Carolina Mirror Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 926 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carolina Mirror Corporation and United Glass and Ceramic
Workers of North America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 11-CA-2067
and 11-CA-2147. January 13, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 9, 1963, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Therefore,
the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision, with supporting briefs; the Charging Party
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Decision and the entire record in these cases, including the exceptions
and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifications 2 and cor-
rections' noted below.
1 No exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner 's findings that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating and threatening employees concerning their
union activities and sympathies , by stating that the Respondent would not recognize any
union , and by engaging in surveillance of a union meeting. We adopt these findings pro
forma.
z As to the 12 men in the polishing department who were discharged but had not been
recalled as of the time of the hearing , we adopt the Trial Examiner ' s recommended remedy,
but with the following modifications:
If, after discharging any employees who may have been hired after the release of the
12 men in the polishing department , there is not sufficient work for the remaining em-
ployees and those to be offered reinstatement , all available positions shall be distributed
among them without discrimination in accordance with the system of seniority or other
nondiscriminatory practice heretofore applied by the Respondent in the conduct of its
business . Those employees , if any, for whom no employment is available after such dis-
tribution shall be placed by the Respondent on a preferential hiring list, and offered re-
employment , in the manner as set forth by the Trial Examiner . As it is possible that one
or more of the employees discriminated against might have been discharged in a reduction
of the work force even if the Respondent had selected employees for discharge on a non-
discriminatory basis, this possibility will be taken into consideration in determining the
amounts of backpay due to these employees in compliance with our Order herein See
Camco, Incorporated , 140 NLRB 361, 369.
8 Although the Trial Examiner correctly stated in the Decision that the two handymen
(Chambers and Hayes) were discharged on October 19, he also stated that they were dis-
charged on August 29 . As the record indicates that these employees were discharged on
October 19 , we note and correct this inadvertent error . " We also note that the Trial
Examiner stated that the use of the truck was discontinued in August . The record dis-
closes that Chambers and Hayes drove the truck until their discharges and thereafter
other employees drove the truck . We likewise correct this error.
145 NLRB No. 99.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 927
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner
with, the modifications noted below 4
,'The Recommended Order is hereby amended by:
(a) Substituting for the first paragraph therein, the following: "Upon the entire
record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent,
Carolina Mirror Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall "
(b) Inserting the word "unlawfully" between the words "employees" and "con-
cerning" in the first line of paragraph 1(b).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A hearing in the above-entitled proceeding was held before Trial Examiner
Thomas A. Ricci on July 15, through 19, 1963, at North Wilkesboro, North Caro-
lina, on two separate complaints issued by the General Counsel against Carolina
Mirror Corporation, herein called the Respondent or the Company. The issues
litigated are whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
After the close of the hearing briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the
Respondent.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Carolina Mirror Corporation is a North Carolina corporation engaged in the
manufacture and sale of mirrors, with its sole plant located in North Wilkesboro,
North Carolina. During the past 12 months, a representative period, Respondent
received at its plant raw materials valued in excess of $100,000 from points directly
outside the State of North Carolina. During the same period Respondent manu-
factured, sold, and shipped finished products valued in excess of $100,000 from its
plant directly to points outside the State of North Carolina. I find that the Respond-
ent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America , AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. A picture of the case
The charges which gave rise to this proceeding grew out of a self-organizational
campaign started among the Respondent's approximately 400 production and main-
tenance employees in 1962. The Union filed a petition for an election on July 18,
1962 (Case No. 11-RC-1678). A hearing was held on the questions raised by
that petition on August 6, and on August 29, 1962, the Regional Director issued a
Direction of Election; the election was scheduled for September 27. On the same
day that the Direction of Election was issued the Respondent laid off seven em-
ployees, none of whom was ever recalled to work. It also laid off five additional
workers on the same day, one for about 3 months, four for 7 working days.
The September election resulted in 169 votes for the Union, 201 against, and
54 challenges. The Union filed objections to the election, contending that improper
interference by company representatives had made impossible a free expression of
choice by the employees. While the Regional Director was investigating the merits
of the challenges and of the objections, the Respondent laid off an additional seven
employees on October 19, 1962, again none of whom have been returned to work,
and an eighth man who was recalled on December 3, 1962.
After the challenges had been resolved and certain additional ballots counted,
the election count stood at 209 for, and 210 against the Union. Thereafter, on
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
February 8, 1963, the Regional Director issued a Second Direction of Election, in
which he found merit in the Union's objections, set aside the election results, and
ordered a new election to be held. A second balloting took place on May 7, 1963,
and the Union won by 224 votes to 148; there were 25 challenges which could not
affect the results. Ten days later, on May 17, the Respondent discharged two more
employees.
There are two cases and two complaints, consolidated for purposes of hearing.
The first (Case No. 11-CA-2067) alleges that all these discharges and temporary
layoffs of 1962 were motivated by an intent to discriminate against employees for
the purposes of discouraging membership in the Union; it also alleges many instances
of illegally coercive conduct by management representatives. The second complaint
(Case No. 11-CA-2147) is limited to the two May 1963 discharges and charges
the Respondent with having released these workmen to implement similarly illegal
objectives.
In its answer the Respondent admits that each of the employees named in fact
was released or laid off on the dates precisely set out in the complaint. It denies,
however, that there was any antiunion motive in its actions, and further denies the
commission of any illegal acts by any of its supervisors or officials. Affirmatively,
at the hearing, the Respondent asserted that each of the layoffs and permanent sepa-
rations was based solely upon economic considerations which made necessary reduc-
tions in its operating personnel in various departments and at various dates.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
To prove the complaint allegations of illegal interrogations, threats, surveillance,
and other forms of coercive conduct, all during the period of the organizational
activities preceding the two elections, the General Counsel called 42 witnesses,
all either present employees of the Respondent or employees at the time of the
events, including the 22 workmen named in the complaints. Collectively they
quoted 11 department foremen and plant superintendents. The testimony of all
these witnesses concerning the antiunion statements and conduct of the various fore-
men and superintendents, all conceded supervisors within the meaning of the Act,
was mutually corroborative, consistent, direct, and unequivocal. Their demeanor
on the witness stand suggested no substantial reason for questioning their veracity.
Not one of the supervisory persons of whom they spoke has left the Respondent's
employ and none of the entire group was called as a witness. I credit all of these
employees, and, on the basis of their clear and uncontradicted testimony, make the
following findings of fact.
The testimony on this aspect of the case covers four or five hundred pages of
the record transcript and reflects at least 46 separate conversations and incidents in
each of which a management representative approached individual employees to
discuss the union situation in such a way as to illegally restrain and coerce them
in their activities. Concededly the Respondent was opposed to having a union in
the plant, and made every effort to bring about its defeat in an eventual election.
The record, however, leaves no doubt that the company policy was to resort to
measures far in excess of any proper expression of opinion or legitimate attempt to
persuade the employees to management's point of view.
As will appear, widespread violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act were com-
mitted. These unfair labor practices, in turn, have a direct bearing upon the sec-
ond aspect of the case, the allegedly discriminate selection of certain union employees
for layoff and discharge, and the outright discharge of others. It was the depart-
mental foremen who chose the particular employees to be released; I will there-
fore set out first the coercive statements made by them. The following are the most
salient incidents reflected in the total record.
Bruce Wyatt is the foreman in the polishing department on the second shift.
