Wennonah Cotton Mills Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 6, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 143 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of WENNONAH COTTON MILLS COMPANY, INC. and TEX-
TILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA (CIO)
Case No. 5-C-1809.-Decided August 6, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 22, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the respondent
had not engaged in unfair labor practices by discharging Jeremy Cope
and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect
thereto. Thereafter, exceptions to the Intermediate Report and sup-
porting briefs were filed by the respondent, the Union, and counsel for
the Board. None of the parties requested oral argument before the
Board at Washington, D. C., and none was held.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and briefs of all parties, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and. recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Wennonah Cotton Mills
Company, Inc., Lexington, North Carolina, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall: ,
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile
Workers Union of America (CIO) or any other labor organization,
63 N L. It. B., No. 21.
143
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant at Lexington, North Carolina, copies of the
notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Fifth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (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;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed, insofar as it alleges that the respondent has discriminated
against Jeremy Cope, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took' no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a decision and order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We will not in any 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 Textile Workers
Union of America (CIO), or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our
employees are free to become or `remain members of this union,
or any other labor organization.
WENNONAH COTTON MILLS COMPANY, INC.,
By --------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated------------------------
WENNONAH COTTON MILLS COMPANY, INC. 145
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Sidney J. Barban, for the Board.
Mr. D. E. Hudgins, of Greensboro, N. C, and Mr. Don A. Walser, of Lexington,
N. C., for the respondent.
,3 t 1D. S. Upchurch and Mr. H. D.•Lisk, of Winston-Salem, N. C., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon r charge filed by Textile Workers Union of America (CIO), herein
called tr Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the 'Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland) issued
its complaint dated December 12, 1944, against Wennonah Cotton Mills Com-
pany, Inc, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged
in and was enZlying in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint together with notice
of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to unfair labor practies, the complaint alleged in substance that
the respondent: (1) on September 4, 1944, discharged Jeremy Cope-and there-
after refused to reinstate him because of his membership in and activities on
behalf of.the Union ; (2) since August 1, 1944, to the date of the complaint, vilified,
disparaged, and expressed disapproval of the Union and labor organizations;
urged, persuaded, and warned its employees to refrain from assisting or becoming
members of the Union or any other labor organization ; questioned its employees
regarding their union membership and activities; threatened them with re-
prisals if they joined or assisted or refused to resign from the Union; propa-
gandized against their aiding or becoming members of the Union; urged them
to deal directly with itself ; forbade union discussion on company time or prop-
erty ; forbade solicitations for the Union on company time or property and
discriminatorily enforced such prohibition ; and offered special inducements to
its employees provided they rejected the Union; and (3) by such acts interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7of the Act.
The respondent thereafter, on December 21, 1944, filed its answer admitting
certain allegations of the complaint with respect to the nature of its business
and denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Lexington, North Carolina,'on
December 28 and 29, 1944, before the undersigned, Joseph L. Hektoen, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the
respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by representatives; all
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues, was
afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the respondent
moved to dismiss the complaint;' ruling was reserved by the undersigned ; the
motion is hereby denied. At the close of the hearing counsel for the respondent
' The motion was first made at the close of the Board 's case but counsel for the re-
spondent then stated that he "would like to reserve argument on the motion until the
close of all the evidence "
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and for the Board argued orally on the record before the undersigned; they
waived the filing of briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Wennonah Cotton Mills Company, Inc., is a North Carolina
corporation engaged at Lexington, North Carolina, in spinning and weaving
cotton and rayon. From January 1, 1944, to November 30, 1944, it purchased
cotton having a value of more than $300,000, 60 percent of which was shipr :d
to it from points outside the State of North Carolina ; during the same period
it manufactured finished products having a value of more than $630,000,'Ni) per-
cent of which was shipped by it to points outside the State of North Carolina. It
employs about 350 persons.
The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership employees of
the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronology of events
1. The Union enters the mill
The Union began its organizational efforts at the respondent's mill on August
21, 1944. That day, and the next, a number of employees joined the Union, among
them Jeremy Cope, whose discharge is hereinafter considered.
