Caroline Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 17, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 369 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of CAROLINE MILLS ; INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION
OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 10-C-1755.Decided October 17, 1946
Mr. John W. Coddaire, Jr., for the Board.
Mr. Shirley Boylcin, of Carrollton, Ga., and Messrs. Weekes e i
Candler, by Mr. John Wesley Weekes, of Decatur, Ga., for the
respondent.
Mr. Leonard J. Mandl, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On July 15, 1946, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Inter-
mediate Report, in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report were filed by the respondent. On September 10,
1946, the Board heard oral argument at Washington, D. C., in which
the Union and the respondent participated.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions thereto, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following additions.
1. The Trial Examiner found that Overseer Duncan told a group
of employees, "Well, I have got to get shed [sic] of these Union
fellows if I stay around here myself"; that Duncan questioned an
employee concerning his union activities; that Overseer Bass told
employee J. B. Mize that Bass was going "to get rid of that damn
Union man [another employee]" and give Mize his job; and that the
respondent discriminatorily discharged two employees because of
their union membership and activities. By all this conduct, the
respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section S (1) of the Act.
71 N. L R B, No 54.
369
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. About January 3, 1945, Overseer Bass promised to give Mize
another job which Mize had requested; but only 10 days later Bass
informed Mize that he was not needed at all and instructed him not
to return to work. Bass told Mize at the time that he had learned of
Mize's membership in the Union. In view of this cogent evidence of
discriminatory motivation, we agree with the Trial Examiner's con-
clusion that the respondent discharged Mize because of his member-
ship in the Union and not, as the respondent asserted, because he
suffered epileptic seizures. We also deem it significant, as further
supporting this conclusion, that, although Mize's physical condition
was unchanged in December 1945, the respondent nevertheless hired
him on a part-time basis as a frame operator. This work was con-
ceded by counsel for the respondent at the oral argument to involve
,greater danger than the oiler's job held by Mize at the time of his
discharge.
3. We also agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the
respondent discriminatorily discharged Weyman Jacobs because of
his membership and activities in the Union. The respondent had
ample knowledge of Jacobs' activities: he was union committeeman,
he had acted as the Union's observer at a Board election several months
before his discharge, and earlier that same year he had also testified
in the Board's behalf in two other unfair labor practice proceedings
against the respondent.
On or about July 15, 1945, Plant Superintendent Hall told Over-
seer William Duncan that "we are going to get [rid of union members]
one way or another. . . . We can't come straight out and fire
them. We can transfer them and make it too hard and lay them
off and make it hard and they will quit." The record conclusively
shows that, following this conversation and until the termination of
Jacobs' employment 5 days later, the respondent did, indeed, "make
it hard" on Jacobs. Thus, on July 18 Overseer Bass ordered Jacobs
to sweep under the frames each night in addition to performing his
regular duties as an oiler, although this extra task had not theretofore
been part of the oiler's duties. When Jacobs protested the unfairness
of "doubling up" on him, Bass replied that "you needn't expect any
favors around here as long as you work for the Union, pull for the
Union; we don't want any union around here." Bass also referred
t o the fact, mentioned above, that Jacobs had testified at the previous
proceeding. Two days later, Bass directed Jacobs to operate the
opening room, a task which would seriously affect his health, as Jacobs
had advised the respondent a year before. When Jacobs explained
to Bass the reason for his inability to perform this new assignment,
stating that "it nearly kills me . . . to work down there," Bass
once more informed Jacobs that he could not "expect any favors down
here as long as you hold out and work for the Union here."
CAROLINE MILLS, INC. 371
The assignment of the opening room job to Jacobs with the knowl-
edge that he would be compelled to refuse it for reasons of his health
was tantamount to a discharge , as the Trial Examiner properly found.
As the record establishes the unlawful motivation for this conduct of
the respondent , the termination of Jacobs ' employment was an un-
mistakable violation of the Act.
4. The respondent excepted to certain credibility findings which
the Trial Examiner made in regard to the testimony of William Dun-
can, formerly a supervisory employee of the respondent but no longer
in its employ at the time of the hearing.
Although called as a Board witness , Duncan failed to answer the
Board subpena served upon him and it became necessary for the Board
to obtain a Court order to compel Duncan 's attendance at the hearing.
When finally he did testify , Duncan's testimony was, in certain re-
spects , inconsistent with written statements which had previously
been made by him and which were introduced in evidence . The vari-
ances between Duncan 's oral testimony and his signed statements
involved certain matters as to which he gave testimony adverse to the
complaint . The Trial Examiner found , upon observing Duncan and
his conduct as a witness , that Duncan's demeanor was that of a hostile
and reluctant witness.