Throughout the preelection period before September 27, 1962, he approached a
number of employees to inquire concerning their union sympathies and to persuade
them, if necessary, to an antiunion view. To Monroe Shumate: "What do you think
about this union going around?" To Francis Barber: "He asked me what I thought
about the Union." To Fidel Holloway: "He just came up and asked me how I
thought about the Union." Holloway asked the foreman who had told him that
Holloway was for the Union, and Wyatt replied, "Some outsider." Wyatt then asked
Holloway to speak to other employees sand attempt to persuade them against the
Union. Wyatt made like inquiries of Richard Harris, Robert Anderson, Albert
Brewer, and Willie Parsons. Wyatt also asked the two Wiles brothers, Johnny and
Roby, whether they had attended a union supper at Pete's Cafe.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 929
Athel Miller is the foreman of the polishing department on the first shift. To
Rolland Reavis: "He said being that I was a new man he would like to know my
opinion on how I felt about the Union. I told him I felt very strongly for the
Union." Miller then said: "We did not need the Union here . . It wouldn't
cause nothing but trouble." Miller also asked Wayne Staley how he felt about
the Union, and added that "the Union was losing ground every day."
Vance Watson is foreman of the edging and beveling department on the first
shift. Sometime before the election he said to Elbert Love: "Love, I want to talk
to you . . . come out here where no one can hear us . . . you've been with this
company a long time . . you have influence here. I want you to go and talk to
Berhe Brown, R. V. Brown, Hal Nichols, and also Leo Billings, and get them to
change their minds about the Union .. .. . To Alexander: "Bobby, 1 know that
some of the boys have been talking to you about the Union . . . I hope you don't
let them talk you into anything you'll regret doing." To Claude Woods: "I've been
aiming to talk to you. I know you was against the Union the other time . . . I
want you to go in there and talk to the men and-try to talk them out of voting
for the Union." Watson then added: "Ralph Buchan [the Respondent's president]
won't recognize the Union." Watson then asked Woods to distribute antiunion
leaflets about the plant. To Cranford Billings, Watson said he did not think the
men favored the Union because he had asked his (Billings') mother and father.
Watson also asked Ernest Wyatt whether he had eaten well at a union supper, and
then added, "I thought that you were a company man." Wyatt replied that he
favored the Union. Watson also asked Berhe Brown whether he had met the
Union's International representative, and then said: "I hear Mr. Brown [the union
representative] has been coming to your house." The employee admitted the fact.
The foreman went on to say that "the Union weren't no good, and wouldn't cause
nothing but violence and trouble, and strikes, and not make as much money."
Watson took Hal Nichols aside to say: . he said he heard bad news on me
that Berlie and I had been riding around with a union man." Watson visited
Nichols at the latter's home and again started to discuss the Union. He related how
in another strike at another town an employee had lost his possessions in con-
sequence of a strike, and then added: "You'll lose everything that you've got if
you vote for that union . . . I'll do everything in my power for Ralph Buchan "
Roscoe Williams is foreman of the silver room No. 2 on the first shift. To
Robert Coll: "Coll, I have not had a chance to talk to you about the Union. How
do you feel about it?" Coll told the foreman he had not signed a union card and
the foreman added, "That's what he wanted to know . if I know anything
about it, if the Union gets in and the conveyor is shut down or the silver room,
that he'd have to send me home instead of sending me to another job."
Charlie Absher is foreman of the cutting department on the second shift. He
asked Edward Hayes, a handyman, what did he think about the Union, and that he
(the foreman) "heard that you blessed the supper up at the union dinner the other
night." Hayes asked who had told this to the foreman and the foreman added-
"There was a right smart bunch up there was there not?" Hayes said yes, and
the foreman asked, "Seventy-two?" and the employee said that was correct. Absher
was Hayes' foreman and discharged him on October 19. Hayes asked why was
the Company laying off only union men, and Absher replied: "I don't know, but
they are."
John Gant is foreman of the cutting department on the first shift. He interrogated
seven employees, on separate occasions while they were at work, as to how they
felt about the Union: Thomas Greene, William Billings, Jerry Blackburn, Mark
Wood, Percy Billings, and Gwyn Chambers.
Reuben Sales is the foreman of the silver department on the first shift. To Ray
Blevins, an employee in his department at that time, as follows- . . he ap-
proached me. He told me that the Company didn't care for the Union to come
into Carolina Mirror Corporation; that they would take away all our benefits;
and we would probably, might get a 10-cent an hour increase." On another occasion
this foreman asked Blevins if he knew whether Mac Triplett was a union man or
not "cause he didn't want any union men transferred into the silver room." When
a number of employees were discharged on August 29, Blevins commented to Fore-
man Sales that it looked bad to lay off so many union people; he mentioned Pete
Canter, who was discharged, and Johnny Pyles, who had much less seniority but
was retained. Sales' reply was: "A man like Pete Canter wouldn't be able to get
a job anywhere in Wilkes County because he was a troublemaker." Still according
to Blevins: "he [Sales ] said that one year from then there wouldn't be a union
man left in the plant."
734-070-64-vol. 145-60
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. G. Bloomfield is the first-shift foreman in the engraving department. He
interrogated Elledge about his union feelings. On the day before the election he
asked Ralph Hayes. "Ralph, you're not for the Union are you?" Hayes showed his
union badge, and Bloomfield remarked: "My goodness, I'd never have thought it."
Over the foremen of the various departments there are superintendents on the
shifts. L. M. Jarvis is night superintendent. He asked Shumate what he thought
about "this union going around . . . we don't want no union in here . if the
Union gets in here that'll be the worst thing that ever happened. We would all lose
our jobs, including me." To Hayes: ". . did I know how Robeit Anderson was,
whether he was for the Company or for the Union . he must be 'cause the union
had summoned him for a hearing before that." To Albert Brewer: "Well, some
of the boys out there at the plant seemed to aim to vote for the union because they
fired some of them . you seem to be a sensible person . you ought to know
we don't need a union." To Wayne Dowell: "Athel [foreman in the polishing depart-
ment] is against this union and most of the boys on first shift is for it . . . how
do you feel about the union? . . . How's all the boys on second shift feel about it?
Well, second shift has got to do something about it. Most of the first shift is
for it. . We can't have a union in this plant." Superintendent Jarvis spent perhaps
half of the total time of that work shift returning constantly to Dowell to continue
on the subject of the Union. He asked Dowell how Albert Brewer felt about the
Union, and when Dowell said he did not know, the superintendent said, "Two weeks
ago he was for the Union, I know." Jarvis then asked about another employee,
Granville Porter. "Granville is for the Union, isn't he?" Jarvis continued "We've
been awful good to Granville while he was out sick and had sickness. We always
had his job waiting for him when he got back. . . . That's an awful way to treat the
Company."
Chick Blackburn, also a superintendent, told Chambers, "Some of the boys here at
Carolina Mirror are trying to get a union. . . . I hope you aren't getting involved
in it."
Harry Prevette is the superintendent on the third shift. He asked Joe Somers,
sometime in July: "Joe, what do you think about this Union? . What would
happen if it got in here." Somers said he did not know, and the superintendent
added: "Out the gate we'll go. We'll have no jobs."
