Alma Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1940

24 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

DECISIONS AND ORDERS ' OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the Matter of ALMA MILLS, INC. and TFxTII.E WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE In the Matter of LIMESTONE MILLS, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE In the Matter of HAMRICK MILLS, INC. and TEx1'rr WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Cases Nos. C-1243, C-1244, and C-1245,' respectively.-Decided May 29, 1940 Cotton Textile Industry-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion : assaults on union members and union meeting ; coercing employees to resign from Union ; support and encouragement of anti-union religious campaign among employees ; denial of credit at company store ; anti -union statements and threats by su- pervisory employees-Company-Dominated Unions: formation of, as part of campaign to frustrate Union ; participation in by supervisory employees ; use of company property and facilities ; financial support ; employers ordered to withdraw and withhold recognition ; disestablishment not ordered-Discrimina- tion : discharge and refusal to reemploy following shut-down sustained as to 22 employees ; discrimination against 2 employees in encouraging anti-union employees to prevent them from working ; charges of, as to 6 employees, dis- missed-Reinstatement Ordered: employees discriminatorily discharged or re- fused reemployment-Baok Pay: awarded employees discriminated against. Mr. Warren Woods, for the Board. Mr. Samuel Wolfe and Mr. J. Claude Fort, of Gaffney, S. C., for the respondents. Mr. C. L. Gibson, Dr. Witherspoon Dodge, and Mr. Paul Christo- pher, of Spartanburg, S. C., and Mr. S. A. Lisehinsky, of Washing- ton, D. C., for the Union. Mr. Ivar Peterson, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended, charges duly filed by Textile Workers Organizing Committee, now known as Textile Workers Union of America, and herein called the T. W. O. C. or the Union, the Na- 24 N. L. R. B., No.1. 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Charles N. Feidelson, Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) issued its complaint dated November 23, 1938, against Alma Mills, Limestone Mills, and Hamrick Mills,' herein called the re- spondents, alleging that the respondents, and each of them, had en- gaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.2 Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondents and the T. W. 0. C. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged in substance: (1) that respondents Alma Mills, Limestone Mills, and Hamrick Mills had dominated and interfered with and contributed support to the Square Deal Club, the Free Fellowship Club, and the Good Fellowship Club's respectively, herein called the Clubs; (2) that each of the respondents had discharged and refused to reinstate, or refused to reemploy fol- lowing a shut-down, certain named employees because of their activity in behalf of, membership in, or sympathy toward the Union, or be- cause of their refusal to join whichever Club existed at the mill where they were employed; and (3) that by the foregoing acts, and by ex- pressions to employees of hostility to the Union, by violently breaking up a union meeting on May 29, 1938, by causing employees to resign from membership, in the Union, by encouraging membership in the Clubs, and by other acts and conduct, the respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On December 5, 1938, pursuant to an order extending the time therefor, each of the respondents filed a separate an admitting the allegations concerning the nature of its business, but denying that it had or was engaged in unfair labor practices. Pursuant to an amended notice of hearing duly served on the parties, a hearing was held at Gaffney, South Carolina, from Decem- ber 13, 1938, to January 7, 1939, before C. W. Whittemore, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The respondents and the Board were represented by counsel, the Union by two of -its represent- atives. Although served with the complaint and notices of hearing, the Clubs, by their presidents, indicated for the record that they did not wish to intervene. Full opportunity was afforded all parties to i So named in the complaint , which was amended at the further hearing to conform to the proof. The correct names of the respondents are as given in the caption. 2 By order dated October 3, 1938, the Board consolidated the cases for the purpose of hearing and for all other purposes. 9 Referred to hereinafter as the Friendship Club, its correct title. ALMA MILLS, INC. 3 examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bear- ing on the issues . At the opening of the hearing the complaint was amended by striking therefrom the names of 13 employees 4 and by adding the names of 5 employees to the list of those. discharged .5 By agreement between counsel for the Board and counsel for the respond- ents, the taking of testimony with respect to the persons added to the complaint was deferred for 2 days. During the hearing the com- plaint was further amended by adding to the alleged reasons for the discharge of employees named therein as discharged in June and July 1938 the allegation that they were discharged because they refused to join the Clubs. At the close of the hearing the respondents moved that the complaint be dismissed. Ruling on this motion was reserved by the Trial Examiner and denied in his Intermediate Report except as to the allegations relating to Helen Pittman, Pearl Eaton, W. M. God- frey, Walter Brown, and Horace Scruggs. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On April 3, 1939, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re- port, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, finding that the respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. On April 17, 1939, the respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. On November 21, 1939, a hearing was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argu- ment. The respondents and the Union were represented by counsel and participated therein. On November 30, 1939, the Union filed with the Board a motion to reopen the record for the purpose of taking additional evidence. On December 5, 1939, the Board issued an order granting the motion and referring the cases to. the Regional Director for further hearing. On December 26, 1939, the Board issued an order overruling objections to the motion and the order reopening, filed by the respondents by letters dated December 13 and 15, 1939, respectively. Pursuant to notice and amended notices of further hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, a further hearing was held at Spartanburg, South Carolina, on January 22, 1940', and at Gaffney, South Carolina, on January 23 and 24, 1940, before Gustaf B. Erickson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. `The following names were stricken : as to Alma Mills, George Bradley, Annie Williams, and J. W. Childers ; as to Limestone Mills, Ralph Bolin , Elbert Patterson , C. K. Rankin, William J. R. Spencer, and Mary Wessinger ; and as to Hamrick Mills, Dewey Daniel, M. R. Daniel , Frank . Keeter, Jess Kennedy , and Bertha Osmet. 5 The following names were added : Ester Crawford , J. C. Johnson, Frances Lamb, Walter Brown , and George Richardson. 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The respondents, the Board, and the Union were represented by counsel. Full opportunity was afforded all parties to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce further evidence bearing on the issues. At the opening of the further hearing the respondents objected to the jurisdiction of the Board to reopen the cases for fur- ther hearing, upon the grounds, inter alia, that the motion to reopen was not made within a reasonable period after the first hearing, that the alleged discovery that witnesses at the first hearing had admitted that they had testified falsely at such hearing did not constitute sufficient ground for reopening, that the motion to reopen had been filed and the order granting said motion had been issued without notice to the respondents, and that the Board, under the circum- stances, was without authority to reopen the cases. The Trial Ex- aminer referred the objections to the Board. The Board, having considered the respondents' objections to the further hearing, hereby overrules said objections. The . respondents also objected to the amended notice of further hearing issued by the Regional Director on January 15, 1940, changing the place of hearing from Gaffney to Spartanburg, and requested that the further hearing be held in Gaffney. Since the further hearing was held in Gaffney, with the exception of the first day's hearing in Spartanburg, the respondents were not prejudiced. At the close of the further hearing the plead- ings were amended to conform to the proof with respect to names and dates. During the course of the further hearing the Trial Ex- aminer made various other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On February 2, 1940, the Board issued and duly served on the parties its order directing that no Intermediate Report be issued in the further hearing, that Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Con- clusions of Law, and Proposed Order be issued, and that the parties should have the right within 20 days after their receipt to file ex- ceptions thereto and to request oral argument and permission to file briefs. On February 12, 1940, the respondents filed a motion requesting that two letters written by Trial Examiner Whittemore to George O. Pratt, the Chief Trial Examiner, during the course of the first hear- ing and disclosed in hearings before the Special Committee to In- vestigate the National Labor Relations Board, be made a part of the record herein, on the ground that the correspondence revealed such bias, prejudice, and unethical conduct on the part of the Trial Ex- aminer as to render the proceedings conducted by him and his Intermediate Report unworthy of consideration. Although requested ALMA MILLS, INC. 5 to do so, the respondents have not furnished copies of the alleged prejudicial matter in support of their motion. The respondents claim that the correspondence referred to is not available to them for the purpose of filing a copy thereof. Under these circumstances, we take judicial notice of the proceedings before the Special Committee wherein the correspondence in question appears." The respondents allege that one letter shows that Trial Examiner Whittemore and the Board's attorney visited "Sam Bailey, a negro. complainant . . . the night before . . . Bailey was presented and sworn as a witness against said mills and donated to . . . Bailey approximately $4.00, ... Bailey having been subpoenaed at the time and a prospective witness." Reference to the letters and the record herein demonstrate that the visit occurred two days after Bailey had testified and that he did not thereafter appear as a witness. The hearing opened Tuesday, December 13, 1938, and Bailey testified only once, Friday, December 16. The 'letter itself, which is dated only "Sunday," relates that the visit occurred that morning and clearly shows that Bailey had already testified.* The second letter is dated Monday, December 19, 1938, and refers to the first letter as having been written the preceding day. It is plain, therefore, that the visit took place on Sunday, December 18, two days after Bailey had testified. The record herein does not show that Bailey was under subpoena at the time of the visit or at any time during the hearing.sa The respondents further contend that other matter in the cor- respondence reflects bias and partiality on the part of the Trial Examiner. It is plain that the observations in the letters are no more than initial impressions and private opinions of the Trial Examiner received and formed from the hearing and the events and circumstances surrounding it. We have considered the letters and the allegations respecting the statements and conduct therein revealed, and we are of the opinion that the respondents were not prejudiced thereby. The conduct of the hearing by Trial Examiner Whittemore in no way prejudiced the respondents. Counsel for the respondents, at the close of the hearing, made the following statement to the Trial Examiner : "I have been impressed with your fairness, intelligence, and common sense, :.. and we have utter faith in your ability to analyze this record and to render a decision in accordance with justice and the facts." In their exceptions to the Intermediate Report the respond- 0 Hearings Before the Special Committee to Investigate the National Labor Relations Board ( stenographic transcript ), Vol. 17, pp. 3210-16, 3223-5, January 17, 1940. ea The small sum of money donated to Bailey was clearly an outright gift, prompted by sympathy arising out of the destitute circumstances in which the Trial Examiner found Bailey and his family . Since the gift was made after Bailey testified It had no effect on the testimony given by him. 283035-42-vol. 24-2 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ents made no claim that any rulings or conduct of the Trial Exam- iner during the hearing revealed bias or partiality. 6b The record, moreover reveals no instance of partiality or bias. On. April 6, 1940, the Board issued and duly served on the parties Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Pro- posed Order. On April 20, 1940, the respondents filed a motion to file supplemental answer together with proposed, supplemental an- swer, which motion was denied by order issued April 24, 1940. On May 1, 1940, pursuant to an extension of time granted by the Board, the respondents filed exceptions to the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order. No exceptions -were filed by the Union. On May 16, 1940, a hearing for the purpose .of oral argument was had before the Board in Washington, 'D. C. The respondents and the Union were represented by counsel and par- ticipated in the argument. The Board has considered the exceptions of the respondents and finds -the exceptions to be without merit, except as they are consistent with -the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders set forth herein. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS The respondents, Alma Mills, Inc., Limestone Mills, Inc., and Hamrick Mills, Inc., are South Carolina corporations engaged in the manufacture of sheetings, chambrays, and print cloth at Gaffney, South Carolina. About 35 per cent of the raw materials used by each respondent in 1938, having an approximate value of from •$275,000 to $350,000 for each respondent, was purchased outside the State of South Carolina. Approximately 25 per cent of the finished products of each mill is shipped directly outside the State of South Carolina, and the other 75 per cent is delivered to' a. finishing plant in Lyman, South Carolina, and finally shipped outside the State. The annual value of finished products manufactured at the mill of -respondent Alma Mills, Inc., is about $800,000; at Limestone Mills, Inc., about $500,000; and at Hamrick Mills, Inc., about $560,000. About 490 employees are employed at Alma Mills, Inc., 310 by Lime- stone Mills, Inc., and 300 by Hamrick Mills, Inc. The respondents admit they are engaged in interstate commerce. ab Inasmuch as Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed .Order were issued herein by the Board , with opportunity to except thereto and to present oral argument , the respondents were not prejudiced by the findings and recommendations ..of the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report. ALMA MILLS, INC. 7 II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Textile Workers Organizing Committee was a labor organization :affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization ,T herein called the C. I. 0., admitting to membership employees of the re- !spondents. The T. W. O. C., which in February 1937 by agreement with United Textile Workers of America, a labor organization herein -called the United, undertook to organize textile workers, has since •been succeeded by Textile Workers Union of America, a labor organization. Square Deal Club is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership only employees of the respondent Alma Mills, Inc. Free Fellowship Club is an unaffiliated labor organization admit- ting to membership only employees of the respondent Limestone Mills, Inc. Friendship Club is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership only employees of the respondent Hamrick Mills, Inc. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background of the unfair labor practices The mills of the respondents are situated in a group about a mile outside the city limits of Gaffney. About half of the employees at each mill live in company-owned houses on the mill property. Em- ployees are tenants at will and rental charges are deducted from their wages. A company store is operated at the Limestone mill, with canteens at each of the other mills. All employees of the respond- ents may trade at the Limestone store. The respondent Limestone employs two company police officers, C. Yates Allison and Bill Hall- man, who hold appointments as special police officers and deputy sheriffs from the sheriff of Cherokee County. They are paid by the respondent Limestone and their authority is confined to ."the indus- trial community known as Limestone Mills." a The respondents have a common management; Waite Hamrick is president and treasurer of each of the respondents and his brother, Lyman Hamrick, is secretary and manager of Alma Mills, Inc., and ' Now Congress of Industrial Organizations. e Their jurisdiction includes the Alma and Hamrick mills property . Allison testified that his authority under South Carolina law extends to a mile radius of the mill property. Although Lyman Hamrick testified that Allison had no authority to hire or discharge, he admitted that Allison acted as the respondents ' agent in maintaining order in the com- munity and that employees , who in the-opinion of Allison were drunk or disorderly, were discharged upon Allison's report to that effect. This ' broad authority is tantamount to the express authority to discharge . We find that the respondents are bound by the acts of Allison and Hallman in so far as such acts relate to the discipline or discharge of such -employees. 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD vice president and general manager of the other two respondents Immediately subordinate to Lyman Hamrick in the active super- vision of employees in the respondents' mills, are overseers. Six overseers are employed at the Limestone mill, five at the Alma mill, and four at the Hamrick mill. Second hands are next in authority to overseers. In addition to overseers and second hands, whose duties are of 'a supervisory character since they admittedly have authority to hire and discharge, there are section hands and loom fixers, whom the re- spondents contend are not supervisory employees. It is important to determine the status of these employees since many of the alleged intimidatory and coercive acts hereinafter discussed were committed by them. Lyman Hamrick testified that "the authority stops" with second hands. He stated, however, that section hands assist second hands "in anything," show employees where to work, and are responsible for keeping the machinery in good running order. Loom fixers are in charge of the maintenance of certain sections of looms in the weav- ing department. B. W. Pittman, a weaver at the Alma mill, testified without contradiction that Loom Fixer Anniston Parker had author- ity "to look after us mark cloth, and watch us and see that we didn't go out and smoke, and things like that, and he was kind of over that." Earl Dunaway, overseer of weaving at the Hamrick mill, testified that "a loom fixer and a section hand, they are the same thing." Section hands and loom fixers receive the same rate of pay as second hands. Floyd White, section hand at the Hamrick mill, testified that he told Idell Jackson, a spinner, that he "was going to [discharge her] if she didn't stop going into the water house and staying." Asked if he had the power of, discharge, he stated : "Not in that exact sense, no, sir, but we do recommend her to be fired by the second hand, and we tell him if they are giving any. trouble, or whatever the case may be." With regard "to the powers of Freddy Godfrey, section hand at the Limestone mill, Second Hand Tom McGraw testified that "sometimes, if I ask him [Godfrey] to tell a man to do anything and he doesn't do it he [Godfrey] sends him to me or either tells him he doesn't need him, and takes it up with me, and of course if I find he is right in doing so, I let the person go ahead as he left it." Although neither section hands nor loom fixers have the power to hire and discharge employees, their actual duties are such as to 9 Waite Hamrick is president and Lyman Hamrick is vice president of three other mills not here involved : the Musgrove and Vogue mills in Gaffney and the Broad River Mill in Blacksburg, South Carolina. ALMA MILLS, INC. 9 endow them with supervisory status 10 From the record, it is clear that section hands and loom fixers occupy a higher status than or- dinary employees. They assign employees to their tasks, see to it that they perform their work properly, report upon the work and conduct of the employees to the second hands, and recommend dis- ciplinary action or discharge to the second hands. Under these circumstances, we find that section hands and loom fixers are super- visory employees and as such are representatives of the respondents in the shop.'1 The United began organizing in Gaffney in August 1933, and in September 1933 a United local, which included in its membership employees of the respondents, was chartered. The respondents' mills were closed during September 1934 by the general textile strike. In October 1934 the strike was settled by an agreement between the management of the respondents and. J. H. Palmer, representative of the United. The respondents agreed to correct certain matters which had been the subject of grievances and stated it as their policy "that union affiliation shall not be held against any employee here- after." According to Palmer, many of the grievances were not ad- justed. In September. 