We have fully and carefully considered Duncan 's testimony; and
in view of the nature of the inconsistencies in Duncan 's statements,
the circumstances of his compelled appearance at the hearing, the
Trial Examiner 's appraisal of Duncan as a witness , and the entire
record in the case , we find insufficient reason to question the Trial
Examiner 's findings in respect to Duncan's testimony.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent , Caroline Mills, Inc., Car-
rollton, Georgia, and its officers , agents , successors , and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees , or by dis-
criminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of their employment;
(b,) 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 Textile Workers Union of
America, C . I. 0., or any other labor organization , to bargain collec-
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to J. B. Mize and Weyman Jacobs immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges; I
(b) Make whole J. B. Mize and Weyman Jacobs for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimina-
tion, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the
amount which he normally would have earned as wages during the
period from January 13, 1945, and July 20, 1945, respectively, the
dates on which they were discharged, to the date of the respondent's
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period;
(c) Post at its plant in Carrollton, Georgia,'copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix A." 2 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representa-
tive, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material:
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent, has taken to comply herewith;
AND IT Is FURTHER ORDERED, that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the respondent discriminatorily discharged Mozelle Jacobs and
Joe Caswell, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. John Td% Coddaire, Jr, for the Board
Mr. Shirley Boykin, of Carrollton, Ga., and Messrs Weekes & Candler, by Mr.
John TVesley tiVeekes, of Decatur, Ga, for the respondent.
' Although J. B Mize was reinstated by the respondent on December 10, 1945, the record
does not show that he was reinstated to his former of a substantially equivalent position.
We aie therefore ordering full reinstatement.
2 This notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words
"Recommendations of a Trial Examiner"
and substituting in lieu thereof the words
"A Decision and Order "
In the event this order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there shall be
inserted, before the words "A Decision and Older," the words
"A decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals enforcing
CAROLINE MILLS, INC.
STATEiI EXT OF THE CASE
373
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Textile Workers,tinion of America,
C I 0, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia), issued its complaint dated April 10, 1946, against Caroline Mills, Inc,
herein called the respondent, alleging 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 National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act Copies of the complaint and notice
of hearing were duly served on the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance
that the respondent: (1) discharged J. B. Mize on or about January 13, 1945,
Weyman Jacobs on or about July 20, 1945, Mozelle Jacobs on or about July 20,
1945, and Joe Carwell on or about October 12, 1945; and failed and refused to
reinstate said employees for the reason that they joined or assisted the Union
or engaged in other concerted activities; and (2) by these acts, and from on
or about March 15, 1945, to the date of the complaint, through its officers, agents
and supervisory employees, including John Bass, by making disparaging remarks
about certain employees because of their union affiliation; by stating that any
employee who was a member of the Union could leave its employ; by stating to
an employee that it did not want a union in the plant ; by stating to an employee
that said employee could not expect any favors because of his union activities ;
and by urging, persuading, threatening and warning employees to refrain from
with,assisting, becoming or remaining members of the Union, interfered
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
On or about April 19, 1945, the respondent filed an answer wherein it admitted
certain allegations of the complaint as to the nature and extent of its business,
but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices At said time the re-
spondent also filed a formal motion to dismiss the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Carrollton, Georgia, on April 22,
23, and 25 and May 28, 1945, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the respondent were repre-
sented by counsel. Excepting the Union, all parties participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be beard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all pasties
At the opening of the hearing the undersigned denied respondent's written
motion to dismiss the complaint, but treated said motion as a demand for a bill
of particulars. Accordingly, the undersigned directed Board's counsel to par-
ticularize on the record certain allegations of the complaint. The Board com-
plied with the undersigned's order. At the close of the Board's case-in-chief,
the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion was denied. After
the taking of all testimony, the respondent renewed its motion to dismiss the
complaint. Ruling on the motion was reserved. The motion to dismiss is dis-
posed of as hereinafter indicated At the conclusion of the evidence the Board's
counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof as to formal matters such
as names and dates. The motion was granted z
i At the hearing Board's counsel moved io amend the complaint with respect to the dates
of discharge of Prize and Carwell The complaint originally alleged that 111ize and Carwell
ilere discharged on \iaich 30, and October 22, 1945, respectively. The motion to amend
was granted over the objection of the respondent.
2 The respondent did not object to the motion, except insofar as it related to the dates
of the discharges as alleged in the complaint.
374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All the parties waived oral argument at the close of the hearing. Although
offered an opportunity to do so, none of the parties filed briefs with the under-
signed. _
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINFISS OF THE RESPONDENT
Caroline Mills, Inc., is a Georgia Corporation, engaged in the manufacture,
sale and distribution of cotton yarn and synthetic fibre, and with its principal
office and place of business located at Carrollton, Georgia.
During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1945, the respondent caused approxi-
mately $250,000 worth of raw materials to be purchased and transported from
sources outside the State of Georgia to its Carrollton plant. During the same
period it caused approximately $600,000 worth of the products manufactured at
said plant to be transported to and through States of the United States other
than Georgia.
At the hearing the respondent admitted that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
The respondent employs about 175 persons on the average.
