Chicopee Manufacturing Corp. of GeorgiaDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 19, 194985 N.L.R.B. 1439 (N.L.R.B. 1949) Copy Citation In the Matter of CmCOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA, and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0. In the Matter of CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA and C. E. CHASTEEN, AN INDIVIDUAL Vases Nos. 10-C-1949 and 10-CA-33, respectively.-Decided Septem- ber 19, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER On March 16, 1949, Trial Examiner David London issued his Inter- mediate Report in.the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint to be in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.,, In ad- dition, the Respondent has requested oral argument. This request is denied as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. The Board 2 has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul- ' On June 14 , 1949, the General Counsel, without explanation , requested permission to withdraw his exceptions , dated April 21, 1949, and his brief , dated May 5, 1949, filed in the instant proceeding . As we are of the opinion that the policies of the Act would best be effectuated by a determination of the issues raised therein , we hereby deny permission to the General Counsel to make such withdrawal . Cf. Matter of Old Colony Box Company, 81 N. L. R. B. 1025. Accordingly , we find it unnecessary to pass upon ( 1) the motion, dated June 14, 1949, filed by the Union on behalf of itself and C. E . Chasteen , to adopt the General Counsel's exceptions and brief as their own, and (2 ) the memorandum in opposition to the Union 's request , submitted by the Respondent on July 5, 1949. 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended, the National Labor ,Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three- member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 85 N. L . R. B., No. 226. 1439 1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions, modifications, and additions noted below : 3 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. We rely, in this connection, upon the following conduct attributed to the Respondent by the Trial Examiner: (a) the acts of Foreman George and Section Hands Cantrell, Merritt, Ivey, Kinney, and Cross, in requesting various employees to sign out of the Union, offering assistance for that purpose, and, in some instances, impliedly promis- ing benefits if they signed out and threatening reprisals if they failed to take such action; (b) the solicitation by George of employee Mc- Brayer, and by Cross of employee Turk, to assist in recruiting others to drop their union membership; (c) George's request of employee Martin, and Merritt's similar request of employee Orr, that they reveal the names of union members ; (d) George's suggestion of surveillance in his remark to Martin that he knew all the union members except those on his own shift, and his threat that if the Union's organizational efforts succeeded, the Respondent would move its plant; (e) Cantrell's and Foreman Powell's interrogation of employees concerning their union activities; (f) the threats made by Ivey and Foreman DeLong to Orr and employee Walker, respectively, that employees would lose their jobs if they joined the Union; (g) Powell's remarks to employees McGee and Brown that, if the Union's organizational campaign con- tinued, you boys may get to pick blackberries during the summer"; and (h) the prohibition by several of the Respondent's supervisors of the distribution of union literature by employee Glass during the lunch recess.4 :The Intermediate Report contains certain erroneous statements of fact and inad- vertences , none of which affects the Trial Examiner ' s ultimate conclusions , or our concur- rence In such conclusions . Accordingly , we make the following corrections : ( 1) The amended complaint issued herein is dated "June 17, 1948," instead of "June 18, 1948"; (2) the effective date of Section 10 (b) of the amended Act was "August 22 , 1947," and not "June 22 , 1947" as inadvertently stated; ( 3) there were "3," rather than "4," void ballots cast In the consent election conducted on June 26 , 1947 ; and ( 4) Alvin Barnes' testimony , adverted to in the Intermediate Report In connection with the duties of the Respondent 's section hands , related to Section Hand Kinney and not, as erroneously found by the Trial Examiner , to Section Hand Cantrell. In Its brief, the Respondent refers to its no -solicitation rule and asserts that the application of this rule to prohibit the distribution of union literature during the lunch recess was "made necessary in order to maintain production ." We find no merit in this contention . Although the lunch periods were not regularly scheduled and apparently the plant machinery was not entirely shut down at such times , it appears that the employees, .during these recesses , were permitted to leave their places of work and to gather at the CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1441 The record discloses certain additional unlawful conduct by the Respondent , as to which the Trial Examiner has made no findings. The General Counsel has taken exceptions