This systematic interrogation of employees throughout the departments, coupled
in many instances with thinly veiled suggestions that a union in the plant would
mean loss of jobs or other economic disadvantage, was not idle curiosity by the
many supervisors or any honest desire to learn whether or not a majority of the
employees desired collective bargaining. It reveals instead a concerted plan to
intimidate the employees and to convey the thought that the Respondent was deter-
mined to prevent a union victory at the polls even if it meant hurting the employees
in the process. I therefore find that by each of the interrogations listed above by
the various named supervisors, the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
I also find that the threats voiced by supervisors-such as Williams' statement
to Coll that he would have to be sent home instead of being transferred to another
job; Watson's statement to Chambers that President Buchan 'would not recognize
any union; Superintendent Jarvis' statement to Schumate that the employees would
all lose their jobs, that the employees would go "out the gate" and have no jobs;
Foreman Watson's statement to Nichols that the employee would lose everything he
had if he voted for the Union; Foreman Sales' statement to Blevins that the Company
would take away all the employees' benefits and that within a year there would be no
more union men left in the plant-also constituted illegal restraint and coercion
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, and therefore unfair labor prac-
tices chargeable to the Respondent.
During the 1962 election campaign the Union held a number of mass meetings and
three suppers, one at Pete's Cafe on July 13, and two at Williams Restaurant on
August 25 and September 26. At Pete's Cafe there were about 48 employees, and at
the other two suppers about 60 or 70 persons. Pete's Cafe is located less than a mile
from the Respondent's plant and Williams Restaurant about 2 miles away.
While the men were gathering for the supper at Pete's Cafe, Foreman Watson drove
up in his car and parked a few moments in front of the restaurant. He was seen by a
number of employees who were standing about in front of the place. A number of
employees also saw Foreman Gant in a car a short distance from the cafe and close
to a market nearby. Gant was with his daughter and his son-in-law, who were shop-
ping at the time.
The evening before the supper at Pete's, Foreman Watson said to employee Love:
"Did you know they are trying to get-the Union back in here? . . . They are
having a supper up at Pete's Cafe tonight." The morning after the supper Watson
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 931
said to Love: ". . . You know there were more people up at that supper last night
than I thought . there's even more there than I even thought would go there.
There were some there that I thought wouldn't even go there." Watson then told
Love that he had gone by the restaurant and checked the cars, and that he did not
believe R. V. Brown was there because Watson had not seen his car. On that same
day Foreman Watson also asked employees Ernest Wyatt had he eaten well at
the supper, and when Wyatt said he had eaten enough, the foreman added. "I
thought that you were a company man." On that same day Watson also asked
Nichols, who had been at the supper: "How was the chicken supper?" Nichols
said he had had fish instead. Lastly, Watson also asked Johnny Wiles and his
brother whether they had been at Pete's.
I think it clear that Watson went to Pete's Cafe that evening for the purpose of
surveying the union activities of the employees. He did not appear as a witness
and the uncontradicted and perfectly credible testimony that the very next day he
passed the word around to employees that he had checked on the employees'
automobiles to ascertain who had been there leaves no doubt either as to his
purpose or his activities there. His deliberate surveillance of the union meeting, and
his further conduct in advising the various employees that they had in fact been
spied upon, each constituted a further unfair labor practice in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act, and I so find.
As to Foreman Gant's presence in the vicinity of Pete's Cafe that evening, I do not
believe the evidence sufficient to support a finding that he too deliberately watched
the union meeting. His children were shopping in the nearby market, his car was
parked perhaps closer to the market than to the cafe, and he did live nearby. I also
find insufficient support in the evidence for the General Counsel's further conten-
tion that Personnel Manager Gardner also illegally watched that supper meeting.
Gardner passed by on the highway in front of the cafe shortly before the dinner
started. One employee said he went by at 15 to 20 miles an hour; another said
Gardner was going at 30 miles an hour. He did not stop.
C. The discharges
One of the operating areas of the Respondent's plant, where most of the dis-
,charges put in question in this proceeding occurred, is the polishing department.
At the time of the events, late in 1962, it worked two shifts, the first from 7 a.m.
to 3:30; the second through midnight. The work is essentially the same on each
shift.
There are five large machines, of somewhat varying size, called polishing machines
in this department, and they are numbered 1 through 5. Glass sheets of different
thicknesses are loaded into each machine, polished mechanically, inspected by em-
ployees standing at the machine, and then removed at the opposite end by other
workmen. Depending upon the size of the machine and the size of the glass being
polished, each polishing machine will require four or five workmen. In addition,
in this department there are a number of scratch wheels; these remove scratches
from glass and each is operated by one man. There are one or more employees who
pull the glass from the department to other areas of the plant; they stack the glass
on trolleys, use jacks beneath the trolleys to raise the heavy loads, and then pull
the glass away.
Before August 1962, polishing machine No. 4 was not in regular use on either
of the two shifts. Only occasionally were employees either from other depart-
ments or by temporary shifting of workmen in the department itself used on this
machine.
In August the Company put into effect a change in its method of operations in
this department; it shut down polishing machine No. 5.1 As a preliminary step
'There is much testimony concerning the reason why the Respondent discontinued the
full time use of this polishing machine at that time, with the consequent necessity of
reducing the number of workmen required on each shift. There is like testimony explain-
ing the reasons why the work of the second shift was further reduced in October That
these retrenchment moves were dictated by economic interests is not "contested" by the
General Counsel, and is in fact established on the record. Further, the General Counsel
also concedes the Respondent's assertion that a temporary reduction of work available in
the edging and beveling department on its first shift justified short layoffs for four em-
ployees thereon August 29 As there is no issue raised by the defense contention that so
many employees had to be released in any event in these departments, I deem it un-
necessary to burden this report with the factual details relating to the changes of overall
operations leading to these discharges and layoffs; for purposes of considering the issues
raised by the complaint, they are not of material significance
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
toward implementing the change the Company on August 15, transferred a num-
ber of employees out of the polishing department to work in the cleaning and
shipping department. The production manager explained that this was a tem-
porary move, pending a final decision on whether the changed method of opera-
tion would be made permanent. By August 29 the Company decided the change
had been successful, and that the number of employees to be used in the polishing
department would definitely remain smaller. On that day, therefore, a number of
employees of the polishing department were sent home. The net result of the Re-
spondent's personnel change, or a precise overall picture of the reduction in force
which was put in effect, emerges by a comparison between the employees, and the
work they were doing, on August 15 and the comparable situation existing in the
department on August 29.
On the first shift, on August 15, there were 33 operators or rank-and-file em-
ployees. By the 29th this number had been reduced to 26. One man, Olin Grose,
fell sick on August 29, stayed home for this reason until October 22, returned on
that date for a short time, and thereafter fell sick again and left. Another man,
Olin Taylor, was temporarily laid off for 10 days on August 29, but was recalled
to duty on September 10 in the same department. A third employee, Elbert Wingler,
was on August 29 transferred to the silver department, where he has since continued
at work. Three employees-Wilburn Canter, William Bower, and Rolland Reavis-
were sent home.2 Like them, Charles Billings was also released; he was recalled on
December 3. I consider these four men as having been discharged, and the com-
plaint alleges that they were selected for severance because of their union activities.
The second shift had 31 men on August 15, and by August 29 this group had
been reduced to 25. Two men were discharged in the period between August 15
and 29, for reasons unrelated to the economic reduction in force. Hubert Durham
was dismissed on August 22 because he left a polishing machine in operation while
there was a large quantity of glass on it causing it all to break. Roy Brewer was
discharged on August 23 as a disciplinary measure. Four employees-Joe Somers,
Monroe Shumate, Fidel Holloway, and Francis Barber-were released outright as
part of the reduction in force. The complaint alleges that these last four were
selected in order to discourage union activities in the plant.
