Burlington Dyeing & Finishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 1, 1938

10 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of BURLINGTON DYEING & FINISHING Co. and TEXTILE
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Cases Nos. C-772 and R-700.-Decided December 1. 1938
Dyeing and Finishing Industry-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion: dis-
criminatory discharges-Discrimination: discharges : for union activity ; charges
of, not sustained as to two employees-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay:
awarded-Investigation of Representatives : controversy concerning representa-
tion of employees : employer's refusal to grant recognition of union-Unit Ap-
propriate 'for Collective Bargaining: piece-rate and hourly production employees,
excluding watchmen and clerical and supervisory employees-Election Ordered
Mr. Jacob Blum and Mr. Samuel M. Spencer, for the Board.
Cooper, Curlee & Sanders, by Mr. Thomas D. Cooper and Mr. E.
T. Sanders, of Burlington, N. C., for the respondent.
Mr. Frank J. Ward, of Burlington, N.• C., and Issernwn, Isser-
man ct; Kapelsohn, by Mr. A. J. Isserman, of Newark, N. J.. for the
T. W. 0. C.
Mr. Victor A. Pascal, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 25, 1937, Textile Workers Organizing Committee, herein
called the T. W. O. C., filed charges with the Regional Director for
the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland) and, on November 1, 1937,
filed amended charges alleging that Burlington Dyeing and Finishing
Company, Burlington, North Carolina, herein called the respondent,
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. On December 15, 1937, the T. W. O. C. filed
with the Regional Director a petition alleging that a question affect-
ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees
of the respondent and requesting an investigation and certification
of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On Feb-
ruary 21, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
10 N L. R. B., No. 1. 1
2 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), and
Article II, Section 37 (b), of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered that the cases be
consolidated for the purposes of hearing and, acting pursuant to
Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of said Rules and
Regulations, ordered an investigation of representatives and author-
ized the said Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice.
Upon the above charges, the Board, by the Regional Director,
issued a complaint dated March 5, 1938, against the respondent, alleg-
ing in substance that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act. Copies of the complaint and notices of hearing on the com-
plaint and the petition were duly served upon the respondent and
the T. W. O. C. On March 12, 1938, the respondent, reserving its
right to enter a special appearance and move to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction, or otherwise specially plead or demur, filed an answer
denying the alleged unfair labor practices and that it was engaged
in interstate commerce, and alleging that no labor dispute existed
between the respondent and its employees.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the consolidated cases was held
on March 17, 18, and 19, 1938, at Graham, North Carolina, before
E. R. Strempel, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The Board, the respondent, and the T. W. O. C. were represented
by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the close of their respective cases, the Trial Examiner granted
motions by counsel for the Board and by the respondent to amend
the pleadings to conform to the evidence. During the course of the
hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re-
viewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On July 5, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were served upon the parties, in which he found
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act: (a) by discriminating
in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Herman C. Brooks,
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, and (b)
by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. He recom-
mended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 3
practices and, affirmatively, offer full reinstatement with back pay
to Herman C. Brooks. He further recommended that the allega-
tions of the complaint with reference to the discharges of Johnson,
Porter, and Thomey be dismissed. In his Intermediate Report, the
Trial Examiner also denied the respondent's motion to dismiss the
entire complaint made during and at the close of the hearing.
On July 28, 1938, the T. W. O. C. filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and requested oral argument before the Board. Pur-
suant to notice duly served upon all the parties, oral argument was
held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on August 25, 1938.
Only the T. W. O. C. appeared and participated in the oral argument.
The Board has reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and, save to the extent that the findings below depart from those
of the Trial Examiner, finds that the, exceptions are without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Burlington Dyeing and Finishing Company is a North Carolina
corporation engaged in dyeing and finishing acetate, rayon, and silk
fabrics. The fabrics which the respondent dyes and finishes are not
owned by the respondent, but belong to its customers who ship the
fabrics to the respondent's plant. Most of the respondent's customers
are in New York State. Its plant and principal place of business
are near Burlington, North Carolina. During 1937, the value of
the respondent's business was between $300,000 and $400,000. About
90 per cent of the fabrics processed by the respondent are shipped
from its plant to destinations outside of the State of North Carolina.
The principal raw materials used by the respondent in its dyeing
and finishing operations are water, chemicals, dyestuffs, paper, and
salt. All the water used by the respondent is secured in Burlington.