to the failure so to find. This additional conduct, upon which we further rely in concluding that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, is as fol- lows: (a ) Foreman George's interrogation of employee Martin with respect to the union activities of employees Chasteen and Jordan, and the threat implicit in his statement to Martin that a union had pre- viously been tried at the Respondent's plant and "they had failed getting it in and all that was there that had fooled with it wasn't there then"; and (b) the threat also implicit in Checker V. J. Evans" remarks to Mrs. Chasteen, wife of a discharged employee , in the pres- ence of others in Chicopee Village, that, because the Union was de- feated in the election at the Respondent's plant, "There's going to be a lot of moving around here . . . That little hundred and forty-nine that voted for the union won't be forgotten for a long time." 8 In finding that the Respondent thus violated Section 8 (a) (1), we reject, as did the Trial Examiner, the Respondent's contention that its remarks-and activities, in general, constituted protected expressions of opinion, and that, as almost all the employees who testified denied any actual intimidation or coercion by its conduct, such action was not unlawful. The statements and activities of the Respondent detailed above.clearly transgressed the limits of mere expression of views, arguments, or opinions protected by Section 8 (c) of the Act. And, as both the Board and the courts have frequently held, the unlawful nature of such conduct is determined not by the actual coercive effect of the actions or statements upon the employees concerned, but by the reasonable tendency of such conduct to interfere with the free exercise of the rights guaranteed to employees under the Act.7 Respondent 's "lunch wagon " to eat and talk . The record fails to establish that the distribution of union literature on these occasions would in any manner have endangered the efficiency or production of the Respondent ' s plant . Cf. Republic Aviation Corporation v. N. L. If . B., 324 U.S. 793. See also Matter of I. F. Sales Company ,- 82 N. L. R. B. 137. 5 The Respondent admitted , at the hearing, that this individual exercised supervisory authority. fi The General Counsel also excepted to the Trial Examiner ' s refusal to find that the Respondent permitted the posting of antiunion literature on its locked bulletin boards while discriminatorily withholding such facilities from union adherents . We do not agree. As the record , in our opinion, falls short of establishing that antiunion circulars in fact appeared on the Respondent ' s locked bulletin boards at any time, we conclude , as did the Trial Examiner , that no discriminatory use of these boards has been demonstrated. 7 See, e . g., N. L. If . B. v. Illinois Tool Works , 153 F . 2d 811 ( C. A. 7), enfg. 61 N. L. R. B. 1129 ; Matter of Sewell Manufacturing Company, 72 N. L. R. B . 85, enfd. as mod., 172 F . 2d 459 ( C. A. 5) ; and Matter of The Red Rock Company , 84 N. L . It. B. 521. We find it unnecessary to pass upon the Trial Examiner 's reasoning as to why the court, in N . L. If. B. v . Caroline Mills, 158 F . 2d 793 (C. A. 5), deleted language from its prior decision in that case relating to the need for actual coercion . It is sufficient to note that the Caroline Mills decision patently is not authority for the position of the Respondent herein., 1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Nor are we impressed by the Respondent's additional contention that it was absolved of responsibility for the conduct in question by its declarations of neutrality contained in instructions handed down to its supervisors on various occasions, in a notice to its employees posted in August 1946,$ and in remarks made to several employees by Plant Superintendent Lawson. As pointed out by the Trial Examiner, these statements of neutrality, as communicated to the employees, were couched in general language, without any specific reference to, or repudiation of, the prior unlawful conduct of its supervisory person- nel. Moreover, these protestations made to the employees were belied by the subsequent coercive acts committed by the same or other repre- sentatives of the Respondent.9 The Respondent's further contention that, in any event, it should not be held responsible for the actions of Section Hands Cantrell, Merritt, Ivey, and Kinney, because they lack supervisory authority, is equally without merit 10 It appears, for example, that these indi- viduals, who work directly under the department foremen in either the spinning or carding department, grant time off to employees in their sections; that they are in at least nominal charge during the short periods of absence of their department foremen; and that, on one occasion, a department foreman specifically advised an employee that the section hand "had the authority to tell [the employee] what to do and what not to do" and such instructions were to be obeyed the same as orders from the foreman himself. We also observe that, to con- clude, as the Respondent contends, that the section hands are not a part of the hierarchy of supervisors would leave each department fore- man with the