The Respondent had occasion to lay off four employees for a period of 7 work-
ing days, also on August 29, in the edging and beveling department. Here there
were nine employees on the first shift and five on the second. It laid off Berlie
Brown, Hal Nichols, Everette Poteat, and Ernest G. Wyatt on the first shift. Again
the complaint alleges that the Respondent seized upon the fortuitous slack in work
to further its antiunion campaign and therefore selected these particular four em-
ployees because of their known prounion sympathies.
In October the Respondent put into effect another change in its method of opera-
tions, again as an economic measure dictated by its business interest. Now, polish-
ing machine No. 3 was closed on the second shift only, leaving two such machines
in operation. The new system reduced the amount of glass that had to be polished
in the department, and called for more of such work to be done in the silver room
No. 2 instead. On Friday, October 19, the last working day before the change was
made, there were 25 employees on the second shift (the exact complement remain-
ing after the August reduction in force); on Monday, the first day of the shrunken
crew, there remained only 18. Seven operators were discharged-Robert Ander-
son, Wayne Dowell, Albert Brewer, Willie Parsons, Richard Harris, Richard John-
son, and Raymond Walls. All but the last man listed here are named in the com-
plaint as having been deliberately selected for the reduction in force in order to
weed out the union sympathizers. Robert Anderson was recalled on December 3.
On the same day, October 19, the Respondent also discharged two handymen-
Gwyn Chambers and Edward Hayes-assertedly on the ground that there no longer
was need for the work they had been doing-that their jobs were eliminated.
Finally, James Wiles and his brother, Roby Wiles, who for 5 and 4 years, respectively,
had operated certain sand belts, were released on May 17, 1963. The production
manager admitted that there was no decline in their work, but he explained their
discharge as required by the fact that the place where they did this work was changed
to another location in the plant , and therefore other employees were asked to do it.
2 These three men, like the four others who had been on the second-shift crew and were
also sent home on August 29, were told on that day that they were only being temporarily
laid off ; their names continued on the Company's records as employees for several months,
until December 3, when final separation notices were sent to each. For practical purposes,
their August 29 separation was a final severance.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 933
A further discharge allegation of the complaint is that like the 14 operators who
were released in the polishing department , and the 4 men who were laid off in the
edging and beveling department , Chambers , Hayes, and the Wiles brothers were
let go because of their known union activities.
D. Analysis and conclusions
1. The discriminate selection of employees in the polishing and in the edging
and beveling departments
The turn of economic misfortune caused by changes in operational methods and
lessening of available work fell upon 19 employees in the polishing and in the edg-
ing and beveling departments during August and October 1962. Eighteen of these
were either outright members of the Union or open adherents to its cause. The
leanings of one man only, Raymond Walls, are not shown on the record; he did
not appear at the hearing , he is not named in the complaint , and, for purposes of
.this analysis , I will assume he was either neutral or antiunion in sentiment.
At the very time of the layoffs-indeed , almost midway between the first and
the second group discharges-on September 27, there was a secret election con-
ducted by the Board and the overall plant group of employees split 209 for and
210 against the Union . Absent any affirmative reason to believe otherwise-and
the record shows none-it must be presumed that within the group of 64 employees
in the polishing department and 9 on the first shift of the edging and beveling
department , these 73 workmen were also equally divided in their attitude toward
the Union. Selection of the particular individual employees who were to suffer
the economic hurt in employment occasioned by the adverse economic conditions
.of the moment , was left to the departmental foremen , the very management repre-
sentatives whose strong union ammus is so clearly revealed in the extended testi-
mony set out above and proving rampant unfair labor practices in violation of Sec-
tion 8 ( a) (1) of the Act. Not one of these supervisors was presented at the
hearing to explain what factual basis he used to make the individual selections or
his mental process at the time of the events . They are all still in the Respondent's
employ. Largely through the illegally coercive activities of these supervisors, the
Respondent knew of the prounion activities and feelings of these 18 employees; as
to most of them the knowledge was direct and personal ; as to a few, although there
is no direct proof of knowledge , the pattern of individual and repeated interroga-
tions, the candid and open character of both the pro- and anti -union activities by the
employees , and the deliberate surveillance of a well-attended union dinner, fully
warrant an inference that the supervisors were also aware of the prounion attitude
of these few. And the evidence offered by the Respondent to explain the basis of
all the selections-indirect hearsay given by the production manager whose earlier
affidavit literally admitted he had nothing to do with the matter-is on its face in-
consistent, evasive, couched in general and conclusionary phrases, and entirely un-
persuasive . I believe that the preponderance of the substantial evidence on the
record in its entirety supports the complaint allegation that the 18 employees there
named were selected for discharge or layoff because of their union activities.
a. Union activities and company knowledge
Polishing department , first shift , August 29: Charles Billings went to a union meet-
ing and attended several of the suppers given by the Union . He was at Pete's Cafe
when Watson watched the meeting . Wilburn Canter accompanied Union Repre-
sentative Albert to the homes of a number of employees soliciting membership; he
attended union meetings and a number of suppers , including that at Pete's Cafe.
He told the personnel manager he had signed a union card and was helping the
campaign ; the personnel manager asked could he report the fact to Tom Ray,
production manager. Canter said yes. Superintendent Jarvis told Dowell that
Canter was the "ringleader of the union." William Bower signed a membership
card and attempted to persuade "half a dozen to a dozen" other employees to join.
Rolland Reavis signed a membership card , campaigned among the employees, and
went to all the meetings including the various suppers. His foreman asked what
did he think of the Union , and added the Company needed no union , it would
bring only trouble.
Polishing department , second shift, August 29: Francis Barber signed a union card
and went to supper at Williams ' Restaurant . Foreman Wyatt interrogated him about
his interest in the Union. Fidel Holloway signed a membership card and campaigned
among the employees . Foreman Wyatt interrogated him and invited him to urge
other employees to vote against the Union ; Holloway refused. Wyatt said "an out-
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sider" had told hini Holloway favored the Union. Joe Somers signed a union card
and talked it up among the employees. Superintendent Prevette asked him what he
thought about the Union, and then told the man if the Union came in "out the window
we would all go. We'll have no jobs." Monroe Shumate signed a membership
card and attended several suppers of the Union, he accompanied Union Organizer
Brown to a number of employee's homes. Both Foreman Wyatt and Superintendent
Jarvis interrogated him about the Union. Jarvis told Shumate the Company did not
want a union and that the employees would be out of a job if the Union came.