Of the other materials used in the respondent's operations, approx-
imately 65 .per cent of the chemicals, 50 per cent of the paper, 5 per
cent of the dyestuffs, and 85 per cent of the salt are shipped to the
plant from sources outside the State of North Carolina.
The respondent normally employs about 225 workers at its plant.
Its weekly pay roll is approximately $3,500.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, herein
called the C. I. 0., admitting to its membership all the respondent's
employees, exclusive of watchmen and clerical and supervisory
employees. '
4 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that the respondent discharged and refused
to reinstate W. J. Johnson, O. W. Porter, H. C. Brooks, and Ely
Thomey because they had joined and assisted the T. W. O. C., thereby
discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment
and discouraging membership in the T. W. O. C.; and that by these
and other acts and conduct the respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
William J. Johnson entered the respondent's employ in July 1936.
After working as a helper for 2 days, he was transferred to operating
a dyeing tub on the third shift. Johnson joined the T. W. O. C. on
April 11, 1937, and was active in its behalf. He secured the member-
ship of approximately 20 of the respondent's employees and tried
to induce employees at other plants to join the T. W. O. C. John-
son's union activity was known to several of the respondent's super-
visory employees.
On July 8, 1937, at 3 a. m., Henry Malone, his foreman, observed
him reading a C. I. O. publication. Johnson testified that Malone
jerked the paper out of his hands and threw it in his face saying
"You don't .belong to that, do you?", whereupon Johnson admitted
his membership. Malone admitted having observed Johnson reading
some sort of "labor paper," but denied having snatched it from John-
son or that he had made the statement attributed to him by Johnson.
It is clear from this conflicting evidence, however, that the morning
before his discharge Johnson's interest in the C. I. O. was called to
Malone's attention.
When, Johnson returned to work at 11 o'clock the same day, he
was told not to punch the time clock as he no longer worked at the
plant. Malone told him that he did not know "what was the matter"
but he was simply carrying out the orders of Robert A. Gilliam,
one of the respondent's supervisors. As Gilliam refused to tell
Johnson the reason for his dismissal, he waited until 1 a. m. when
Henry Valus, the respondent's supervisor of dyeing, arrived it the
plant. After Valus had gone to his office, he called Johnson in and
accused him of having ruined $3,000 worth of cloth and of "wasting
time reading C. I. O. papers last night." Johnson admitted to Valus
that he had picked up a paper but it does not appear that this had
interfered with his work. However, Johnson denied having any
knowledge of cloth he had ruined and asked Valus to show him the
damaged cloth, but Valus refused to do so, stating that the cloth
had already been shipped out. Valus thereupon told Johnson that
he was laid off for 1 week. When Johnson returned to work a week
later, Gilliam attempted to put him back to work, but Valus would
not allow it and told Gilliam that Johnson had been discharged.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 5
The respondent maintained that Johnson was discharged, not for
his activity in behalf of the T. W. O. C., but because he had been
inattentive and talkative and because he had damaged a large quan-
tity of cloth about the morning prior to his discharge. Upon cross-
examination, Johnson admitted that he had spent "quite a bit" of
time during working hours talking about his inventions with other
employees. Vales testified that, in the presence of Gilliam, he ex-
amined the cloth which Johnson had dyed and found that it had been
badly damaged. He further testified that the damage had been
caused by Johnson's negligence in failing to maintain the water in the
tub at a proper level; that he had previously reprimanded Johnson
about his work; that, in accordance with his usual policy, he had laid
off Johnson first and thereafter investigated his past record; and that,
as a result of his inquiry, he had decided to discharge Johnson.
Burgess and Horton likewise testified to Johnson's failings.
It is apparent, however, that the respondent did not consider
Johnson's alleged faults to be of sufficient importance to warrant his
discharge until Malone had observed him reading a C. I. O. publica-
tion. Shortly thereafter Valus accused, him of having damaged a
large quantity of cloth but failed to show it to him. Although Valus
maintained that a written record had been made of Johnson's al-
leged damage to the cloth, he also testified that the record could not
be produced at the hearing as it had been destroyed. The respondent
further claimed that it was compelled to pay for the damaged cloth
but, at the hearing, failed to produce any documentary evidence of
the payment. The respondent's failure to produce this tangible evi-
dence casts considerable doubt upon its contention that it had dis-
charged Johnson because of his unsatisfactory work.