sole immediate supervision of a proportionately large number of employees, in addition to direct responsibility for numerous 8 This notice, dated August 6, 1946, and signed by Vice-President Platt, reads in pertinent part as follows : Question : Is it true that the Company or its supervisors have said they want a Union ? Answer : No. Neither the Company nor its supervisors have said the Company wants a Union. The Company has taken the position that this is a matter for the employees to decide without any influence or suggestion from the Company as required by law. • a e o a e o Question : Is it true that a Chicopee employee must join a Union or else be dis- charged? Answer : No, because on the basis of Company Policy, no employees will be dis- charged because he or she has or has not joined a Union. Under the law, the Company cannot advise employees not to join a Union or to join a Union as our position must be neutral and impartial. To work here, employees do not have to go into a Union or stay out of a Union. Matter of Fulton Bag d Cotton Mills. 75 N. L. R. B. 883, enfd. as mod. 175 F. 2d 675 (July 8, 1949) (C. A. 5) ; Matter of Jaques Power Saw Company, 85 N. L. R. B. 440; Matter of Taylor Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, 83 N. L. R. B. 142; and Matter of Columbian Carbon Company, 79 N. L. R. B. 62. io The Respondent admits that Crow, who is designated in the record both as "section hand" and as "assistant foreman," is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1443 complicated machine operations.11 In view of the foregoing, and on the entire record, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Section Hands Cantrell, Merrit, Ivey, and Kinney are supervisors whose con- duct is properly attributable to the Respondent i2 2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent did not violate the Act by its discharge and refusal to reinstate C. E. Chasteen, and by its refusal to employ his wife. The General Counsel, in excepting to these findings, points to Chas- teen's known union adherence and argues mainly that: (a) the dis- turbance created by the Chasteens on the night of August 11, 1946, which the Respondent has consistently advanced as the sole reason for its discharge of Chasteen and, indirectly, for its refusal to employ his wife, was relatively minor in nature; (b) the Respondent permitted over a month to elapse after the disturbance before it discharged Chasteen on September 23, 1946; and (c) nonunion employees who committed comparable offenses in the past were retained in the Respondent's employ. While we are persuaded that the Respondent was aware of Chas- teen's union membership and his activities as a union committeeman at the time of his discharge,13 we do not believe that these factors motivated the Respondent's actions. The record clearly reveals, as, detailed in the Intermediate Report, that the conduct of the Chasteens, at around midnight on Sunday, August 11, 1946, created a disturbance of serious proportions in the Respondent's community. It is signifi- cant that a substantial number of the Chasteens' neighbors testified that they were aroused at that time by the difficulty between Chasteen and his wife. Also, the extensive nature of the disturbance is dis- "Thus, as pointed out by the Trial Examiner, the primary responsibility of each spinning department foreman would include, inter alia, the activities of from 75 to 100 men and the functioning of 240 complicated spinning frames. While the Respondent asserts that the section hands at its Chicopee Falls, Massa- chusetts , plant work under comparable conditions and are there included in the bargaining- unit with rank and file employees , the evidence in this respect is inconclusive and, in any event, has no overriding significance on the question of the supervisory status of- the section hands in this proceeding. n Cf. Matter of Maiden Spinning Mills, Inc., 82 N. L. R. B. 989, and Matter of Morowebb. Cotton Mills Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 987. Also cf. International Association of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72, 80. After the close of the hearing, the Respondent submitted a schedule of earnings of various classifications of workers, including section hands, for the week ending May 26, 1946. The General Counsel's objection to this evidence, which had been reserved at the hearing and filed thereafter, was sustained by the Trial Examiner. We agree with this ruling of the Trial Examiner. However, assuming, without deciding, that this evidence was properly admissible, we find that it is too insubstantial to alter our conclusion herein. n The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent had knowledge of Chasteen' s union membership, but that no testimony was offered that the Respondent knew of his addi- tional activity as a committeeman. However, employee Martin credibly testified that, in 'April 1946, Foreman George had asked him "whether Chasteen is a committeeman, or not," and Martin had replied, "Yes, he is." 857829-50-vol. 85-92 1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD closed by the action of both Mrs. Chasteen and another resident of the Village, living over 100 yards from the Chasteens, in summoning the local police, and by Mrs. Chasteen's voluntarily swearing out a `'peace warrant" against Chasteen on August 13, while he was still in jail. