision upon the parties, the provisions of Section
102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations shall be
applicable."
5. To the Administrative Law Judge 's failure to recommend that
Respondent cease and desist from making unilateral changes in terms and
conditions of employment of its employees in the bargaining unit without
prior consultation and bargaining with the Union in Cases II-CA-5101 and
11-CA-5233.
6. To the Administrative Law Judge's failure to direct that Respondent
post a proper Notice to Employees in Cases I l-CA-5091, I I-CA-5101, and
11-CA-5233.
211 NLRB No. 96
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Subsequent to the Board's May 30, 1973, Order,
the Acting Regional Director for Region 11 issued
his Order Consolidating Cases on June 7, 1973, in
which he consolidated Cases 11-CA-5101 and
11-CA-5233 with Case 11-CA-5091 for hearing.
Cases 11-CA-5101 and 11-CA-5233 involved allega-
tions of unilateral changes in violation of Section
8(a)(5) made by Respondent subsequent to the
Union's certification.
On August 13 and 14, 1973, a hearing was
conducted before Administrative Law Judge Lowell
Goerlich on all three cases . Administrative Law
Judge Goerlich heard extensive testimony presented
by both Respondent and counsel for the General
Counsel concerning the Baxley affidavits and the
evidence contained therein and the alleged unilateral
changes made by Respondent. He did not credit the
testimony adduced by Respondent and as noted
above, stated, "Accordingly,based upon the evidence-
received and an examination of the record as a
whole, it is recommended that the Respondent's
defense planted on the testimony of Baxley be
denied." Additionally, he found that Respondent
had made the alleged unilateral changes but as noted
above he did not recommend an order in any of the
cases involved in the consolidated complaint.
On January 31, 1974, the Board found that the
Board's Remand Order of May 30, 1973, constituted
a total remand of Case 11-CA-5091 and instructed
the Administrative Law Judge to issue a decision
"containing findings of fact, conclusions of law and
recommendations." Accordingly, the cases were
remanded to the Administrative Law Judge for
further proceedings consistent with the Board Order,
including the preparation and issuance of a Supple-
mental Decision setting forth findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations in con-
formity with the Board's Rules and Regulations.
On February 28, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Goerlich issued the attached Supplemental Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed a
Motion to Reopen Hearing with attached affidavits,
exceptions to the Decisions of the Administrative
Law Judge, and a supporting brief. The Charging
Party filed a letter and attached its exceptions which
were filed November 16, 1973, as its exceptions and
brief in support of the Supplemental Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge. The Respondent filed an
answering brief to the exceptions and brief of the
Charging Party. The General Counsel filed an
Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Reopen
Hearing and a Motion to Strike Affidavits attached
to Respondent's Motion to Reopen Hearing. The
Respondent filed a Motion to Strike Portion of
General Counsel's Opposition to Motion.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision and Supplemental Decision in
light of the exceptions, briefs, and motions,2 and has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt
the recommended Order in his Supplemental Deci-
sion and, those findings and conclusions set forth in
his Supplemental Decision, and further to adopt his
conclusions in his initial Decision to the extent that
they are not inconsistent with the Board's Order of
January 31, 1974.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Supplemen-
tal Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Wellman Industries,
Inc., Johnsonville, South Carolina, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said Supplemental Order.
2 The Respondent's Motion to Reopen Hearing requests the Board to
issue an order remanding this matter to the Administrative Law Judge
requiring that the hearings previously held herein be reopened for the
purpose of taking testimony with respect to the credibility of witness Baxley.
More specifically the motion states, inter alia, "The Respondent believes
that it has important evidence with respect to the credibility of the said
Baxley as more particularly set forth in the affidavits annexed hereto and
incorporated herein ... [tlhat the evidence with respect to said Baxley was
not properly in issue before this time, and, therefore constitutes new
evidence." General Counsel's Opposition to Motion to Reopen Hearing and
Motion to Strike states, at par. 3:
On March 15, 1974, after denial of its Motion by the Administrative
Law Judge, Respondent filed its Motion to Reopen Hearing with the
National Labor Relations Board . This Motion was based on grounds
identical to those given in the Motion set forth in (2), above.
The Respondent filed a subsequent motion submitting that since the
Administrative Law Judge ruled on the motion almost 2 weeks after the
Board had ordered the proceeding transferred to itself, the Administrative
Law Judge was without power or authority to rule on Respondent 's Motion
to Reopen Hearing , and requested the Board to take no notice of the
Administrative Law Judge's ruling to deny Respondent 's motion.