Employee Raymond Koonts who joined the Union on August 22, testified with-
out denial, and the undersigned finds, that General Manager and Superintendent
Earl Riddle the same day called him to his office during working hours and told
him that he had heard that Koonts was "mixed up with this Union around here,"
and that, although the respondent would not discriminate against any employee
for being a member of the Union, "Personally, I would not belong to this damned
Union-I must call it a damned Union "
Employee Giles Wilson testified without denial, and the undersigned finds,
that on August 22, Riddle sent for him and asked him in the office whether he
had joined the Union. Wilson answered that he had.
2. The Cope discharge
Cope was employed by the respondent as a loom fixer for 21/2 years prior to his
discharge on September 4, 1944. His work was excellent and was never criticized
by the respondent.
He joined the Union on August 21. Working at the mill gates before and after
work he thereafter, beginning the same day, obtained the application for ineui-
bership of some 40 to 50 employees. The evidence indicates, and the undersigned
finds, that his activities in doing so immediately came to the knowledge of the
respondent's management.
WENNONAH COTTON MILLS COMPANY, INC. 147
On August 22, Overseer G. C. Humphries asked Cope if he would be interested
in taking a job as second hand, a supervisory position. Cope answered that he
would think it over. The same night, Superintendent Riddle asked Cope about
accepting the job. He received the same answer. Riddle pointed out that if
Cope accepted the position, lie would have to cease his union activities
On August 23, Cope informed Humphries that he had decided not to accept
the supervisory job but would instead continue with the Union. According to
Cope's testimony, which the undersigned accepts, Humphries told him that he
did not think Cope was "supposed to sign anyone on the job." Cope answered,
"I don't know about that. I can talk about anything I want to." Cope further
testified, and the undersigned finds, that the union organizer (D S. Upchurch)
had informed him that he could talk in the mill about anything he desired so long
as his own job was not neglected.
Employees Bertie Sechrest, Ed Bell, and Nina Conrad testified that during the
period from August 21 to September 4, Cope solicited them for membership in
the Union while they were working in the mill. Cope denied having done so; while
he admitted speaking to them about the Union during working hours, he could
not remember (but did not deny) so speaking to Conrad while she was actually
at work. The undersigned, from the weight of the evidence and all of the sur-
rounding circumstances, is persuaded that Cope in fact solicited them for the
Union on working time. It is so found.
Overseer Humphries testified that on August 24, he told Cope that the latter
was still soliciting on the job; that Cope denied doing so but promised to
"cooperate " Cope denied having had this conversation with Humphries. The
undersigned credits Humphries' testimony and finds that the conversation took
place substantially as he testified.
On August 25, Humphries warned three other loom-fixers against excessive
talking and moving about in the mill.' On August 28, Overseer F N. Taylor
called the loom-fixers on the second shift' together and, according to his testi-
mony, asked them to desist from gathering in groups in the mill and to stay on
the job. Witnesses for the Board testified that he merely asked them to refrain
from congregating in front of the mill to smoke. Taylor also testified, however,
that he requested them to go to smoke not more than two at a time and to take
only a reasonable time in doing so From the entire evidence, the undersigned is
persuaded and finds that Taylor spoke to the loom-fixers substantially as he
testified.
On September 2, Cope had a conversation during working hours with Julia
Menius in the spinning-room where she was employed and the overseer of which
was her husband. Cope testified that he left his place of work to visit the
spinning-room in order to obtain a brace necessary to the performance of his
duties ; that as he was returning through the spinning-room after having done
so, Menius, who was standing in an alley and not working beckoned to him and
when he went to her, asked, "That Union you are getting started around here ;
I want to know something about it"; that he told her something of it and in-
vited her to attend a union meeting scheduled for the next day for further in-
formation concerning it; and that he did not ask her to join the Union. Menius
testified that she was actually working when Cope, with whom she was not
acquainted, appeared at her machine, asked her if anyone had spoken to her
respecting the Union, and when she replied in the negative and stated that it
would do no good, told her she did not know what she was talking about, that
2 The respondent experienced decline in production antedating the advent of the Union.
It persisted at the time in question.