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the posi- tion of the General Counsel that the incident in question was lacking in "any great intensity" is not supported by the record. As to the date of Chasteen's discharge, we find, like the Trial Examiner, that: (1) on August 12, 1946, Vice-President Platt, upon being informed of the disturbance of the previous night and discuss- ing the matter with the Respondent's main office, ordered Industrial Relations Director Willis to discharge Chasteen; 14 (2) Willis took the necessary administrative steps on that date to effectuate this order; and (3) Willis notified Chasteen of his separation upon the latter's release from jail, and upon his return to the plant admittedly to find out "what the score was," as early as August 16, 194615 Contrary to the assertion of the General Counsel, we find no inconsistency with these conclusions in the fact that Chasteen, who had commenced sick leave on August 5, 1946, due to a general run-down condition, con- tinued to receive benefits under the Respondent's group insurance policy until October 1, 1946. The Respondent's policy specifically provided, in this respect, that an employee "disabled by injury or disease . . . shall for the purposes of the insurance hereunder be regarded as still in the employment of the Employer during any period for which such employee is receiving benefits hereunder." Nor do we perceive any inconsistency in the additional fact that the Re- spondent continued to accept rent payments from Chasteen up to September 10, 1946, as proceedings to remove him from his quarters in the Respondent's Village, which had been initiated by the Re- spondent in the area rent office early in September, had not been consummated 16 14 We agree with the Trial Examiner that an inference adverse to the Respondent cannot be drawn from Platt's consultation with the Respondent 's main office before Chasteen's discharge . Such action was certainly a reasonable precaution in view of Chasteen ' s known union affiliation. 15 The Trial Examiner erred , however , in finding that , according to Willis' testimony, Chasteen thereafter returned on September 23, 1946 , and requested a formal separation notice. Willis actually testified that this request was made by Chasteen on August 23. We are of the opinion , however , that Willis was confused as to the latter date and that, as stated by Chasteen and corroborated by other evidence in the record , Chasteen did not request a formal separation notice until September 23. Also , contrary to the Trial Examiner , we do not believe that the record supports an inference that Brown , a union committeeman who was present at the September 23 meeting with Willis , had previously been informed by Chasteen of his discharge. However, the circumstance that Chasteen may have failed so to inform Brown does not militate against our finding that Chasteen had, in fact, been notified of his discharge on August 16. . 16 In fixing the date of Chasteen ' s discharge as on or about August 12, we find it unnecessary to rely in any measure , as did the Trial Examiner , upon the data contained in the unemployment compensation form filed by Chasteen on October 9, 1946 . We shall not, therefore , pass upon the propriety of the admission of this form into evidence. CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1445 With respect to the alleged disparate treatment of Chasteen by the Respondent, we find that the evidence adduced by the General Counsel fails to establish this contention. It appears that, in each instance of the misconduct of other employees referred to by the General Counsel, the Respondent either had not been advised of the offense, or the infor- mation concerning such misconduct was received by it long after the event had occurred and disciplinary action would have been effective, or the offense was not of comparable significance. Consequently, although we have previously found that the Respond- ent, by the actions of its supervisors, engaged in unlawful conduct, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the evidence fails to preponderate in favor of a finding of. discriminatory motivation in the discharge and refusal to reinstate C. E. Chasteen, and in the refusal to employ Mrs. C. E. Chasteen.1' ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Chicopee Manu- facturing Corporation of Georgia, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union activities; threatening to discharge those employees who join or remain members of Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization; offering to aid and attempting to force its employees to sign out of the above-mentioned, or any other, union and to recruit others to do so ; threatening to close and remove its plant if union organizational efforts succeed; and prohibiting the distribution of union literature during its employees' lunch recess; (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 Amer- ica, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment as authorized in Section 8 (a) of the Act. " We further find, contrary to the General Counsel's contentions, that there is no per- suasive evidence that Chasteen's arrest and subsequent prosecution were prompted by ,discriminatory considerations. 