1935 the threat to strike because of unad- justed grievances was deferred by the United at the request of Governor Olin D. Johnston. In February 1936 employees at the Alma mill went on strike in protest over the inauguration of . the "extended" or "stretch-out" system.12 Late in March the United local at the Limestone mill submitted a complaint to the management alleging that Overseer Till White was discriminating against union employees and was refusing to deal with the shop committee in regard to grievances. The complaint further recited that White had attempted "to incite a riot" by leading "a group of men armed with shotguns and pistols to the Alma mill where peaceful picketing was in progress." No adjustments were made, and about April 12 employees at the Lime- stone mill went on strike. The strike also extended td the Hamrick mill. Shortly after the strike started at the Alma mill, the respondents imported about 22 "special constables." Lake Stroup, sheriff of 10 See Matter of The Serrick Corporation and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 4 59, 8 N . L. It. B. 621, enf' d. International Association of Machinists , Tool and Die Makers Lodge No. 35, affiliated with the International Asso- ciation of Machinists and Production Lodge No. 1200, affiliated with the International Association of Machinists v. N. L . R B., 311 U. S. 729. 11 Matter of Borden Mills, Inc . and Textile Workers Organizing Committee , 13 N. L. It. B. 459. 12 In the 1934 settlement agreement , which was effective until February 1, 1935, the respondents had expressed a willingness to have complaints of alleged "stretch-out" practices investigated by the proper governmental authority. .10 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cherokee County, warned Waite Hamrick that the employment of the special officers, none of whom had been deputized by Stroup, might lead to bloodshed and within a short time the special officers left. During the strike the Hamricks attempted to prevail upon Stroup to employ a large force of deputies to "open up the mills." Stroup refused to take sides in the dispute. In August 1936, the strike was settled after a conference between Waite Hamrick and Palmer, the representative of the United, and the State Commis- sioner of Labor. Hamrick promised to adjust grievances satisfac- torily within 45 days. In October 1936 the United again protested to Waite Hamrick, claiming that the grievances, particularly the complaints against Till White, which had been the causes of the Limestone mill strike had not been corrected. The United received no reply to its protest. After the 1936 strike, membership decreased to such an extent that the United became inactive. In February 1937 the T. W. O. C., by agreement with the United,. began organizing textile workers in Gaffney. Organizers were active among employees of the respondents during the spring and summer of 1937. In November 1937 the T. W. O. C. filed charges against the respondents alleging the discriminatory discharge of certain employees. In December 1937 separate petitions for an election at each of the respondent-mills were filed by the T. W. O. C. and in January 1938 the charges were withdrawn, without prejudice. Hear- ings on the petitions were held on April 8, 1938, and on May 25, 1938, the Board directed that elections be held within 15 days. The- respondents promptly began an intensive campaign to destroy the T. W. OX., as described below. On June 8, 1938, the Board indefi- nitely postponed the elections and the T. W. O. C. filed the charges; herein. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion; domination of and inter- ference with the Clubs In May 1938, when the T. W. O. C. had gained considerable- strength among the respondents' employees, the respondents began an active campaign to frustrate and destroy that organization. This campaign included the formation of the Clubs as rival organizations, fostered and promoted by the respondents, through supervisory em- ployees, and designed to force employees to abandon the T. W. O. C. In addition to the Clubs and their activities, the respondents further interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees by the cir- culation of resignation forms from the T. W. O. C., by acts of physi- cal violence directed against union members and assemblages, by threats of supervisory employees, by appeals to religious sympathies, ALMA MILLS, INC. 11 and by the use of economic force . in . the form of .denial of credit at the company store to employees who belonged to the T. W. O. C. On or about May 7, 1938, the following employees of the respond- ent Limestone Mills were seen by Ed Cabiness, also a Limestone employee, entering the office of Waite Hamrick, president of the respondents : Clyde JefFeries, Freddy Godfrey, Coley White, J. V. Branch, and Leroy Allison. Jefferies, Godfrey, and White are full- or part-time section hands. Cabiness testified that he was seated on the porch? about 4 feet from the office door, that the door and a window of the office remained open for some time after the men entered the office, and that he overheard part of the conversation that ensued. According to Cabiness, the men talked "about busting up the C. I. 0."; Jefferies said., "We can bust it up in a few weeks"; White said "It won't take us long to do it"; Branch stated, "Hell,. we can stop it if it takes a little knocking";'to which Godfrey added, "There may be something to knocking them." Allison contributed the suggestion that the campaign should be brought "through the prayer band and they would pay attention quicker than if we go- around talking it to them"; and Waite Hamrick "just told them to go to it, he would stick to them no matter what happened." The office door and window were closed after Cabiness had overheard the above conversation. About 20 minutes later, so Cabiness testi- fied, the men came out and Waite Hamrick told them, "You boys go to it and I will see you later." At the first hearing, Waite Hamrick was asked but one question, and that by counsel for the Board, concerning the above incident whether in May 1938 he had had a conference with Jefferies, Godfrey, and Allison relative to "the formation of some sort of club"; Ham- rick replied, "No, sir, I couldn't even tell you the name of the clubs."? At the further hearing, Waite Hamrick testified as follows : Q. Now, one of the witnesses, I believe it was Branch, revived the old accusation about some conference there in your office with certain anti-union employees . . . Was there ever any such con- ference in your office? A. I can say not, and if there had of been, I would certainly have picked out somebody besides Branch, with more intelligence and with more influence in the community . . . Allison and Godfrey denied having attended the conference; Jef- feries testified at the first hearing, "I never have been to Hamrick with nobody for nothing"; and although called as witnesses on other matters, Branch and White were not questioned on this point. The record establishes that shortly after May 7 the above-named employees, all of whom were on the organizing committee of the Free Fellowship Club, took leading parts " in organizing the Clubs, and 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD otherwise combatted the T. W. O. C. Under the circumstances, and in view of the facts hereinafter recited, we credit the testimony of Cabiness and find that Waite Hamrick, president of the respondents, deliberately planned to deprive employees of the respondents of their rights guaranteed in the Act by instigating, authorizing, and sup- porting a movement to' destroy the T. W. O. C. The formation of the Clubs immediately thereafter was a means to that end. It was not long after the meeting in Waite Hamrick's office that steps were taken to carry out the plans for "busting up the C. I. 0." On May 18, 1938, the T. W. O. C. won an election at the Gaffney Manufacturing Company. A week later, on May 25, the Board di- rected that elections be held within 15 days among employees of the respondents. Jefferies, the principal organizer of the Free Fellow- ship Club, testified at the further hearing that shortly before or after the election at the Gaffney Manufacturing Company, Olin Wells, credit manager at the Limestone store, told him that something had to be done about the elections to be held at the respondents' mills. Wells sent Jefferies to Frank McLane, president and manager of the South- ern Loom Reed Manufacturing Company in Gaffney,' to obtain information about conducting an anti-union campaign. McLane gave Jefferies advice and supplied him with a portion of the Act, whereupon Jefferies "started broadcasting it big" to employees "that there wasn't no law providing for unions." McLane, who admitted he was opposed to the C. I. 0., testified that, "as a private citizen," he assisted Jefferies and others to organize the Clubs by giving them advice and money. Although Wells testified that he did not remem- ber sending Jefferies to McLane and denied that he had had any- thing to do with the Clubs, we credit Jefferies' testimony on this point given by him at the further hearing. Since Jefferies played an important part in organizing the Clubs and directing their activi- ties, it is necessary at the outset to resolve the question of his credi- bility in view of the fact that much of his testimony at the further hearing conflicts with his testimony at the first hearing. At the first hearing Jefferies related many of the circumstances surrounding the organization of the Clubs but insisted that he and other employees active therein were proceeding upon their own initiative. Much of his testimony at the first hearing is not only incredible on its face, but is contradicted by other evidence. At the further hearing Jef- feries testified that he had testified falsely in some respects at the first hearing and then related, in considerable detail, his activities in combatting the T. W. O. C. at the instigation of the respondents. Jefferies' later testimony is supported by and corroborates plain in- ferences from other evidence of an unimpeachable character. Under " Waite and Lyman , FIamrick own the majority of the stock in this concern. ALMA MILLS, INC. 13 these circumstances, we credit Jefferies' later testimony, although the ultimate conclusions herein reached find ample support in the record entirely apart from his later testimony. On May 19, the day a notice was posted announcing that the Alma mill would cease operations for an indefinite period beginning May 27, Section Hand Faulkner at the Alma mill asked employee J. C. Johnson to sign "the paper to show that you are against the C. I. 0.," and invited him to attend a meeting the following night "to get all the people we can that work here in this mill to sign the paper" but added, "if you are a member of the C. I. O. you needn't come out there, because we ... don't want any C. I. O. members out there at our meetings at all." The meeting mentioned by Faulkner was held on May 20 or 21 and resulted in the formation of the Square Deal Club. Overseer M. Y. Sprouse and Second Hand Leonard Duckett attended this meeting. According to the uncontradicted testimony. of B. W. Pittman, Loom Fixers "Cocky" Warren and Anniston Parker ex- plained to him shortly after the meeting that the purpose of the Club was "to break up this union and get, the union out of the mills; get these C. I. O.'s out of the mill and run their speakers off." The testimony of the presidents'of the Clubs regarding the manner in which the Clubs came into existence and the purpose of the organi- zations further demonstrates that the movement did not originate with the employees, but with the management. L. D. Pierce, president of the Square Deal Club, although admitting that the Club was not formed until May 1938, claimed that its origin was attributable to the 1936 strike and that he and several other employees "started among ourselves" in an effort to "better the conditions and get the people closer back together." While he asserted that the Club "wasn't fight- ing the C. I. O. any more than any other organization," he stated that it was started because the news was "flying around" that the same group of people that had conducted the 1936 strike "were going to organize our mill and shut it down." Claude Henderson, president of the Friendship Club at the Ham- rick mill, testified that his Club was organized because "we seen what a great progress they were making at these other mills, ... and we liked it, and that is why we formed us one there." He admitted, however, as did the other club presidents, that the Clubs had never attempted to better working conditions in the mills.14 Jesse Hafner, who was elected president of the Free Fellowship Club on July 1, testified that he was invited to accept the office by Jefferies, Godfrey, and Allison, three of the five men who had been in Waite Hamrick's office on May 7. Hafner further testified that "when they approached 14 The presidents of the Clubs testified , however, that the Clubs would endeavor to bargain collectively if the occasion arose. 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD me about it they said they were trying to create a better Christian fellowship." The respondents contributed financial and other support to the Clubs by supplying funds for expenses and permitting the Clubs to meet on company property, a privilege denied to the T. W. O. C. JefFeries testified that he obtained whatever money he needed to meet club expenses from Wells, the credit manager of the company store, who acted as "the go-between man betwixt me and Mr. Waite Hamrick." 15 Wells supplied $20 toward the purchase of a table to be used for club meetings, and Waite Hamrick agreed to pay the balance due on a loudspeaker which the Free Fellowship Club had purchased. The Clubs met on company property without objection from the respondents. Jeff cries' testimony is uncontradicted, and we find, that Waite Hamrick told him, with reference to holding club meetings -on mill property, "You do as you please and whenever there is anything that don't suit us, I will call you in and tell you about it. I just can't come out and give you permission because the other folks 18 wanted to. have a speaking and I turned them down." On or about May 20 the Square Deal Club held a meeting on mill property. Second Hand Leonard Duckett and Overseer M. Y. Sprouse attended the meeting. As B. W. Pittman, a T. W. O. C. member, started toward the assembled group, Yates Allison, the mill officer, asked him if, he had been invited. When Pittman admitted that he had not, Allison instructed him to "go back up that way, then, and stay until you're invited." On or about the evening of May 27 another meeting of the Square Deal Club was held on mill property. An electric-light extension had been connected with the mill current. Section Hand J. L. Faulkner and Second Hand Duck- ett were present and L. D. Pierce, president of the Club, stated that C. I. O. members were not wanted. At a meeting of the Free Fellowship Club late in May or early in June held in front of the company store, J. V. Branch declared that "Mr. Hamrick had always been good to him and . . . he was going to stick with Mr. Hamrick and that is what the rest of them ought to do, and that Mr. Hamrick would stick by you because he knew that he was against the C. I. O. and that he would help those that stuck with him." On June 11 the T. W. O. C. conducted a meeting on a vacant lot opposite the Alma mill. A club "speaking" was then in progress on mill property. A loudspeaker with current obtained from the mill, was in use and a speaker's platform had been erected by the water tower. Prayers and songs blaring from the loudspeaker ef£ec- 15 At the first hearing Jefferies stated that donations from members defrayed club expenses . For reasons stated above, we credit his later explanation. "We find that Hamrick was here referring to the T. W. O. C. ALMA MILLS, INC. 15 tively disrupted the T. W. O. C. meeting. Section Hand Faulkner, present at the club meeting, warned J. C. Johnson, an employee at the Alma mill, as he started toward the T. W. O. C. group, "if you go to that C. I. O. meeting I will see that you don't work another day at this mill." The subservient character of the Clubs is shown by the following incident. After the Board, on June 8, 1938, indefinitely postponed the elections scheduled at the respondent's mills, Jeff eries asked Waite Hamrick if the Free Fellowship Club did not have the right to seek an election to "beat the C. I. 0." Hamrick sent Jefferies to Attorneys Wolfe and Fort, counsel for the respondents, for advice.' Mr. Fort, at Jefferies' request, prepared two letters on June 25 and 30, ad- dressed to the Board's Tenth Regional Office, seeking information on how to obtain an election. After Jefferies received the petition forms, Fort filled them out for him; however, Jefferies failed to have them notarized before sending them to the Regional Office and they were returned to him. Jefferies, who testified that "we had our whole,club members and all thinking we were going to get an elec- tion just any day," then went to see Waite Hamrick. Jefferies ex- plained what steps he had taken toward securing an election; Ham- rick "sort of.laughed and he said lawyers didn't know his business altogether" and told Jefferies, "We might get something started we can't stop." Jefferries testified that he thereupon "took the petition on and put it in a trunk at home and I never did send it in." Waite Hamrick was not questioned about the above incident. Leaders of the Clubs, with the tacit approval of the management, took part in acts of physical violence directed against members of the T. W. O. C. On May 29, 4 days after the Board had directed that elections be held among employees of the respondents, the T. W. O. C. attempted to hold an open meeting near the Alma mill. Dr. Witherspoon Dodge, representative of the T. W. O. C. in the deep South, was to be the principal speaker. As the T. W. O. C. adherents approached the spot selected across the highway from the mill, they were met by about 30 or 40 club members plainly intent on prevent- ing the meeting from taking place. Many in this group were armed with rocks, boards, and hose pipe; the union people were ordered to "get the hell up the road, you ClOers, we don't want you here." B. L. Painter, a T. W. O. C. member but not an employee of the respondents, was knocked down and kicked by Ray Martin, a loom fixer at the Alma mill and one of the organizers of the.-Square Deal Club. W. M. Harris, a local union 'sympathizer,, was struck in the face by a length of hose with a brass nub at the end, wielded by J. V. Branch. After these assaults, Dr. Dodge and others in his group withdrew to the road, where two officers were seated in a parked car 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in plain view of the proceedings. Dr. Dodge and Painter demanded protection, but Officer Phillips retorted that he had "never seed what happened." Martin, who had followed to the officer's car, drew back. to strike Dr. Dodge; thereupon Phillips grabbed Martin's arm and told him, "You can't do that." Phillips advised Dodge to call off the meeting. Painter and Harris swore out warrants against Martin and Branch. The grand jury, however, failed to indict. Superintendent Moore of the Broad River mill, of which Waite Hamrick is also president,, served on the jury; J. Claude Fort, counsel for the respondents,. represented Martin and Branch. Dr. Dodge conferred with Governor Johnston after the attempted meeting on May 29. The Governor told Dodge, "we are going to have civil liberties in South Carolina" and obtained the promise of Sheriff Bryant of Gaffney that protection would be furnished the T. W. O. C. organizers. The sheriff, however, advised Dodge not to, hold meetings near the Alma mill. On June 4 a T. W. O. C. meet- ing was held near the Hamrick mill, under police protection. On: the same day,. Dodge telephoned Waite Hamrick and asked permis- sion to conduct a meeting at the Alma mill, on company property,. since that privilege had been accorded the Clubs. Hamrick refused, saying, "we don't want any trouble up here." It is evident that J. V. Branch had carried, out his promise to Waite. Hamrick that T. W. O. C. activity would be stopped "if it takes a little knocking" and that the prediction of Loom Fixers Warren and Parker that the Clubs would "break up this union" and "run their speakers off" was in process of fulfillment. After the formation of the Square Deal Club at the Alma mill, the campaign to coerce employees into resigning from the T. W. O. C. was fully under way. On May 28 Jefferies caused an article to be inserted in the Gaffney Ledger, announcing the formation of the Clubs as "a purely voluntary movement" not inspired or promoted by the management. The announcement stated that the Clubs "will not accept workers who have signed Textile Workers Organizing Committee cards until these workers resign or cancel their member- ships in that organization," and, quoting from an editorial in another newspaper, gave the following advice for withdrawing from the T. W. O. C. : The way to quit is to quit. Serve notice on the officers of the C. I. O. that you have quit and serve notice on the superintendent of the mill where you work that you have served notice on the C. I. O. that you have quit. ALMA MILLS, -INC.. 17 Some time in May, Jefferies had several hundred form resigna- tions printed, addressed to the T. W. O. C. at its Atlanta, Georgia, office, reading as follows : Take Notice : I hereby resign as a member, and revoke your authority to act for me. About 130 such resignations, signed by employees of each of the respondents in June and early July and sent to T. W. O. C. head- quarters in Atlanta, were received in evidence. ..