II TILE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Oiganizations, is a labor organization which admits to membership employees
of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. Respondent's labor relations history and policy, interference, restraint, and
coercion
After a hearing held at Carrollton on February 21, 1945, a Trial Examiner
found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. Upon appeal, the Board sustained
the Trial Examiner's findings 3
On April 17, 1045, the Board conducted an election among the employees of the
respondent. The Union lost the election and thereafter filed objections with the
Board, alleging that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor piactices which
had affected the outcome of the election The Union also filed a charge with the
Board, alleging that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices. Upon
consolidation of the proceedings by the Board, a hearing was held at Carrollton
hetoie a Trial Examiner on June 7 and 8, 1945. The Trial Examiner found that
the iespondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) of the Act. After appeal by the respondent, the Board in its
decision sustained in part the Trial Examiner's findings of interference and
ordered that the election be set aside 4
In the instant case the Board called as its witness William Duncan, formerly an
overseer of the respondent on the third shifts Duncan testified credibly, in sub-
3 In the Matter of Caroline Mills, Inc, 64 N L R B 200
' In the Matter of Caroline Mills, Inc (Cases Nos 10-C-1713 and 10-R=1383), 64
L R B 376
5 Duncan was discharged by the respondent about September 1945, for drinking. The
Boaid issued a subpcna to Duncan but he did not attend the hearing until the Board ob-
CAROLINE MILLS, INC. 375
stance, that at sometime between July 1 and 4, 1945, he had a conversation with
J. W. Dunsford, assistant superintendent of respondent's plant ; and that Dunsford
told him that employees Cole and Joe Carwell were too bold about wearing their
union buttons and that the respondent accordingly would have to discharge them.
At some time between July 5 and 10, Duncan was sitting in front of the plant
with a number of unidentified employees Wyman Jacobs approached the group
and spoke briefly with one of the employees. Duncan then stated to the group
as a whole, "Well, I have got to get shed of these Union fellows if I stay around
here myself."' The undersigned finds that this statement by Duncan constituted
interference, restraint, and coercion.
On about July 15, Duncan conferred with Dunsford and C. L. Hall, plant
superintendent, in the latter's office' Duncan testified and the undersigned finds
that the following conversation took place :
"Mr Hall," he said, "You know about who is union," and I said, "I might have
an idea who is union, but I don't know them and I wouldn't say " He,said,
"Well, we don't care who is, but we are going to get shut of them one way
or another . . . We can't come straight out and fire them We can
transfer them and make it too hard and lay them off and make it hard and
they will quit."'
Bryant Word, a fly frame operator on the third shift and an active member of
the Union, was laid off from work by Duncan on at least 2 nights during July
and August of 1945 Ile received another 1 night lay-off dieing December 1945.
The undersigned is convinced and finds that Word received these lay-offs because
of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union and that such acts
by the respondent constituted interference, restraint and coercion
The evidence clearly shows that the respondent knew that Word was a mem-
ber of the Union Word testified without contradiction that Duncan had qucs-
tanned an order from the District Court of the United States In the undersigned's opin-
ion, Duncan was a hostile and reluctant witness, insofar as the Board's case was concerned.
Aside from the fact that it was necessary for the Board to obtain an order of the Court
to compel his attendance, this was apparent from his demeanor as a witness The Board
introduced into evidence two statements, signed by Duncan, which in some respects are in
conflict with his testimony adveisely to the Board Accordingly, the undersigned does not
credit Duncan's entire testimony, but only where convinced that it is truthful. Evidence
adduced at the hearing by both the Board and the i espondent conclusively shows that over-
seers were supervisory employees.
9 Jacobs testified to the above statement of Duncan and the undersigned credits his testi-
mony in this connection As will be hereinafter related, Jacobs was openly active in behalf
of the Union Duncan did not specifically deny the statement attributed to him by Jacobs.
He admitted the occuirence but testified that lie could not recall what lie had said On
cross-examination, however, lie testified that the Union was not mentioned
' Hall became superintendent on or about March 15, 1945 Prior to that time Minis held
the position, as will be hereinafter related
8 Both Hall and Dunsford denied that the conversation took place The undersigned
does not credit their denials It is apparent from the record that the respondent subse-
quently followed the above policy as stated by Hall
Bryant word testified that on one occasion Duncan stated to him, "It looked to me like
that you and Joe (Carwell) got it I was told to make it hard for you-all", and
that on another occasion when they were discussing employee Frank Cole, Duncan said, "I
wish I could help hill if I could, but he is Union. I got orders to make it as hard on him
as I can " Duncan testified that Hall mentioned Cole as a member of the Union during the
above convei cation
Joe Caiwcll worked undei Duncan at sometime dining the year 1945 but the exact dates
are not clear from the record Duncan testified that Carwell was mentioned by Hall as a
member of the Union during the above conversation Caiwell testified that lie had a con-
versation with Duncan at sometime after they were no longer employees of the respondent
and that Duncan told him that he had been given orders to fire him and several other
employees
376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tioned him while they were at work concerning his union activities and that after
Duncan was fired he ( Duncan ) told him that he (Word) had received the lay-offs
because of his union activities at the instruction of Dunsford . Duncan testified,
in substance , that he laid off ford as a reprimand for absenting himself from
work and not because of the instructions he had received from Dunsford. The
undersigned does not credit Duncan 's testimony in this request The lay-offs
clearly followed the policy toward union members as enunciated by Hall during
his conversation with Duncan as above related.
2 The discriminatory discharge of J. B. Mize
Mize entered the respondent's employ during the latter part of the year
1944 o He was hired to open ote frames but worked as an oiler on the second
shift until discharged. The overseer on the second shift at all times mentioned
herein was Johnny Bass.