2 Cope' s shift.
662514-46-vol. 63-11
148' 'DECISIONS OF_ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union would be of .benefit to the employees , and suggested that she attend
the union meeting to be held the following day. Employee Juanita Waller cor-
roborated Cope's testimony that Menius was not working when he spoke to her.
Employee Louise Pruitt testified , on, the contrary , that Menius was at work when
approached by Cope and that Menius, immediately after he left, asked her who
he was, and told'her that -he had spoken to her of the Union.
On September 4, employees Alice Cope 4 and Sechrest visited Riddle's office.
Sechrest and Riddle testified , and the undersigned finds that Alice Cope pro-
tested to Riddle that. Cope "worried" her about joining the Union at the mill
gate and told him that Cope had-spoken to Menius about joining the Union in
the plant 2 days before . Riddle replied that he had no jurisdiction over the
activities at the gate. -
Riddle immediately thereafter sent for Menius and , took . her affidavit respect-
ing the September 2 incident of her talk wit)i Cope in the spinning -room.` He
thereupon sent for- Cope, and in the presence of Humphries and Taylor , told him
that after having been specifically warned against soliciting during working
hours, Cope had nevertheless deliberately gone to another department of the
mill for that purpose, and , when ' Cope ' denied having done so, told him that he
had proof thereof. Cope thereupon admitted that he had visited the spinning-
room but denied soliciting Menius. ' Riddle ' then discharged him. Riddle testi-
fied that he did so on the basis of the Menius affidavit , Cope's disregard of re-
peated warnings against persisting in his union activities on,the respondent's
time, and the necessity of mainfaiing order in the mill.
The undersigned was impressed by Menius ' demeanor on the stand and credits
her testimony respecting the September 2 incident . He therefore finds that
Cope spoke and acted substantially as she testified. -
It is thus clear that by his conversation with' Menius, Cope again violated the
respondent's orders against union solicitation on the ' job. -
3. The election
On September 12, 1944, the Union filed with the Board a petition for investi-
gation and certificatign of representatives.' The respondent and the Union
thereafter stipulated for a consent,election and it was scheduled for October 19,
1944. _ .1
On October 18, the day preceding the election, the respondent, by its super-
visors, distributed the. following letter in the plant during working hours: -,
To All Employees of Wennonah Cotton Mills:
Ociron a 17, 1944. -
If my physical condition' would permit, I would have made a speech to all
employees and said what I am saying in this letter.
I am sending this letter to all who are working' for the Company because
I think what I have to say is very-importa`nt to all of us, and I am putting
it in"writing so there will''be no mistake abdut what I shall say.
The Textile Workers Union of America-C. I. O.-has requested ku-elec-
tion of the Company's employees to determine whether the Union has the
legal right, under the National Labor Relations Act, to be the We, and
exclusive bargaining agent of all the Company's employees in all matters
concerning wages, hours of employment and other conditions, of employment.
' She was not, as far as is disclosed by the record, related to Jeremy Cope.
.it 15 in evidence and is `in substantial, accord-with Menius' testimony. ' It does not
affirmatively state that Cope requested her to join thoi Union. '
6 Case No. 5-It--170.). - __• r.^
WENNONAH COTTON MILLS COMPANY, INC. 149
The National Labor Relations Act contains the following language :
SEc. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities,
for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or
protection.
On behalf of the Company, I readily agreed that the election may be held
at the Mill, next Thursday, October 19, 1944, because I believe in the right
of everyone to vote on this important subject.
My chief reason for writing you is that I think this is a most important
election. Here are some of the reasons it is important, and I urge you to
consider them carefully before you decide how you will vote. •
1. You will be voting on a change in the way 'we have always worked
together. Many of us have been here for a long time. I personally started
to work for the mill many years ago, and during this long time we have had
hard and good times, ups and downs, but as a whole we have gotten along
together very well. Each of you has always been free to deal with the
Company as individuals and you have never been compelled to do anything
you were not willing to do. Although there has been differences of opinion
we have managed to get along together and have maintained the most
friendly relations at all times. Now if the Union wins this election, it will
represent all of you, whether you belong to the Union or not, or whether you
vote for it or not. It will have authority to speak for you, and to bind you
for the length of any contract made with the Company (usually not less than
one year at a time). If the Union wins the election, you cannot bargain
for yourselves any longer and the Company will not be permitted to settle
grievances and complaints with you as individuals, but all such matters will
have to be handled and settled with the Union.