- In addition to the revocations addressed directly to the 'T. W. O. C., Waite Hamrick was advised by a signed form that employees had withdrawn from the T. W. O. C.17 Jefferies testified that "every time one was sent to Atlanta one was sent to Mr. Waite Hamrick through the mail." At the request of counsel for the Board, the respondents produced some 90 such signed forms, received from employees of .the mills, which had been retained by the respondents. Club leaders, including section hands, obtained signatures on the resignation forms. The record establishes that revocation of mem- bership in the T. W. O. C. was a condition precedent to membership in, the Clubs. It is evident that by retaining the announcements of resignation,. and through other means hereinafter described, the respondents effectually checked upon the union affiliation 'of their employees. The. suggestion of Allison, contributed at the May 7 meeting in Waite- Hamrick's office, that a "prayer band" be. used to combat the T. W. O. C. was acted upon and proved to be an. effective means for discouraging membership in the T. W. O. C. and in promoting the Clubs. According to the testimony of Dr. Dodge, former minister and professor at Oglethorpe University, appeals to religious prejudices have constituted an effective means of combating unionism in south- ern textile mills. Preachers in mill-subsidized churches have diverted the attention of workers "from the necessity of improving their own conditions through organizing" by labeling union aims as ungodly and by indulging in scurrilous attacks on the C. I. O. During the summer of 1938 an active religious campaign against the C. I. O. was being conducted in and around Gaffney. One J. Harold Smith preached that the letters "C. I. 0." meant "Christ Is Out." Frank McLane, Clyde Jefferies, and J. V. Branch arranged to transport employees of the respondents to "preachings" conducted " The form reads as follows : To My Employer : I have resigned from the Textile Workers Organization ( sic) Committee of the C. I. O. and have revoked their authority to act for me. (Signed ) ------------------------------ 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by Smith, and Waite Hamrick allowed Freddy Godfrey and Leroy Allison, two of the chief organizers of the Clubs, to use company trucks to attend these "preachings." In May 1938 Albert Poole, an employee at the Limestone mill,. and D. E. "Preacher" Parker, an employee at the Alma mill, asked Waite Hamrick for aid in building a church- at the Limestone mill. According to employee Cabiness, who testified that he overheard the. conversation, "Mr. Hamrick told him (Parker) if he would go ahead, and continue preaching like he was he would give him the old ball ground and throw in $500 towards building a church." Poole testi- fied that he and Parker talked to Hamrick, 'who promised them a lot. at the Limestone mill and "said he believed we needed a good church down there." Parker admitted that he talked to - Hamrick "about preaching, and about a church," but denied having discussed the C. I. 0. with Hamrick. The record is clear, however, that Parker was active in the Square Deal Club, leading "prayer bands" and preaching that the C. I. 0. was the "mark of the beast." Waite Hamrick admitted promising Parker and Poole.a plot of ground for church purposes but stated that he did not ask them what they in- tended preaching. He testified, "I told them, I said, `You fellows will have to go out and ... try to raise some money ... and after you go out and get what you can, you come back and see me and I will see what I can do towards helping you."' At the further hear- ing Jefferies testified that he told Parker "if he would get on the right side and preach right, I thought he would get a church"; that he and Parker "talked it over"; that Parker "went to see Mr. Waite about it," and reported that Hamrick promised a lot and "as much as $100 or $150 towards helping to build a church"; and that thereafter Parker "went to preaching against the C. I. 0." That Lyman Hamrick was aware of the influence exerted on employees .by appeals to religious sympathies and encouraged em- ployees to regard the Clubs as having laudable religious objectives as contrasted to the "evil" designs of the T. W. 0. C., is illustrated by the following incidents. In the fall of 1938 Carrie McClellan."" an employee at the Hamrick mill, told Lyman Hamrick that her church "doesn't want me to belong to anything, and therefore I can't join the club." McClellan testified that Hamrick replied, "if you will get your preacher to come out for the Club and speak for the Club, then you can join the Club." According to Ester Crawford, an Alma mill employee, and her father, W. J. Crawford, Lyman Ham- rick, in discussing Miss Crawford's claim that she had been dis- criminatorily discharged, stated, with reference to the T. W. 0. C. I Also referred to as Carrie welebell. ALMA MILLS, INC. 19 that "you have heard that in the Bible it speaks about the evil tongue . . . people will come from far off and the people will listen to them and they will lead them wrong." - This occurred in July 1938, at the height of the anti-union religious campaign. Lyman Hamrick admitted that McClellan told him she hadn't "joined the Club yet" ,and that it was against her religion; he testified, how- ever, that he said, "if that is against your religion, that is a matter for you and your preacher to talk about, and not me." Lyman Ham- rick did not deny having made the statement attributed to him by Ester and W. J. Crawford. We find that the respondents encouraged Parker in his antiunion religious campaign by holding out to him the promise of financial and other aid, and that Parker thereby served the respondents as a convenient instrument of interference, restraint, and coercion. The effectiveness of the preaching campaign is evident in the testimony of many witnesses. Minnie Huckabee, an employee at the Limestone mill who had formerly belonged to the United and had been reinstated after the 1934 strike .through the efforts of the United, became an active club and prayer-band leader in 1938. She stated, in answer to a. question whether she regretted having been a union member, "yes, I am absolutely saved." For several years prior to 1938 the respondents discouraged union membership by discharging and threatening to discharge employees active in the T. W. 0. C. or its predecessor, the United. The use of economic pressure and intimidation, against T. W. 0. C. members was intensified in the spring and summer of 1938. In November 1936 Sam Bailey, vice president of the colored local of the United, and several other colored employees went to see Waite Hamrick about a raise in wages. Bailey .acted as spokesman. Ham- rick refused the raise and said, "Who sent you here? . . . Sam, you belong to that old union, don't you? . . . you live in a company house, don't you . . . well you are going to have to move." Bailey and two others in the group were discharged 3 days later by "Cap- tain" Strain, their immediate supervisor, on the ground they had made Hamrick "mad" by asking for a raise. Bailey. was summarily evicted from his company house. Till White, overseer of the spinning room at the Limestone mill, in July 1937 told W. H. Hughey, an active union member, "old man, ... some of the women down yonder tells me you have been talking union . . . if I hear any more of it I will give you your time." Hughey was discharged the following month. Till White did not testify. Ester Crawford, an employee at the Alma mill, testified that on May 19, 1938, Section Hand Faulkner asked her if she belonged to the 20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD T. W. O. C. Upon receiving an affirmative answer, he said, "I thought you was crazy as hell, and now I know it ... if the C. I. O. wins they will shut the mill down." On the same day Faulkner asked J. C. Johnson, another employee, to sign a paper "to show that you ate against the C. 1. 0." When Johnson attended the T. W. O. C. meeting on June 11, held opposite the Alma mill, Faulkner, who was attending a club meeting being held at the same time in front of the mill, shouted at Johnson, "if you go to that C. 1. 0. meeting I will see that you don't work another day at this mill." On May 20 Lester Martin, second hand at the Alma mill, told Crawford, "when you get the C. I. O. in here you won't get no rest ... they will shut the mill down and make it harder on you and if you stop at the end of your frame they will have the right to fire you." Martin also asked Johnson and another employee, Ed Bryant, whether they belonged to the C. I. O. and told them that the Union would do them no good. Martin was not ques- tioned about the above conversations; Faulkner did not testify; we find that Martin and Faulkner made the statements attributed to them by Crawford and Johnson. The campaign by supervisory employees to force employees to with- draw from the T. W. O. C. and to join the Clubs continued when, the Alma and Hamrick mills reopened. As we find below, employees Violet Green, Lawson Owens, B. W. Pittman, J. C. Pittman, and J. C. Johnson, were refused reemployment at the Alma mill when it resumed full operations on June 27.' All of these employees belonged to the T. W. O. C. and had refused to join the Square Deal Club during the shut-down. The evidence is uncontradicted, and we find, that Section Hand Trombly and Second Hand Dolph White insisted that Owens join the Club or lose his job; and that Second Hand Duckett told B. W. Pittman that his job was gone and that he, Duckett, was going to make the "few CIO'ers" in the mill "get out." Shortly before the Hamrick mill reopened on July 4, Jefferies, Floyd White, and Branch, at the direction of Waite Hamrick and Till White, recruited employees of that mill "who didn't fool with the union" to operate a third shift in the spinning room of the Limestone mill. The third shift ran for only 3 nights, with Branch and Jefferies in charge. Branch testified that the purpose of starting the shift was "to fool the union" and to make union employees at the Hamrick mill "think it wasn't going to run." On the morning of July 5, 1938, a group of about 50 club members at the Limestone mill gathered in the entrance of the spinning room just before the morning shift started and prevented several T. W. O. C. members from entering the mill. Coley White, J. V. Branch, Claude Clary, Creight Bright, and Clyde Poole, all active club members, took part in the "block out." Till White, the overseer in charge of the ALMA MILLS, INC. 21 shift, when asked by Bessie Fowler, one of the T. W. 0. C. members "blocked out," why they were not permitted to go to work, replied, "Bessie, I will tell you, I haven't got anything to do with this." At the first hearing, several of the club members testified that Till White had nothing to do with the "block out" and that he told them that they had "done wrong" in keeping out the T. W. 0. C. members. At the further hearing, however, Lennor Pruitt, who had not testified at the first hearing, stated that he and several other club members discussed with Till White the plans to keep union members out of the mill. White urged the club members to do as they did, saying "You are yellow sons-of-bitches if you don't hold them out." Henry Wyatt and J. V. Branch also testified that Till White incited club members to "block out" the union members. T. W. 0. C. members immediately notified Governor Johnston of the "block out." State officers and John Nates, State Commissioner of Labor, investigated the matter on July 6 or 7 and the "blocked out" employees were advised by Jesse Hafner, president of the Free Fellowship Club, to return to work. C. K. Rankin, an employee who had been a member of the T. W. 0. C. prior to being "blocked out," testified that he joined the Club thereafter, because it "was gen- erally reported that if we didn't line up with the Club we were all going to be out of a job." J. V. Branch testified that after the "blocked out" employees returned Till White told him that the T. W. 0. C. members would be gotten rid of by other means within 3 months. At that time Branch was sweeping, a job which involved removing lint from under the spinning frames by "fanning under" with a "fan rug." It is Branch's uncontradicted testimony that Till White "suggested that I would fan easy on our members and fan like hell on the ones we kept out" so that the waste cotton would "fly up and tear the ends down." We find that Till White, overseer at the Limestone mill, on or about July 5, 1938, instigated and caused club members to "block out" employees who belonged to the T. W. 0. C. The company store extends credit to employees by issuing to them aluminum tokens, called "loonies," with which they may make pur- chases at the store. The amount of credit extended is checked off against wages due or to be earned. . The economic ' control exercised .by the respondents over their employees by the operation of this store is significantly revealed in the testimony of Waite Hamrick. He declared that the store was established "purely to accommodate and meet competition," but he added that "we are in there for a profit and we make it." He testified further as follows : Q. You don't have any trouble collecting or setting prices or anything else there, do you? 283035-42-vol. 24-3 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. Yes, we have trouble. Q. How is that? A. Because we depend upon the honesty of the fellow. Q. Don't you have the insurance of his time? A. Whatever he makes, $12.00 or $13.00 a week. Q. Then he isn't getting money enough to pay his grocery bill, is that it? A. He gets $12.00 a week and he still owes us $3.00. Q. You are in a position to stop that credit any moment, aren't you? - A. We do not stop it, we collect that credit some time. It is a common practice for employees in need of cash to draw "loonies" against wages due and to sell them to company police officers, Allison and Hallman, or to other employees at an exchange rate of 75 cents in cash for each dollar's worth of "loonies." During the period when the mills were shut down and the Clubs were being organized, employees were coerced into withdrawing from the T. W. O. C. and joining the Clubs by the denial of credit at the company store. J. V. Branch testified that, while he was organ- izing for the Clubs, he kept a record of employees who did not join and turned that record over to Olin Wells, credit manager of the company store, so that Wells "would know which ones belonged and which ones didn't belong so he wouldn't let them have any 'loonies."' Branch testified that he promised one Horn, an employee, that he (Horn) would get credit if he signed up with the Club. When Horn signed, Branch took him to the store and told Wells that Horn "was straight and to give him credit," which Wells did. While the Clubs were organizing, Branch became indebted to the store for about $122; theretofore he had been refused credit.19 Branch's tes- timony in this respect is corroborated by that of several other witnesses. J. C. Johnson testified that on June 14, during the shut-down of the Alma mill and after he had refused to sign "a paper ... against "On January 19, 1940, 3 days before the opening of the further hearing , Branch had a conversation with wells. Branch was then working on W. P . A. He testified that wells gave him $12 In cash and agreed to pay him "the same thing I am getting on w. P. A." In return for Branch's promise "to kind of get out of town and get away from here . . . until after this here Court was over." Wells testified that at Branch's request he lent Branch $ 2 on January 19; he was not further questioned about the incident . One W . B. Tate , a traveling salesman , testified as a witness for the re- spondents that he was present in the company store on the (lay in question , that wells refused to lend Branch any money, and that he, Tate , thereupon offered to and did lend Branch $ 10. Tate admitted that he did not know Branch personally and that Branch did not ask him for a loan. We do not credit the testimony of wells and Tate relating to the "loans" to Branch . We are satisfied that wells , an agent of the re- spondent , sought to have Branch absent himself from the further hearing by giving him money and offering to pay him for so doing. ALMA MILLS, INC. 23 the C. I. 0." as requested by Section Hand Faulkner and after he had attended the June 11 T. W. 0. C. meeting in spite of Faulkner's threat that he would not be allowed to "work another day" if he attended, he was for the 'first time during his employment refused credit. Johnson testified that Wells referred to a paper containing a list of names, instead of an account book, as usual, and said, "I am sorry, Johnson, I can't let you have it." At that time Johnson owed about $6.00 at the store. Ed Cabiness, a T. W. 0. C. member and an employee at the Limestone mill, testified that in June Wells refused to give him credit, when he sought to have a medicinal prescription filled for his wife. According to Cabiness, Wells asked, "Have you signed up with the boys yet," and when Cabiness said he had not, Wells replied "Well, I can't fill it." Cabiness at that time owed about $28.00. Branch got the prescription filled for Cabiness when the lat- ter agreed to join the Club. Guy Carter, an Alma mill, employee, testified that about June 6 Elmer Reynolds, a section hand, "told me if I turned in my (T. W. 0. C.) card and joined the club, that he would see that I would get something to eat. If I didn't stick to the company, that they wouldn't stick to me." Carter thereupon resigned from the T. W. 0. C., joined the Square Deal Club, and received credit at the company store. Reynolds did not testify. Jack Smith, a Hamrick mill employee, testified that when Charlie McKinney asked him to join the Club while the Hamrick mill was shut down in June, McKinney "said I could get some loonies down at the company store, or groceries either one, if I would sign up with ... the club." Smith refused to sign up at that time, and on three occasions thereafter he was refused credit at the company store. Just before the mill started Smith signed a slip revoking his T. W. 0. C. membership and there- after obtained credit at the store. Wells denied that Branch furnished him with a list of persons who, belonged to the Union. He did not testify specifically with regard to the other incidents mentioned above but stated that in extending credit he did not take into account the union affiliation of the appli- cant. We credit the foregoing testimony of Branch, Johnson, Cabi- ness, Carter, and Smith and find that the respondents denied credit at the company store to employees because they belonged to the T. W. 0. C. and required employees to resign from the T. W. 0. C. and/or to join the Clubs before extending credit to them. We find that the respondents dominated and interfered with the, formation and administration of the Clubs and contributed financial and other support to them by instigating their formation; by the acts of supervisory employees recited above in assisting the organization; of the Clubs; by permitting the Clubs to meet on company property while denying that privilege to the T. W. 0. C.; by contributing- 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD money and other facilities for the use of the Clubs; and by other acts set forth above. We further find that the respondents, by the af ore- said domination, interference, and support, interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We find that the respondents, by instigating and acquiescing in the assaults upon the union meeting and union members on May 29, 1938; by coercing employees into resigning from the T. W. O. C.; by the anti-union statements and threats of supervisory employees; by lend- ing support and encouragement to an anti-union religious campaign among their employees; and by denying credit at the company store to-employees because of their affiliation with the T. W. O. C. and for refusal to join the Clubs, interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. .C. Discrimination with regard to Aire and tenure of employment 1. Discriminatory discharges, 1935 to 1937 Claude R. McCullough, who was employed as a weaver at the Lime- stone mill, was discharged on September 17, 1935.20 The respondent Limestone contends that McCullough was discharged because he was drunk, drove a car while under the influence of liquor, and "wiggled his fingers" at Yates Allison, company police officer. McCullough had worked at the Limestone mill about 9 years prior to his discharge. He joined the United in 1933, tools an active part in the general strike in 1934 by serving on the picket line and by furnishing wood and making coffee for other picketers. After the general strike he served on a union shop committee and transported union members and pros- pective members to union "speakings." McCullough's testimony is undenied, and we find, that after his return to work following the strike, Allison and Hallman, company police officers, persistently fol- lowed and "eye-balled" him and watched the company house in which he lived.21 On Sunday afternoon, September 15, McCullough stopped at the home of Paul Peterson, a "kind of jack-leg mechanic" who lived about 250. yards from the Limestone mill gates, to have some readjustments made on his truck. While Peterson was inspecting the truck, Allison and Hallman came up and accused McCullough of being drunk (which McCullough denied) and ordered him to go home, but not to drive 20 The complaint alleged that he was discharged on or about November 16, 1935. At the close of the further hearing the complaint was amended to conform to the proof. E1 The United , as stated above, threatened to strike in September 1935. On September 12, 1935, Governor Johnston requested that the strike be deferred. ALMA MILLS, INC. 25 the truck. With Allison's permission, Peterson started to drive Mc- Cullough home. As the truck approached the mill gates, the officers halted it and arrested McCullough. Freddy Godfrey and W. J. Don- aldson were with Peterson and McCullough when the latter was arrested. According to Allison and Peterson, McCullough turned around in the truck cab as the truck started from Peterson's house and "wriggled his finger" at Allison. Godfrey, who rode in the cab with McCullough and Peterson and was called as a witness by the respondent, testified that he did not see McCullough "make the. sign" at Allison. Mc- Cullough denied having made the gesture. On direct examination, Allison testified that after McCullough made the gesture, "I just arrested him and brought him to jail." On cross_examination he stated that he arrested McCullough not for making the gesture but "because he was drunk." McCullough admitted that he had had two bottles of beer and a glass of homebrew in the forenoon, but denied that he was drunk when arrested. Peterson testified that he could "smell something" on McCullough; Godfrey, who had been with McCullough most of the day, testified that they had had "a bottle of beer and a can of beer apiece"; that McCullough was no "drunker than I was"; and that he, Godfrey, "wasn't drunk at all." McCullough was taken to jail but was released in a. few minutes by the sheriff with the remark, "I can't tell you have been drinking a thing by your actions.... it smells like I can smell just a little something, I don't know what it is, it might be buttermilk." A warrant was sworn out for McCullough on Monday, September 16, by Deputy Sheriff D. B. Phillips, charging him with -driving under the influence of liquor. McCullough was excused from work on that day when he told Curt Burgess, his overseer, that he had "to meet the Courts that morning." Allison and Hallman appeared as witnesses against McCullough in the preliminary hearing at which McCullough "came clear." On September 17, when McCullough re- turned to the mill, Burgess discharged him with the statement that Allison and Hallman had reported that he had been drunk.22 Burgess told him that if he would move out of the mill village, his wife could continue working. About 4 or 5 months after his discharge, McCullough, having heard that the respondents were "needing some hands," approached Lyman Hamrick about returning to work. Hamrick sent him to Burgess with the remark, "if he wants to work you it is perfectly 22 The case against McCullough was dismissed , according to the magistrate 's records, on September 27. It is not clear whether the preliminary hearing had been held before September 17, the day McCullough was discharged. 