We have considered the Respondent 's Motion to Reopen Hearing and
General Counsel's opposition thereto de novo. We find no merit in
Respondent's Motion to Reopen Hearing and we hereby deny it. We note,
inter alia, that the proper occasion for the presentation of evidence bearing
on the credibility of Baxley, who was Respondent 's chief witness , was at the
hearing conducted on August 13 and 14, 1973, before the Administrative
Law Judge . We note further that there is nothing in Respondent's motion
which would indicate why the alleged evidence bearing on Baxley's
credibility was not available to Respondent at the time of the hearing in this
matter.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LOWELL GOERLICH, Administrative Law Judge: On
April 10, 1973, the Regional Director issued his Order
Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice
of Hearing in Cases 11-CA-5101 and 11-CA-5233. On
WELLMAN INDUSTRIES 641
May 30, 1973, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
referred to as the Board, in Case 11-CA-5091, issued its
Order Denying General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment and Remanding Proceeding to Regional Direc-
tor for Hearing . On June 7, 1973, the Regional Director
issued an order consolidating Case I1-CA-5091 with
Cases I1-CA-5101 and I1-CA-5233 for hearing. In the
complaint in Case 11-CA-5091, it was charged that
Wellman Industries , Inc., the Respondent herein, by letter
dated October 4, 1972, refused to bargain with Textile
Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, herein called
the Union, which had been certified as the exclusive
bargaining representative on June 14, 1972, because "We
seriously question the validity of your Certification by the
NLRB as the exclusive bargaining representative of our
production and maintenance employees." In the consoli-
dated complaint in Cases I1-CA-5101 and 11-CA-5233, it
was alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein
referred to as the Act, by unilaterally and without prior
notification to or consultation with the Union granting
wage increases to unit employees on October 2, 1972,
laying off unit employees on August 27, 1972, and
promulgating new absence and tardiness rules and regula-
tions on January 29, 1973.
The Respondent filed timely answers denying that it had
engaged in or was engaging in the unfair labor practices
alleged.
On November 10, 1972, the General Counsel in Case
I I-CA-5091 had filed his Motion to Strike Affirmative
Defenses , Portion of Answer, and for Summary Judgment
.with the Board. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a Motion
to Deny General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judg-
ment due to newly discovered evidence, attaching thereto
an affidavit of Kenneth Baxley. The Board denied the
General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment and
held that "factual matters relating to the activities and
prior statements of Baxley are now in dispute which can
best be resolved by a hearing."
It was ordered that "a hearing be held before a duly
designated Administrative Law Judge . . . for the purpose
of taking evidence limited to the allegation of newly
discovered evidence relating to the information contained
in the Baxley affidavits." 1 A Baxley affidavit indicates that
during the election campaign in April 1972 Baxley
misrepresented the shooting of his dog and that during the
same campaign he affixed a threatening note to his own
door while, in fact, he had misrepresented that the note
had been placed there by another.
The Respondent, by answer, admitted that at all times
material herein it was an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and
that the Union was a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Pursuant to the Board's Order in Case 11-CA-5091,
Case 11-CA-5091 and consolidated Cases 11-CA-5101
and 11-CA-5233 came on for trial on August 13 and 14,
1973, at Florence, South Carolina. Each party was
afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to call, examine
and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally on the record,
to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions, and
to file briefs. All briefs have been carefully considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT,2 CONCLUSIONS, AND REASONS
THEREFOR
1. CASE 1L-CA-5091
A. Pertinent Facts
George Kenneth Baxley, age 24, was employed by the
Respondee'1t part time while he was in high school. He
commenced full-time work in 1967. Thereafter, he worked
during several separate tenures, quitting in March 1973
because he objected to Sunday assignments. Prior to the
election campaign which culminated in an election on
April 19 and 20, 1972, Baxley did not favor the Union and
spoke against it. About 45 days before the election, Union
Representative Estes Vernon Riffe converted Baxley to the
union cause during a 2-hour discussion. Prior to this time,
Baxley had been "strongly against the union." After his
conversion to the union cause, Baxley solicited for the
Union, contacting between 50 and 100 employees. He
became a member of the in-plant union organizing
committee .3
About a week before the election, Baxley disseminated
information that his dog had been shot4 and that a note
was affixed to his door reading "Stay the hell away from
the Union hall." He delivered the note to the Union.5
Baxley discussed the contents of the note and the dog
incident with fellow employees. He testified that he "tried
to make it look like that the company could gain by doing
this. "6 The employees to whom Baxley related the dog and
note incidents were located in his immediate work area.?
David Brown was one of them.
I The Board's Order Denying General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment and Remanding Proceeding to Regional Director for Hearing
further provided: ". . . upon conclusion of the hearing, the Administrative
Law Judge shall prepare and serve upon the parties a Decision containing
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations based upon the
evidence received pursuant to the provisions of this order .... .
% The facts found herein are based on the record as a whole and the
observations of the witnesses . The credibility resolutions herein have been
derived from a review of the entire testimonial record and exhibits , with due
regard for the logic of probability, the demeanor of the witnesses , and the
teachings of N.L.R.B. v. Walton Manufacturing Company & Loganville Pants
Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408 (1962). As to those witnesses testifying in
contradiction to the findings herein, their testimony has been discredited,
either as having been in conflict with the testimony of credible witnesses or
because it is in and of itself incredulous and unworthy of belief.
3 On April 5, by telegram, and on April 6, by letter, the Respondent was
advised that Baxley was a member of the Union and serving as a member of
the Union In-Plant Voluntary Organizing Committee.
