West Point Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1376 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wellington Mill Division , West Point Manufacturing Company
and Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO. Case No.
11-CA-2159. May 5, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 6, 1964, Trial' Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its en-
tirety, as set forth in his attached Decision. Thereafter, the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. -
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of.the Act, the Board
.has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings-made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was' committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trii>il Examiner, as modified below:
The Charging Party excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to
appraise the evidence in this case against the background of -unfair
labor practices committed- by Respondent.' We have taken official
notice of our past decisions, and have .carefully considered, the
,Charging Party's exceptions and argument. Nevertheless, and while
the matter may not be entirely.. free of doubt, we` are not. satisfied that
the General Counsel has sustained his burden of proving by a fair
preponderance of the credible. evidence that Respondent discharged
Allen because of his activities on behalf of the Charging Party.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
1 See Wellington Mill Division, West Point Manufacturing Company, 141 NLRB 819, in
which the Board found that , in opposing the Charging Party's organizational campaign,
Respondent committed numerous violations of Section 8(a) (1) and ( 3), including, inter
alia, the discharge of Milford Allen, the brother'of the alleged discriminatee in` this case.
In a later decision, 142 NLRB 1161, Member Fanning dissenting , the Board dismissed a
complaint alleging that Respondent had engaged in unlawful surveillance of union meet-
ings between a union organizer and Milford and Talmadge Allen. It was at the hearing
in that case that Talmadge Allen testified as to his participation in union activities.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on June 5, 1963, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint , dated September 10, 1963, against Wellington
Mill Division , West Point Manufacturing Company, herein called the Respondent,
alleging that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)(1) and ( 3) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act. The Respondent
146 NLRB No. 162.
WELLINGTON MILL DIVISION, WEST POINT MFG. CO. 1377
filed an answer on or about September 13, 1963, in which it admitted the jurisdic-
tional allegations of the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices. -
A hearing was held before Trial Examiner John H. Eadie at Anderson, South Caro-
lina, on October 22 and 23, 1963. At the close of the case the Respondent
moved to dismiss the complaint. Ruling was reserved. The motion to dismiss is dis-
posed of as hereinafter indicated. After the conclusion of the hearing the Gen-
eral Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs with me.
Both from the entire record in the case. and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT.
The Respondent is a corporation with a plant located at Anderson, South Carolina.
It is engaged in the manufacture of cloth fabrics.
During .the period of 12 months preceding the date of the complaint herein, the
Respondent purchased and shipped directly to its Anderson plant raw materials
-valued in excess of $100,000 from points outside the State of South Carolina. Dur-
-•ing the same period it sold and shipped finished products valued in excess of
$100,000 from its Anderson plant directly to points outside the State of South
Carolina.
The complaint alleges, the Respondent's answer admits, and I find that the Re-
.spondent is engaged in commence within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a
labor organization which admits to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
William T. Allen worked for the Respondent from March .1944 until his dis-
charge on May 29, 1963. At the time of his discharge he was a weaver on the sec-
ond shift, responsible for the operation of 21 looms. Carl Thomason, a second
hand, was Allen's supervisor. John Snipes was the overseer of weaving.
Allen participated in the Union's campaign at the Respondent's plant beginning
-about August 1961. During December 1962 he was called as a witness of the
General Counsel and gave testimony at another hearing of the Board involving the
Respondent.
About January 1962, Grady Webb became general manager of the Respondent's
Anderson plant. In order that .the plant could be made competitive and to satisfy
,complaints of customers as to quality, Webb instituted a program of improvement.
About 100 jobs were eliminated throughout the plant, approximately 20 of which
were in the weaving department. As part,of the- program of improving quality,
some 18 to 20 employees in the weaving department were disciplined by layoffs
-without pay, -and approximately 90 employees received warnings with "incident re-
ports" written by their supervisors. -It does not appear that any employee, other
than Allen, received a layoff without pay on more than one occasion.
Prior to September 17, 1962, Allen worked on the first shift under Second Hand
.James Wood. On April 10, 1962,'Wood noticed Allen talking to other employees
while some of his looms were stopped. He warned Allen that his production had
been falling -off each week and that he should stay on the job and not talk "so much"
to other employees.
On May 4 Wood reprimanded Allen for producing. "five pieces" of "seconds"
(defective cloth),. involving approximately 1,150 yards; and laid him off for 4
-days without pay. At the time Wood told Allen'that he had "more seconds than
anyone else" and that he would be discharged if he continued to "let cloth like
-this get by in the future."
On May 21 Allen was laid off for 1 week without pay by Wood for producing
seconds. Wood reminded him that he had received a layoff on May 4 "for poor
quality work" and warned him that the Respondent "could not put up with work
like this." He also directed him to report to Snipes. Allen answered that he would
"just wait and,see Mr; Snipes next Monday." When Allen returned to work after
this layoff and did not report to Snipes, on May 29 Snipes ordered Allen to report
to his office. Snipes told him that the Respondent's customers were complaining
,about seconds, and that the high rate of seconds "would have to come down." He
1378 -DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
warned 'Allen that he would be discharged if he, did not do better work on his job.