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD all right with me." McCullough so reported to Burgess , who imme- diately went to Hamrick . McCullough heard Hamrick tell Burgess, "No, I ain't going to work him no more. " Burgess, after his con- versation with Hamrick, told McCullough , "I expect you had better get you a job somewhere else." McCullough 's testimony in. this re- spect was not contradicted, and we find in accordance therewith. We do not believe that McCullough was drunk when arrested, nor do we believe that he was discharged for that reason . If he had in fact been drunk, it seems incredible that he should have been promptly released by the sheriff with the : statement that he was not drunk. In view of McCullough 's union activity and the surveillance to which he was subjected after the 1934 strike , we conclude that the un- founded accusation of drunkenness was used as a pretext for dis- charging him. Even assuming that McCullough was intoxicated when arrested , the record shows that the usual penalty imposed for drunkenness is a lay-off for 90 days . Yet in McCullough 's case the mere accusation , which was not substantiated in the magistrate's hearing, was sufficient to cause his permanent discharge. We find that the respondent Limestone Mills, Inc., discharged Claude R. Mc- Cullough on September 17, 1935, because of his union membership and activity . We further find that by the said discharge the re- spondent discouraged membership in a labor organization and inter- fered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Sam Cole was working in the spinning room at the Hamrick mill "laying up roping" when he was discharged on January 14, 1936. He had worked in cotton mills for about 30 years and at the Hamrick mill for 15 or 20 years . The respondent contends that Cole was discharged because he did not perform his work satisfactorily. Cole joined the United in July 1933 , took an active part in the 1934 strike , and served on the shop committee until his discharge. His union membership and activity was known to his supervisors. Section Hand Grubb admitted that Cole "got the name of" being a union member; Section Hand Floyd White stated that Cole "was pretty active around there" and that he "thought" Cole was a union member. According to Cole, the circumstances surrounding his discharge were as follows : When he came to work on the morning of January 14, he discovered that some warp roping was mixed with filling roping on the spinning frames, and so reported to Fields Gordon, the overseer. They separated the mixture . About 2 hours later Section Hand Grubb sent him to Gordon, who discharged him on the ground that he, Cole , had mixed roping. Holly Harris , who laid up roping with Cole, was discharged at the same time. As the two men ALMA MILLS, INC. 27 left, Harris told Cole "that Gordon told him to come back in a day or two and he would . . . put him to work." Although Harris "was not any union man," he told Cole that he would not return to work for Gordon because of the latter's discrimination. Subsequent to the discharge, the shop committee sought to have Cole reinstated. The committee called on Gordon who, according to Cole, "told them that he didn't think he had discriminated against me, that he had turned me off and a non-union man as well over it, and he never expected to work me any more." Shortly after he was discharged, Cole and his wife moved into the company house occupied by his son-in-law, who worked for the respondents. Yates Allison learned of this arrangement and, so Cole testified, ordered that Cole must move or his son-in-law would be discharged. Thereupon Cole's son-in-law moved into a house not owned by the company. Cole's testimony in this respect is unrefuted. Section Hands Grubb and Floyd White testified that the roping on the spinning frames for which Cole was responsible was mixed. Second Hand Willis Allen testified as follows : "I was standing where his roping was mixed ... and he looked at it and asked me what I was going to do about it, and I told him I was going to let him go." Allen did not state, however, that he discharged Cole. Overseer Gordon, although called as a witness by the respondents on another matter, did not testify concerning Cole. We credit Cole's version of the incidents surrounding his discharge. Gordon's statements to Harris and to the shop committee, and Allison's obviously discriminatory order to Cole's son-in-law, unrefuted'and unexplained in the record, convince us, and we find, that Cole was discharged by the respondent Hamrick Mills, Inc., because of his activity in behalf of the United, predecessor to the T. W. O. C., and that the respondent thereby discouraged membership in a labor organization and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of this Act. Sam Bailey, an employee at the Limestone mill, was discharged on or about November 20, 1936.23 For 12 years he had worked as an "all round, outside man" at that mill, earning 15 cents an hour in November 1936. Bailey was vice president of the United colored local in 1935 and 1936 and held that office when he was discharged. In November 1936 Bailey and a group of other colored employees "decided to go and ask the Super to see if he would give us a raise." 28 The allegation in the complaint that the discharge occurred in 1937 was obviously due to a typographical -error. The amended charge and the proof establish that the correct year is 1936. 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lyman Hamrick, the "super," was out of town, so Bailey and four or five others went to see Waite Hamrick on a 'Friday morning. As the group came into the office, one of the colored men who had agreed to speak up first shoved Bailey "in front to do the talking." Bailey testified as follows regarding what transpired in Waite Hamrick's office : I said, "Mr. Waite, Captain, can I speak to you a minute?"and he said, "yes, sure, come right on in." . . I told him we come to see if we couldn't get a little raise on our wages, and he said, "no, who sent you here?" and I said, "nobody" and he says, "Sam, you belong to that old union, don't you?" I never said anything and he said, "you live in a company, house, don't you Sam?" and I said "yes," and he said, "well you are going to have to move." So after that, four or five others that was with me, one or two of them broke and run through the store, and he said, "I see who you are." Hamrick accused Bailey of being "the head of all this," to which Bailey replied, "No, sir, I just come to see if you wouldn't give us a little more money ... I have ten in my family and what I am making I cannot live out of it." Hamrick sent one of the "boys" to get "Captain" Strain, the yard boss, and told Strain to "give every one of them their time." The following Monday morning, as the colored men reported for work, Strain said, "Well, Sam, three of you are laid off." When Bailey protested that they "had done nothing only just ask for a little raise," Strain said, "you know it made him mad to go to him." Strain ordered Bailey to move. Bailey's testimony as to what hap- pened thereafter is as follows : I looked every where I could think of where the colored people's houses was, trying to find me one, and when I come back the old lady said, "Mr. Strain come over here and said Mr. Lyman said not to let sun down catch you here," and I said, "all right, but I ain't got no place to go and I don't know just what he means by that, not let sun down catch me here." I got a little uneasy, I will tell you the truth, I didn't know what to think, and I got a little uneasy, and I went around and tried to find me a house again that night, and after that I was promised one but then the man moved in the next morning. He had it rented, they said, and then I went to Captain Lyman and when I did get to speak to him, I says, "Mr. Lyman, I come to see if I could get my job back," and he says, "I am sorry, Sam," he says, "I am sorry I can't do you any good." He says, "did you ever move yet?" And I said, "no, sir, I ain't got no house," and I ALMA MILLS, INC. 29 says, "I don't want to move, I want my job back to go to work," and he says, "well, I am sorry I can't do you any good." He said, "you had better move," he said, "don't you know they will throw you out?" And I said "yes," and he said, "well, you had better move," and that same night or the next night Mr. Allison, the mill officer, he come down there ... and he called for Sam Bailey, and I got up and he come on in and he says, "well, Mr. Lyman sent me down here for his house." He says, "I want it right now," and I said, "it is night now, Mr. Allison, I can't get no house to go to yet," and he said, "you had better get out, I have got authority to throw you out." So I got out the next day and tried to get a house, and finally I did hunt a place to go until I could do better. I never had no job and had ten in the family and every one looking to me for support and I never had no job and I was already up against it before he fired me, and there I was, no house, and no money, and nothing to eat part of the time. Bailey has been unable to get work since his discharge, either in cotton mills or on W. P. A. At the time of the hearing he was working on a farm. He desires to be reinstated. Waite Hamrick, "Captain" Strain, Lyman Hamrick, and Yates Allison were not called to testify concerning the circumstances of Bailey's discharge. Mal Lipscomb, one of the colored men who accompanied Bailey when the gang called on Waite Hamrick, testi- fied that the group had decided to quit if Hamrick refused to give them a raise, that Hamrick said nothing about the Union, and that Bailey and three others quit. Lipscomb knew nothing about what transpired between Strain and Bailey.24 We find that Sam Bailey was discharged on or about November 20, 1936, by the respondent Limestone Mills, Inc., because of his union membership and activity and because, as vice president of the colored local of the United, he sought to -bargain with the man- agement. We further find that by the said discharge, the respond- ent discouraged membership in a labor organization and interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. George Richardson had worked as a weaver at the Hamrick mill for about'13 years prior to his discharge on or about December 27, 1936. The respondent contends that Richardson was discharged because of drunkenness. 24 It was stipulated by counsel that Wylie Gist, who could not speak loud enough to be heard because he was suffering from tonsillitis , would testify to the same effect as Lipscomb. 30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Richardson was one of the first employees to join the United when it was organized in 1933. He did picket duty during the 1934 and 1936 strikes. During the 1936 strike he was warned by Loom Fixer Jolly, ' in whose section Richardson had been working, that "if I didn't quit the union and sitting on the picket line I was going to lose my job." On Christmas Eve 1936, so Richardson testified, he and his wife and another couple, after "serving" their Christmas tree, decided to walk around the mill village. While they were walking, Officers Allison and Hallman drove up, accused Richardson of being drunk, and took him to jail. Richardson testified that he was not drunk and had never before been arrested for that reason. Sheriff Bryant was not at the jail when Allison brought him in and Mrs. Bryant, so Richardson testified, agreed that he was not drunk, but refused to release him on the ground that Allison "gave us orders not to let you out of here under any circumstances." The following morning Richardson was released; he was tried before a jury and .found not guilty. After his release Richardson returned to the mill to. go to work but was handed his time by Earl Dunaway, overseer of weaving, with the remark, "I guess you know what this is for." The same day Richardson went to see Waite Hamrick about getting his job back. Hamrick referred him to Allison, saying that "he was the boss." Allison said he would "see about it." R. C. Spencer testified that he was with Richardson, Ernest Scog- gins, and Bill Scoggins, and that Richardson "was pretty drunk" when Allison arrested him. Yates Allison testified that he arrested Richardson, who was with Spencer, Ernest Scoggins, and Bill Scoggins, because he was drunk and staggering. Sheriff Bryant testified that Allison brought in one Scoggins and Richardson and that Richardson "was under the influ- ence of liquor, pretty .staggering." Earl Dunaway did not, testify with regard to Richardson. Although the circumstances are not entirely free from doubt, we do not think that the evidence establishes that Richardson was dis- charged because of his union activities. We find that George Rich- ardson was not discharged on or about December 27, 1936, by the respondent Hamrick Mills, Inc., because of his union membership or activity. J. L. Manning had worked at the Alma mill for about 12 years. For 7 years prior to his discharge on or about March 19, 1937, he held the position of section hand. Manning joined the United in 1933 and served on shop committees during the 1934 and 1936 strikes. ALMA MILLS, INC. 31 He assisted in organizing the T. W. O. C. among the respondent's employees in 1937 before his discharge.25 Manning testified that Second Hand John Lavender showed him two bobbins of filling which had insufficient yarn on them, stated that Frank Oxner, the overseer, was letting him go on that account, and gave him his time. Manning saw Oxner, who, according to Manning, said that Lavender was not satisfied with Manning's work. Both Oxner and Lyman Hamrick gave Manning letters of recommen- dation. Hamrick's letter, dated March 31, 1937, states that Manning "has been our employee for about twelve years, and is a very in- dustrious worker." Lavender testified that he had, on the day preceding Manning's discharge, instructed him to fix two frames "and get them to making good bobbins"; that Manning, at the end of the shift, had failed to do as directed ; and that he, Lavender, then took four of the small bobbins and showed them to Oxner the following day. Lavender stated that Oxner inquired "if I had [received] any kicks on the job before." When Lavender answered in the affirmative, Oxner promptly wrote out Manning's time. Lavender testified that he had "heard" but "didn't know, for sure," that Manning was affiliated with the C. I. O. Lester Martin, second hand on the third shift'26 testified that the frames in question were making small bobbins when his shift came on, that he fixed them until "about the third night" and that he then "showed up" Manning by reporting him. Oxner, the overseer, testified that complaints concerning Manning's work included "every- thing that you could imagine, broke backs and spindles out of place, small bobbins," and that he had warned Manning, prior to his dis- charge, about his job. Oxner testified that, in order to fix the frame making the small bobbins, "all he [Manning] would have to do was to take a set-screw wrench and move it down, it wouldn't have taken over a second." Manning denied that Lavender had told him to fix a defective frame. That matter, according to Manning, was not mentioned by Lavender until the Monday following his discharge. Manning further testified that he had previously informed Lavender that the frame was broken and that material for repairs was not on hand. Lavender, however, denied that Manning had told him that supplies to make repairs were not available and asserted that the necessary supplies were "right in the room." Manning's testimony is undenied 25Manning 's membership card in the T. W. 0. C. is dated May 17, 1937. There is evidence, however, that membership cards were not distributed when organizing first began and that during that time there was some question as to the eligibility of section hands. 2 Manning worked on the second shift. 32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that "on Monday when I went up there, the frame was running just like it was when I left there. There hadn't been nothing done to it." The vice in the respondent's evidence concerning Manning is that it proves too much. The testimony of Martin and Lavender indicates clearly that the spinning frame was in defective condition for several days prior to Manning's discharge. Since it was not shown that the defect arose on his shift, it cannot be contended that he alone was responsible for the condition. On the contrary, in view of testimony that a defective frame making small bobbins was not a minor matter and in the light of Manning's testimony that repairs were not avail- able and that the frame was still unrepaired several days after his discharge, it is evident that he was not responsible. Oxner's assertion that the defect could have been corrected in "a second" is obviously a gross understatement; we cannot believe that a condition so easily rem- edied would be allowed to continue for several days. The fact that Oxner readily gave Manning a letter of recommendation, seriously undermines his testimony concerning the numerous complaints against Manning's work. We cannot believe that both the overseer and Lyman Hamrick would have recommended him as a capable worker if in fact his work had been as unsatisfactory as the respondent would have us believe.27 Upon all the evidence, we find that Manning was discharged on March 19, 1937, by the respondent Alma Mills, Inc., for the reason that he engaged in union activity and assisted in organizing the* T. W. O. C. among the respondents' employees. By said discharge the respondent discouraged membership in the T. W. O. C. and inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Between the date of his discharge and the date of the hearing Man- ning's only employment had been six or seven months of W. P. A. work, at which he earned about $30 per month. He desires reinstate- ment. Calvin Spencer, prior to his discharge on June 8, 1937, had worked at the Alma mill for about 7 years. During that period he had "run drawing" and had also served as a "card hand." Spencer joined the United in 1933, took an active part in the 1934 and 1936 strikes, and was one of a group of United members enjoined on the respondent's complaint from "trespassing" on the respondent's property during the 1936 strike. He joined the T. W. O. C. May 8, 1937, and assisted the organizers in securing memberships. After the 1936 strike Second "Although we make no finding thereon , there is evidence that the respondents black- listed Manning . He applied for employment in many other mills in the vicinity and presented ' his letters of recommendation . He was promised several jobs. In each case, however, he was refused employment after his application had been under consideration a day or two. ALMA MILLS, INC. 33' Hand W. M. Owensby advised him "to quit the union" and stated "that we stayed out there and didn't get nothing out of" the strike. Several employees 28 in his department told him that if he did not quit, organizing he would be discharged. On June 8, 1937, Spencer was discharged by Second Hand Drake Queen, and was told that he had not stripped his cards clean. Spencer admitted that some of the cards were not stripping properly, but claimed that the fault lay with the machinery in that the "card stand" was not set close enough to the roller. It is the duty of the card grinder to adjust the machinery. No card grinder was on duty during Spencer's shift. Spencer testified that while he was waiting for his time, the machinery was let down to wait until it could be fixed. Second Hand Owensby, who was in charge from 6 a. in. to 6 p. m., which included the first four hours of Spencer's shift, testified that he had found fault with Spencer's work for "some several weeks" and that "we just worried with him and worried with him until I got tired of worrying with him." Owensby did not testify concerning the con- dition of Spencer's work the day he was discharged. He admitted that he knew that the T. W. O. C. was organizing, denied knowledge of Spencer's membership, but stated in that connection, "I just knew he sat on the picket line. That is the main thing I knew about it." Second Hand Queen, who discharged Spencer, testified that he had warned Spencer before discharging him and that "we would have to get on him every day or two. as long as he worked there." He denied that the machinery was improperly set. Queen knew of Spencer's. union activity. Overseer Brown stated he had warned Spencer only once, about two months prior to his discharge. We do not credit Queen's testimony to the effect that Spencer had been an inefficient employee for 7 years. Nor do we believe that anything unusual occurred with respect to Spencer's work on the day he was discharged. His union activity was well known to, supervisory employees. Owensby did not deny or explain why he counselled Spencer "to quit the union." The explanation for his discharge, we believe, lies in the fact that Spencer did not "quit the union" but persisted in helping organize the T. W. O. C. We find that Calvin Spencer was discharged by respondent Alma Mills, Inc., on June 8, 1937, for the reason that he had, joined and assisted the T. W. O. C., and that the respondent thereby discouraged membership in the T. W. O. C. and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. 28 Spencer named George Rollins, Bob Rice, and Dan Parker. 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 'Since his discharge, Spencer's only employment has been on P. W. A. and W. P. A. projects, at which employment he had earned about $350 at the time of the hearing. , He desires to be reinstated. Horace Scruggs worked as a weaver at the Hamrick mill from about May 3 to about June 21, 1937 29 He had previously worked about 2 years as a weaver at the Alma mill, until February 1937. Scruggs joined the , T. W. O. C. in February 1937 and introduced employees to Hammett, a union organizer. Scruggs worked on the third shift, which started at 10 p. in. At about 9 p. in. of the day he was discharged he was with Organizers Hammett and Best in front of the mill gates assisting the organizers.3° According to Scruggs, Allison and Hallman, mill officers, were "about 30 or 40 steps" away, watching him and the organizers. About 9 :45, Allison and Hallman went into the mill. In a few minutes, as he reported for work, Scruggs was given his time by Otis Jolly.31 Scruggs testified that Jolly gave him no explanation for the dis- charge; about a week later he saw Earl Dunaway, the overseer, who merely stated that he could no longer use him. Overseer Dunaway and Second Hand Wylie testified that Scruggs was discharged after warning, because his production was low and the cloth woven by him was of poor quality. Mill records for the 7 weeks of Scruggs' employment show that his production was less than that of the other weavers who operated the same set of looms .on the first and second shifts. During that period the other five weavers on his set of looms averaged about 4950 "picks" per shift, none of them making less than 4800, whereas Scruggs averaged 4723. Lee Dowdle and Claud Phillips, weavers on the first shift on the same looms operated by Scruggs, testified that Scruggs left the looms in bad condition at the end of his shift. Loom Fixer Jolly did not testify. Although the circumstance that Scruggs was seen by Allison and Hallman in the company of T. W. O. C. organizers shortly before his discharge suggests that his employment was terminated for that reason, we think the evidence is insufficient to warrant such a con- ae The complaint , which was thereafter amended to conform to the proof , alleged, and Scruggs first testified , that he was discharged from the Hamrick mill on April 22, 1937. The respondent 's records , however, show that Scruggs was in fact employed only in May and June, as above indicated. Counsel for the Board and the respondents agreed that, after Scruggs had testified , he informed counsel "that the correct date of his discharge was . . . June 21st, 1937." a0 He had similarly assisted them on the day before his discharge. Scruggs fixed April 21 and 22 as the date of these activities . However , it is clear that Scruggs had primary reference to the day before and the day of his discharge , which, as above stated, in fact occurred on June 21. 