4 One witness described the dog : "It looked like a mixed breed , mostly
collie ... light tan, with a black nose."
5 The note which was received in evidence contained printed words as
follows:
STAY THE HELL
AWAY FROM UNION HALL
CURIOUS
6 Baxley also testified , "I told them that I found the note on my door and
I just left lit) up to their imaginations from there."
7 Baxley testified that he had also lied to his wife about the incidents.
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the day before the election, April 18, 1973, at about
12:30 a .m.,8 as Respondent's then department superintend-
ent of fiber finishing , Wayne Farrell Lindley, was walking
through the production area, Baxley stopped him and
asked if he could talk to him for a moment . Baxley said
that "he had some questions that he would like to ask
[Lindley] concerning the union and the election ." Several
employees were present while Lindley responded to
Baxley's questions . Later during the shift , Shift Supervisor
Ronald Brock informed Lindley that Baxley desired to
speak with him again . Brock and Baxley met with Lindley
at which time Baxley informed Lindley that "he had
changed his mind about supporting the union ; that he
would like to tell the people that he had talked with that he
had changed his mind and he didn 't know how to get in
touch ." Baxley asked for permission to use the bulletin
board for such purpose. Lindley responded that he "felt
sure that he could not do that." The possibility of using the
radio station was then discussed . A list of employees
(about 100) who had signed union cards was turned over to
Lindley by Baxley. Near the end of the conversation,
Baxley mentioned that "somebody had put a note on his
door and that his dog had been killed ." Baxley said that
"this was one of the reasons he wanted out of the whole
thing-the support of the union." He left Lindley with the
"impression" that "he thought the company had done it or
that' somebody connected with the company had done it "lo
Lindley informed his boss, Holden , of Baxley's conversa-
tion. Holden told Lindley to call Douglas Harold Mat-
thews,tt the personnel director . Lindley discussed the
matter with Matthews.
According to Baxley, he left work at 8 o'clock on the
morning of April 18, 1973. Upon arriving home, he
received a phone call from Matthews' secretary bidding
him to return to the plant . Baxley went to Matthews ' office
where Matthews asked him , "Can I help you?" Baxley
explained that he had changed his mind and asked
Matthews for "suggestions in a way that it could be
a The findings of fact in this paragraph are drawn from the testimony of
Wayne Farrell Lindley, now manufacturing manager of the knitting
division , which is credited.
a Union Representative Riffe testified that Baxley indicated to him on
April 19 that he had changed his mind about the Union "because of the
threats that he got from the foreman and the supervisors and the company
about his union activities ." In this respect, "the note and the dog incident"
were mentioned . Shortly after the election, Baxley gave the Union a
handwritten statement stating that the reason for informing Lindley of his
change of heart was because of the shooting of his dog and the threatening
note on his door.
10 Baxley's version of the foregoing facts differed substantially from the
testimony related by Lindley. Baxley first testified that he informed Lindley
one morning that he was abandoning his support of the Union, but he did
not recall what he said on the subject of changing his mind . Continuing his
testimony , he described the incident in more detail . Baxley said that Lindley
..was going around to different places that morning and talking to different
people" and approached a group of six or seven employees including
Baxley . "Pros and cons" about the Union were discussed. Baxley asked
Lindley questions in respect to wages and fringe benefits . These questions
were prounion orientated and were somewhat critical of the Company.
After the discussion ended, Baxley followed Lindley "off on the side" and
told him he was "dropping [his I support of the union " Baxley could not
remember Lindley's response . "Very soon" thereafter , Brock informed
Baxley that Lindley wanted to see him in his office . Both Brock and Baxley
appeared in Lindley's office where Baxley informed Lindley that he had
changed his mind and was sorry for what he had done . He turned over to
Lindley a list of union card signers "to show that [he] had changed [his]
straightened out that close to the election ." Matthews
suggested the radio station ,12 Hemmingway, WKYB.
Baxley then went to the radio station with the idea of
making a public service announcement of his defection. He
was advised that such an announcement was illegal and
that his announcement would require payment . Baxley
discussed this matter with Lindley . Lindley said, "I
wouldn't be surprised if someone were to come up-to
come out to your house with the money." Thereafter,
employee David Brown collected $ 114.75 which was given
to Baxley.
On April 19 , 1973, in the morning , Union Representative
Phillip Pope appeared at Baxley's home . Apparently Pope
had heard of Baxley's apostasy, but he was unable to
reconvert him. Some time later , during the same morning,
employee Brown and Baxley arrived at the radio station
where they met Union Representatives Pope and Riffe. In
a private talk with Riffe, Baxley was again converted to the
Union's cause.13
Baxley left the radio station in the company of the union
representatives who, together with Baxley, composed and
sent a telegram to the Respondent and distributed a leaflet
with the same verbiage at the plant gates prior to the
commencement of the election.34 A copy of the leaflet
follows:
Mr. Jack Wellman , President
Wellman Industries, Inc.