Edging and beveling department, first shift, August 29: Hal Nichols signed into
the Union, solicited another employee to join, and attended the supper at Pete's
Cafe. The next day Foreman Watson asked how had he enjoyed the chicken The
next day the foreman asked Nichols to talk to Berlie Brown and R. V. Brown to
dissuade them from their prounion resolve. Everette Poteat also joined the Union,
he attended all the suppers and meetings. The Monday morning after Watson
had spied at Pete's Cafe, he said to Poteat: "I'd like to talk to you about the Union
. I hope you haven't changed your mind since last time . . . a damn union ain't
nothing but a bunch of Jews, Communists and Gangsters." Berlie Brown visited a
number of employees' houses with the union representative; he signed a card and at-
tended the suppers and meetings. In July Foreman Watson said to him. "I hear
Mr. Brown [ a union organizer ] has been coming to your home." Berlie admitted
the fact. Ernest Wyatt signed a membership card and attended some suppers
and meetings, including that at Pete's Cafe. When Foreman Watson asked had he
eaten much at Pete's Cafe, Wyatt said he was a union man, and the foreman said
"I thought you were a company man." Several of these employees are intimately
related by marriage. The day after the supper at Pete's Cafe, the foreman said to
employee Love: ". . . I want to talk to you . come out here where no one can
hear us . you've been with this company a long time . you have influence
here. I want you to go and talk to Berlie Brown, R. V. Brown, Hal Nichols, and also
Leo Billings , and get them to change their minds about the Union; and also go
and talk to Mr . and Mrs. Brown [ the parents of some of these employees] "
Polishing department, second shift, October 19• Robert Anderson signed a union
card, visited employees' homes with Union Representative Brown, and attended
meetings. Foreman Wyatt asked him what did he think of the Union, and closed
with "You don't need no union " Wayne Dowell signed a card and went to a number
of suppers at Williams' Restaurant. He spoke to many employees attempting to
persuade them to the union view. Shortly before the election, Superintendent Jarvis
spent the good part of an entire shift returning to Dowell constantly to keep talking
about the Union. He wanted to know from Dowell why the men of the first shift
favored the Union, how did Dowell himself feel, how did the boys on the second shift
feel Albert Brewer signed a union card, campaigned among the employees, and went
to several of the union suppers. A month before the election, Foreman Wyatt told
him he wondered how the men on that shift felt about the Union , and asked Brewer
how he felt about it. Superintendent Jarvis told Brewer some of the boys aimed to
vote for the Union because union men had been fired . He said, "You seem to be a
sensible person . you ought to know we don't need a union ." Willie Parsons
signed a union card and attended several meetings A month before the election,
Wyatt interrogated him also. Richard Harris attended the suppers at Williams'
Restaurant and the month before the election, Foreman Wyatt asked how did he feel
about the Union. Harris said he was strongly in favor of it. The day after Harris
had been at one of the suppers, Wyatt asked had he enjoyed the food. Richard
Johnson signed a union card, attended the meetings , urged other employees to join,
and went to various suppers.
In its brief the Respondent contends that the absence of direct proof of knowledge
concerning the union activities or leanings of some few of these 18 employees
precludes any finding of illegal motivation at least as to them. The Respondent's
campaign to ferret out the prounion workers, and its strategy of inviting those who
might be of help to appeal to others to come over to the Company's side-so often
with the supervisors supplying the names of individuals to be approached for this
purpose-was too widespread among the supervisors , and too constant and repetitious
a technique, to justify now as supertechnical a test of evidence as the Company
demands.3
The conclusion that union-minded employees were deliberately selected for that
very reason is further strengthened by the evidence which shows that the Respondent
was aware of the antiunion activities of certain employees in the polishing department
3 N.L.R .B. v. Link-Belt Company, 311 U.S 584, 602.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 935
who were not discharged; indeed, in some instances these were transferred to other
positions at the time of the reduction in force in order that their release might be
avoided. Thus, Johnny Pyles and Guy Scott, shifted from their old posts to places
made vacant by known union protagonists, each were active distributing antiunion
leaflets before the first election. In view of the repeated attempts by foremen to
persuade a number of employees to distribute pamphlets on behalf of the Company,
and the concededly open character of the distribution activities, the likelihood that
management representatives knew who were distributing literature one way or the
other is extremely high.
b. Mathematical calculation
A major prop for the overall inference of illegal motivation is the mathematical
improbability that a selection based on criteria unrelated to union activities would so
heavily have fallen upon the union group. The reduction in force was applied to a
group of 73 employees in the two departments, polishing and edging and beveling.
Eighteen prounion employees were chosen, and one, Walls, who on this record must
be treated as a neutral or antiunion.
The results of the election held on September 27 showed that 209 employees voted
in favor of, and 210 against, the Union. The employees generally in the plant were
therefore equally divided in sympathy. Under the simplest rules of mathematics the
highest probability was that selection of 19 from among the 73 employees affected, on
any basis other than union sympathy, would result in 50 percent of the selectees
being prounion and 50 percent antiunion. Viewed in this light, the fact that all
but 1 of the 19 to be chosen were outspoken union adherents is a very persuasive indi-
cation that it was that very activity which determined their selection .4
Without comment, the production manager stated that the overall plantwide com-
plement of production and maintenance employees fell from 378 to 301 between
July 1962 and the time of the hearing, 12 months later. The Respondent argues,
for the first time in its brief, that apart from the 22 employees named in the complaint
(including Chambers, Hayes, and two Wiles brothers, discussed below), this leaves
55 additional employees no longer working for the Company who must also be
counted in any mathematical computation of probabilities. No effort was made, how-
ever, to show how many of these others left the Company voluntarily, or were re-
leased for reasons unrelated to production problems. The former president of the
Respondent set up a competitive company only 400 yards from this plant in July
1962, and there is much evidence indicating that he was enticing employees away from
the Respondent. Moreover, Respondent's counsel several times argued during the
hearing that any facts pertaining to those sections of the plant other than the
polishing and the edging and beveling departments had nothing to do with the issues
raised by this complaint. In these circumstances, and particularly in view of the
admittedly separate and independent developments in these two distinct departments,
I consider the unexplained and unexplored facts, whatever they may be, in other
areas of the plant irrelevant to the issues before me.
c. Purported affirmative defense
The very persuasive inference arising from the numerical situation would be
materially offset by affirmative proof that the selection of the employees was in fact
predicated upon other considerations. To explain away the conclusion of illegality
so strongly suggested by the disparate selection of union employees, the Respondent
called upon its production manager, James T. Ray, to give the reasons why each of the
18 individuals was selected.
Considering Ray's testimony in its entirety and in the light of other relevant fac-
tors, I find his explanation of the reasons for the selection of each of the 18 em-
ployees involved unpersuasive. In his first affidavit on the subject to a Board in-
vestigator, dated December 14, 1962, he made the statement: "I had nothing to do
with selection of the individual men to be laid off The foremen made the selec-
tion of the particular men who were to be laid off." In his second such affidavit
dated January 11, 1963, he said: "I in no way suggested which employees were to
be retained or laid off. I left this up to the foreman of the department altogether."
Notwithstanding these unequivocal disavowals of any concern in or influence upon
the selection, the production manager took it upon himself to state the reasons for
each separate choice. At the hearing he explained that when the various foremen
came to him with the names of the persons to be released, they discussed the matter
4 Cameo, Incorporated, 140 NLRB 361; Syracuse Tank t Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
133 NLRB 513.
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with him and it was only after talking the matter over with the foremen that he
approved the selection . In substance , therefore , his testimony was more in the
nature of hearsay , repeating in the courtroom the reasons that had been explained
to him by the foremen . The General Counsel , as well as counsel for the Charging
Union, consequently, were unable adequately to cross-examine him as to the true
reasons, because the persons whose opinions were being related were not presented
for examination . The failure to produce the foremen themselves , in the circum-
stances of this case , assumes special significance because, as set out above, the
direct union animus of the foremen themselves stands uncontradicted and clearly
established on the record.