1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at its plant in Chicopee, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 18 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall,. after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, 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 ; (b) 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and insofar as, it further alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by conduct other than that found to be violative in this. Decision and Order, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Messrs. T. Lowry Whittaker and Morgan C. Stanford, for the General Counsel Messrs. Edgard B. Dunlap, James A. Dunlap, and Wm. P. Whelchel, of Gaines- ville, Ga., and Messrs. Murphey Candler and John Wesley Weekes, Box 250, De- catur, Ga., for the Respondent. Mr. Ray E. Young, 75 Ivy Street, Atlanta, Ga., for the Union. Mr. C. E. Chasteen, 39 Sixth Street, Chicopee, Ga., per se. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges filed by Textile Workers Union of America,. C. I. 0., herein called the Union, and C. E. Chasteen, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued a complaint, dated April 14, 1948, and an amended complaint, dated June 18, 1948, against Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation of Georgia, herein called the Respondent.2 The amended complaint alleged that the Respondent had engaged in, and was engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce as set forth and defined in the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and as amended by Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, Public Law 101, 80th. 18 In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there. shall be inserted in the notice before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words,. "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING." 1 The General Counsel and his representatives at the hearing are herein referred to as: the General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board. 2 Though some of the documents in the proceeding designated the Respondent by various: other names , it was stipulated at the bearing its true and correct name is that used im the above caption. CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1447 -Congress , 1st Session, Chapter 120, herein referred to as the Act. Copies of the -complaint, amended complaint, the charges, the amended charges, and notice of hearing were duly served on the Respondent, the Union, and C. E. Chasteen. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint alleged in substance : (a) that on or about September 23,1946, the Respondent discharged •C. E. Chasteen, and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate him because of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union; (b) that on or about August 14, 1946, the Respondent refused and failed to hire Mrs. C. E. Chasteen, -and continues to refuse to hire her because of her and her husband's memberships in and activities on behalf of the Union ; and (c) that since about February 14, 1946, the Respondent, by its officers, agents, and employees, and in violation of .Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by (1) statements and conversations discouraging activity on the part of Respond- •ent's employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid .and protection, and discouraging membership and activities among its employees in the Union; (2) interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliation; (3) threatening and warning its employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of the Union; (4) threatening discharge of .all employees who became union members; (5) threatening to close the plant if the Union were successful; (6) permitting the circulation of antiunion literature in the plant while prohibiting the circulation of pro-union literature therein ; (7) allowing supervisory employees to attempt to sign employees out of the Union while in the Respondent's mill and on duty; (8) threatening that employees who voted for the Union would be required to move out of the mill village; (9) illegally searching the premises of C. E. Chasteen, falsely imprisoning him and prosecuting him because of his union activities; and (10) surveillance of a union meeting.' On or about June 28, 1948, the Respondent filed its amended answer in which it admitted certain allegations of the complaint, including the discharge of Cecil CChasteen and the refusal to hire his wife, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a bearing was held between September 13, 1948, and Sep- tember 30, 1948, at Gainesville, Georgia, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by a representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues was afforded to all parties. At the opening of the hearing, the undersigned gave consideration to a motion by Respondent to dismiss the amended complaint, substantially, on the fol- lowing grounds: (1) that the charges upon which the complaint is based were not filed or served within 6 months after the occurrence of the alleged violations as required by Section 10 (b) of the Act; (2) that the allegations of the com- plaint "are so vague and indefinite that they fail to put Respondent on notice as to what the alleged unfair labor practices consist of and lack sufficient specificity to put Respondent on notice . . . as to just what charges are made and of the violations of the Act Respondent is accused of"; (3) that the issues raised are now moot because of the delay in the prosecution thereof. The motion to dismiss was denied in all respects. As to the failure to comply with Section 10 3 This allegation was added by amendment at the hearing. 