Johnsonville , South Carolina 29555
This telegram will officially advise you and all of my
fellow workers regardless of the rumors they may have
heard that as of today, April 19, 1972 at Noon that my
position remains the same in support of the Union, as
contained in the previous telegram which I recently
sent you.
I am now continuing to support the Textile Workers
Union of America, AFL-CIO 100% and I intend to
urge each and every friend of mine at Wellman
mind."
Baxley's testimony on cross-examination in respect to the above events
was punctuated with many failures to recall. At one point, he said that he
was "starting to remember." Nevertheless, the content of his answers, his
evasive responses, and his demeanor gave the impression that he was not
revealing the whole truth; in fact, it is concluded that he lied specifically in
regard to his claims that Lindley talked to the employees as described; that
he took Lindley aside and told him he changed his mind about the Union;
and that Lindley called him into his office. Although Lindley heard Baxley's
testimony, he denied these assertions of Baxley. Lindley is credited;
demeanor has been considered. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that a
,company supervisor would lie to the disadvantage of the Company when to
have corroborated Baxley would have enhanced Baxley's credibility.
11 In the record, Matthews is referred to as "Matthess."
17 Baxley testified that this was the first time that the radio station had
been mentioned, and that it had not been mentioned in Lindley's office.
Lindley's testimony was otherwise.
13 Baxley explained, "He asked me how long did I think I would last
within the plant on the job if I were to air that message. How secure my job
(would be and he put it like that I couldn't help but agree with him ...."
Baxley testified that the Union did not promise him a job "at that time."
Elaborating, Baxley said that Pope sometime previously had "[j lust
mentioned the salary that union people make and how I might stand a good
chance of getting a position with them. How much-that I might stand a
good chance of being president and unionizing the plant."
i4 The same verbiage was submitted to the employees through an
automatic telephonic device whereby an employee could dial a union
number and receive the message.
WELLMAN INDUSTRIES 643
Industries to vote yes for the Union today and
tomorrow.
This will also officially advise you that I wish to be
excused from my job on April 20th through April 21th
in order that I may serve as an official observer for the
Union.
During the past few weeks numerous threats and
pressure have been brought against me because of me
supporting the Union.
Several acts of volience [sic] have taken place at my
home in Johnsonville, where my collie dog was shot
within the past ten days. In addition, several threats
have been made against me and my wife in writing and
left attached to the door of my home, during the period
when my wife and I both were absent visiting her
seriously ill Brother who has been hospitalized in
Florence, South Carolina.
Mr. Wellman, I call upon you in the name of
human decency and justice to see to it that my rights
are protected to support the Union as provided by
Federal Law.
I am sending a copy of this telegram to The National
Labor Relations Board for my legal protection and to
prove Company knowledge of my support for the
Union.
I am having reproduced a memograph [sic ] copy of
the above information for all of my fellow workers to
see and I am incouraging [sic] every worker at
Wellman to Vote Yes.
Sincerely yours,
Kenneth Baxley
Copy To: All Employees of Wellman Industries
Riffe suggested the telegram as "legal protection" against
possible company reprisals upon learning of Baxley's
reconversion.15
According to Baxley, on September 29, 1972, he
experienced a religious conversion. At the same time, he
recanted his reconversion to the union cause of April 19,
1972. Said he, "When I was converted into a Christian
-when I got changed, the Bible teaches against .. .
unions as best as I could interpret it, to me. I felt it was
wrong that I should go letting what I had done in the past
stand when I could so very easy straighten it out and save a
lot of hard feelings and maybe keep someone from getting
hurt because of what I did." 16
Approximately 5 months later, around the first part of
March 1973, Baxley decided. to quit his job because of
Sunday assignments. On the day of his quitting, he told
15 In this respect , Riffe testified credibly:
As I said , Mr. Pope , Mr. Baxley and myself , prepared the telegram.
To the best of my recollection, Mr. Pope did the actual writing of the
telegram . During the course of drafting the telegram and discussing the
language that was to go into the telegram , Mr. Baxley said he was
concerned with what people was going to say or think about him
changing his position and the reasons for it and how it would make him
look in other people 's eyes. In other words, in his fellow workers eyes in
the plant.
He said he felt that if he made some reference to what happened
about this note being on the door and about the dog people would
have, I guess a counter-attitude or would look on him at least with
more understanding attitude about what he had almost renounced the
union because of the pressure and strain he was under because of those
incidents.
Matthews about "the situation." The following week
Baxley returned for his check, at which time Matthews
asked him if he "wanted to talk about it then because [he]
was no longer an employee of the company." Baxley
voluntarily agreed to "make a document."
Prior to his resignation, Baxley had discussed the subject
of the Union with his minister, but had not discussed the
alleged falsity of the dog-shooting incident and the note
story with him. Matthews was the first person connected
with the Respondent to whom Baxley revealed the alleged
falsity.17
The alleged falsity concerned the subject matter of the
telegram, the leaflet, and the telephonic communication.
Baxley claimed that no threats had been made against him
for supporting the Union, that the dog, although dead, had
not been shot, and the note appended to the door had been
composed and hung there by himself.