Moreover, to the limited extent that Ray's affirmative contentions or assertions may
be considered evidence at all, they were given largely in words of opinion, con-
clusion, generalities , and inconsistencies . Ray insisted throughout that the major
consideration in the selection was relative ability and skill; repeatedly he insisted
that the question of seniority was the least important in the matter. A number of
the employees released had much more seniority than others who were retained;
in these instances Ray simply stated that the ones who were retained had "greater
experience ," were more skilled, were able to do a variety of work, more than those
released. Where the discharged employees had less seniority , Ray said they were
less experienced , less skilled , and less diversified in their talents . At this point
he was virtually equating seniority with comparative experience.
In a number of instances he gave as reason for the discharge the fact that the
particular job of the person involved had been abolished due to the discontinuance of
a machine . But the record as a whole shows that at the same time he was trans-
ferring employees from one job to another. In these instances , apparently, there
was no such concept as one man having a particular job. In fact , in implementing
the reduction in force on these shifts , no less than 12 employees were moved from
one job to another . On the first shift Johnny Bryant , Johnny Pyles, Guy Scott,
Blueford Sawyer , and Sylvester Bare were moved from one post to another on the
same shift in the same department ; Albert Wingler was transferred to the silver
department . On the second shift Robert Royal and Albert Brewer were moved from
one machine to another ; Richard Harris was twice moved from one place to an-
other and thereby escaped discharge . On October 19 Louie Souther and Charlie
Peynolds were moved from the polishing machine, which was shut down, to one
of the others which continued ; Pressley Church was transferred to the first shift
The record shows clearly that employees have long been changed from one post
to another around these polishing machines. A number of employees testified
that from experience they are able to perform several of the various assignments in
the department . But in such a total picture of transfer , both before the events
and at the critical moment, the contention made at the hearing that at least some
of the persons involved were released because their "jobs" were abolished , loses all
persuasiveness.
There is similar evidence of interchangeable skill among the nine employees on
the first shift in the edging and beveling department . Of the four men selected
for layoff three had worked from 4 to 6 years , and one since 1950, longer than
all but one of those who were favored . With all having so much experience, the
question of seniority could not have been important , as Ray insisted in any event.
Moreover , these men were selected by Foreman Watson , whose coercive conduct,
aimed especially at them, was outstanding among all the supervisors.
In a number of instances the production manager advanced as cumulative reasons
for the selection minor incidents of past behavior by employees or other evidence
of general undesirability . Most of these grounds were phrased in generalities and
vague accusations . For example : Charles Billings, 14 years with the Company:
"There had been several occasions on which we had had some difficulty in getting
Mr. Billings at work regularly ." Francis Barber , 5 years an employee : ". . . Mr.
Barber's job was eliminated . he was not capable of being versatile
enough . .. Fidel Holloway, 7 years an employee : . we had had some
trouble with the quality of Mr . Holloway's work . we had had some trouble with
him being absent ." Monroe Shumate : "His efficiency wasn 't too good . .. every-
time that Monroe had been transferred to other departments . . . the foreman . . .
had trouble keeping him on the job, was the main trouble." Joe Somers was a
competent , acceptable employee for 9 years: ". . also he had a little history of
drinking and so forth . . . we felt that he was less capable and less efficient than
the other people . he could not read and write ." Robert Anderson , with 17
years' seniority : "Anderson was not as well qualified as Mr. Souther; Mr. Souther
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 937
had experience on several other jobs in the department , plus the fact that he was
more experienced, and he could read and write, where Mr. Anderson could not." 5
Canter, who had been with the Company 9 years and was discharged, was asked
by Respondent' s counsel : "Now you had had a little trouble with the foreman about
spending too much time in the toilet, hadn't you?" Canter replied: "No sir . . . I
checked my time coming and going."
Whatever skills may be required of some of the employees in this polishing de-
partment it is clear that many of them do work that requires more strength than
technical competence; there is evidence that a number of employees still at work
are illiterate. I think it is highly probable that many of the faults attributed to so
many of the employees discharged would be found among any number of those
who remained. In any event, the question presented is one of selection, and in the
absence of a comparison between the personnel records, in these respects, of the
employees retained and those released, there is no substantial reason to believe that
there are not at least equally undesirable workmen among those who remained.
Comparative personnel records were not placed in evidence; there is no system of
notices served upon employees whenever entries are made in their personnel
records,
This was not the first time the Respondent took advantage of an economic condition
to rid itself of prounion employees. The Board found, in an earlier proceeding quite
comparable in general picture to the events reviewed here, that, acting through
some of the very supervisors mentioned above and through this same Production
Manager Ray, the Respondent illegally selected for discharge several workmen, and
thereby violated the statute.6 In that case it was also found that Ray violated Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) in a manner precisely consonant with the pattern of illegal interroga-
tion found here. I do not credit his testimony before me as to the reasons why
these 18 employees were selected.
Accordingly, upon the record in its entirety, I conclude that by discharging Charles
Billings, Wilburn Canter, William Bower, Rolland Reavis, Joe Somers, Monroe
Shumate, Fidel Holloway, and Francis Barber on August 29 and Robert Anderson,
Wayne Dowell, Albert Brewer, Willie Parsons, Richard Harris, and Richard Johnson
on October 19, and in laying off Berlie Brown, Hal Nichols, Everette Poteat, and
Ernest G. Wyatt on August 29, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, as alleged in the complaint.
2. The discharge of Chambers and Hayes
Gwyn Chambers signed a union card and went to all the meetings and all the
suppers; he accompanied the union representatives to various employee homes.
Foreman Blackburn said to him before the first election- "I hope you aren't getting
involved in it." Chambers said he was in favor of the Union. Foreman Gant
interrogated him, and Chambers again replied he favored the Union and would do
all be could to help it. Like Chambers, Edward Hayes also signed a union card,
went to several supper meetings, and attempted to enlist other employees to join.
His foreman , Absher, asked what did he think about the Union, and when Hayes
said he was in favor of it, the foreman said, "Let me depend on you to go along with
us." On August 27, the day after one of the union suppers, and 2 days before he
was discharged, two of the foremen, Absher and Gant, told Hayes they had heard that
he had blessed the supper the evening before. Absber said there had been a "right
smart bunch" at the supper, and suggested there had been 72 persons present; Hayes
agreed this was exactly correct. Two days later, Absher told Hayes he hated to release
him, and when the employee asked why the Company was laying off only union men,
the foreman replied: "I don't know, but they are . . . I have to do what I am
told to do ...."
6I deem Ray's explanation-of the selection of Robert Anderson particularly revealing of
the production manager's generally evasive and vague testimony Anderson was one of
three men doing the same type of work at one end of polishing machine No 3 which was
closed down on October 19 He started with the Company in 1945, the other two men
were Souther, who came in 1948, and 'Church, who began in 1956 Confronted on cross-
examination with the seniority dates of these three men, all the production manager could
say was that he did not select Church for retention but that Church was "a good worker,
he had done his job saisfactorily for a long time, and he was well qualified to do this
job . . . The foremen suggested that we retain him and I thought that it would be wise
to keep him "
0 Carolina Mirror Corporation, 123 NLRB 1712.
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chambers and Hayes described themselves as handymen, one on the first shift and
one on the second shift. They were among the unskilled laborers of the plant whose
duties consisted essentially of moving glass from the warehouse to various operational
locations. They loaded glass on forklift trucks, pulled them from department to
department, and unloaded the material near the different machines. Included in
this work was the loading and unloading of a regular motor truck, which was used for
a short run from the warehouse at one end of the plant to the other end at the
cutting department, all on company property. They said that about half their time
was spent loading and unloading this truck and driving it back and forth, that they
made about four or five such trips daily, and that the other half of their time was
devoted simply to moving glass about the plant as ordinary laborers.