Allen replied that he was doing his best and that the Respondent "could go ahead
and fire" him. -
On August 9 Wood reprimanded Allen for producing seven pieces of seconds,
involving approximately 1,000 yards, and laid him off for 2 weeks without pay.
Wood told him at the time that- he could not put up with "poor quality weaving
like this any longer"; that he (Allen) had worked for the Respondent for a long
time and had "done a better job"; that it appeared as if he had "quit trying"; that
he (Wood), had "leaned over backward" to help him; that the Respondent's cus-
tomers "would not accept work like this"; and that if he had to talk to him again
about his "poor quality work," he would be discharged.
Allen was transferred to the second shift under Thomason on September 17..
Billie Joe Snider, a weaver on the third shift under Second Hand James Porterfield,
followed Allen on the same set of looms. Snider complained several times to.
Porterfield to the effect that Allen left the job "in bad shape" with a "lot of looms.
out of fix that should have been flagged." Porterfield checked the job and relayed.
the complaints to Thomason. Thomason then spoke to Allen about it. About 6
weeks after September 17, Snider was replaced by Helen Waddell on the same looms..
Shortly after she took over the job she complained to Porterfield on several occasions.
that Alien was leaving her with a number .of looms which were making seconds-
and that the time. spent in geting the looms fixed was reducing her pay.' Porterfield
also reported these complaints to Thomason.
On. or about December 12 Thomason went to Allen's place of work and found.
that 15 of his looms were "stopped." When Allen returned to the job about 15
minutes later, Thomason reprimanded him, pointing out the number of looms.
that were stopped and telling him that he (Thomason) was "not going to put up
with this kind of work." Allen replied that he wanted Thomason to know that he
was active in the Union. Thomason then told Allen that he did not care what he
belonged to; that he (Thomason) was responsible for the looms; and that the next
time a like situation occurred he was going to discharge him.
On or about March 21, 1963, Thomason again spoke to Allen about his work..
He told Allen that his rate of seconds had been too high, and that the Respondent's
customers were complaining about poor quality work. Allen said that Thomason
should be satisfied as his production was 85 percent . Thomason replied , in sub-
stance, that production of 100 percent would not be satisfactory if it consisted of
seconds, as a customer would not accept it; that Allen had been leaving his job'
"too long" and was not patrolling it sufficiently in order to catch defects; and that
he was not going to warn him again.2
About May 20 Allen went to Snipes' office and asked to be transferred to the first
shift. Snipes told him that weaver Darby had more seniority than he; that his record
was "too bad"; and that he had had "too many warnings" and "too many disciplinary
actions" to send him back to the first shift. Allen then threatened "to file a charge
with the Labor Board" if he did not "get on the first shift.
'Concerning the discharge of Allen on May 29, Thomason testified as follows:
Well, I believe, it was the 29th of May, I am not positive , I was patrolling
my job as- usual , and I came across his set of looms again about half stopped off,
two' thirds stopped off, something to that effect, and I immediately went and
got Mr. Snow, smash hand on the second shift, to come and go on his looms.
In the meantime I went to the office where Mr. MacHaffey was filing his.
papers and asked him if he had seen W . T. Allen, and he said , "Sure, he went
into the water house about ten or fifteen minutes ago," and I said , "When you get.
through, you go down there, I want to show you something when you get
through."
He came on down there . I went back to the job . I helped Snow start the.
looms up. They were about two-thirds stopped off, and Mr. Allen came back
about ten or fifteen minutes later , and he pulled out his re-hooks and started
stopping off looms, and I told him there wasn't any use of that, that I was
through with him as far as my shift was concerned , and he could come by and
see Mr . Snipes the next morning, and I left Mr. Snipes a note to that effect..
'1 Weavers were paid for production and were not docked for seconds. Accordingly, if a
weaver stopped or flagged a loom in order to have it fixed, it resulted in a loss of produc-
tion and wages.
2 Thomason, whom I credit, made an incident report on the above conversation. While
he did not deny the other warnings and conversations , related above, Allen denied that.
Thomason talked to or warned him on or about March 21. His denial is not credited.
WELLINGTON MILL DIVISION, WEST POINT MFG. CO. 1379
Wansley Snow, a "smash hand" on the second shift; testified- that at about 9 p.m.
on May 29 Thomason came to him and asked him to run Allen's looms since he was
going to "send him [Allen] home"; that. he found Allen's job '.`in bad shape" with
only four or five of the looms running ; and that although he worked on the looms
for the next 2 hours, they "were still pretty badly matted-up" at 11 p.m., the end of
the shift.
. George MacHaffey, a second hand in the weaveroom, testified that on May 29
at about 8:20 p.m. he saw Allen enter the men's restroom; that about 25 or 30 minutes
later he saw Allen going back in the direction, of his job; that at about 8:55 p.m.
when Thomason asked him, he told him that he had seen Allen go into the restroom
at about 8:20 p.m., that at Thomason' s request he looked at Allen's looms; and
that "about three-fourths of them were stopped off."