B. Conclusions and Reasons Therefor
In the Respondent's Motion to Deny General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment, the Respondent requested
that "the Board should overturn the second election held
on April 19 and 20, 1972, and revoke the Certification of
Representative in Case No. 11-RC-3365, or in the
alternative order a hearing on Respondent's objections to
the second election, or in the alternative deny the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment and order a
hearing in Case No. I1-CA-5091 in which Respondent
would be permitted to present evidence that the Textile
Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, was not
properly certified as the bargaining representative for
Respondent's employees."
When the Board denied the General Counsel's Motion
for Summary Judgment, it ordered that an Administrative
Law Judge take evidence "limited to the allegation of
newly discovered evidence relating to information con-
tained in the Baxley affidavits" which the Board concluded
is "now in dispute which can be best resolved by a
hearing." It is this dispute which the Administrative Law
Judge is directed to resolve which means that a finding
must be made after a full hearing as to the validity of the
allegations in the Baxley affidavits. Pertinent evidence
offered in such hearing is set out above. The question first
to be resolved is whether the evidence adduced, measured
by credibility considerations, is as presently claimed by the
Respondent, that is, in the light of the record as a whole
does Baxley's testimony establish that the telegram, leaflet,
During the same conversation we talking in terms of also
reproducing the telegram in his statement in support of the union, and
he [sicl terms of a leaflet to give out . The whole discussion took place
about the same time.
le Baxley further testified:
I felt condemned about it. Last September we had a revival at our
church. I was saved . I was converted to a Christian . They condemned
me and I had to come out with it . The purpose of the whole thing to
begin with, to sum it all up, was my own personal greed , what I could
gain in this world, who I could run over and get to (the I top any way I
could, no matter what it took. That is what it was all about-to get
what another man has got.
17 Baxley testified that he had mentioned the alleged falsity to John S.
Evans, a Wellman employee and a member of his church.
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and telephonic message of April 19, 1972, contain the
misrepresentations alleged in his affidavits.18 In this
respect, it is concluded that Baxley was an unreliable
witness and that his testimony above-reviewed does not
support a finding that the telegram, leaflet, and telephonic
message contained the misrepresentations claimed by the
Respondent. The following factors have been taken into
consideration in reaching this conclusion.
First: It has been found that Baxley lied about certain,
critical events which occurred at the time he disclosed his
union defection to Lindley on April 18, 1972. Having lied
under oath about events which normally would be fixed in
one's mind, his remaining uncorroborated testimony is
highly suspect. Second. If the information contained in the
telegram were false, there appears no logical reason for
Baxley's relying on the threats therein suggested as a basis
for justifying his defection to Lindley. To defect as he did,
at the time that he did, supports the inference that he was
motivated by genuine fear. Third: While Baxley claimed a
conversion in September 1972, and a realization that he
was condemned by his prior alleged misconduct, he took
no steps to reveal the lying nature of his misconduct or to
rectify its impact until March 1973. Moreover, while he
discussed the Biblical reprobation as it related to unions
with his minister, he refrained from revealing the alleged
lies which he now claims brought harm to his fellow
employees. If his conversion were genuine and the dog-
shooting and note incidents were untrue, it would seem to
follow that these alleged falsities would have been the first
order of business. His alleged concealment of this sin
("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Exodus 20: 16.)19 after an alleged genuine conversion
indicates that there was no concealment at all but that his
present peccavi is fabricated.20 Rather it would appear that
his antipathy toward the Union now has outweighed the
purgatorial effect of his conversion and that he has now
chosen to lie in order to gratify that antipathy. Fourth:
Baxley now declares that he lied to his wife. These lies
must have caused his wife apprehension and distress. Thus,
it seems implausible (had not the dog-shooting and note
incidents been true) that Baxley, even though lacking a
conversion, would have been so inhumane and callous as
to have subjected his wife needlessly to such grief through
his lies. Fifth: Baxley's history as a whiffler does not
contribute to his credibility. Finally: Baxley's demeanor,
his failure to recall important matters, hiE supererogatory
remarks, and evasiveness are convincing proof that his
testimony, as it relates to his recantation, was untruthful.21
Accordingly, based upon the evidence received and an
examination of the record as a whole, it is recommended
that the Respondent's defense planted on the testimony of
Baxley be denied.
II. CASES i1-CA-5101 AND 11-CA-5233
In Cases 11-CA-5101 and 11-CA-5233, the General
Counsel offered evidence that the Respondent unilaterally
and without prior notification to, or consultation with, the
Union granted a wage increase to unit employees on
October 2, 1972, laid off unit employees on August 27,
1972, and promulgated new absence and tardiness rules
and regulations on January 29, 1973. Personnel Director whole.
Matthews admitted that attendance rules were changed to
reflect the points attached to the number of absences,
instances of tardiness, excused absences, and unexcused
absences. Matthews also admitted the changes in work
schedules and the laying off of employees on August 25,
1972. These changes were unilateral without notification to
or consultation with the Union.