1448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) of the Act, it conclusively appeared that the charges upon which the com- plaint was based were duly filed, and were served upon Respondent within 6 months after June 22, 1947, the effective date of said Section 10 (b).' With respect to the alleged indefiniteness and vagueness of the complaint, I held the complaint sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss,' but, on motion of Re- spondent, ordered the General Counsel to furnish a bill of particulars setting forth the names of the Respondent's employees who committed the alleged violative acts and the approximate dates thereof. The General Counsel promptly complied with that order. Respondent's motion for a postponement of the hear- ing to permit it to properly prepare its defense was denied, with leave to renew the motion later in the hearing if prejudice was shown. No subsequent applica- tion for a postponement was made. The General Counsel made a motion, with respect to the Respondent's general denial of the alleged discriminatory discharge of Chasteen, that Respondent be required to specifically plead "the grounds of the defense" pertaining to the discharge. The motion was denied.' At the close of the General Counsel's case, Respondent made a motion to strike certain testimony from the record ; ruling thereon was reserved. The motion is hereby denied. Respondent's motion to dismiss, made at the same time, and on which ruling was likewise reserved, is disposed of in this report. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties waived oral argument. Sub- sequently the time to file briefs was extended, during which time the Respondent filed a brief with the undersigned. Upon the entire record in the case, the Respondent's brief, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation of Georgia is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia and engaged at its Chicopee, Georgia, Mill in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of surgical gauze, tobacco cloth, and fabrics. The Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations at said mill during the year ending January 1, 1947, purchased raw materials consisting principally of cotton, cotton goods, and synthetic filament valued in excess of $1,000,000, approximately 90 percent of which was purchased outside the State of Georgia and shipped in interstate commerce to the Respond- ent's mill at Chicopee, Georgia. During the same period, the Respondent manu- factured and sold finished products, consisting principally of surgical gauze, tobacco cloth, and fabrics, valued in excess of $1,000,000, approximately 90 per- cent of which was sold and shipped to customers outside the State of Georgia. The Respondent admitted, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within .the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. 4 Matter of S. W. Evans Co.. 81 N. L. R. B. 161 : Matter of Panette Hosiery Mills, 80 N. L.-R. B. 1116; Matter of Itasca Cotton Manufacturing Company, 79 N. L. It. B. 1442. 5 N. L. R. B. v. Piqua Munising Wood Products Co., 109 F. 2d 552 (C. A. 6) ; Swift cE Company v. N. L. R. B., 106 F. 2d 89, 91 (C. A. 10). "In Matter of Columbus Manufacturing Company, Case No. 10-C-2056, November 30, 1948. CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1449 III. TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background The Respondent is one of several Chicopee Manufacturing corporations engaged in the manufacture and distribution of surgical gauze and other cotton fabrics, with mills located at Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts, Manchester, New Hampshire, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Walhalle, South Carolina, Cornelia, Georgia, and Chicopee, Georgia, the latter being the only plant with which we are here con- cerned. The parent organization of all the foregoing mills is Johnson & Johnson, of New Brunswick, New Jersey. The Chicopee, Georgia, plant, employing approximately 700 people, is under the general supervision of J. C. Platt, vice president of the Respondent, who devotes most of his time to policy matters. Factory operations are under the general direction and supervision of R. W. Lawson, superintendent. Next in the managerial hierarchy is the industrial manager, A. E. Willis, assisted by a per- sonnel manager, Harold Brooks. Both of the latter, however, are also under the general supervision of Mr. Robert Dixon, industrial relations manager, whose