Waddell testified that when she reported for work on May 29 Porterfield "had
to go down and straighten [the looms] out and' there were three unifills loose,
and mat-ups, and -a number of looms stopped." Concerning the condition of the
job at the change in shifts, Porterfield testified, "There were still some ends loose,
there were several looms stopped, there were some mat-ups, and several of the uni-
fills were empty or practically empty." - -
Allen testified that on May 29 at about 9 p.m. he "got a Coke" and went to the
restroom; that when he finished his Coke, he went back to his job; that he was away
from his job for only 5 or 6 minutes; that after he had started up one loom, Thomason
came to him and asked him what was "wrong with these looms"; that he replied
that there was "nothing wrong with the looms"; and that Thomason told him he had
been away from his job for about 15 minutes and then said, "You had better go home
and see Mr. Snipes in the morning." Concerning his conversation with Snipes the
following morning, Allen testified as follows: -
He asked me what happened to "you all" last night, and I said, "Didn't
anything happen to me"; and he said, "Carl said you were off the job about
twenty minutes. What caused that?" I said , "He told me fifteen minutes but
I was actually off for about five minutes."
He said, "He isn't going to tell you any more, I'm going to have to discharge
you."
I said , "Mr. Snipes, you are not fooling me or anyone else, you are discharging
me because of union activities, and I am going to carry it to court." And he
said, "Okay."
Paul Ginn, a smash hand on the second shift, testified that on May 29 "somewhere
around nine p.m." he saw Allen "get him a Coke and go into the water house";
that "three or four minutes after Talmadge left, Mr. Thomason was standing in the
big area between Talmadge's job looking at Talmadge's looms"; and that "roughly
guessing, seven or eight minutes after I saw Talmadge go to the water house," Snow
told him that he had been assigned to work on Allen's looms.
A separation notice, dated May 30, 1963, and signed by Snipes, gives the reason
for discharge of Allen as follows:
After repeated warnings and disciplinary sent outs , as a result thereof, this
employee was discharged for continuing to make excessive seconds and being
off his job?
I credit the above testimony of Thomason, Snow, MacHaffey, Waddell, and
Porterfield. The evidence shows that about 15 of Allen's looms had stopped while
he was away from his job. If he was absent for only 5 or 6 minutes, then there
would not ' have been so many looms stopped. The evidence 4 shows that at the
most only 3 or 4 would have stopped in that length of time; and that about 15 would
have stopped in 25 minutes. -
3 Ena Loftis, a cloth inspector, testified that Allen's cloth "was the worst that I remem-
ber that I Inspected" ; and that at about the time of Allen's discharge she sent for her
overseer because Allen's cloth was so "full of defects" that she could not make her pro-
duction quota. Sadie Hughes, a cloth Inspector, testified that from December of 1962
until his discharge Allen's cloth "was as bad as I have ever seen." Gladys Kernels, a
cloth Inspector, testified that Allen's cloth "had more defects In It" than the.cloth of the
other weavers. Louie Evans, a "change man" whose duty was to return seconds. to the
weaver, testified that Allen's "percentage on seconds was higher" than that of other
weavers ; and that Allen's rate of seconds "increased just a . little bit" until his discharge.
4 MacHaffey and Porterfield estimated that In a group of 20 looms about 50 would stop
In 1 hour . Snow testified that about 40 looms would stop.
1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The weaver is responsible for the operation of his looms . It is his duty to patrol
them so as to start up those that stop and to correct that operation of those
making defective cloth. The Respondent has no set rules governing the time a
weaver spends away from his job for personal reasons , such as smoking, eating, or
going to the restroom . If he plans to be away for any extended length of time, such
as 15 or 20 minutes , then the Respondent expects him to arrange with another weaver
to watch his job. Snipes testified that it is up to the second hand to judge if a weaver
is leaving his job "to long, too often, without it being necessary."
As found above , on a number of occasions Allen had been warned about leaving
his job and making seconds . The evidence conclusively shows and I find that he
again neglected his job on May 29. Accordingly, I find that Allen's discharge was
for cause and was not violative of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Louisville Chair Company, Inc. and Louisville Chair & Furni-
ture Company, Inc. and United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 9-CA-2819 and 9-IBC-5152. May 5, 1964
DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
On October 15, 1963, Trial Examiner William Seagle issued his
Decision 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 attached Trial Examiner's De-
cision. He also found that the Respondent had interfered with the
election of April 5,1963, and recommended that it be set aside. There-
after , the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and a supporting brief, and the Union filed a statement in sups
port of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed.' The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, brief, and statement in support,
and the entire record in these cases,' and hereby adopts the Trial
Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations insofar as is,
consistent with this Decision and Order.
3 The Respondent 's request for oral argument Is hereby denied as the record in this pro-
ceeding, Including the exceptions, brief, and statement In support , adequately presents
the Issues and positions of the parties.
2 We find no merit in the Respondent 's claim of alleged bias and prejudice respecting the
Trial Examiner.
146 NLRB No. 151.