Accordingly, it is recommended that, if an order to
bargain is entered in Case 11-CA-5091, an order also be
entered in these cases, with an appropriate notice, ordering
the employer to cease and desist from making unilateral
changes in wages, hours, and working conditions of its unit
employees without prior notification to and consultation
with the Union.
18 The General Counsel claims that the testimony of Baxley is
"inherently incredible "
19 "Ye shall neither deal falsely , neither lie one to another"
Leviticus 19 11.
20 Phillip Pope credibly testified that it was not uncommon for a dog to
be shot in the neighborhood in which Baxley lived'
Your Honor, really I live down there, too Really, it is not all that
uncommon I am not trying to refer to what the other witness has said,
but if you were there and you lived in that neighborhood , you would
see dogs being shot . Honestly , you would For example , a dog out on
the road got mange or a dog comes and turns over your trash can, I
have known people to [have ] shot dogs for that
21 In this connection, I have not been helped by any proof (such as a
handwriting expert), except Baxlev's testimony as it relates to the record as a
whole, as to whether he actually printed the note affixed to his door I have,
nevertheless , compared the printed note with Baxley's handwriting
appearing in General Counsel's rejected Exh 4 and I am unable to
determine that both were executed by the same person
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LowELL GEORLICH, Administrative Law Judge: On
October 15, 1973, the Administrative Law Judge's Decision
was issued in this matter. Thereafter, on January 31, 1974,
the Board remanded the cases to the Administrative Law
Judge and ordered: "It is hereby ordered that these above-
entitled cases be, and they hereby are, remanded to the
Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings consist-
ent with this Order, including the preparation and issuance
of a Supplemental Decision setting forth findings of fact,
conclusions of law and recommendations in conformity
with the Board's Rules and Regulations."
FINDINGS OF FACT,1 CONCLUSIONS AND REASONS
THEREFOR
Case 11-CA-5091
The Respondent's Defenses
The complaint in Case 11-CA-5091 charges that after
the certification of the Textile Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO, CLC (herein referred to as the Union), as
exclusive bargaining representative on June 14, 1972, the
Respondent refused to bargain with said Union by a letter
dated October 4, 1972, to wit: "We seriously question the
1 The findings of fact are based upon the admissions and the record as a
WELLMAN INDUSTRIES
validity of your certification by the NLRB as the exclusive
bargaining representative of our productive employees."
The Respondent answered denying that the Union was
the exclusive bargaining representative by virtue of Section
-9(a) of the National Labor- Relations Act, as amended
(herein referred to as the Act), and that it had violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The Respondent
admitted all other allegations.
As affirmative defenses the Respondent plead:
3. On June 14, 1972, the Regional Director of the
11th Region of the Board issued his second supplemen-
tal decision and certification of representative in which
he, inter alia, formally certified the Union as the
exclusive representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining of the employees in the appropriate unit as
described in paragraph 7 of the complaint.
4. By letter dated September 26, 1972, the Union
requested that the respondent meet with it for the
purpose of conducting collective bargaining negotia-
tions with respect to the employees in the Unit
described in paragraph 7 of the complaint.
5. The Union, by the acts described in paragraphs
3 and 4 above and by each of said acts, did engage in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act and has
thereby waived any right to relief thereunder.
6. The Union, by the acts described in paragraphs
3 and 4 above and by each of said acts, did engage in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b)(3) of the Act and has thereby
waived any right to relief thereunder.
Nothing is alleged in these defenses which requires a
hearing or constitutes a defense to the allegations of the
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. In this
regard it is the Respondent's contention that a union which
fails to fulfill its bargaining obligation "by not seeking
collective bargaining for almost 15 weeks after it was
certified by the Regional Director" has violated Section
8(b)(3) of the Act and has also restrained and coerced
Respondent's employees within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. It was not unreasonable , nor did the
Union by such delay disclose an abandonment of or a
failure to fulfill its bargaining obligations when it waited to
commence bargaining until after the Board issued its Order
denying Respondent's Request for Review of Second
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative
on August 1, 1972. Moreover, the Respondent's obligation
to bargain commenced not later than the date of the
certification, June 14, 1972 (see Section 5(a) of the Act),
after which the Union was entitled to the normal
presumption of majority status for a period of 1 year. Ray
Brooks v. N.L.R.B., 348 U.S. 96 (1954). Indeed, had the
Union made an earlier request for bargaining it would
have been a futile gesture since the Respondent, by its
insistence on an appeal to the Board and by its letter of
October 4, 1972, questioning the validity of the certifica-
tion, disclosed an adamant disposition not to assume its
bargaining obligations. Thus the Respondent ought not to
be relieved of its obligation to bargain when its claim for
such relief is grounded on its own refusal to bargain.
645
These affirmative defenses are not well taken and are not
sustained.