Mize joined the Union when he was first employed by the respondent and was
thereafter active in its behalf"
On about January 3, 1945, Mize questioned Bass concerning when he (Mize)
would be advanced to the position of frame operator." Bass replied that Mize
would get the job as soon as lie could be replaced. Bass then pointed to Weyman
Jacobs, who was a frame operator at the time, and said , "I am going to get
rid of that damn Union man and give you that job " 12
On Saturday, January 13, Mize again asked Bass when he would be put on
frames or would receive the equivalent in wages Bass replied, "I found out you
belong to the Union I don't even need you on the job you are on . . . you
needn't come back." Mize answered that he would return for the wages owed
him."
On the following Monday, January 15, Mize returned to the plant for his wages.
He was met at the plant entrance by Bass who took him to the office of Minis,
the plant superintendent. Mize asked Minis for a release. Mims replied, "Well,
you don't get no release . . . We ain't firing you We laying you off"
Mize asked the reason for the lay-off, but Mims refused to answer Aftei a
threat by Mize to take his family out of the plant, Mims made out a release.54
However, Mize then stated, "I believe I will just get them out anyway." There-
upon, Mims destroyed the release As Mize was about to leave the office. Minis
called him back. After some further conversation, Minis finally gave Mize
a release."
The iecord does not show the exact date of hiring
11 Mize testified that at his solicitation his two sons and his daughter-in-law, w lio also
were employees of the respondent, joined the Union
" The evidence shows that frame operators received higher wages than oilers
12 Misc testified to the above conversation and the undersigned credits his testimony
in this connection Bass denied that any such conversation took place. Bass did not im-
press the undersigned as a credible witness, especially in connection with other issues in
the case, hereinafter related.
13 Mize testified credibly to the above conversation Bass, in effect, denied the entire
conversation He testified , in substance , that Mize had had a number of epileptic fits while
at work , that lie (Bass) had discussed MIlze's condition with Plnns, plant superintendent
at that time, and that he and Mims then called Mize to the office and told him that he
would have to "rest up a while," although Mize protested that lie thought his condition
would be all right Mims was not called as a witness at the hearing Mice denied that
his physical condition was discussed when he was discharged He further testified that
he had not had any "spells" for at least 10 days prior to his discharge
14 The evidence shows that at all times mentioned herein skilled labor was scarce in the
vicinity of Carrollton
11 Mice testified to the above conversation and the undersigned credits his testimony in
this respect For Bass' version of the conversation see footnote 13, supra The release
CAROLINE MILLS, INC. 377
Mize was rehired by the respondent on December 10, 1945, as a part-time
employee It is undisputed that when he was rehired the respondent questioned
him concerning his physical condition.
Conclusions as to J. B Mize's discharge
The respondent admits that Mize was discharged on January 13, 1945. How-
ever, the respondent contends that he was discharged because of his epileptic
attacks
It is the uncontradicted testimony of Mize that he did not have any attacks
for at least 10 days prior to January 13, or from about the time Bass told him
that he planned to make him a frame operator in place of Jacobs There is
no dispute that Mize had had a number of attacks in the plant prior to that
time. If the respondent had been seriously concerned about Mize's physical
condition, it does not seem likely that it would have considered promoting him
to the position of frame operator That the respondent was not so concerned is
shown by the fact that he was rehired as a frame operator in December, 1945.
It does not appear that Mize was openly active on behalf of the Union is When
Bass referred to Jacobs as a "damn union man," Mize did not in any way
indicate that he was an adherent of the Union. Bass subsequently'learned that
Mize was a member of the Union, as shown by his statements on January 13.
From that conversation it is apparent that Mize was discharged because of his
union affiliation and for that reason alone.
Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the respondent discharged Mize on
January 13, 1945, because of his membership in and activities in behalf of the
Union. The undersigned further finds that Bass' statement to Mize concerning
Jacobs constituted interference, restraint and coercion.
3 The discriminatory discharge of Weyman Jacobs and the alleged discrimina-
tory discharge of Mozelle Jacobs
Mozelle Jacobs is the wife of Weyman Jacobs They were first employed by the
respondent about September of 1942, and worked on the second shift under Bass.
Weyman Jacobs was an oiler for about 4 or 5 months prior to his discharge, but
during his employment he had at times been a frame operator" It appears
that his wife was at all times a frame operator.
Weyman Jacobs was a committeeman of the Union and was openly active in
its behalf He testified as a witness for the Board at the hearings held in
Febiuary and June, 1945, and acted as an observer for the Union at the election
conducted in April. Mozelle Jacobs testified at the June hearing as a witness
for the Board.
Prom about the last of June 1945, until he was discharged, Bass required Wey-
man Jacobs to work in the picker room for 1 or 2 hours almost every night.
This job was in addition to his regular duties as oiler.
On July 18 Bass told Jacobs to sweep under the drawing frames every night.
Jacobs testified and the undersigned finds that the following conversation ensued :
was not introduced in evidence Mize testified that he presented the release to his next
employer when he was hired at a mill located at Douglasville, Georgia In an attempt
to discredit Mize's testimony, the respondent introduced in evidence Mize's employment
application at that mill in which the reason for leaving the respondent's employ is stated
as "Dissatisfied " The undersigned attaches no significance to this fact, especially since
the respondent admits that Mize was discharged.
Bass testified that he did not see Mize wear a union button in the plant.
Weyman Jacobs also worked as an oiler at some undisclosed time on the third shift
under Duncan.