Ray, the production manager, referred to them as "truckdrivers"; he insisted
they ordinarily made 10 truck trips daily and that each trip required from 20 to 45
minutes. In August, one of the changes in method of operations largely eliminated
the necessity of transporting glass to the cutting department, and the use of the truck
was discontinued. The two men were discharged on the 29th, and Ray explained the
reason with the statement: "They were the only truckdrivers on their respective
shifts, and their jobs were eliminated, and therefore they were laid off."
Hayes had been with the Company for almost 8 years. Chambers' employment
dated back to 1950; he left a few times and returned the last time in 1960. Ray did
not gainsay their testimony that they spent half of their time having nothing to do
with the truck. As between their testimony and that of Ray respecting the true nature
of their work, I credit the two men. I have already found Ray an unreliable witness.
Asked how he could be sure the men each made 10 trips daily on the truck, he said
he had no records, but "just by going by the amount of glass carried on the truck, and
by the amount of glass entered into the polishing department, it would appear that he
would have to make more than six trips a day . . The truck only moved about
800 feet each way. The attempt to characterize them as truckdrivers instead of plain
laborer-handymen, was clearly a gross exaggeration. Ray admitted the men regularly
distributed glass to other departments, including the engraving and the edging and
beveling departments. In the light of Ray's other discredited testimony relating to
th^ selection of the larger group of employees discussed above, I find his short ex-
plhnation of why these two unskilled hands were picked for discharge entirely un-
persuasive. They were handymen, no more specially skilled or specially used than
of the others in the shipping department The Respondent was deeply concerned over
their union activities. Foreman Blackburn hoped Chambers was not "getting in-
volved" in the Union, but the man stood up to the foreman nevertheless; he even
told Foreman Gant, when that one interrogated him, that he intended to go out of
his way to help the organization. Foreman Absher wanted to "depend" on Hayes
to go "along" with the Company. This foreman kept his eye on Hayes, and went out
of his wav to let him know it. And, at the moment of discharge, Foreman Absher
admitted that the Company was releasing only union men.
The Respondent's attempt to rebut the clear overall inference of illegal motive in
the discharge of these two men is not strengthened by its belated implication that a
further reason for releasing Hayes was because his duties as a minister interfered
with his work over the years. Hayes is pastor to a congregation totaling 35 persons.
Once a year he changes shift with another man, with the knowledge of his supervisor,
in order to conduct a special religious service. On cross-examination counsel for
the Respondent asked Hayes if his duties at times of funerals, weddings, or baptisms
required absences from his job; Hayes could recall no such incident.
I find, on the record in its entirety, including the other numerous unfair labor prac-
tices committed by the Respondent. that Chambers and Hayes were discharged be-
cause they persisted in their union activities, and that by such conduct the Respondent
violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. The discharge of Johnny and Roby Wiles
Johnny Wiles and his brother, Roby, were for some years full-time operators of
sand belts, machines used for smoothing and processing glass. They worked side
by side at two sand belts located in the beveling department. For a long time
there had been three similar sand belts located in the cleaning and shipping department,
another part of the plant. In the cleaning department one man, Roscoe Barber, did
sand belting full time, and a second, Bowers, only 1 or 2 days weekly, on the first
shift; on the second shift there was a man named Carlton who also did some part-
time sand belting.
The Wiles brothers openly favored the Union. They both signed membership
cards and attended a number of union supper meetings. Johnny accompanied Union
Representative Albert to the homes of other employees for organizational pur-
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 939
poses. During the union campaign preceding the second election , which was held
on May 7, 1963, both brothers wore umon T -shirts and union buttons at work for a
10-day period . The day after the union supper at Pete's Cafe , in July 1962 , Foreman
Watson asked both of these brothers if they had attended; they replied they had been
invited but had not gone. Again , after one of the suppers at Williams ' Restaurant, the
foreman asked if they had had a good supper, and they replied "Yes ." In late March
1963, a number of employees , designating themselves as spokesmen for "all union
employees," delivered a signed petition to the Respondent protesting the denial of
discussion rights in the plant to union-minded employees while supervisors accorded
full liberty to others in their antiunion activities . Johnny and Roby Wiles signed this
petition.
On May 17, 1963, the Company discontinued the use of the two sand belts in the
beveling department and removed them. The Wiles brothers were discharged that
day. The decision to eliminate these sand belts and to have all the sand belt work
hereafter done on the three machines located in the shipping department resulted
from a changed method of operation , fully explained on the record ; and there is no
contention that plant efficiency did not warrant the change in location.
The total amount of sanding work needed to be done on these machines did not
change. The production manager candidly admitted that all that was involved was
a change in location for doing it. He explained the discharge of the Wiles brothers
by saying that as the new method of work developed, more of the work went to the
shipping department and less to the edging room, and that in consquence there were
two part-time men at one end-Johnny and Roby Wiles-and two part-time men at
the other end-"Barber and Bowers ." Ray then said that instead of having four part-
time men, he decided to have two full-time employees and therefore released two.
Why did he select the Wiles boys? "We felt that Mr. Bowers and Mr. Barber were
more qualified to do the sanding , having had considerably more experience , plus the
fact that they [Barber and Bowers] were already down there on that job."
Both the Wiles brothers had been with the Company for 6 years and each had been
continuously on the sand belts for at least 4 years. They testified without contradic-
tion that Foreman Blackburn and the production manager himself had complimented
them on their work as recently as February 1963. Both said that on occasion they
will break a glass in the machine-one piece every few weeks-and that they were
told to be more careful , but that otherwise they had not been reprimanded in any way.
They also testified that clear up to their discharge, they only occasionally did other
work when it was slow on the sand belts.
Roscoe Barber has been 17 years with the Company and has long been the
regular full-time sander in the shipping department . He testified that Bowers regu-
larly did shipping and cleaning work, and only put in 1 or 2 days a week on a sand
belt before May 17; on that day he started doing 5 days weekly and is still at it.
Barber also said Bowers started by breaking as many as 15 panes of glass in I day,
and now breaks 4 or 5 daily. Barber is still teaching Bowers. Barber also said
that after May 17, another employee, Olin Taylor, was put on one of the sand belts
to help out and has since remained on a part-time basis . None of these factual
statements by Barber were denied by Ray.
The General Counsel called another witness, Vester Perry, who said that for a
year he has been doing part-time sand belt work on the second shift in the clean-
ing department . Perry testified that there is also an employee named Long
on that shift , a man who used to be a jack puller , and that Long replaced another
employee named Carlton, who was discharged.
In his direct examination Production Manager Ray did make reference to Long,
by saying : "Long did it [sand belting ] regularly when work was available." On
cross-examination he altered his testimony . First he said that Long "had been
a sander on the second shift approximately a year." Then he changed this and
said Long had replaced Carlton some time before May 17 . Finally he conceded
that Long first started on a sand belt on April 8, 1963 . In the end Ray also admitted,
in complete contradiction of his earlier statement , that the decision was aimed at
retaining the "more qualified " and "more experienced " men, that Long had had no
previous experience as a sander . Moreover, Ray also admitted that the decision to
eliminate the two machines long operated full time by the Wiles brothers , was made
before Long was put on any sand belt work , and before Bowers was taken out of
the shipping and cleaning department ( a week before May 17 ), where there was
not enough work for him , and placed under supervision of the edging department,
where he was destined to work full time.