A further defense was advanced by the Respondent at
the hearing in these cases which was held on August 14 and
15, 1973. This hearing was pursuant to the Board's Order
that "a hearing be held before a duly designated Adminis-
trative Law Judge to be designated by the Chief, Division
of Judges, for the purpose of taking evidence limited to the
allegation of newly discovered evidence relating to the
information contained in the Baxley affidavits." The
Baxley affidavits related to the Respondent's claims that
there had been unlawful interference with the second
election held on April 19 and 20, 1972, and that by reason
thereof the Respondent was relieved of the binding effect
of the Certification of Representative in Case 1 I-RC-3365.
In the Decision issued in this case on October 15, 1973, it
was found that "Baxley was an unreliable witness" and his
testimony did "not support a finding that a telegram,
leaflet, and telephonic message [disseminated during the
second election campaign] contained the misrepresenta-
tions claimed by the Respondent. . . . based upon the
evidence received and an examination of the record as a
whole, it [was] recommended that the Respondent's
defense planted on the testimony of Baxley be denied."
Thus any alleged defense of the Respondent derived
from a claim of newly discovered evidence is not well taken
and is not sustained.
By denying that the Union was the exclusive bargaining
representative by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act the
Respondent in effect attacked the validity of the certifica-
tion issued on June 14, 1972.
On October 27, 1971, the Regional Director for Region
11 of the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in Case II-RC-3365 in which he found "All
production and maintenance employees including labora-
tory technicians, plant clerical employees, scheduler and
followup man, process control technicians, maintenance
technician and quality control technicians employed at the
Employer's Johnsonville, South Carolina, plant, excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees, sales
personnel, seasonal employees, messenger and mail clerk,
fabric designer, watchman, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act" to be an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
On November 17 and 18, 1971, a secret ballot election in
the unit set forth above was conducted under the
supervision of the Regional Director for Region 11 of the
Board.
On November 26, 1971, the Union filed timely Objec-
tions to Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election on
November 17 and 18, 1971. On February 10, 1972, the
Regional Director of Region 11 of the Board issued his
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Second
Election in which he, inter alia, directed that the election of
November 17 and 18, 1971, be set aside and that a new
election be conducted. On March 9, 1972, the Respondent
filed its Request for Review of Supplemental Decision,
Order, and Direction of Second Election with the Board.
On or about March 23, 1972, the Board issued its Order
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
denying the Respondent 's Request for Review of Supple-
mental Decision , Order , and Direction of Second Election.
On April 19 and 20, 1972, a majority of the employees in
the unit described above , by a secret ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director
of Region 1l of the Board , designated and selected the
Union as their representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining with Respondent , with respect to rates of pay,
wages , hours of work , and other terms and conditions of
employment.
On April 25, 1972, Respondent filed its Objections and
Supplemental Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results
of the Election of April 19 and 20, 1972. On June 14, 1972,
the Regional Director of Region 11 of the Board issued his
Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Repre-
sentative in which he , inter alia, overruled Respondent's
Objections and Supplemental Objections to Conduct
Affecting the Results of the Election of April 19 and 20,
1972, and formally certified the Union as the exclusive
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining of
the employees in the appropriate unit described above. On
or about July 10, 1972, the Respondent filed with the
Board its Request for Review of Second Supplemental
Decision and Certification of Representative . On or about
July 17, 1972, the Respondent filed with the Regional
Director of Region 11 of the Board its Motion to
Reconsider Second Supplemental Decision and Certifica-
tion of Representative . On July 21, 1972, the Regional
Director of Region II of the Board issued his Order
Denying Motion for Reconsideration of his Second
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representa-
tive . On August 1, 1972, the Board issued its Order denying
Respondent 's Request for Review of Second Supplemental
Decision and Certification of Representative.
Thus, the Board affirmed the certification issued on June
14, 1972, and the Respondent , by attacking the legal effect
or validity of the Certification of Representative, is
attempting to relitigate the same issues which it raised and
litigated in the prior representation proceeding, Case
I1-RC-3365.
"It is well settled that in the absence of newly discovered
or previously unavailable evidence or special circum-
stances a respondent in a proceeding alleging a violation of
Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to relitigate issues which were
or could have been litigated in a prior representation
proceeding."2
All the remaining issues raised by the Respondent in the
proceeding have been litigated in the prior representation
proceeding and all alleged newly discovered evidence has
been considered . There are no special circumstances at this
time requiring a reexamination of the representation case.
Thus the Respondent has not raised any issue which is
properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding.
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
owns and operates a plant at Johnsonville, South Carolina,
which is the only plant involved in this proceeding.
Respondent, during the past 12 months, which period is
representative of all times material herein , manufactured,
sold, and directly shipped from its Johnsonville, South
Carolina , plant goods of a value in excess of $50,000 to
points and places outside the State of South Carolina.
During the same period of time, Respondent caused to be
shipped directly to its Johnsonville, South Carolina, plant,
goods and raw materials of a value in excess of $50,000
from points and places outside the State of South Carolina.