3' Scruggs stated that Jolly was "the second hand." It is evident that Scruggs was mistaken in calling Jolly the second hand. Ralph Wylie was the second hand on Scruggs' shift :; Otis Jolly was a loom fixer. ALMA MILLS, INC. 35 elusion. There is no showing that Allison or Hallman informed anyone of Scruggs' union activity or that such fact was known to his supervisors. We find that Horace Scruggs was not discharged by the respondent Hamrick Mills, Inc., for the reason that he joined or assisted the T. W. O. C. W. H. Hughey had worked at the Limestone mill about 22 years prior to his discharge on August 11, 1937.32 At that time his job consisted of laying up roping in the spinning room. Hughey joined the United in 1934, took an active part in the 1934 and 1936 strikes, and later joined the T. W. O. C. During the T. W. O. C. organiz- ing campaign in the spring and summer of 1937, Hughey's house was used as a meeting place for organizers and prospective members. Within the last month of his employment Hughey was warned by his overseer, Till White, about "talking union" to some of the spin- ners. White said, "old man, some of the women down yonder tells me you have been talking union, if I hear any more of it I will give you your time." White did not testify; we find that he made the foregoing statement attributed to him by Hughey. During this same period White , ordered Hughey to stop allowing his son, who brought him his lunch, to help him lay up roping. The order was clearly discriminatory, since other employees continued to use helpers and Lyman Hamrick admitted that it was a custom for relatives to assist employees. On August 11, Till White sent Hughey his time, without expla- nation. The following morning Hughey returned to learn the rea- son. White angrily refused to explain but said, "Well, you are fired, if you don't get out of here by God I will fire the other three in three minutes," referring to Hughey's three children.. Second Hand Tom McCraw, who worked on the shift following Hughey's, testified that Hughey did not lay up enough roping on the frames and that Buck Perry and James McCraw, the rope haul- ers who came after Hughey, complained to him. McCraw stated that he reported the complaints to Overseer White. We place no credence in McCraw's testimony to the effect that Hughey did not perform his work properly; he was particularly evasive and was obviously untrustworthy in his testimony about an assault on Hilliard Coker by Buck Perry, discussed below. Floyd McCraw testified that he worked as a spare hand laying up roping on the same shift as Hughey and that Hughey "was just too old to run his job." Floyd McCraw's testimony is so vague as to be of no value. Leotis Benton, who had worked on the same job as Hughey but on the 32 Hughey 's discharge slip was dated July 11 ; however, he was positive that the true date was August 11. The respondents presented no evidence disputing his testimony in this respect. 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD following shift, testified that about a month before Hughey was discharged, he, Benton, quit because "the job was always behind and I couldn't get it caught up," a condition which he attributed to Hughey. On cross-examination, however, Benton asserted that he did not need a helper because he had "ample time" in which to do his job.33 We do not believe that Hughey failed to keep enough roping laid up. If he had, it would seem that the spinners who operated the frames for which he was responsible would have been idle. There is no evidence to that effect. Moreover, the respondent's case lacks the essential support of testimony by Till White, the overseer, who in fact was responsible for Hughey's discharge. We find that the respondent Limestone Mills, Inc., discharged W. H. Hughey on August 11, 1937, for the reason that he joined and assisted the T. W. O. C., thereby discouraging membership in the T. W. O. C. and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. T. C. Barnhill, an employee at the Limestone mill, was discharged on August 30, 1937.34 He had worked 8 or 10 years as a loom fixer. He was a member of the United during, and did picket duty in, the 1934 and 1936 strikes. He joined the T. W. O. C. in May 1937, at- tended union meetings, and aided the organizers in getting member- ships. On Saturday evening, August 28, Barnhill stopped at a cafe and drank two bottles of beer. As he was walking toward his company- owned home, Yates Allison and Bill Hallman accosted him and ac- cused him of being drunk. Barnhill protested, " Don't arrest me and me not drunk, for if you do, they will turn me off." Barnhill testi- fied that Allison replied, "If you open your mouth again, I will beat the hell out of you." They took him to jail, where he spent the night. He was released on Sunday morning. The record is not clear as to what transpired after his arrest. Barnhill testified that the magistrate "turned me loose" with the statement that he did not believe Barnhill was drunk. Neither Alli- son nor Hallman appeared before the magistrate as witnesses and Allison admitted that he did not swear out a warrant against Barn- hill. It was stipulated by counsel that a "slip" from the magistrate's "'Counsel for the Board offered to stipulate that James McCraw and Buck Perry, if called as witnesses . would testify that they worked on approximately the same job as Hughey and that they reported to Second Hand Tom McCraw that Hughey's roping was not laid up properly . The record does not show that counsel for the respondents agreed to the offer ; however , it appears that the respondents assumed that the offer amounted to a stipulation . Tinder these circumstances , we have considered the content of the offer as properly stipulated matter. a} The complaint alleeed September 28, 19 -1 7. The evidence establishes that Barnhill was in fact discharged on the date above indicated. ALMA MILLS, INC. 37 office, dated August 30, 1937, bore the following notation : "Offense, drunk and disorderly, charged by C. Y. Allison. Disposition of case : Suspended. Date paid : 9-7-37." After the foregoing stipulation had been entered into, Barnhill was recalled and insisted that he had not pleaded guilty and that he had paid no fine. On August 30, the Monday following his arrest, Barnhill returned to the mill and proceeded with his work as usual. Within a few minutes his overseer, Jim Garner, came to him and said, "Yates Alli- son said I would have to fire you." When Barnhill admitted he had been arrested, but said he had not been drunk, Garner replied, ac- cording to Barnhill, "I don't believe you were drunk. I believe you are telling me the truth ... I hate to let you go, you are a good hand ... Come on back and go to work when your time is up." Barnhill was immediately forced to move out of the company house he occupied. An eviction notice, dated September 6, 1937, was served on him, giving him 10 days in which to move. At that time his wife was confined. When the 10-day period was up Barnhill sought to obtain a stay of eviction because of his wife's condition. The mag- istrate informed him, "No, you had better get out and get you a place. They are going to throw you out at 9 o'clock." Barnhill thereupon found temporary shelter in a car shed for his wife, several children, and a week-old infant. Barnhill returned to the mill seeking reemployment after waiting the customary 90-day period. Overseer Garner, according to Barn- hill, "told me he couldn't work me. He said Mr. Allison wouldn't let him work me," and gave as the reason that Barnhill "had too much to do with the union." Allison testified that when arrested Barnhill was drunk and "stag- gering all over the street." It is unnecessary for us to resolve the conflict in testimony as to Barnhill's drunkenness. The record shows that the respondents customarily punished employees apprehended for intoxication in and around the mill villages by 90-day lay-offs. Barnhill's discharge and subsequent failure to secure reinstatement finds explanation in the undenied and unexplained statements of Overseer Garner. On the basis of these statements and the surround- ing circumstances, we find that Barnhill was discharged on August 30, 1937, and thereafter refused reinstatement by the respondent Limestone Mills, Inc., because of his membership in and activity in behalf of the T. W. O. C. By the said discharge the respondent discouraged membership in the T. W. O. C. and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 283035-42-vol. 24-4 :38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Although Barnhill was given a recommendation by Overseer Gar- ner, he has been unable to secure work in other textile mills in the vicinity. At the date of hearing , he had received three or four -months of W. P. A. work, earning about $30 per month . As a loom fixer, he earned $20 a week. He desires reinstatement. 2. Discriminatory discharges and refusals to employ, June and July 1938 a. Alma Mills, Inc. As stated above, the Alma mill closed on May 27, 1938. On June :15 the first and second shifts partially resumed operations. The third -shift returned to work about June 27 and during the week ending July 2, 33 employees were working on that shift. The complaint, as amended, alleged that Violet Green, Lawson Owens, B. W. Pittman, ,J. C. Pittman, and J. C. Johnson were discharged or refused reemploy- ment on June 27, 1938, because of their membership in the T. W. O. C. and/or because they refused to join the Square Deal Club. The re- -spondent contends that they voluntarily quit. Violet Green was employed at the Alma Mill as a spinner from July 1937 until the mill closed in May 1938. She worked on the third shift. Green joined the T. W. O. C. in September 1937 and held the office • of recording secretary. She made speeches at union meetings and :actively solicited union memberships. On June 27, having heard that the third shift was to start up, Green went to the mill in company with her two sisters and Ester Crawford. They spoke to Overseer Oxner, who told Ruth Martin, one of Green's sisters, to come to work that night. He told Green that she need not return until she was sent for. Green's testimony concerning her con- versation with Oxner on June 27 was substantiated by her sister, Ruth .Martin, a spooler on the third shift. Soon after her return to work, Ruth Martin tried to join the Square Deal Club but her application was rejected because her "sister belonged to the C. I. 0." Overseer Oxner testified that Green failed to return when her job :started up. We do not credit his testimony in this respect, since the record shows that his testimony on other matters is contradicted by -mill records and is generally untrustworthy. He sought to convey -the impression that for some time after the third shift started follow- ing the shut-down fewer spinners were employed than theretofore. 'The mill records, however, contradict his testimony. When the mill Lclosed, 16 spinners, including Green, worked on the third shift; dur- ing the week ending July 2, which included June 27, 21 persons were listed as spinners on the third shift but only 15 actually worked that week; for the week ending July 23, 27 spinners were employed on that :shift.. Moreover, Oxner's statement that Green worked but 5 weeks in ALMA MILLS, INC. 39 110 months is completely refuted by the weekly record of her employ- ment, which counsel for the Board had him read into the record. At the date of the hearing , Green had had no work nor had she earned any money from any source . She desires to be reinstated. Lawson Owens had been employed by the Alma mill about 4 years prior to the shut-down in May 1938, and joined the T . W. O. C. in May 1937. He had theretofore belonged to the United , and had taken an active part in the 1934 and the 1936 strikes. On June 20 , as stated above, the first and second shifts had par- tially resumed operations . When Owens, who had worked on the first shift for about 2 years, returned on that day, his section hand, Charlie Trombly, asked him to join the Square Deal Club .35 Owens refused. Second Hand Dolph ( Doff ) White, according to Owens, told him to return on June 27 . Owens returned as instructed and reported to Trombly , who insisted that he join the Club "or lose your job." Owens went to White, the second hand , who affirmed Trombly's demand that Owens join the Club . Owens next appealed to Over- seer Sprouse. Sprouse , according . to Owens, accused him of not returning when the mill reopened. Trombly did not testify , and we find that he told Owens to join the Club or lose his job. White testified that Owens "never come to me after his work started , he. come before it started." He did not deny, however , that he sought to force Owens to join the Club. Overseer Sprouse testified that Owens returned after the mill started and asked for his job , which had then been filled. Sprouse admitted, however, that he had assigned the responsibility of advising em- ployees to return to work to his second hands and that he did not know whether Owens had sought . pork from White prior to June 27. Since June 1938 Owens' only employment has been on W. P. A., from which he had earned about $150 at the date of the hearing. He desires to be reinstated. B. W. Pittman had worked for the Hamrick group of mills at various times since 1925. His latest period of employment at the Alma mill began in March 1938. He worked on the third shift. Pittman insisted that he worked as a weaver , whereas Overseer .Sprouse and Second Hand Duckett testified that he was a smash hand. It was stipulated , however, and we find, that the pay-roll record disclosed that Pittman worked steadily as a weaver prior to the shut-down, with the exception of 4 days as a smash hand prior to May 7. Pittman has ' been an active union member since about 1920. Dur- ing 1937, when the T . W. O. C . began organizing employees of the respondents , Pittman aided the organizers in signing up employees at 35 Owens referred to the Club as the "Goodwill Association." 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Alma mill, although he was not then employed by the respond- ents. He continued his activity after he was employed by the Alma mill. When the Square Deal Club was being organized at the Alma mill, about May 20, he was orderd by Yates Allison to keep away from a club meeting, since he was not invited. Duckett spoke at this meeting, and Overseer Sprouse was present. After this meet- ing, but before the mill closed on May 27, Anniston Parker and Cocky Warren, both loom fixers, asked Pittman, during working hours, to join the Club, explaining that the purpose of the Club was "to break up this union . . . get these C. I. O.'s out of the mill and run their speakers off." Pittman refused to join. On June 27, learning that the mill was starting up, Pittman went back to his job. He testified that Second Hand Duckett told him, "Your job ain't going to start up. You ain't got no more job ... You can be looking for another job," and added, "There wasn't but a few CIO'ers in there . . . and he was going to make them get out." Overseer Sprouse had no direct knowledge of what transpired be- tween Duckett and Pittman when the latter returned. He testified that Pittman's job was on the narrow looms which were not running when Pittman reported. Duckett testified that Pittman reported on June 27, that the narrow looms "hadn't started up," and that Pitt- man failed to come back when that work started, as instructed- Duckett's testimony is contradicted by the mill records, and his own testimony, which show that, employees on the third shift who had various jobs at the narrow looms worked during the- week beginning June 27. Duckett neither denied nor explained Pittman's testimony, which we credit, concerning Duckett's threat to make the remaining "few CIO'ers" "get out." Pittman has been unable to obtain mill work since June 1938. At the date of the hearing, he had earned about $95 on W. P. A. He desires to be reinstated. J. C. Pittman had been employed at the Alma mill about 15 months prior to the shut-down in May 1938. He had begun as a helper on the looms and was later promoted to the job of loom fixer. For the last few weeks before the shut-down, he worked as a smash hand. Pittman was a member of the T. W. O. C. and had previously belonged to the United. He and his wife, Helen Pittman, and his brother, B. W. Pittman, were active union workers. Before the shut-down, Loom Fixer Jolly, during working hours, asked him to join the Club and said that those who did not join "was going to lose out." On June 27 Pittman, returned to his job as smash hand. In about 10 minutes Second Hand Duckett told him to go upstairs to run his wife's looms. Pittman's wife told him that she had been told to go I ALMA MILLS, INC. 41 home. About 2 hours later Duckett, so Pittman testified, asked if he had joined the Club, and when Pittman replied that he had not and -did not intend to join, Duckett said, "Well I don't guess we will need you any longer." Duckett testified that he sent Mrs. Pittman home because there was not enough work to warrant keeping both of them. He testified that, after putting Pittman on his wife's looms, he later came back and found that Pittman had gone home, leaving his looms unat- tended. He denied that he had asked Pittman to join the Club. We do not credit Duckett's testimony; he flatly denied knowing any- thing about the Club, despite the fact that the record establishes that he spoke at a club meeting in May and that his daughter, Estelle Duckett, engaged in club activity during working hours. Since his discharge Pittman has worked two shifts in a mill near Greenwood, South Carolina,. and has earned about $50 as an auto- mobile mechanic. He desires to be reinstated. J. C. Johnson, worked as a doffer in the spinning room at the Alma mill from August 1937 until the shut-down in May 1938. He joined the T. W. O. C. in July 1937 and attended some of the organizational meetings, but did not attempt to sign up other employees. On May 19, 1938, the day following the election at the Gaffney Manufacturing Company, above referred to, Johnson was solicited by Section Hand Faulkner to sign a paper "to show that you are against the CIO." Faulkner also asked him to attend an anti-L pion meeting the following night but told him not to come "if you .re a member of the CIO." Johnson refused to sign. On the night of May 20, Lester Martin, the second hand, asked Johnson and another employee if they belonged to the C. I. 0., and spoke of the disad- vantages of belonging to a union. Fearing that Martin wished to discharge him, Johnson replied that he did not belong. As Johnson was leaving the mill at the end of his shift the morning of May 27, he noticed Martin and Faulkner engaged in. conversation. Martin pointed toward Johnson, and Faulkner then approached him and again insisted that he sign the paper before leaving the mill. John- son refused. During the shut-down Johnson attended the T. W. O. C. meeting on June 11, and, as found above, was warned by Faulkner, "If you go to that CIO meeting I will see that you don't work another day at this mill." On June 14 Johnson was refused credit at the company store after Wells, the credit manager, had consulted a list of names. Johnson testified that he returned to the mill when the third shift started on June 27 and asked Overseer Oxner for his job. Oxner, according to Johnson, informed him that his name had been off the pay roll for some time and said, "Well, if I need you, I will send for you." 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Overseer Oxner denied having seen Johnson at any time after the mill closed. He related an incredible story to the effect that about a week after the shut-down he "got to inquiring" about Johnson, found_ out that he had been fighting and had left the county, and about a. week later learned from Second Hand Martin that Johnson had sent word that "by God he wouldn't be back in any more, that he could make more 'on W. P. A. than on doffing.at the Alma Mills." Second Hand Martin also denied that Johnson returned after the mill started, and. testified that Ed Bright, an employee who had worked with Johnson,. brought him the message that Johnson was working on W. P. A. and would not be back. It is hardly likely that Johnson, in June, would have sent a message to the effect related by Oxner and Martin when, as a matter of fact, he did not obtain relief work until August. At the date of the hearing, Johnson had worked about 1 month on W. P. A., earning $16.25, and had drawn $67.50 in unemployment compensation. He had obtained some odd jobs, but no steady employ- ment. He desires to be reinstated. The.