In view of Johnson's membership in and activity for the
T. W. O. C., the newspaper incident the morning before his discharge,
and the unsubstantial character of the evidence introduced by the
respondent in support of the reasons assigned by it for his discharge,
we find that the respondent discharged Johnson because of his mem-
bership in and activity for the T. W. O. C.
Herman C. Brooks was employed in the respondent's finishing de-
partment from August 1936 to October 4, 1937, when he was dis-
charged. He joined the T. W. O. C. on April 8, 1937, and was an
ardent worker in its behalf. He secured the membership of about 15
or 20 of.the respondent's employees and secured about 200 members
in the county. He also assisted Davis and John W. Pollard, two of
the T. W. O. C. organizers, in their work by serving as their chauffeur.
When Brooks reported for work at 11 p. m. on October ' 4, 1937,
Perry Langston, his supervisor, told him that Osmundo Lopez, the
respondent's supervisor of finishing, had directed that he be laid off
because of bad business. Langston testified that Lopez had instructed
147841-39-vol 10--2
6 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him to select three of the six men on the third shift, on which Brooks
worked, to be laid off as the shift was to be eliminated. Cable, Ivey,
Brooks, Champion, Bailiff, and Parrish were employed on this shift.
Langston further testified that his selection was based on the eco-
nomic condition of the employees, claiming that Cable and Ivey had
been laid off because they were unmarried and that, although Brooks
was married, his wife worked "part time." He also contended that
Champion had been retained because he had a wife and young child,
Bailiff was an old man and he believed that he had been married,
and Parrish, although unmarried, had to pay board, a reason which
does not appear cogent. Langston admitted that Brooks was the
senior employee in point of service on the third shift and the only one
on the shift whom he knew to be a member of the T. W. 0. C. Lang-
ston maintained that at first Brooks had acquiesced in his selection
of the men laid off, although he also testified that later Brooks con-
tended that he had been selected because of his union activity.
Upon cross-examination, Langston recollected only one matter
which he considered in derogation of Brooks' past record, namely,
that he had been asked to learn how to run the sewing machine in the
finishing department and had said that he preferred not to. He was
not ordered to do so and it was not suggested that this constituted a
refusal by Brooks or a serious deficiency to his usefulness. When
Langston was further cross-examined regarding Brooks' discharge
he placed more emphasis upon Brooks' failure to run the sewing ma-
chine, stating that the work remaining on the third shift was in the
nature of cleaning up, that the work on the dryer conducted by
Brooks was first to be eliminated, and that he wanted to retain those
men who could turn to any of the jobs to be completed. He asserted
that all those retained could and were willing to run the sewing
machine. However, Brooks was able to perform other essential tasks
remaining to be completed by the men on his shift. It is clear that
Langston did not deem the sewing-machine incident to be of any im-
portance at the time Brooks was discharged.
In view of his seniority, the-unsubstantial reasons assigned by the
respondent for selecting him- to be laid off, and his known activity
in behalf of and membership in the T. W. 0. C., we find that the
respondent discharged Brooks because of his membership in and ac-
tivity for the T. W. 0. C.
We find that the respondent, by discharging Brooks and Johnson,
discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization. We fur-
ther find that the respondent, by discharging' Brooks and Johnson,
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 7
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protec-
tion, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Ely Tliomey was hired by the respondent as a spare hand in the
dyeing department in the latter part of 1936 or the early part of
1937. At the time of his discharge on October 10, 1937, he was en-
gaged in operating two dyeing tubs. Four or five months after he
entered the respondent's employ, Thomey joined the T. W. O. C.,
although the record does not indicate his activity in its behalf.
On October 8, 1937, Thomey experienced difficulty in maintain-
ing the water in his tub at the proper level, as the tub was leaking.
He reported the matter to Burgess, his foreman. When Thomey
wanted to leave the plant at 11 o'clock, the termination of his shift,
no one appeared to replace him at his tub. John C. Brooks, foreman
of the next shift, asked him to remain a short while until a sub-
stitute could be found. About 5 or 10 minutes after 11 o'clock, John
C. Brooks gave Thomey permission to leave and, shortly thereafter,
put O. B. Pitts in charge of the tub. At about 11 o'clock Valus
arrived at the tub, found the water level low, and the cloth in the
tub badly damaged. He wanted to lay Pitts off, but did not do so
when John C. Brooks informed him that the low level of the water
in the tub was not Pitts' fault and that the damage had been caused
by Thomey. Valus ordered Thomey laid off and, upon investigating
his past record and finding it unsatisfactory, refused to reinstate
him.