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein , an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is now, and has been at all times material
herein , a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent constitute a
unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees includ-
ing laboratory technicians, plant clerical employees,
scheduler and followup man, process control techni-
cians, maintenance technician and quality control
technicians employed at the Employer's Johnsonville,
South Carolina, plant, excluding office clerical employ-
ees, professional employees, sales personnel, seasonal
employees, messenger and mail clerk, fabric designer,
watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
2. The certification
On April 19 and 20, 1972, a majority of the employees in
the appropriate unit, by a secret ballot election conducted
under the supervision of the Regional Director of Region
11 of the Board, designated and selected the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining with
Respondent, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
work, and other terms and conditions of employment; and
on June 14, 1972, the Regional Director certified the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the said unit.
At all times since April 20, 1972, and continuing to date,
the Union has been the representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining of the employees in the unit described
above, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act.
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein , a Delaware corporation engaged in the manufac-
ture of wool and synthetic fiber products. Respondent
B. Respondent 's Refusal to Bargain
Commencing on April 20, 1972, and at all times
2 Kalvar Corporation, 207 NLRB No. 115.
WELLMAN INDUSTRIES
thereafter, the Respondent has been obligated to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all the employees in the above -described
unit . The Respondent has failed and refused to assume
such responsibility in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
Cases 10-CA-5101 and 11-CA-5233
In the prior decision in these cases , after trial on August
13 and 14, 1973, it was found:
In Cases 11-CA-5101 and 11-CA-5233, the General
Counsel offeged evidence that the Respondent unilater-
ally and without prior notification to, or consultation
with, the Union granted a wage increase to unit
employees on October 2, 1972, laid off unit employees
on August 27, 1972, and promulgated new absence and
tardiness rules and regulations on January 29, 1973.
Personnel Director Matthews admitted that attendance
rules were changed to reflect the points attached to the
number of absences , instances of tardiness, excused
absences , and unexcused absences. Matthews also
admitted the changes in work schedules and the laying
off of employees on August 25, 1972. These changes
were unilateral without notification to or consultation
with the Union.
Thus the General Counsel's consolidated complaint is
sustained .3
Conclusions of Law
1. Wellman Industries, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act for
jurisdiction to be exercised herein.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees includ-
ing laboratory technicians, plant clerical employees,
scheduler and followup man, process control technicians,
maintenance technician and quality control technicians
employed at the Employer's Johnsonville, South Carolina,
plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, sales personnel, seasonal employees, messenger
and mail clerk, fabric designer, watchmen, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
4. Since April 20, 1972, the above-mentioned labor
organization has been and now is the exclusive representa-
tive for the purposes of collective bargaining in the
aforesaid appropriate unit within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
5. By unilaterally granting a wage increase to unit
employees on October 2, 1972, laying off unit employees
on August 27, 1972, and promulgating new absence and
9 The Respondent 's first, second , and third affirmative defenses in these
cases, which are similar to the defenses raised in Case I I-CA-5901, are not
sustained for the same reasons.
4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
647
tardiness rules and regulations on January 29, 1973, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By refusing to bargain on October 2, 1972, August
27, 1972, September 26, 1972, and January 29, 1973, and at
all times thereafter, with the above-named labor organiza-
tion as the exclusive bargaining representative of all
employees of the Respondent in the appropriate unit,
Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(5) of the Act.
7. By the aforesaid refusals to bargain , Respondent has
interfered with , restrained, and coerced, and is interfering
with, restraining , and coercing, employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act,
and thereby has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, it is recommended that it
be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and bargain
collectively with the Union as exclusive representative of
all employees in the appropriate unit and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the appropriate
unit will be accorded the services of their selected
bargaining agent for the period provided by law, the initial
period of certification shall begin on the date Respondent
commences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
recognized bargaining representative in the appropriate
unit. See Mar Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785;
Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226,
229, enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817
(1964); Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419,
1421, enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10, 1965).
Accordingly, upon the basis of the foregoing findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this
proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is
recommended that the Board issue the following:
ORDER4
Respondent Wellman Industries, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment with Textile Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO, CLC, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of its employees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees includ-
ing laboratory technicians, plant clerical employees,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
scheduler and followup man, process control techni-
cians, maintenance technician and quality control
technicians employed at the Employer's Johnsonville,
South Carolina, plant, excluding office clerical employ-
ees, professional employees, sales personnel, seasonal
employees, messenger and mail clerk, fabric designer,
watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) Unilaterally changing working conditions of its
employees.
(c) In any like or related manner interferring with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Bargain with the above-named labor organization as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Johnsonville, South Carolina, plant, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 11, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
5 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
ing rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with Textile Workers Union
of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, in the bargaining unit
described below.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the working
conditions of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL bargain with the above-named Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in
the bargaining unit described below, with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees
including laboratory technicians, plant clerical
employees, scheduler and followup man, process
control technicians, maintenance technician and
quality control technicians employed at the
Employer's Johnsonville, South Carolina, plant,
excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, sales personnel, seasonal employees,
messenger and mail clerk, fabric designer, watch-
men, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
WELLMAN INDUSTRIES, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Wachovia Building , 301 North Main Street, Winston-
Salem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone 191-723-2300,
Ext. 360.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concern-