2. We have always tried to keep this Company in such'financial condition
that it will be able to keep the mill equipped with modern machinery, be
able to meet competition, and furnish jobs in hard times as well as,good
times. You are all familiar with what the Company did to help you during
the terrible depression in 1930 to 1933. At the present times the prices we
are permitted to charge for our goods are fixed by the Government, and the
wages we are permitted to pay are controlled by the -Government through
the National War Labor Board.
I understand that some people have the impression that if the Union wins,
every worker will have to join the Union in order to keep his job here. Any
such statement is untrue. The law does not compel a worker to join the
Union and this Company never has and never will do- so. - The Company's
position regarding the open shop has heretofore been posted in the Mill, and
again I repeat to you that this is an open shop in a true sense of the word.
Members of a Labor Union and non-members of a Labor Union are employed
without any discrimination whatsoever and so long as I am connected with
the management of this Company, the policy will continue.
Now the question is whether, in the long run, you will be better off under
the policy of the Company with which you are familiar or under the leader-
ship of the Union. In this connection, you should remember that the Union
contracts are usually for a definite period, such as one year, and during that
time the Company's hands are tied by the terms of this contract. In other
words, the Company will no longer be free to adjust wages and working
conditions with you as individuals. In extreme cases this could work a
hardship on the mill and the employees. All of these conditions and possi-
bilities should be considered by you.
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. You have two choices. One choice consists of outside people who have
no connection with the plant and who work with a committee of the em-
ployees-this is the Textile Workers Union of America. The second choice
is the management of your Company. To what kind of leadership are you
.going to place your future with the Company? Is that leadership unselfish
or is it not?
Is it interested in you individually and your welfare, or is it seeking advan-
tage for itself? On the basis of its past record, is it open and above-board
and dependable, or don't you know? You should ask yourself why it is that
all of a sudden total strangers have become so interested in your welfare.
Just who are these strangers? Where have they come from? And what
have they done? What more can they do for you than you have already done
for yourself? Ask yourself whether or not those of us who'run this mill,
who have provided'homes and help to'build schools and churches, who have
'bought the cotton, who have installed this machinery and who have provided
you with these jobs and these wages are more sincerely interested in your
welfare and will do more for you in the long run than people who have no
financial stake in the success of this mill and who have never worked here.
You might also ask yourself whether all these things the Company has done
for you have lften forced on it or have they been done voluntarily. Do you
believe that your position can be improved'by choosing someone else for your
leadership ? That is the decision you are called upon to make.
As stated before, I believe a secret election is the honest and fair way to
determine questions of great importance like these you are voting on When
it's all over we do not want any questions as to how all of us feel. It ,481
tremendously important that every eligible voter shall vote because that}
is the only way you can register your dishes in this matter. Furthermore,
the outcome of the election will be determined by a majority of those voting.
Therefore, if you do not vote, it will be the same as letting someone else
decide this question for you. Let's make this election represent the choice of
everyone. It takes only one vote more than half of all those voting to decide.
I hope that every single employee will cast his vote.
In conclusion, I want to assure every worker for this Company that I
have no desire to persuade a single one of you to vote other than as your
judgment tells you is in your interest. My only purpose in writing yo p
this letter is to impress upon you the importance of your decision, the im-
portance of voting, and to assure you that regardless of the outcome of the
election the management of this Company will continue to do its best, in
good times and in bad for the best interest of us all.
Sincerely yours,
(S) JOE V. MOFFITT,
Secretary and Treasurer.
The Union lost the election, and on October 2S, 1944, the Board dismissed its
petition.
B. Conclusions
Riddle's statement to Koonts and his questioning of Wilson respecting the
latter's Union membership, particularly in the light of the unfair labor practices
as to Cope, as herein found, constituted interference. The respondent' s simul-
taneous offer of a supervisory position to Cope constituted, in the opinion of the
undersigned, an attempt by it unlawfully to persuade him to cease his activities
on behalf of the Union The.fact that although Riddle and Humphries,.as they
testified, had theretofore discussed the creation of another such job on the second
shift, they had never mentioned Cope or any other individual in connection there-
WENNONAH COTTON MILLS COMPANY, INC. 151
with, Riddle's antipathy to the union, and, the evidence as a whole, justify these
conclusions.