As for his asserted reasons for moving men around as he did on these sand belts,
I do not believe Ray's testimony . This was not a matter of releasing employees
because the available work force was too great for the amount of work to be
done . There is as much of it now as ever . Indeed, there is uncontradicted testi-
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mony by Barber, the most experienced sander, that from May 17, when the Wiles
were sent home, to the date of the hearing in July, the three remaining machines
have never been caught up and that there is an accumulation of back work even
now. What really happened is that there was a change in the place where much
of the work was to be done, and that the Respondent seized upon that one fact to
replace highly experienced men with cleaning and shipment department persons
who had had little or no experience at all. If Bowers had been doing only 1 or 2
days per week on the sand belts, he was essentially a cleaner and shipping man.
Long had never done this work at all. Against such salient facts, an assertion that
relocation of machines can adequately explain the discharge of two union adherents,
on the total contents of this record, is wholly unconvincing. In the light of the Re-
spondent's clear hostility to the Union and union-minded employees, the pattern
of illegal conduct revealed over an extended period in this very record, and the
other illegal discharges found against the Respondent here, I am convinced on the
record as a whole that Johnny Wiles and Roby Wiles were discharged on May 17,
1963, and essentially replaced by others, because of their union activities, and that
Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations as set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has committed certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct and
to take certain affirmative action designed to dissipate the effect thereof.
Remedial action respecting the illegal discharges requires that the Respondent
reinstate all of those employees to their former employment and to make each of
them whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered in consequence of the
illegal discharge. I shall therefore recommend that the Respondent be ordered
to reinstate them and to make each of them whole, pursuant to the formula regu-
larly followed by the Board,7 for his loss of earnings, with interest at 6 percent
per annum on any moneys due. Charles Billings and Robert Anderson have al-
ready been recalled to work; as to them, therefore, the Respondent will be ordered
only to make them whole for any lost earnings.
As to the four employees in the edging and beveling department-Berlie Brown,
Hal Nichols, Everette Poteat, and Ernest G. Wyatt-the total discrimination against
them consisted of deprivation of 7 days' work. Accordingly, I shall recommend
that the Respondent be ordered to make each of them whole, again consistent
with the method set out above, for whatever loss of earnings they may have suf-
fered in consequence of that layoff.
As to the 12 (not counting Billings and Anderson) employees who were dis-
charged in the polishing department, it is possible, in view of the reduction in force
made necessary by economic conditions at the time of the events, that some of them
might have been laid off for nondiscriminatory reasons Under these circumstances,
if there is not sufficient work for all the discriminatees after discharging any employ-
ees who may have been hired after their release, available positions shall be distrib-
uted among them without discrimination in accordance with the system of seniority or
other nondiscriminatory practices heretofore applied by the Respondent in the
conduct of its business. Respondent shall place those employees, if any, for whom
no employment is available after such distribution, on a preferential hiring list, with
priority in accordance with such system of seniority or other nondiscriminatory
practice heretofore applied, and thereafter offer them reinstatement as such em-
ployment becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work.
In the case of discriminatees for whom no work is available, backpay shall terminate
on the date of placement on the preferential hiring list .8
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, the commission of
similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be anticinated I shall
therefore recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in
any manner infringing upon rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of
the Act.
7 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
8 Walsh-Lumpkin Whole8ale Drug Company, 129 NLRB 294.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 941
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Carolina Mirror Corporation is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2)
of the Act.
2. United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO , is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging 18 of its employees and by temporarily laying off 4 of its
employees the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
4 By the foregoing conduct, by the very many interrogations of employees
concerning their union activities and sympathies , by Foreman Williams' statement
to employee Coll that he would be sent home instead of being transferred to an-
other job in the event a union prevailed , by Foreman Watson's statement to em-
ployee Chambers that the company president would not recognize any union, by
Superintendent Jarvis' statement to employee Schumate that the employees would
lose their jobs if the Union prevailed , by Foreman Watson 's statement to employee
Nichols that the employees would lose everything if they voted for the Union,
by Foreman Sales' statement to employee Blevins that the Respondent would take
away employee benefits in the event a union prevailed and that within a year there
would be no more union employees in the plant , and by observing a union meet-
ing, the Respondent has interfered with , restrained , and coerced employees in their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, Carolina Mirror
Corporation, North Wilkesboro, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging, laying off, or otherwise discriminating against its employees be-
cause of their exercise of the right to self-organization or to join labor organizations.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership or activities,
threatening employees with loss of jobs or other benefis in employment, telling
employees that union-minded employees would be dismissed, or observing the union
activities of its employees.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer to the following-named employees immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, in the
manner set forth in the section of this Recommended Order entitled "The Remedy."
Francis Barber Wayne Dowell Richard Johnson
William R. Bower Rolland J. Reavis Monroe Shumate
Albert P. Brewer Joe Somers Willie Parsons
Wilburn G. Canter Richard Harris Johnny Wiles
Gwyn Chambers Edward Hayes Roby Wiles
Fidel Holloway
(b) Make whole each of the following-named employees for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth
in the section of this Recommended Order entitled "The Remedy."
Charles M . Billings Berlie Brown Hal Nichols
Robert Anderson Everette Poteat Ernest G. Wyatt
942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to analyze the amount
of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its plant in North Wilkesboro, North Carolina, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Eleventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writing, within 10
days from the date of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.'o
0If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Oider be enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order "
101n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read, "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that-
WE WILL NOT discourage membership by any of our employees in United
Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, or in any other
labor organization, by discharging, laying off, or in any other manner dis-
criminating against any employees in regard to his hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any other term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union membership
or activities in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, threaten employees with loss of jobs
or other benefits in employment, tell employees that they will lose what they
have if they vote in favor of a union , tell employees that within a year no
union employees will remain in the plant, or survey union meetings
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist any labor organization, to join or assist United Glass and Ceramic Work-
ers of North America, AFL-CIO, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activities.
WE WILL offer the following-named employees immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prej-
udice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them:
Francis Barber Wayne Dowell Richard Johnson
William R. Bower Rolland J. Reavis Monroe Shumate
Albert P. Brewer Joe Somers Willie Parsons
Wilburn G. Canter Richard Harris Johnny Wiles
Gwyn Chambers Edward Hayes Roby Wiles
Fidel Holloway
WE WILL make whole each of the following-named employees for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him:
Charles Billings Berlie Brown Hal Nichols
Robert Anderson Everette Poteat Ernest G. Wyatt
INT'L ASSN. OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ETC., LOCAL 678 943
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of any labor organization.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By----------------- -------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon ap-
plication in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1831
Nissen Building, 310 West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Tele-
phone No. 724-8356, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
International Association of Bridge , Structural & Ornamental
Iron Workers, Local Union No. 678 [W. R. Aldrich & Com-
pany] and Wilfred Smith . Case No. 15-CB-642. January 13,
1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 8, 1963, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his
Decision in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action , as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Decision.
Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief; the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner 's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Leedom, Fanning , and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner 's Decision , the exceptions , the brief , and the entire record
in this case , and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner 's findings,' con-
clusions, and recommendations , with the following modifications :
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent Union
violated Section 8 ( b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act by causing Smith's
i The Respondent has excepted to credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner. As it
is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect
to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the clear preponderance of all relevant evi-
dence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect, we find insufficient basis for dis-
turbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings. Standard Dry Nall Products Inc., 91
NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 8).
145 NLRB No. 100.