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I said, "Mr. Bass, what are you trying to do, double up on me?" He
said, "No " He said that went with the job. I says , "It hasn't since I have
been here." . . . I said, "I will see Mr. Dunsford tomorrow and see what
he says ." He says , "Mr. Dunsford is not running this shift . You will do
what I tell you if you stay around here." . . . And I says, "What would
you call it except doubling up on me?" And Mr Bass says , "You can't expect
any favors around here as long as you stick out or hang out for what you
are. 11 18
On July 19 Jacobs met Dunsford shortly before 2 p in., the starting hour for
the second shift. Jacobs testified and the undersigned finds that the following
conversation ensued :
A. I asked him-I was going in to wm k then I asked Jlr Dunsford if
he gave Mr. Bass orders to put more work on inc He said, "No, sir. What
is the matter?" I says, "Mr. Bass told me to clean out from under the
drawing frames every night, sweep out from under them." And Mr. Duns-
ford says, "No, I haven't given him that order " He says, "I will see about
that."
And then he says, "I would be glad if they were swept out from under as
much as once or twice a week." And I told him, I says, "I would be glad
to do that for you." He says, "I would be glad if you would sweep out from
under them as much as once or twice a week." He said, "I will see Mr.
Bass about it." Ill
Shortly after the start of the shift on July 19, Bass approached Jacobs and
stated that he wished to talk with him. As to this conversation, Jacobs testi-
fied credibly as follows :
I was stripping cards. And I walked over where he was at He says,
"The old man told me that you told him I was trying to get hard on you "
I spoke to him, I said, "What in hell are you trying to do if you ain't?"
He said, "Well, Jacobs, you needn't expect any favors around here as long
as you work for the Union, pull for the Union ; we don't want any union
around here "
I says , "Well," I says, "you said you wasn't trying to get hard on me."
He says, "No, I ain't." He said, "You go ahead and do what I tell you to do
and we will get along like brothers." And he turned and walked off. And
I said. "Continue keeping up the extra jobs that you give?" And he didn't
make any reply back 20 °
Jacobs further testified and the undersigned finds that Bass also in this con-
versation referred to the fact that Jacobs and his wife had testified at a previous
hearing of the Board.
18 Bass did not deny the above conversation but testified that he did not make any refer-
ence to the Union . Both Bass and Hall testified , in substance , that oilers were generally
utility men and that it had been part of their duties to sweep out from under the frames
prior to the date of the above conversation . Dunsford also testified that it was the oilers'
job to sweep under the frames . Hall and Bass further testified that frame operators also
were required to do such sweeping once each week . Both Mize and Jacobs testified that it
was not part of the oilers ' job to sweep under the frames and that such sweeping was per-
formed exclusively by the frame operators . B. Spradlin , overseer on the third shift from
December 1945 until about March 1940 , and Duncan both testified that oilers were not
required to sweep under frames . The undersigned believes and finds that sweeping under
frames was not part of an oiler's duties prior to July 18, 1945.
10 Dunsford , in effect, denied the substance of the above conversation . He testified that
he told Jacobs that it was the oilers ' job to sweep out from under the frames . Mozelle
Jacobs testified that she was present during the conversation. Her version of the con-
versation is substantially the same as her husband's.
20 Bass denied that he had any conversation with Jacobs concerning his union activities.
CAROLINE MILLS, INC. 379
During that shift Jacobs, at Bass' request, helped for about 1 hour in they
picker room. Toward the end of the shift, Bass ordered Jacobs to sweep under
the frames that night, and every day thereafter. Jacobs replied that he would
sweep under the frames every day if the other oilers were also required to do
so 21 However, he did sweep under the frames that night as requested.
Shortly after Jacobs reported for work on July 20, Bass ordered him to run
the opening room Jacobs replied that he preferred to do his job as an oiler.
Jacobs testified credibly that the following then took place :
He said, "Well, you will do what I tell you if you stay around here."
And I told him, I says, "It hurts me," or something like that. "It nearly
kills me," I believe is the way I said it, "to work down there." He said,
"Well, Jacobs. you can't expect any favors down here as long as you hold
out and work for the Union here."
,And I told him, I says, "I would rather have my time and release than to
go down and run the openers I didn't tell him I wanted my time and release
I told him I would rather have my time and release than go down and run
the openers "
He turned and walked off three or four steps from me, and turned and
called back to rue He said. "I will tell you what to do You and your wife
go out there and tell them I said to pay you up and give you your release." 22
As directed by Bass, Jacobs got his wife and they then -went to Hall's office "
Upon being asked by Hall the cause of the trouble, Jacobs replied that Bass had
21 Other than the testimony of Bass, llall and Dunsford to the effect that it was part
of the oileis' duties to sweep out front under the frames, there is no evidence in the case
that the oilers oh the other two shifts did in fact do so, either befoic of after July 19.