=cases of Violet Green, Lawson. Owens, B. W. Pittman, J. C. Pittman, and J. C. Johnson follow a uniform pattern. As we have found above, the respondents during May and June, conducted an active campaign against the T. W. O. C., by coercing employees to resign their union memberships and to join the Clubs. When the Alma mill resumed operations late in June, supervisory employees. endeavored to give work only to employees who renounced their union membership and joined the Square Deal Club and to weed out the "few CIO'ers" in the mill. The evidence, we believe, leads to but. one conclusion with respect to the foregoing five employees : when they continued their union activity and would not withdraw from the T. W. O. C., they were refused employment after the shut-down- We find that the respondent Alma Mills, Inc., on June 27, 1938, dis- charged and refused to employ Violet Green, Lawson Owens, B. W. Pittman, J. C. Pittman, and J. C. Johnson, for the reason that they joined and assisted the T. W. O. C. and refused to join the Square Deal Club, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, discouraging membership in a labor organization, and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Ester Crawford had worked at the Alma mill about 4 years, and continuously for 14 months as a spinner, prior to her discharge on July 7, 1938. Crawford joined the T. W. O. C. in August 1937. Prior to the shut-down of the mill in May 1938, she was solicited for membership in the Square Deal Club, during working hours, by Estelle Duckett, daughter of Second Hand Leonard Duckett. She refused to join. On or about May 19, Section Hand Faulkner asked her if she belonged to the C. I. O. When she admitted that she did, he re- ALMA MILLS, INC. 43- marked, "I thought you was crazy as hell, and now I know it." The following night, during working hours, Second Hand Lester Martin. told her, "You had better rest while you can, for when you get the- CIO in here you won't get no rest." When the mill reopened the last week in June, Crawford returned, to her regular job on the third shift. She worked one night but was- sent home by Martin the next night with the explanation that she had worked too hard the night before and needed a rest. She was- allowed to work the, third night and was "sent out" the fourth.. Crawford then complained to Oxner, the overseer, about this obvious, discrimination. Oxner told her to work that night, Friday, July L. Martin, however, refused to let her work and sent her home for com- plaining to the overseer, saying, "I am running this mill at night and I am running it without you or the overseer's help." On Satur- day, July 2, Crawford attended a meeting of the Square Deal Club. She was told to turn in her union card and that the club members "would vote on me and let me know whether I could come back or not." On Monday, July 4, Oxner gave Crawford permission to work, but within a half hour after the shift started Martin accused her of having quit the preceding Friday and sent her home. Craw- ford again saw Oxner, who told her to work Wednesday night, July 6. She worked that night but was given her time by Martin a few minutes before the shift ended at 6 a. in. on July 7. It was on or about this date that State police and a Field Examiner for the Board were in Gaffney investigating the "block out." On July 8 Waite Hamrick posted a notice in the mill suggesting that any employee discharged recently who felt "that same was brought about on account of your affiliation, or non-affiliation, with any labor organization" should see Lyman Hamrick. Crawford, accompanied by her father, went to see Lyman Hamrick on July 11. He inquired if she belonged to the C. I. 0., to which she replied in the affirmative;. Hamrick then said, according to the unrefuted testimony of Craw- ford and her father, that he intended to run the mills and reminded her "You have heard that in the Bible it speaks about the evil tongue . . . people will come from far off and the people will listen to them and they will lead them wrong." She was unable to discuss her case with him until 2 days later. On that occasion Oxner was present and gave as the reason for Crawford's discharge that she could not run colored yarn. Hamrick then called in Overseer Moore- head of the Musgrove mill, another Hamrick-owned mill, and ar- ranged for Crawford to work there. Crawford worked 1 day and 4 hours at the Musgrove mill, when she was laid off. Reference to the last check she received from the Alma mill explains this brief employment at the Musgrove mill. On July 7 Crawford received a check for "$0 and 00 cents." Her wages 44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD due, for the 2 days she was allowed to work during the week ending July 2, were $3.80. This amount was applied to her account at the company store, but she was left owing the store about 2 dollars. Her wages at the Musgrove mill amounted to $2.88. After deductions were made for her account at the company store, Crawford received 14 cents in cash. It is apparent, therefore, that she was allowed to work at the Musgrove mill only long enough to balance her account. The respondents called a number of witnesses to testify concerning Crawford's employment history and efficiency. The testimony is so exaggerated and contrary to records introduced in evidence, that we can only conclude that these persons disregarded their oaths as witnesses. Lester Martin, second hand, declared that Crawford had been working there only 9 or 10 months, that she was a "spare hand", that he warned her about her work "lots of times," and that in order to straighten out her work "we would get the overseer and sometimes the spinners and section men, and anybody would help her." Martin continued to insist that she was a "spare" spinner and "about the slowest one in the whole mill" despite the fact that the records showed that from January 1938 until the May shut-down she had worked full-time even when only 5 spinners were employed, and that of 10 spinners working more or less regularly during that period, she stood third from the highest in the number of days worked. Martin denied that he knew Crawford was a member of the T. W. O. C., but he did not deny or explain her testimony as to his effort to get her to withdraw. Overseer Oxner's testimony is even more incredible. He also in- sisted that she was a "spare hand" and stated that "she just got to where she couldn't run her work" and that on several occasions when he came to the mill in the morning "I would find four or five help- ing her." When Oxner was confronted with her work record, he-ex- plained that-he kept her out of sympathy because "she said she had to make a living" although he knew that "she wasn't a good hand two or three weeks after she came in." At one point Oxner said he "didn't know nothing" about the Clubs, but later on admitted that, when the Clubs were organizing, Lyman Hamrick told "us overseers not to have anything to do with those clubs. He didn't know anything about it, and he wasn't going to have his overseers in it." Ed Thomas, who was the section hand over Crawford part of the time, testified that her work "was very bad" "most every night." He was unable to mention any particular time when he found her work in bad condition. Thomas is Second Hand Martin's brother- in-law and an enthusiastic member of the Club. His prejudice against the T. W. O. C. is evident in his volunteered statement that ALMA MILLS, INC. 45, he would never join the T. W. O. C. "simply because of what is in front of your own eyes. Look at the little kids that went naked and hungry just on account of that. People going in debt and then put- ting money in their pockets. Do you think I want to give money to people like that?" Further false testimony regarding Miss Crawford was given by L. E. Duncan and Joe Harris, former section hand and overseer at the Alma mill. They testified that Crawford had been discharged October 24, 1935, because of poor work. Crawford's testimony and hospital receipts introduced in evidence established that she left the mill in October 1935 to be operated upon for appendicitis. The record permits but one conclusion, that Ester Crawford was discharged because she refused to withdraw from the T. W. O. C. and to join the Square Deal Club. We find that the respondent Alma Mills, Inc., discharged Ester Crawford on July 7, 1938, for the reason that she joined and assisted the T. W. O. C. and refused to join the Square Deal Club, thereby discouraging membership in the T. W. O. C. and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. With the exception of the brief employment at the Musgrove mill noted above, Ester Crawford has had no work since her discharge. She has drawn $66.80 in unemployment compensation. She desires to be reinstated. b. Limestone Mills, Inc. Annie Morris had worked at the Limestone mill for 12 or 14 years prior to her discharge on June 29, 1938. She joined the United, took part in the 1934 and 1936 strikes, and later joined the T. W. O. C. During the formation of the Free Fellowship Club, she was solicited for membership by several employees, during working hours. Al- though her name was included in a list of persons who had not joined the Club, which had been posted in the mill, and Jeff Guyton; her section hand, advised her that. "it might be better to sign up," she refused to be forced into the Club. Morris worked as a spinner on the first shift, 6 a. in. to 2 p. m. On June 29, about a half hour after her shift ended, Second Hand Tom McCraw came to her house and told her she was discharged for having "left my sides torn up." The same afternoon Yates Allison, the mill policeman, gave her notice to vacate the company house in which she lived. Eviction papers were served the following morn- ing. Morris testified that after her discharge she was informed by Lulu Martin, who tended some of the same sides on the second shift, that either Overseer Till White or Clyde Jefferies called her, Eula 46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Skinner,36 and other witnesses over to the sides in question so that Morris could not say that she was being discharged on account of the Club. Morris testified that the sides were in good condition when she left. The respondent presented a number of witnesses who testified that Morris had left her work "torn up" and that she was discharged for that reason. Clyde Jefferies, at the first hearing, testified that he dis- covered Morris had left her work "a little worse than usual" and reported the matter to McCraw and White. Henry Wyatt, a doffer on the second shift, testified that he had helped his wife, who relieved Morris, straighten up the sides "every evening" and that the sides "was tore up every day . . . all the time she was on them." At the further hearing Jefferies and Wyatt testified as witnesses for the Board. Jefferies then testified that "Annie was one of these we couldn't get to join up with the club. I. had been after her . . . all of the other section men had been after her for some time and we couldn't catch nothing on her job"; that he found some "roping run out" on her frames and then "ran and got Till White and brought him down and showed him . . . and he sent her time to her." Henry Wyatt testified at the further hearing as follows : Q. Now, before Annie Morris was fired, Henry, did you ever talk to Till [White] about her union membership? A. I have talked to him about it. He told me that he had been trying to get shed of them for two years. Q. Shed of them? Now, to whom was he referring? A. To her and her mother. Q. Did he tell you why? A. Because they belonged to the union. * * * * * * * Q. Did he ask you to do anything to help him? A. Yes, he told me to report them sides to him. Q. And that is what you did? A. Yes, and he said he would get an excuse to run them off then. Till White, although present at the hearing, did not testify. It is plain that Annie Morris was discharged because of her union membership and refusal to join the Free Fellowship Club, and we so find. We find that the respondent Limestone Mills, Inc., by dis- criminatorily discharging Annie Morris on June 29, 1938, discour- 60 Skinner testified as a witness for the respondent that Jefferies showed the sides to her, Lulu Martin, and several other employees about 5 or 6 minutes after two. ALMA MILLS, INC. 47 aged membership in the T. W. O. C., and interfered with, restrained, -and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in :Section 7 of the Act. Morris has been unable to obtain employment at other textile mills since her discharge. She earned $120 , on W. P. A. She desires to be reinstated. Cecil Branch had worked at the Limestone mill for about 2 years before her employment terminated on or about June 20, 1938. She was a spinner, working under Overseer Till White and Section Hand Fred Godfrey. Branch joined the T. W. O. C. in May 1937. During May and June 1938 she was persistently solicited for membership in the Free Fellowship Club by Section Hand Godfrey, her brother, J. V. Branch, and others. She refused to join. On one occasion, about May 20, her brother solicited her during working hours and when she refused, lie said, "They will be finding something wrong with your work in less than two weeks, and you might as well sign up with the club .. . because you know how they fired you in Morrison for not joining." On June 20 Branch reported for work as usual on the afternoon .shift. She was called into Till White's office, however, and given her time allegedly because she had failed to clean the rollers on her frames. Branch admitted that the rollers were somewhat dirty at the end of her preceding shift, but claimed that she had not had time to clean them and that the rollers of other spinners, who were not discharged, were in a similar condition. Tom McCraw, second hand, testified that he had warned Branch about the condition of her rollers. He did not know, however, whether she was discharged; he testified: "Well, one day I went in there and I noticed she wasn't on her sides, and I asked the section man about her, and he told me she had quit . . . he said that Mr. White had said something to her about her rollers, he thought." On cross-examination McCraw stated that "the morning spinner [had] complained to the overseer" about Branch "and the overseer noticed the roller by her complaining." Godfrey testified that "about five minutes after two, as well as I remember, she came by me and told me she had quit, and that I could put somebody on her sides." He admitted that Branch "wasn't slow by any means" and that another spinner, Ethel Spencer, who belonged to the Club, had also been warned about her rollers, but had not been discharged. He did not deny that he had solicited Branch to join the Club. Minnie Hucka- bee, an enthusiastic club member who preached at club meetings in an effort "to get somebody saved if I could" and who regarded herself as "absolutely saved" after having given up the Union, testified that Branch had said she had quit. Huckabee further stated, however, 48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that "I showed up the rollers on her behind my daughter's. My daughter runs the work in the morning where she worked in the evening, and they clogged to where they wouldn't run, they choked up in the rollers." Till White did not testify. We do not credit the contention of Godfrey and Huckabee that Branch quit. We find that she was discharged by Overseer Till White. After her discharge she unsuccessfully sought reemployment from Till White. When Jefferies, J. V. Branch, and Coley White were recruiting employees for the third shift, shortly after her discharge, Branch was not given work because, so Jefferies testified, she re- fused to "give up her C. I. O. blue card and join the Club ... to get the work." In view of the uncontradicted statement by J. V. Branch that she would be discharged on some pretext if she did not join the Club, the declaration of Huckabee,' an active club member, that she "showed up" Branch, the subsequent refusal of employment because she re- fused to join the Club, and the fact that during the same period other union members who refused to affiliate with the Clubs were dis- charged, we find that Cecil Branch was discharged on or about June 20, 1938, because of her membership in the T. W. O. C. and her re- fusal to join the Free Fellowship Club. We find that the respond- ent Limestone Mills, Inc., by the said discharge; discriminated in respect to her hire and tenure of employment, discouraged mem- bership in the T. W. O. C., and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Late in September 1938 Branch obtained work in another mill and was working there at the time of the hearing. She was earning about $10 per week, about $3.50 less than her average weekly wage at the Limestone mill. She desires to be reinstated. G. D. Lavender had been working at the Limestone mill about 14 months before his discharge on June 30, 1938. His job was cleaning filling racks and reed caps, for which he received 23 cents an hour. He joined the T. W. O. C. in August 1937 and actively solicited new members during the spring of 1938. Lavender was solicited for membership in the Free Fellowship Club, during working hours, by Forrest McCraw, a weaver, who "said that all of them had joined in there on that shift but two, and that was me and another fellow . . . and he said he wanted to give us all a chance." McCraw told Lavender that the Club was organized "to fight the C. I. 0., and he said they didn't want no C. I. O. down there at all." Lavender refused to join. Lavender testified that the circumstances of his discharge were as follows : He needed a piece of cloth to use in cleaning reed caps and ALMA MILLS, INC. 49 -vent into the supply room to get it, but found none. Returning to his work, he met his second hand, Wilkins, and reported his need to him. Wilkins, according to Lavender, told him to tear off a piece from a roll of cloth that was then being removed by a cloth boy. Lavender did so. About 5 minutes later, Overseer Garner came to him and inquired where he had obtained the cloth. Lavender ex- plained that he had followed Wilkins' instructions. Garner promptly discharged him. Lavender testified that he and others had, on many occasions, taken cloth for cleaning purposes from rolls, and that he had never been instructed to the contrary.37 Second Hand Wilkins testified, on direct examination, that on more than one occasion he had seen Lavender tear off cloth and that he had warned Lavender that "his job depended on it, if he tore off any more." On cross-examination, Wilkins admitted that he had been working only 4 days before Lavender was discharged and that he was standing near Lavender "while he was tearing it off, and I asked him if he knew it was against the rules to tear off cloth, and he said he didn't. Well, naturally they do things that way, they don't mean the overseers to see them do it." If, as Wilkins stated on direct ex- amination, he had warned Lavender prior to the time in question, it is indeed odd that Lavender should deliberately violate the rule in Wilkins' presence and that Wilkins should then inquire "if he knew it was against the rules." Ferris Pinson, the cloth boy, testified that he had seen Lavender tear off cloth "as many as a dozen" times, over a considerable period, and had warned him that "if Bob [Wilkins] caught him it was too bad." He first stated that he had given this warning on "the first or second" occasion that he saw Lavender tear off cloth, but quickly' reversed himself, apparently mindful of the fact that Wilkins was not employed until June 26, and said that he warned Lavender on the "morning before . . . and the morning" of the discharge. Overseer Garner gave the following version : Second Hand Wilkins "came to me and told me Mr. Lavender tore off some cloth, and he warned him not to do it again; and the next morning he came back and told him he tore off some more cloth this morning. Well, I went down and asked Mr. Lavender where he got the cloth and he said he tore it off- the roll, and I asked him if he knowed it was against the rule, and he said, `yes,' and I asked [him] wasn't he warned yesterday about it, and he said he was, and I asked him if I hadn't warned him before and he said `yes,' . . . and I told him a' B. W. Pittman , who had worked as a smash hand at the Alma mill , testified without contradiction that he had frequently been instructed by Second Hand Leonard Duckett to cut off cloth whenever needed for cleaning purposes. 