Thomey was laid off by Burgess when he next reported for
work on October 10, 1937. He returned to the plant about 3 days
later and did not see his card in the rack, indicating that he had
been discharged.
We find that the record does not support the allegations of the
complaint that Thomey was discharged for his membership and
activity in the T. W. O. C.
Ollie W. Porter entered the respondent's employ about September
1, 1936. He was operating two dyeing tubs on the third shift at
the time of his discharge on July 17, 1937. Porter joined the T. W.
O. C. on April 30, 1937. . He testified that, about July 16, 1937,
Malone, his foreman, observed him looking at a C. I. O. publication
during working hours and asked him if he belonged to that organiza-
tion; that he answered by asking Malone if he belonged; and that
Malone smiled and walked away. Malone denied having seen him
reading the paper or asking about his membership in the T. W. O. C.
According to Porter, eight pounds of cloth became entangled in his
tub shortly after this incident and, as he was unable to untangle it,
Malone cut the cloth. However, Porter maintained that none of the
cloth had been lost as it was subsequently sewed together and re-
8 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
placed in the tub. When Porter returned to work, Valus accused
him of having ruined $600 worth of cloth and laid him off for 2
weeks. Valus refused to reengage him when he reported for work 2
weeks later.
The respondent maintained that Porter was discharged because
he was careless, inefficient, and thoughtless. The undisputed testi-
niony shows that Malone found Porter asleep near his tub on seven
or eight occasions during the 4-month period that Porter had worked
on Malone's shift; that Porter was away from his tub when Malone
discovered that the cloth had become tangled; and that Valus saw
the damage and directed that the cloth be cut and Porter laid off.
After Porter was laid off, Valus investigated Porter's past record
and, as a result thereof, determined to discharge him.
We find that the record does not 'sustain the allegations of the
complaint that Porter was discharged for his membership and activity
in the T. W. O. C.
1
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent' described in' Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we will order that it cease and desist therefrom and,
affirmatively, that it offer to Brooks and Johnson immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges,
and that it pay to each of them a sum of money' equal to that which
he would normally have earned as wages from the date of his dis-
charge to the date of such offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 1
during such period, except that in the case of, Johnson the period
from July 5, 1938, the date of the filing of the Intermediate Report,
to the date of the Order herein, shall be excluded from the compu-
tation of his back pay. As we have previously held, we do not be-
lieve that the respondent could have been expected to reinstate a
discharged employee after it received the Intermediate Report rec-
1 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and hoard, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where 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,
Lunjier and tiraiarnill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L. R. B 440
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 9
ommending the dismissal of the complaint as to him, and therefore
it should not be required to pay him back pay from that time to the
date of the Order herein.2
V. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
After the T. W. 0. C. commenced soliciting membership among
the employees, John W. Pollard, one of its organizers, interviewed
Britt M. Armfield, the respondent's vice president, in an effort to
induce the respondent to recognize the T. W. O. C. as the employees'
representative and to bargain with it as such. Armfield refused.
On November 24, 1937, and January 31, 1938, the T. W. O. C. wrote
Armfield requesting a conference to discuss a proposed contract.
These letters do not appear to have been answered.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of
employees of the respondent.
VI. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
VII. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In its petition, the T. W. O. C. alleged that all piece-rate and hourly
production employees of the respondent, exclusive of watchmen and
clerical and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining. As found above, the em-
ployees in that unit are eligible to membership in the T. W. O. C.
and it had attempted to bargain with the respondent in their behalf.
The respondent raised no objection to the bargaining unit proposed
by the T. W. O. C., although, on cross-examining Pollard, the respond-
ent showed that the production work at the plant is divided into
three departments, namely, the boil-off department, the dye house,
and the finishing department. It appears that there is a close re-
lation in the work of the three departments and that, in plants simi-
lar to the respondent's, the T. W. O. C. has bargained on behalf of
the employees in a unit such as it claims is appropriate in this
proceeding.