Jacobs testified that, as an oiler, he had never swept under the frames prior to July 19,
and the undersigned so finds
"Bass denied that any reference was made to the Union or that Jacobs at any time
complained that running the opening room affected his health Both Bass and Hall
testified that Jacobs had operated the opening room on July 18 and that he had so
worked on a number of occasions prior thereto without complaint. Jacobs testified
and the undersigned finds, that lie had operated the opeuitig iooni for 1 night about 1
year prior to the above date, that lie thereafter told Bass that he did not want the
job as the dust affected his health , and that lie had not operated the opening room from
that time until his discharge Mize, who worked as an oiler as stated above, testified
credibly that he was never asked to and never did operate the opening room Bass
testified that Mize "sometimes" did operate the opening room Duncan testified that
oilers were not required to operate the opening rooms as a part of their duties and that
such opeiation was on a voluntary basis. As stated above, the respondent contends
that oilers were used as general utility men Bass testified that Jacobs was so advised
when transferred to oiling Jacobs denied this and the undersigned credits his denial.
Spradlin testified that he was instructed to use oilcis as utility men when lie acted as
oieiseer. However, he fnithei testified that he was not required to work in the picker
room or operate the opening room when lie worked as an oiler Duncan also testified
that working in the picker room was not part of an oiler's duties. The undersigned con-
cludes and finds that oilers were not general utility men, in the sense that they were
required to work in the picker room or operate the opening room as a part of their
regular duties, The evidence shows that the opening room was operated by one person
and that it was a "dusty job " The respondent adduced evidence to show that "stripping
cards." which was part of an oiler's duties, involved more dust. It is to be noted,
however, that operating the opening room was an 8-hour fob, whereas stripping cards
required only a relatively short time.
23 Bass testified without contradiction that he also had sent Giady Watts to Hall's
office for the same reason immediately prior to Jacob's refusal. Watts was not called as a
witness at the hearing Both Weyman and Mozelle Jacobs testified that Watts was
discharged on the same day There is no evidence in the case indicating that Watts
was a member of the Union.
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sent them to get their "times" and releases As to the balance of the conversation,
Hall testified as follows :
I sent Pete Naylor, the shipping clerk, to get Johnny (Bass) and Johnny came
into the office and Johnny told me that he had asked Mr. Jacobs twice to
run the opener room, that lie did not have anybody to do it and I asked Mr.
Jacobs if that was so and he said it was, he said he would rather have his
time than go down there. I said, "Mr Jacobs, you have run the opener
room before and you know you can run it You know that we have to
have somebody down there to run the opener room or else the mill will shut
down and we need you down there If you want to do the job clown there
go down there and run it " He said that he world rather have his time I
said, "If that is what you want that is what I will do " I turned to Mrs.
Jacobs and asked her, I said, "Airs Jacobs, you are not quitting are you?"
She didn't say anything. I said, "Your job is out there We need you on
it." I said, "What are you going to don" And Jacobs said, "She is quitting
too ... " So I wrote out both of their time and wrote. out the separation
slip. I wrote on the time slip the reason why they were leaving and when lie
got the separation lie said he was not quitting, he was fired I said. "You
are not fired, we have a job for you if you want to niu it It is yours to
run " He said he was fired and that was all "
The undersigned believes and finds that Hall testified credibly as to the above
conversation with one exception, namely, the undersigned does not believe that
Jacobs said that his wife was quitting The latter part of the conversation, as
above, shows that Jacobs felt that he and his wife had been fired, and lie so advised
Hall. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Jacobs merely indicated that his
wife also wanted her "release
Conclusions as to the dischai ge of Weyniau and Mozelle Jacobs
The respondent contends that Wey man Jacobs quit bis job a ud that lie was not
discharged. Further, the respondent contends that oilers were general utility
men and, accordingly, that it was part of Jacobs' duties to operate the opening
room when requested The undersigned finds no merit in these contentions
Jacobs was openly active on behalf of the Union He was a committeeman of
the Union, testified as a witness for the Board at the hearings in Februniy and
June, 1945, and acted as an observer for the Union at the election in April, 19-15.
As found above in the discussion of Mize's discharge, Bass told Mize early in
January 1915, that Jacobs would be discharged because he was an adheient of the
Union That the respondent had a determined policy to rid itself of employees
who were members of the Union is clearly shown by the conveisation between
Hall, Dunsford and Duncan on about July 15, 1945 This policy was to make the
24 Jacobs denied that Hall requested him to operate the opening room He testified that
he told Hall when his wife was asked if she wanted her release, "Yes. Mr Bass said for
her to get her'n too " Mozelle Jacobs, however, testified that her husband said, "Yes, she
wants hers." Jacobs testified fuither that Bass was present during part of the conversa-
tion ; and that Hall stated that he knew Bass had fired them Otherwise the testimony of
Weyman and Mozelle Jacobs (lid not difl'er materially fiom Hall's version of the conversa-
tion. Both Weyman and Mozelle Jacobs impressed the undersigned as honest and sincere
in their testimony. However , they obviously were not educated persons In view- of the
apparent conflicts in their own testimony as to this conversation and with the tacts con-
cerning the discharges, the undersigned feels that Hall's version of the conversation is the
mote reliable.' The notice of separation given Jacobs states as a reason for termination
of employment , "Was told by foreman to run opener room job and Jacobs told him he
would rather have his time and release, which was given to him." The one given Mozelle
Jacobs reads , "Quit-when husband left the employ of the Company."