There thus exists a persuasive background for a finding that the respondent
discriminated against Cope, in violation of- the Act Cope, however, by his per-
sistent activities on the job in the face of the respondent's repeated warnings
against them, vitiated it. The respondent was justified in requiring that union
activities be confined to the employees' own time. It was also justified in taking
disciplinary measures against Cope for his continued disregard of its orders to
that effect.
The undersigned finds that, although the matter is not free from doubt, the
respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of Cope's
employment and will recommend that the complaint, insofar as it so alleges,
be dismissed.
The respondent contends that the letter is protected by the First Amendment
and that it had the right to induce its employees "to refrain from participation
in or cooperation with any of the activities, collective or otherwise, of labor
organizations or unions."
Taken in the context of the interference found above, however, the letter,
directed to the compulsory audience of the respondent's employees, formed part
of a sustained campaign against their self-organization.
Calling attention to the fact that they would be voting on a "change in the
way we have always worked together", it emphasized that the employees have
"always been free to deal with the Company as individuals" and that if the
Union won the election they would no longer be free to do so ; it pointed out
that the respondent had always adhered to an open shop policy and that such
policy would continue; that a year's contract with the Union might "work a
hardship on the mill and the employees ;" and posed the choice between the
paternalism of the respondent' and the dubious character of the Union's repre-
sentatives who had gratuitously interested themselves in the employees and
who knew nothing of the respondent and had "no financial stake in the success
of this mill."
Upon the entire record, the undersigned concludes and finds that the respond-
ent's course of conduct was intended to be, and was in fact, coercive. Being
part of such coercive campaign, the letter was not privileged 8
The undersigned finds that by its attempt unlawfully to persuade Cope to
cease his union activities, the statement of Riddle to Koonts and his question-
ing of Wilson, and by the distribution of its letter dated October 17, 1944,
the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, found to be
unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with the operations of. the re-
spondent set forth 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.
7It may be added that the mill is situated in the Company town owned by the respondent.
8 See N L. R B. v. Trojan Powder Co., 135 F. (2d) 337 (C C. A 3), cert. den , 320
U. S 768 and 813, N. L. R B v M E. Blatt Co , 143 F: (2d) 268 (C- C. A. 3), cert den.,
323 U. S,. 774; Matter of Tomlinson of High, Point , Inc, 58 N. L R B 982 ; Matter
of E. J. Anderson, etc, 58 N. _ L. R B. 1511 ; Matter of Kentucky Utilities Company,
58 N. L . R. B 335 ; cf. N. L. R B. v American Tube Bending Co., 134 F. ( 2d) 993 (C. C.
A. 2), cert den , 320 U. S. 768
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
. Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS of LAw
1. Textile Workers Union of America (CIO), is a labor organization, within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4.'The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of 3eremy Cope, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, Wennonah Cotton Mills Company,
Inc, Lexington, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the, exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist Textile Workers Union of America (CIO) or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective ban
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant at Lexington, North Carolina, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director of the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (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 ;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing within-ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that the respondent has discriminated against Jeremy Cope, within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue'an order requiring the respondent
to take the action aforesaid.
.
WENNONAH COTTON MILLS COMPANY, INC. 153
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944,
any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington 25, D. C., an origirial',and four copies of a statement, in
writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other
part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objec-
tions) as he relies upon together with the original and four copies of a brief in
'support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of s{fch statement of exceptions
and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a
copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional
Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board request therefor must be made in
writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring
the case to the Board. -
JosEF L. HET{TOEN,
Trial Examiner.
Dated March 22, 1945.
APPENDIX A -
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any 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 Textile Workers Union of America (CIO), or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual- aid or protection. All our employees
are free to become or remain members of this union,, or any other labor
organization.
WENNONAH COTTON MILLS COMPANY, INC.,
By -----------------------------------------
Dated ------------------------
(Representative) '(Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.