2Matter of E. R Haffelfinger Company Inc. and United Wall Paper Crafts of North
America, Local No. 6, 1 N. L. R B. 760; Matter of Brown Shoe Company, Inc, a Corpora-
tion and Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, Local No 655, 1 N. L R B 803
10 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that all piece-rate and hourly production employees of
the respondent , excluding watchmen and clerical and supervisory
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the
respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to
collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VIII. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
No evidence was presented at the hearing as to the identity of the
employees in the appropriate unit. Although Pollard testified that
approximately 125 of the respondent 's employees were members of
the T. W. O. C., the evidence does not disclose the identity of these
members. We find that the question concerning representation can
,best be resolved by holding an election by secret ballot. We will
direct that the employees eligible to vote in the election shall be
those in the appropriate unit who were employed by the respondent
during the pay-roll period next preceding the date of the Direction
of Election 'herein, including William J. Johnson and Herman C.
Brooks.
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. Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of William J. Johnson and Herman C. Brooks, thereby dis-
couraging membership in Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. By discharging and thereafter refusing to employ Ollie W.
Porter and Ely Thomey, the respondent has not engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
6. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the respondent, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 11
7. All the piece-rate and hourly production employees of the re-
spondent, excluding watchmen and clerical and supervisory em-
ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the 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,
Burlington Dyeing and Finishing Company, Burlington, North Caro-
lina, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Organizing
Committee or any other labor organization of its employees by dis-
charging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the 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 purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid and 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) Offer to William J. Johnson and Herman C. Brooks imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Herman C. Brooks for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of his discharge by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as
wages during the period from October 4, 1937, the date of his dis-
charge, to the date of such offer of reinstatement, less his net earn-
ings 3 during such period;
(c) Make whole William J. Johnson for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of his discharge by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned
as wages during the period from July 8, 1937, the date of his dis-
charge, to July 5, 1938, the date the Intermediate Report herein
was filed, and during the period from the date of this Order to the
8 See footnote 1, supra.
12 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
date of such offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 4 during such
periods ;
(d) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout
its plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least thirty
(30) consecutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and
desist in the manner aforesaid;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint that
the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act by discharging and there-
after refusing to employ Ollie W. Porter and Ely Thomey be, and
they hereby are, dismissed.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Burlington Dyeing and Finishing Company, Burlington, North
Carolina, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted within
forty-five (45) days from the date of this Direction, under the di-
rection and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Re-
gion, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations
Board and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among all the piece-rate and hourly production employees
of Burlington Dyeing and Finishing Company, employed during the
pay-roll' period next preceding the date of this Direction of Election,
including William J. Johnson and Herman C. Brooks but excluding
those who have since quit or been discharged for cause and exclud-
ing watchmen and clerical and supervisory employees, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by Textile Workers
Organizing Committee for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election.
4 See footnote 1, supra
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 13
SAME TITLE
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 31, 1939
On December 1, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board issued
a Decision, Order, and Direction of Election in the above-entitled
cases. The Direction of Election provided that an election by secret
ballot be conducted within forty-five (45) days from the date of the
Direction , among all the piece-rate and hourly production employees
of Burlington Dyeing and Finishing Company, Burlington, North
Carolina, employed during the pay-roll period next preceding the
date of the Direction of Election, including William J. Johnson and
Herman C. Brooks, but excluding those who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and excluding watchmen and clerical and super-
visory employees, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented by Textile Workers Organizing Committee for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
Pursuant to the Direction of Election, an election by secret ballot
was conducted on January 13, 1939, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore,
Maryland). On January 16, 1939, the Regional Director, acting
pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, issued and duly
served upon the parties an Intermediate Report on the Election. No
objections or exceptions to the Intermediate Report have been filed
by any of the parties.
As to the balloting and its results, the Regional Director reported
as follows :
Total number eligible________________________________________ 156
Total ballots cast____________________________________________ 148
Total number of blank ballots________________________________ 0
Total number of void ballots________________________________ 0
Total number of challenged votes_____________________________ 0
Total number of ballots cast for :
Textile Workers Organizing Committee_____________________ 97
Total number of ballots against :
Textile Workers Organizing Committee _____________________ 51
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 8 and 9,
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended,
14 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Textile Workers Organizing Committee
has been selected by a majority of all the piece-rate and hourly
production employees of Burlington Dyeing and Finishing Company,
Burlington, North Carolina, excluding watchmen and clerical and
supervisory employees, as their representative for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act,
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is the exclusive representative
of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment.
MR. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH took no part in the consideration of
the above Certification of Representatives.
10 N. L . R. B., No. Ia.