CAROLINE MILLS, INC. 381
work of such employees sufficiently unpleasant and hard so that they would quit,
but not to discharge them The evidence conclusively shows that the respondent
applied its policy to Jacobs Following the hearing in June, bass assigned
Jacobs to work in the picker room for an hour or two each night Jacobs did not
complain about this extra work and Bass then gave him the assignment of
sweeping out from under the frames each night Jacobs complained about this
assignment but agreed to do the sweeping if it was also performed by the other
oilers He swept but from under the frames for the first time on July 19 The
next day he was ordered by Bass to operate the opening room and Jacobs
refused
Since Watts was also discharged by Bass for refusing to run the opening room,
it would seem that Jacobs' discharge was not discriminatory, keeping in mind
that the Board failed to offer any proof as to whether or riot Watts was a mem-
ber of the Union. However, the undersigned has found that Jacobs told Bass
about 1 year prior to his discharge that running the opening room affected his
health, and that he made reference to this fact in his conversation with Bass
when ordered by him to operate it on July 20. The question then presents itself
as to whether the respondent's anti-union policy and Jacobs' claims of ill effects
on his health are sufficient to override an act of the respondent which otherwise
was not discriminatory. The undersigned believes that they are. The respondent
was looking for an excuse to fire Jacobs because of his union activities and seized
upon this opportunity, knowing that he in all probability would refuse to operate
the opening room because of ill effects on his health. The request was therefore
discriminatory since Bass' underlying purpose was to get rid of Jacobs on
account of the latter's union activities
In the undersigned's opinion, the -facts in the case clearly constitute a con-
structive discharge. The respondent's contention that Jacobs quit is merely a
subterfuge or a technicality of words whereby respondent seeks protection from
its discriminatory acts To hold with the respondent in such a case would be to
defeat the intent and pun poses of the Act. Moreover, 'Jacobs, at the time of
discharge, stated that he wished to work at his regular duties and protested
that he and his wife were not quitting but were being fired.
Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Weyman Jacobs was discharged by
the respondent on July 20, 1945, because of his membership in and activities
on behalf of the Union. The undersigned further finds that Bass' statements
to Jacobs concerning the Union constitute interference, restraint, and coercion.
In the undersigned's opinion, the Board tailed to prove that Mozelle Jacobs
was discrimunatorily discharged. It is true that in all probability she would
not have lest* her employment but for the respondent's discrimination against
her husband Nevertheless, Weyman Jacobs replied in the affirmative to Hall's
query as to whether or not she wanted her release. Further, the undersigned
has found above that Hall told her that he wanted her to continue working.
Under the circumstances, it could not be held that the respondent discriminatorily
discharged her, and the undersigned so finds.
4 The alleged discriminatory discharge of Joe Carwell
Carvell was employed by the respondent about July, 1944, as a frame operator
119 was hired by Bass and worked on the second shift. He was working on that
shift when he left the employ of the respondent, but he had worked on the third
shift under Duncan for about G months during an undisclosed period of time
Cat-well was an active member of the Union He openly wore a union button
in'tbe plant and testified as a witness for the Board at one of the previous hearings
As related above, Carwell's name wac mentioned by Hall and Dunsford during
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conversations with Duncan in July 1945 Duncan further testified and the under-
signed finds that he had orders from Dunsford to transfer Carwell to Lass' shift
so that the latter could discharge him .3
About September, 1945, Carwell developed boils on his hands which incapacitated
hun for work. He told Bass about his condition and the latter agreed that he
should not work until his condition got better. He stayed away from work for
several weeks and, upon returning, worked for several days" His boils again
caused him trouble and, without advising Bass, he remained away fiom the plant
for several more weeks At the end of that time he again returned to the plant
for work, but was told by Bass that his job on the second shift had been filled.
Bass, however, offered him work on the third shift. Carwell requested a release
but was told by Bass that he did not need one. He did not return, to work for
the respondent 27
Conclusions as to the alleged discharge of Carwell
The evidence clearly indicates that the respondent eventually intended to dis-
charge Carwell because of his union activities. This is shown by Dunsford's and
Hall's statements to Duncan during July, when Carwell was specifically men-
tioned as a member of the Union. However, it appears that skilled labor was
scarce in Carrollton in the latter part of 1945, as evidenced by the fact that Mize
was re-hired in December. The undersigned has found above that Bass offered
Carwell work on the third shift. The respondent's need of his services as a
frame operator at that time apparently outweighed the fact that he was an active
member of the Union. Certainly, the respondent could not be held accountable
for the fact that it filled Carwell's position on the second shift after his 'extended
lay-off, especially since it appeals that he had been lax in keeping the respondent
advised as to the possible date when he would return to work.
Accordingly, the undersigned believes and finds that Joe Carwell wbs not
discharged on October,12, 1945, because of his membership in or activities on
behalf of the Union.
1V 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 the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and such of them as have been found to be unfair labor prac-
tices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
23 Dunsford , in effect , denied issuing such orders to Duncan . The evidence indicates that
Duncan was reluctant to discharge members of the Union and disobeyed orders in this re-
spect He testified that he transferred Carwell to Bass' shift at Carwell's request and not
because of Dunsford's orders. Carwell testified and the undersigned finds that Duncan
requested him to work on the second shift under Bass
20 Carwell's last day of work was on October 12, 1945
27 Bass testified, in substance, to the above facts and the undersigned credits his testi-
mony in this connection Carwell was not an intelligent witness and his testimony was
vague and indefinite. He did not deny that he was offered work on the third shift, but testi-
fied that he did not "recollect" that Bass had made such offer. Otherwise, his testimony
did not differ in any material respects fiom that of Bass.