50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I was going to let him go on the grounds that he couldn't do what we wanted him to do." At the further hearing Clyde Jefferies testified that, pursuant for the Club's policy of "framing" union members, he "had been trying to get him [Garner] to run off ... some of them hard union folks we couldn't do a thing with" and that when Garner "told me about running off Grady Lavender . . . I patted him on the shoulder and told him his nerve was getting all right." It is not reasonable to believe that- Lavender, a satisfactory em- ployee for 14 months, should suddenly begin violating rules, in the presence of his superior, and after repeated warnings. We find that the respondent Limestone Mills, Inc., discharged G. D. Laven- der on June 30, 1938, for the reason that he joined and assisted the T. W. O. C. and refused to join the Free Fellowship Club, thereby discouraging membership in the T. W. O. C., and interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Ed Cabiness had worked at the Hamrick group of mills for vary- ing periods during the last 25 years. Most of the time he had worked as a smash hand, straightening out breaks in cloth. It is Cabiness' testimony that he had worked as a regular smash hand on the third shift at the Limestone mill until about May 1, when that shift was "cut off." Afer a lay-off of about 2 weeks, he returned as a smash hand and part-time weaver on the second shift and about June 1 was assigned the job of filling batteries. He was discharged on July 1, 1938. Cabiness was a member of the T. W. O. C. until, through fear of 'losing his job, he joined the Free Fellowship Club in June and signed a withdrawal slip from the T. W. O. C. Within 2 or 3 days, however, he rejoined the T. W. O. C. Cabiness had been solicited to join the Club by Bunk Holmes and J. V. Branch, leaders in the Club. He had at first refused. He was finally forced to join the Club when Wells, the credit manager at the company store, refused to extend him credit because he had not joined, as found above. Shortly before his discharge, while talking with Taylor Best, T. W. O. C. organizer, he was watched by Club Leaders Clyde Jef- feries and Coley White. Cabiness testified that after he was given the job of filling batteries he told Second Hand Moseley that the work was too hard for him since he was afflicted with kidney trouble.38 On the evening of July 1, as A battery filler carries an apronful of filled bobbins or quills from loom to loom and places the bobbins in the looms as needed . The apron , when full , weighs from 10 to 15 pounds upward , depending on the size of the apron . Each battery filler services from 72 to 88 looms. From 3 to 5 bobbins must be replaced in each loom each time the battery filler makes a trip around the looms . A trip takes about 5 minutes . Cabiness testified that the weight of the apron of bobbins hurt his back. ALMA MILLS, INC. 51 about 8 o'clock, Moseley gave Cabiness permission to go home be- cause of his kidneys. The following morning Cabiness went to the company store "to get some loonies." Wells informed him, "You can't get them, you have been fired." This was news to' Cabiness, who im- mediately went to Overseer Garner seeking verification. Garner, according to Cabiness, "said if I was fired he didn't know nothing about it." ri'hat evening, while Cabiness and Garner were talking in town, they saw Moseley. Cabiness left Garner to ask Moseley "if I was fired," and Moseley replied, "Well, what else would you call it? ... That is what I have done." Cabiness then returned to Garner and told him that Moseley said he was discharged. Garner said the matter was between Cabiness and Moseley and refused to rescind Moseley's order. Cabiness' testimony relating to the events of July 1 and 2, as above set out, was not refuted. Garner, Moseley, and Loom Fixer Lawing testified that Cabiness was not keeping the batteries filled. There is no evidence, however, that Cabiness did in fact allow the looms to run out of bobbins. Lawing testified that on the night Cabiness left the job the looms "was just about ready to stop off"; however, he admitted, reluctantly, that none of the looms had ever been shut down because the batteries tended by Cabiness had actually run out of bobbins. No sufficient reason appears why Cabiness should have been dis- charged. The uncontradicted evidence shows, and we find, that he had joined the Club under duress and had then rejoined the T. W. O. C. The fact that shortly thereafter he was seen by club leaders in the company of a T. W. O. C. organizer after having ostensibly joined the Club, coupled with other discriminatory actions of the respondents during the same period and the absence of proof that he was not per- forming his job properly, convince us that Ed Cabiness was discharged for discriminatory reasons. We find that the respondent Limestone Mills, Inc., by discharging Ed Cabiness on July 1, 1938, discriminated in respect to his hire and tenure of employment, discouraging member- ship in the T. W. O. C., and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Since his discharge, Cabiness worked about 1 week in a mill at Kings Mountain, North Carolina. He earned $13.65 for this work, but of that sum paid $3 bus fare. At the time of the hearing he had drawn about $75 in unemployment compensation. He desires to be reinstated. The complaint, as amended, alleged that Lloyd Hughey, Bessie Fowler, Frances Lamb, and Hilliard Colter, were discharged and re- fused employment on or about July 5, 1938, by the respondent Lime- stone Mills, Inc., for the reason that they had joined the T. W. O. C. and/or refused to join the Free Fellowship Club. As we have found 52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .above, the respondent Limestone, by its agent, Overseer Till White, instigated and authorized club members to "block out" a number of T. W. O. C. members on July 5. Lloyd Hughey had worked in the spinning room of the Lime- stone Mill for about 7 years. His overseer was Till White. He ,joined the T. W. O. C. in May 1937. On or about July 1, 1938, during working hours, he was solicited for membership in the Free Fellowship Club by Hettie White, wife of the overseer, and Floyd McCraw, an employee. Hughey refused. Shortly before his shift ended on Friday afternoon, July 1, about 15 club members, including Clyde Jefferies, Coley White, nephew of Overseer White, and Buck Perry, crowded around Hughey and demanded that he join the Club. When Hughey refused, Coley White said, "Well, you will have to hunt another job, we ain't going to work with you." He was also, warned by Coley White that he would be given until "ten o'clock Saturday morning to join up with us." On Monday morning, July 4, Hughey was stopped at the mill entrance by the same group and asked if he had as yet made up his mind to join. Hughey asked for time "to study over" the matter. This was refused-at, first, but the group then instructed him to "ask out" for that day. Coley White accompanied him to make sure that he followed instructions when he went to see the overseer to get permission to go home. Hughey returned to the mill on July 5 and was refused entry by the group of club members when he said that he would not join the Club. During the argument, Till White came up and Hughey -appealed to him to do something "about the way these boys are threatening me here and won't let me work." White said nothing. The following morning State officers investigated the "block out." At about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, Hughey and other employees "blocked out" were advised by Jesse Haffner, president of the Club, that they could return to work. Hughey returned to his job on July 7. He has not been reimbursed for the 3 days he was pre- vented from working. Bessie Fowler, Lloyd Hughey's sister, also worked at the Lime- stone Mill under Overseer White. Late, in June she had been solic- ited by Clyde Jefferies to join the Club. He advised her that she would lose her job if she did not join. On July 5 she was prevented from going into the spinning room by a group of club members. 'Till White refused to intercede in her behalf, saying "I haven't got anything to do with this . . . I can't take sides with either one." Fowler was questioned by State officers on July 6 and later that day told by Jesse Haffner that she and the others "blocked -out" could return to work. Fowler did not return, however, until ALMA MILLS, INC. 53 about July 9. Since there is no reason to believe she could not have resumed her work on July 7, we find that she was refused employment for only 2 days, July 5 and 6. She has not been paid for the 2 days lost. The respondent rested its defense with respect to the "block out" on the testimony of several club members who participated therein. They testified, in effect, that they had decided not to work with T. W. O. C. members, that they acted on their own initiative, and that Overseer Till White had nothing to do with the "block out." Till White did not testify. Since we have found that the respondent is responsible for the "block out," it follows that the respondent thereby discriminated in respect to the hire and tenure of employment of the employees thus kept from their work. We find that the respondent Limestone Mills, Inc., refused employment to Lloyd Hughey on July 4, 5, and ,6, 1938, and to Bessie Fowler on July 5 and 6, 1938, because they joined and assisted the T. W. O. C. and refused to join the Free Fellowship Club, and thereby discouraged membership in the T. W. 0. C. and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in ' Section 7 of the Act. Frances Lamb worked as a spinner on the second shift at the Lime- stone mill. She joined the T. W. O. C. in May 1937.. She was solic- ited for membership in the Club by Section Hands Godfrey and Jef- feries and Second Hand Pope Tindall. The latter told her that "if I didn't give up my C. I. O. card and join that Club they weren't going to let me in the mills." On the afternoon of July 5, after T. W. O. C. members had been "blocked out" on the first shift, one Lucille McCraw, a club member, was put on Lamb's job by Godfrey, the section hand. Godfrey ex- plained that club members had decided that "they wasn't going to work with me if I didn't sign up with them." The following day she returned to work at the request of Lennor Pruitt, a doff er and a leader in the Club, after the visit of State officers in connection with the "block out." She was not paid for the day she was laid off. The respondent offered no evidence with respect to Lamb's lay-off on July 5. We find that the respondent Limestone Mills, Inc., refused em- ployment to Frances Lamb on July 5, 1938, because she joined and assisted the T. W. O. C. and refused. to join the Free Fellowship Club, and thereby discouraged membership in the T. W. O. C., and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Frances. Lamb continued working until the week ending October 8. 1938, when she and six other spinners were laid off. The respondent offered evidence at the first hearing to the effect that these spinners were laid off in October because they could not earn enough at the 283035-42-vol. 24-5 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD prevailing price per "side" to come within the minimum requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.35 The Trial Examiner found that the lay-off of Lamb in October was not discriminatory, and conse- quently, did not recommend that she be reinstated. In the light of evidence adduced at the further hearing, however, we believe that Frances Lamb was discriminatorily laid off in Octo- ber 1938. Lamb admitted that she had been operating only 8 "sides" prior to October, but testified that she was able to and had run 16 "sides." The respondent presented no evidence to show that she had proved unable to operate more than eight "sides" after having been given an opportunity to do so. At the further hearing Clyde Jef- feries testified, without contradiction, to the following effect : With the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act the respondent in- stituted a "stretch out" for the spinners, i. e., each spinner was re- quired to operate at least nine, rather than eight, "sides" in order that their wages would equal or exceed 25 cents per hour. As a con- sequence, a number of spinners had to be "cut off." Jefferies stated that Lamb "never would give up.her blue card and join the Club" and that he, Till White, and Godfrey talked the matter over and determined to lay off Lamb for that reason. In fact, so Jefferies testified, all those selected for lay-off in October "were either union members or union sympathizers, they wouldn't take any part in the Club." We find that Frances Lamb was laid off on or about October 8, 1938, by the respondent Limestone- Mills, Inc., for the reason that she joined and assisted the T. W. O. C. and refused to join the Free Fellowship Club, and that the respondent thereby discouraged mem- bership in the T. W. O. C. and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. Between the date of her lay-off and the date of the hearing, Lamb had drawn $30 in unemployment compensation ; she had secured no other employment. She desired to be reinstated. Hilliard Coker had worked about 2 years for the Limestone mill, as a battery filler, prior to July 5, 1938, when his employment ceased. At that time he was 18 years old. Coker joined the T. W. O. C. in August 1937. Coker was solicited for membership in the Free Fellowship Club during working hours by J. V. Branch, Buck Perry, Leroy Allison, and Bunk Holmes. Allison told him he had better join if he wanted to hold his job. Shortly before Coker went to work on July 5, 19 Prior to October 1938 spinners had operated an average of eight "sides " each. In June the rate per "side" was reduced from 261k cents to 24 cents . Thus , it became necessary for a spinner working 8 hours to operate at least nine "sides" in order to make the minimum wage of 25 cents an hour. ALMA MILLS, INC. 55, Perry told him that he had better sign up with the Club or "it wouldn't be good for me" and "if we held them C. I. O. cards too long they was going to.make me sign up with them." Branch also had urged him that day to join the club. At about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, Coker happened to be standing near an open window on the ground floor of the mill. J. V. Branch came out of the company store and approached the window to toss up a plug of chewing tobacco to Buck Perry, who was at the window on the second floor. Branch shouted to Coker that "they would give me six hours to sign up with them, or if I didn't they would come in and walk me out." Coker became frightened. He reported the incident to Second Hand Moseley, and told him that he was quitting because "them boys was coming in and walking me out." Moseley replied, "Well, we don't have nothing to do with that" and made no offer to furnish him protection. Coker's fear of Branch and Perry was not unfounded. Late Satur- day night, following his appearance on the witness stand, Coker was threatened by Perry, who thrust a knife against his throat and said, "After the court leaves here, I will stomp you, God damn it, until you can't see." Perry admitted the time and the place, that he usually carried a knife, which he produced at the hearing, and that he and Coker "had some few words. 11 40 He denied pulling a knife on Coker, but we do not credit his denial. Branch and Perry had each been convicted, prior to the hearing, of assault and battery with a knife. Second Hand Moseley testified that Coker merely told him that, he was quitting, and walked out. He denied that Coker told him why he was leaving his work. He admitted, however, that since July 5 Coker had sought reemployment many times. We do not believe that Coker voluntarily left his employment. It. will be recalled that only a few hours before Branch and Perry threatened to eject Coker from the mill, club members had, with the. approval of the supervisors, forcibly kept T. W. O. C. members from going to work. In view of this fact, which was obviously well known. to employees, and in view of the threats made to him by Branch and Perry, Coker had reason to believe that he would be "walked out"' of the mill unless he joined the Club. We do not credit Moseley's statement that Coker did not inform him of the circumstances. On. the contrary, we are convinced, and find, that Moseley refrained from offering Coker protection, just as did Till White with respect to the- spinning-room employees, because he was cooperating with club, 40 Second Hand Tom McCraw, who was present during the affray, testified that Coker. and ferry "was standing there talking and they was friendly." Obviously, McCraw was. less frank as a witness than Perry, and his testimony is worthy of no credit. 56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD leaders in the plan to deprive T. W. O. C. members of their employ- ment. By acquiescing in the conduct of the club members, Moseley in effect accomplished the discharge of Hilliard Coker. We find that the respondent, Limestone Mills, Inc., discharged Hilliard Coker on July 5, 1938, because he joined and assisted the T. W. O. C. and refused to join the Free Fellowship Club, thereby discouraging membership in the T. W. O. C. and interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Coker has had no work since July 5, 1938. He has received about $32 in unemployment compensation. He desires to be reinstated. c. Hamrick Mills, Inc. Delton Wallace had worked at the Hamrick Mill for about 12 years prior to his discharge on June 27, 1938. He was a member of the United in 1933, took an active part in the 1934 and 1936 strikes, and joined the T. W. O. C. in 1937. He openly assisted T. W. O. C. organ- izers and attended the June 1.1 meeting near the Alma mill. When the Friendship Club was organizing at the Hamrick mill during June 1938, Wallace voiced his opposition to the movement. That he was known to be antagonistic to the Club may be inferred from the fact that Club Organizers Hallman and Marvin Dowdle, during the June shut-down, called to sign up one Floyd Patrick, who shared the house with him, but avoided Wallace. On Saturday, June 25, Wallace and his family returned from a brief visit to Rock Hill, South Carolina. He had two drinks on the way to Gaffney. After leaving his family at their company house, Wallace went to a nearby store to learn, if possible, when the mill would reopen. Sam Martin, night watchman at the mill,on Saturday and Sunday, was in the store at the time. Wallace testified that Martin belonged to the Club, and Martin did not deny the statement. Wallace rode back to his house with two other men and as he started for his door, Yates Allison and Bill Hallman drove up. They stopped, but neither officer spoke to him. On Monday, June 27, Allison told Wallace that "he wanted my house, and that I was out of a job .... He said I violated the house rules by drinking." Eviction papers were served on him the following day. The respondent rested its case as to Wallace on two inconsistent theories : first, that Wallace was discharged because he was drunk ; and second, that he was not discharged but failed to report when the mill opened on July 4. In support of the first theory, Martin and Allison testified that Wallace was drunk on June 25. Martin stated that he saw Wallace in the store and that Wallace was drunk. He, Martin, then left Wal- ALMA MILLS, INC. 57 lace in the store, went up the street 300 or 400 yards, met Allison and, without identifying Wallace, told Allison that "there was a drunk man down there." Allison testified that Martin gave him the indefi- nite tip that "there was a drunk man down the road," that he, Allison, then drove behind the car containing Wallace until it reached Wal- lace's house, and that Wallace then "got out of the car and fell at the side of the road in the yard, and he went on in the house and I wouldn't go in and take him away from his wife." Allison admitted that he did not arrest Wallace and that he got- ho nearer than 10 steps from him. He further admitted that on Monday he ordered Wallace to move and did not deny that he discharged him. Earl Dunaway, overseer of the department ` in which Wallace worked, testified that he did not discharge Wallace, that if Wallace was discharged, he would have been the one to give the order, that Allison did not have authority to discharge an employee, that Wal- lace's case was not reported to him, and that he merely knew that Wallace failed to report for work when the mill opened on July 4. That Allison exercised the power to discharge has been established in cases reviewed above. He admitted that it was unnecessary for him first to obtain permission before ordering an employee to move. We do not, therefore, credit Dunaway's statement that Allison did not have authority to discharge. The testimony of Martin and Allison with respect to Wallace's behavior on June 25 is not persuasive. It is wholly incredible that Allison, acting on an indefinite tip about a "drunk man down the road," would forthwith realize that Wallace was the "drunk, man" referred to by Martin and that Wallace was on his way home with two friends. But such is the clear import of the testimony, since Allison stated that he "drove behind the car" until it got to Wallace's house. We are satisfied that Martin informed Allison that Wallace was the "drunk man." Allison's apparent solicitude for Wallace, as reflected in his statement that he did not wish to take Wallace "away from his wife," is hardly consonant with his action on Monday in discharging Wallace and ordering him to move. His failure to ap- prehend Wallace on Saturday, we think, warrants the inference that Wallace was not drunk, particularly in view of Allison's demon- strated readiness to arrest employees whom he thought were intoxi- cated. Upon the evidence, and in view of the fact that other employees affiliated with the T. W. 0. C. and hostile to the Clubs were discharged on equally thin pretexts during the same period, we conclude that Wallace was discharged because of his union member- ship and his refusal to join the Friendship Club. We find that the respondent, Hamrick Mills, Inc., discharged Delton Wallace on June 27, 1938, for the reason that he joined and assisted the T. W. 0. C. 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and refused to join the Friendship Club, thereby discouraging mem- bership in the T. W. O. C. and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Since his discharge, Wallace's only employment has been on W. P. A., from which source he had earned about $115 at the date of the hearing. He desires to be reinstated. Idell Jackson, granddaughter of Sam Cole, an active union member, whose case has been discussed above, had worked at the Hamrick mill for about 7 years. She joined the T. W. O. C. in May 1937. On July 4, 1938, the day the Hamrick mill opened after the shut- down, Jackson was advised by her section hand, Turkey Grubb, an active leader in the Club at the Hamrick mill, to join the Club. He told her, You had better let me sign you up," and said that the Club was better than the C. I. 0. Jackson refused. At about 10 o'clock on July 5, she was discharged by Second Hand Willis Allen. When she asked him why, he merely said, "Just because, you are fired." On her time statement he wrote "work not satisfactory." Jackson stated that Allen made no specific criticism of her work and that she had received no prior complaint about it. She denied that she had been absent from her work that morning. Allen testified that he had warned Jackson on prior occasions not to leave her work. He testified that she "spent a lot of her time out of the room, in the water room adjoining the spinning room"; that on July 5 she was away from her work for 15 or 25 minutes; and that when she returned, the work "was tore up, a lot of the ends were down." He thereupon discharged her. I Robert Phillips testified that on the morning in question Allen put him in charge of Jackson's "sides" while Allen went in search of Jackson, and that he tended the work for 15 or 20 minutes. Floyd White, section hand on the job near Jackson's frames, testified that he passed by and "noticed Phillips on the sides . . . and saw the second hand there and I went around and came back and I still saw them there, ... and I noticed her sides in bad shape." Turkey Grubb did not testify concerning Jackson. If we accept Allen's testimony that Jackson was gone for 15 or 25 minutes, and Phillips' testimony that he tended the "sides" for 15 or 20 minutes, then it follows that at no time were the "sides" unattended. And it further follows that, if the work was "tore up" when Jackson returned, as Allen stated, then Phillips was re- sponsible and not Jackson. Allen's credibility is weakened consid- erably by his assertion that on July 5, he "didn't know anything" abotut any rivalry between the T. W. O. C. and the Clubs, despite ALMA MILLS, INC. 59 the fact that on that very day all T. W. O. C. spinners at the Lime- stone mill had been "blocked out" by club members. . In view of the surrounding circumstances , particularly the fact that Jackson had refused to join the Club the clay before her dis- charge, and that other employees were discharged during the same period for failing to renounce the T . W. O. C., we are of the opinion that. Jackson was discriminatorily discharged. We find that the re- spondent Hamrick Mills, Inc., discharged Idell Jackson on " July 5, 1938, because she joined and assisted the T . W. O. C. and refused to join the Friendship Club, thereby discouraging membership in the T. W. O. C. and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Since her discharge, Idell Jackson has been unemployed. At the date of the hearing she had received $50.60 in unemployment com- pensation . She desires to be reinstated. Dood Kennedy had been working at the Hamrick mill between 3 and 4 years prior to the shut-down in June 1938 . He joined the T. W." O. C. in September 1937, attended union meetings, and so- licited memberships in the T. W. O. C. During the shut -down, he was solicited to join the Friendship Club by Lee and Marvin' Dowdle, sons of Second Hand W. F. Dawdle . Kennedy refused. Later he was solicited by another employee, Jake Poole, who warned him, "If you don 't join, you will lose your job." Kennedy again refused. On July 4, another employee, Mrs. Higgins, told him that the Club intended "to get shed of these C. I. O's. We don't want them in here and we are going to run them out." On July 4, when the Hamrick mill reopened , Kennedy returned to work. The following day Second Hand Willis Allen brought in a new employee "and said he wanted to try him out on the job, and told me I could rest that day." Kennedy worked on his usual job on July 6. On July 7 he was removed from his job by Allen. Kennedy's testimony is confused as to what Allen told him on July 7. On direct examination , he testified that Allen "told me he would have to lay me off or give me a regular job on the fill- ing . . . He said it might be a long time , he said I could come in on the second shift if I wanted to, but he didn't have anything to do with it, and he couldn't say whether I would get the work ornot." On cross-examination he added that the last thing Allen said was, "I will send for you when I need you. It might be a long time." He explained that he did not go back to the mill for the second shift because Allen "said he would send for me when he needed me" and because he felt that, in view of Allen 's statement that "he [Allen] 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD didn't have nothing to do with it," it did not "look like he could have anything to do" with giving him work on the second shift.