office is at New Brunswick, New Jersey. Factory operations are divided into five departments: The spinning department, employing approximately 275 people; the weaving department, employing about 250 people ; a carding department,.em- ploying 80 to 85 people ; the cloth department, employing 25 to 30 people, and a mechanical department. A general foreman is in charge of each department. The factory, during the relevant period, was operated 24 hours a day, divided into three shifts : No. 1 shift, from midnight to 8 a. m.; No. 2 shift, from 8 a. in. to 4 p. m.; No. 3 shift, from 4 p. m. to midnight. The general foreman of each department was assigned to shift No. 2, but was subject to call at any time. Under his general supervision, foremen were assigned to each department for shifts Nos. 1 and 3. Under some of the foremen, and subject to their general supervision, were personnel described interchangeably in the record as "section hands" and "second hands," performing duties which will be described in greater detail hereafter. In November 1945, word reached the Union that a group of Respondent's em- ployees were interested in organizing a union at the Chicopee, Georgia, plant. Pursuant to this suggestion, Ray E. Young, the Union's general representative, came to Chicopee in January or February 1946. An organizing committee was established and a substantial number of Respondent's employees signed applica- tion blanks for admission to the Union. Prounion literature made its appear- ance in the company village adjacent to the plant and at Respondent's plant. Soon thereafter, antiunion activities developed at the plant, which the General Counsel attributes to the Respondent and which he charges to be in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. On June 6, 1947, the Union filed a petition with the Board, Case No. 10-R-2742, requesting that an election be held among Re- spondent's employees to determine whether they desired to be represented by the Union for collective bargaining purposes. On June 17, 1.947, Respondent gave its consent to such an election. Six hundred and eighty-one employees par- ticipated in the election conducted under the auspices of the Board on June 26, 1947, with the following results. For the Union--------------------------------------------- 144 Against any participating labor union------------------------ 499 Challenged ballot------------------------------------------ 35 Void ballots----------------------------------------------- 4 1450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion With respect to this phase of the case, the issues may be briefly summarized as follows: (1) Was the conduct of certain of Respondent's employees, as here- inafter found, violative of Section 3 (a) (1) of the Act? (2) Was such conduct indulged in by supervisory personnel within the meaning of the Act, so as to make Respondent responsible for such conduct? 1. The alleged violative conduct (a) Incidents involving James 0. Cantrell' On or about April 1, 1946, one Raleigh Hooper, employed in the carding de- partment, was approached by section-hand Cantrell of the same department and engaged in a half-hour discussion the purpose of which was to induce Hooper to sign out of the Union. At about the same time, Cantrell asked another employee in the same depart- ment, Leonard Williams, if he wanted to sign out of the Union. Again, in the early part of 1946, Cantrell questioned W. R. Shewbert about the Union, asking him how he "felt about it." One evening, about 2 to 3 weeks later, Cantrell came to Shewbert's house in one of Respondent's pick-up trucks and asked Shewbert to sign out of the Union. He told Shewbert "that there was somebody at the office interested in [Shewbert] signing out and not joining it." Shewbert "signed out." About 2 weeks later, Cantrell told him "that he had heard that [Shewbert] was still working for the Union." In May 1946, Cantrell asked Alvin Barnes, a card department employee, if the latter wanted to sign out of the Union, and was told by Cantrell that he "had better do it." Barnes signed out. In the spring of 1946, Cantrell asked employee Edmond Bennett of the card department if he wanted to come out of the Union and invited Bennett to his house for that purpose. (b) Incidents involving Hamp Merritt 8 On or about March 1, 1946, section-hand Merritt, of the spinning department, tried on two or three occasions to sign employee George B. Orr, of the same de- partment, out of the Union. Merritt told Orr, "they would give him a week ; [if he signed out] they would see that [Orr] didn't lose his job and if he didn't sign out they didn't know what would happen to [him]." Orr was at that time active in behalf of the Union, but denied to Merritt that he was a member. Orr further testified concerning Merritt as follows : Q. Did you ever tell Hamp Merritt you were a member of the Union? A. No, sir, I told him I wasn't. He told me he knew better. He said they had a secret committee of the Union find out all the dope on who belonged to the Union and who didn't and he knowed I was on committee work for the Union. He wanted me to surrender all the members I had signed to him, call them off, that he would give me until the last of the week to get them off. T Based on the credited and undenied testimony of Raleigh Hooper , Leonard Williams, W. R. Shewbert , Alvin Barnes , and Edmond Bennett. 