CAROLINE MILLS, INC. 383
It has been found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of James B. Mize and Weynian Jacobs. It will therefore
be recommended that the respondent offer them immediate and full reinstate-
intent to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges.'' It will be further recommended
that the respondent niak,,them whole for any loss of pay that they may have
suffered by season of the respondent's discrimination against them by payment
to them of sums of money equal to the amounts they would have earned as wages
from the dates of the discriminatory discharges to the dates of the respondent's
offers of reinstatement, less their net earnngs,2' during said periods.
It has also been found that the respondent, by the acts and statements of
Duncan and Bass, has interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
The Board's decisions in the piioi proceedings heretofore referred to and
the findings herein, establish the fact that the respondent has a fixed policy to
interfere with the rights of its employees Under the Act. Key officials of the
respondent were active in formulating and putting into practice this policy of
interference The record of extensive violations of the Act, both in the past and
at the present time, indicates that steps must be taken to insure that there be
no recurrence of unfair labor practices in the future. Accordingly, in order to
safeguard for the respondent's employees the guarantees of Section 7 of the Act
and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the
respondent be ordered to cease and desist frolic in any manner interfering with
the rights guarantee(] in Section 7 of the Act
Since the undersigned has found that the respondent did not discrimimaoidy
discharge Joe Carivell and Mozelle Jacobs, it will be recommended that the
complaint be dismissed in this respect
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the
case. the undersigned makes the following .
CONCLUSIO\S OF L,rw
1 Textile Woikers Union of America, C 1 O, is a labor oiganization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act
2. By discriminating in regard to the hit] e and tenure of employment of J B
Mize and Weyman Jacobs, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices 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 respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section S (1)
of the Act
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ((i) and (7) of the Act
25In the case of Mize, it appears that he works for the respondent at the present time
as a part-time employee It is not clear from the record if the tespondent on December
10, 1945, offered him full reinstatement as iecommended above.
29 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working 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, 8 N. L R B 440 Monies received for work performed upon
Federal , State, county, municipal , or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earn-
ings. See Republic Steel Corporation v N. L R 12 , 311 U S 7.
717734-47-vol 71 26
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices by discrimination
in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Joe Carwell and Mozelle
Jacobs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, Caroline Mills, Inc , Carrollton,
Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the Textile Workers Union of America,
C I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees, by laying off, discharg-
ing, or refusing to reinstate any of its employees and from refusing to employ
any member of that union, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment or any teim or condition of employment;
(b) In any other, manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0, 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 bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
2. Take the following afflimative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to J B. Mize and Weyman Jacobs immediate and lull reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole J. B Mize and Weyman Jacobs for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them by
payment to them of sums of money equal to the amounts they would normally
have earned as wages from the dates of the discrimination to the dates of the
respondent's offers of reinstatement less their net earnings L0 (luring said periods;
(c) Post immediately at its plant at Carrollton, Georgia, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report herein mar ked "Appendix A " Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, after being
signed by the respondent's representative, shall be posted by the respondent
immediately upon the receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, of covered
by any other material ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in witting, within ten
(10) days from the (late of the receipt of this Intermediate Repot t, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply therewith
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) clays from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Di-
rector in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recbniniendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an oider iequuing the respondent to cake
the action aforesaid.,
It is further recommended that the allegations of the complaint that the
respondent discriminatorily discharged ,Joe Carwell and Mozelle Jacobs be dis-
missed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 27,
1045, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the
30 See footnote 29, sun?a
CAROLINE MILLS, INC. 385
date of the entry of the cider transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to
Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations , tile with the Board,
Rochambeau Building , Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of
a statement in writing , setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port or to any other part of the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all
motions or objections ) as he relies upon , together with the original and four
copies of a brief in support thereof Immediately upon the filing of such state-
ment of exceptions and/or brief , the party or counsel for the Board filing the same
shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy
with the Regional Director . As further provided in said Section 33, should any
party desire permission to argue orally before the Board , request therefor must
be made in writing to the Board within ten (10 ) days from the date of the
order transferring the case to the Board. Any party desiring to submit a brief
in support of the Intermediate Report shall do so within fifteen ( 15) days from
the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board , by filing with
the Board an original and four copies thereof , and by immediately serving a copy
thereof upon each of the other parties and the Regional Director.
Joan H. EADIE,
Trial Exananer.
Dated July 15, 1946.
APPENDIX A
NovicE To Al L EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hei ebb notify our employees that.
We will not in any manner interfere, with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, C I 0.,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of then- own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective baigamrng or other mutual and or protection
We will offer to the employees named below inimediate and full rein-
statement to them. former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other iIghts and piivileges previously enjoyed,
and make them ww hole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination
J. B. Mise
Weyman Jacobs
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization We will not discinminate in regaid to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity oil behalf of any such labor
organization.
CAROLINE, MILLS, INC,
Dated ---------------------------------- By ----------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE-Any of the above-named employees piesently serving in tl.e armed
forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed
forces
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.