- Second Hand Allen testified that Kennedy was not discharged on July 7; that he "let him off that morning . . . to come back that afternoon on the second shift, a regular job doffing"; and that. Kennedy failed to come back. On cross-examination Allen said that, he told Kennedy "that the overseer was going to put him on a job doffing and he would probably get to work that same day." Section Hand Floyd White, an active club leader, testified that he heard Allen tell Kennedy, "Dood, I am going to have to send you back, and you come in on the afternoon shift and get work," and that Allen further told Kennedy that Overseer Gordon would give him work on the second shift. On cross-examination White qualified his testimony by saying that Allen told Kennedy, "You come back on the afternoon shift and Mr. Gordon will arrange to work you." Overseer Gordon first testified that he told Kennedy "to come in that afternoon at two o'clock and I would try to give him a regular job where he wouldn't be changed." Gordon later admitted that he had not talked to Kennedy, but had instructed Allen to tell him to, come in that afternoon. It is 'apparent from the testimony of Allen and White, that Kennedy was laid off from his job on the first shift and was not told that a job awaited him on the second shift. It is unlikely that Kennedy would have failed to accept a regular job had it been offered him. If a job had been promised him, it would seem that some effort would have been made to ascertain why he did not report. The fact that a new man was assigned to learn his job on July 5, the systematic discrimination against union members on and about the same date, and Kennedy's steadfast refusal to join the Club, explain why his -employment was terminated on July 7. We find that the respondent Hamrick Mills, Inc., discharged Dood Kennedy on July 7, 1938, for' the reason that he joined and assisted the T. W. O. C. and refused to join the Club, thereby discouraging membership in the T. W. O. C., and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Kennedy had secured no other employment and had received $11.20 in unemployment compensation, up to the date of the hearing. He desires to be reinstated. "At that time the mill was working two shifts . Allen was second band on the first shift, will Grubb on the second . Allen went off duty at the end of his shift. ALMA MILLS, INC. 61 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR. LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re- spondents described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since we have found that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act and restore as nearly as possible the condition that existed prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices. We have found that the respondents have, in many ways above set forth, interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in the Act. We shall, therefore, order the respondents to cease and desist from any such practices. We have found that the respondent Alma Mills, Inc., dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Square Deal Club; that the respondent Limestone Mills, Inc., dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Free Fellow- ship Club ; and that the respondent Hamrick Mills, Inc., dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Friend- ship Club. Because of such domination and interference, the Clubs cannot serve the respondents' employees as genuine collective bar- gaining agencies. We shall order the respondents not only to cease and desist from such domination and interference, but also to with- hold all recognition from the Clubs as bargaining representatives of any of their employees. We have found that each of the respondents discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of certain of its employees, because of their union membership and activity and, in certain cases, because they, refused to join a labor organization dominated by the respondent. We shall order each respondent to offer reinstatement to their former positions to the employees so discriminated against, without prej- udice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. We shall further order each respondent to make whole the said employees for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their respective discharges or refusals of reemployment by payment to each of them 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of a sum equal to the amount such, employee normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings 42 during said period. We have found that the respondent Limestone Mills, Inc., dis- criminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Lloyd Hughey and Bessie Fowler, by refusing them employment on July 4, 5, and 6, 1938, and July 5 and 6, 1938, respectively. Since they have already been reinstated, we shall not order the respondent to reinstate them. We shall, however, order the respondent to reim- burse them for the wages lost by reason of the discrimination. We have found that the respondent Limestone Mills, Inc., dis- criminatorily refused employment to Frances Lamb on July 5, 1938, and that she was discriminatorily laid off on October 8, 1938. We shall order the respondent to offer her reinstatement to her former position without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privi- leges. We shall further order that she be reimbursed for the wages lost on July 5, 1938. Since Trial Examiner Whittemore; did, not find that her discharge in October 1938 was discriminatory and conse- quently did not recommend her reinstatement, and since it did not appear until the further hearing herein that her discharge in Oc- tober 1938 was in fact discriminatory, we shall limit reimbursement in her case, except for wages lost on July 5, 1938, to the periods (1) from October 8, 1938, the date of her lay-off, to April 3, 1939, the date of the Intermediate Report, and (2) from five (5) days after the date of the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order to the date of offer of reinstatement '43 less net earnings 44 during such period. We have found that the discharges of George Richardson and Horace Scruggs were not discriminatory. We shall, therefore, dis- miss these allegations of the complaint. Since no evidence was introduced with respect to Helen Pittman, Pearl Eaton, W. M. God- frey, and Walter Brown, we shall dismiss the allegations of the complaint as to them. 12 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working elsewhere than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2590, 8 N. L. R . B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work-relief projects are not considered as earnings , but, as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from the sum due the employee , and the amount thereof shall be paid' over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal , or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects. 42 Cf. Matter of E. R. llaffelfinger Company , Inc, and United Wall Paper Crafts of North America , Local No. 6, 1 N. L. R. B. 760; Matter of Continental Box Company, Inc. and Federal Labor Union No. 21328, 19 N. L. R. B. 860. 11 See footnote 42, supra. A ALMA MILLS, INC. 63 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Textile Workers of America and Textile Workers Organizing Committee were labor organizations , within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. Textile Workers Union of America, Square Deal Club, Free Fellowship Club, and Friendship Club, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin- istration of the Square Deal Club, and by contributing financial and other support to the said organization, Alma Mills, Inc., has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 4. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin- istration of the Free Fellowship Club, and by contributing financial and other support to the said organization, Limestone Mills, Inc., has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 5: By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin- istration of the Friendship Club, and by contributing financial and other support to the said organization , Hamrick Mills, Inc., has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 6. By discharging J. L. Manning and Calvin Spencer, thereby. discouraging membership in Textile Workers Organizing Com- mittee, and by discharging and refusing to employ Violet Green, Lawson Owens, B. W. Pittman, J. C. Pittman, J. C. Johnson, and Ester Crawford, thereby discouraging membership in Textile Workers Organizing Committee and encouraging membership in the Square Deal Club, Alma Mills, Inc., has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 7. By discharging Claude R. McCullough and Sam Bailey, thereby discouraging membership in the United Textile Workers of America; by discharging W. H. Hughey and T. C. Barnhill, thereby discour- aging membership in Textile Workers Organizing Committee; and by discharging Annie Morris, Cecil Branch, G. D. Lavender, and Ed Cabiness, by refusing employment to Lloyd Hughey on July 4, 5, and 6, 1938, to Bessie Fowler on July, 5 and 6, 1938, and to Frances Lamb on July 5, 1938, and laying off Frances Lamb on October 8, 1938, and by discharging Hilliard Coker, thereby discouraging mem-; bership in Textile Workers Organizing Committee and encouraging 64- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD membership in the Free Fellowship Club, Limestone Mills, Inc., has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 8. By discharging Sam Cole, thereby discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of America, and by discharging Delton Wallace, Idell. Jackson, and Dood Kennedy, thereby discouraging membership in the Textile Workers Organizing Committee and en- couraging membership in the Friendship Club, Hamrick Mills, Inc., has engaged in and, is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 9. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their respective employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the, Act, Alma Mills, Inc., Limestone Mills, Inc., and Hamrick Mills, Inc., and each of them, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 11. Alma Mills, Inc., by discharging Helen Pittman, and Hamrick Mills, Inc., by discharging George Richardson, Horace Scruggs, Pearl Eaton, W. M. Godfrey, and Walter Brown, have not engaged in and are not engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Alma Mills, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Square Deal Club, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing financial or other support to the Square Deal Club, or any other labor organization of its employees; (b) Inciting or encouraging, directly or indirectly, the Square Deal Club or any other person or group of persons to threaten, as- sault, beat, or otherwise interfere with, restrain, or coerce its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act ; - (c) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of America, or any other labor organization of its employees, or encour- aging membership in the Square Deal Club, or any other labor ALMA MILLS, INC. .65 organization of its employees, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminat- ing in regard to its employees' hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment; (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, 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 National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will. effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Square Deal Club as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of work; (b) Offer to J. L. Manning, Calvin Spencer, Violet Green, Lawson Owens, B. W.. Pittman, J. C. Pittman, J. C. Johnson, and Ester Crawford immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges ; (c) Make Whole J. L. Manning, Calvin Spencer, Violet Green, Lawson Owens, B. W. Pittman, J. C. Pittman, J. C. Johnson, and Ester Crawford, for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to their hire and tenure of -employment, by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which he or she would have earned as wages during the period from the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his or her net earnings 45 during said period ; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each of the said employees, monies received by said employee during said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects; (d) Take all reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of physical assaults or other acts of intimidation or coercion against its em- ployees, in the plant during working hours, because of the union membership ,or activity of such employees; .s See footnote 42, supra. 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD '(e) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant, and main- tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respond- ent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c),.and (d) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in para- graphs 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order; (3) that the respond- ent's employees are free to become or remain members of Textile Workers Union of America and the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in that organization; (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps it has taken to comply herewith. AND IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, as amended, in so -far as it alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Helen Pittman, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond- ent, Limestone Mills, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Free Fellowship Club, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing financial or other support to the Free Fellowship Club, or any other labor organization of its employees; (b) Inciting or encouraging, directly or indirectly, the Free Fellow- ship Club or any person or group of persons to threaten, assault, beat, or otherwise interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act ; (c) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer- ica, or any other labor organization of its employees, or encouraging membership in the Free Fellowship Club, or any other labor organiza- tion of its employees, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to rein- state any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to its employees' hire and tenure of employment or any term cr condition of their employment ; ;(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form , join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- ALMA MILLS, INC. 67 .certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Free Fellow- ship Club as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances , labor disputes , rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , or other conditions of work; (b) Offer to Claude R. McCullough , Sam Bailey, W. H. Hughey, T. C. Barnhill , Annie Morris, Cecil Branch, G. D. Lavender, Ed ,Cabiness , Frances Lamb, and Hilliard Coker immediate and full re- instatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, -without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges; (c) Make whole Claude R. McCullough , Sam Bailey, W. H. Hughey, T. C. Barnhill, Annie Morris, Cecil Branch, G. D. Lavender, Ed Cabiness , and Hilliard Coker for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to their hire and tenure of employment , by payment to each of them, respectively , of a sum of money equal to that which he or she would have earned as wages during the period from the date of the discrimi- nation to the date of the offer of reinstatement , less his or her net earnings 46 during said period; deducting , however, from the amount otherwise due to each of the said employees , monies received by said employee during said period for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal , or other work-relief projects, and pay over the amount, so deducted , to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county , municipal , or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects; (d) Make whole Frances Lamb for any loss of pay she has suffered by reason of the respondent 's discrimination in regard to her hire and tenure of employment ( 1) by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned as wages on July 5, 1938, and (2 ) by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned as wages during the periods ( a) from October 8, 1938, the date of her lay-off, to April 3, 1939, the date of the Inter- mediate Report, and (b) from five ( 5) days from the date of the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed- Conclusions of Law and Pro- posed Order, to the date of the offer of reinstatement , less her net earnings 46 during said periods ; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to her , monies received by her during said periods for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other 11 See footnote 42, supra. 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD work-relief projects, and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects; (e) Make whole Lloyd Hughey for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to his hire and tenure of employment on July 4, 5, and 6, 1938, and Bessie Fowler for any loss of pay she has suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to her hire and tenure of employment on July 5 and 6, 1938, by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which he or she would have earned as wages on the days in question; (f) Take all reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of physical assaults or other acts of intimidation or coercion against its employees, in the plant during working hours, because of the union membership or activity of such employees; (g) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant, and main- tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating : (1) that the re- spondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this Order; (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of Textile Workers Union of America and the respondent will not dis- criminate against any employee because of membership or activity in that organization; (h) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps it has taken to comply herewith. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Hamrick Mills, Inc., its officers, agents,, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Friendship Club, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing financial or other support to the Friendship Club, or any other labor organization of its employees; (b) Inciting or encouraging, directly or indirectly, the Friendship Club or any person or group of persons to threaten, assault, beat, or otherwise interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in. the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; ,,4 ALMA MILLS, INC. 69 (c) Discouraging Membership in Textile Workers Union of America, or any other labor organization of its employees, or encourag- ing membership in the Friendship Club, or any other labor organiza- tion of its employees, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to rein- state any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to its employees' hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment; (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their 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 or other mutual aid or pro- tection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Friendship Club as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose .of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of work; (b) Offer to Sam Cole, Delton Wallace, Idell Jackson, and Dood Kennedy immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges; (c) Make whole Sam Cole, Delton Wallace, Idell Jackson, and Dood Kennedy for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to their hire and tenure of em- ployment, by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which he or she would have earned as wages during the period from the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his or her net earnings 41 during said period; de- ducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each of the said employees, monies received by said employee during said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects; (d) Take all reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of physical assaults or other acts of intimidation or coercion against its employees, in the plant during working hours, because of the union membership or activity of such employees; 47 See footnote 42, supra. 283035-42-vol. 24-G 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (e) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant, and main- tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs :2 ((a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order; (3) that the respondent's em-. -ployees are free to become or remain members of Textile Workers -Union of America and the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in that organization; (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing -within ten (10) days from the date of'this Order what steps it has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, as amended, in so far as it alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of George Richardson, Horace Scruggs, Pearl Eaton, W. M. Godfrey, and Walter Brown, be, and the same hereby is, =dismissed.