8 Based on the credited and undenied testimony of George B. Orr. CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1451 (c) Incidents involving Edgar Ivey 0 About March 1, 1946, section-hand Ivey approached George B. Orr, and advised him that "high Company officials" from New Brunswick, New Jersey, were then in the mill for the purpose of putting a stop to the Union ; that "while nobody could be fired for joining the Union they could be fired for neglecting their jobs . . . one way or another ; that nobody was perfect ; . . . [that those] that belonged to the Union would go one at a time quietly." Ivey then offered to help Orr "get out of [the Union]." (d) Incidents involving Howard Kinney 10 On April 17, 1946, section-hand Kinney, of the carding department, asked em- ployee Jewell Cheek, of the same department, to sign out of the Union. A similar request was made by Kinney in May or June 1946, of employee Carleton Smith. Two or three days later, Kinney again made a similar request of Smith and asked him to sign a prepared form letter reading as follows : CIIICOPEE, GEORGIA, April 15, 1946. TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, Atlanta, Georgia. GENTLEMEN : This is to advise that I do not desire to be a member of your organization or any local union under it, and you will please accept this as my resignation therefrom. My application for membership was made through a misunderstanding, and I will not be responsible for further dues, initiation fees, or any other obligations thereunder. Respectfully yours, In April 1947, Kinney asked employee J. E. Walker if he wanted to dissociate himself from the Union and offered to help him in doing so. (e) Incidents involving Foreman DeLong n Early in 1.947, Foreman DeLong, of the carding department, told employee J. C. Walker not to have anything to do with the Union "for it would cause a fellow to lose his job." (f) Incidents involving Hoyt Crow" Henry Lee Glass gave the following credited testimony concerning a conversa- tion, about June 1, 1946, with section-hand Crow, of the cloth department : Q. (By Mr. STANFORD.) Did Hoyt Crow ever speak to you about the Union? A. Yes sir... . Q. What was the conversation? A. Well, I was in the warehouse at work and he came to me and told me he wanted to talk to me a minute . . . and he pulled a paper out of his pocket, unfold it and asked me if I had seen one of those, and I told him Y Based on the credited and undenied testimony of George B. Orr. to Based on the credited and undenied testimony of Jewell Cheek, Carleton Smith, and J. C. Walker. " Based on the credited and undenied testimony of J. C . Walker. 11 Based on the credited and undenied testimony of Henry Lee Glass and Joe Turk. .1452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I had. He asked me if I wanted to sign that . . . I didn't even read what was on the paper. He said there was a certain class of people that didn't want to work and was joining the Union, and he said to look at Buford and see what a bum town the Union had made out of it. He said it was liable if the mill, Chicopee, came in the Union contract we would be working for less wages than what we was getting. I told him that I hadn't signed one and I wasn't going to; that the company might fire me for not signing it but the Union would never see my name on one. He said the company wouldn't fire Inc for not signing it . . . So he asked me not to say anything about the conversation I had. Though there was no satisfactory explanation of the contents of the paper, .and most of what Crow said was permissible argument and expression of opinion, the vice of the incident lies in Crow's request that Glass sign the paper. The entire conversation demonstrates the purpose of the paper, that Crow requested Glass to withdraw from the Union, and presented the letter to effectuate that purpose. Early in 1946, Crow asked Joe Turk of the same department if he "saw any- body that wanted to sign out of the Union, he [Crow] knowed of a fellow that had a white paper." I find the reference to the white paper to have the same meaning as in the previously found incident involving Glass. (g) Incidents involving Foreman W. A. Powell` About February 1, 1946, General Foreman Powell, of the weaving department, interrogated Howard B. McGee of the same department as to why he had joined the Union. In April 1946, he told McGee: "Have you ever stopped to think if you fellows get a Union here and ask for more wages than Johnson could pay he would shut the mill down before he would pay it?' In May 1946, in a further discussion with McGee as to why the employees wanted to proceed with their organizing campaign, Powell said, "Well, go ahead with it. .. . You boys may 13 Based on the undisputed, credited testimony of Howard B. McGee and J. M. Brown. The bill of particulars furnished Respondent shortly after the opening of the hearing on Monday, September 13, 1948, for the first time advised Respondent that Powell", conduct would be relied on to substantiate specified allegations of the complaint that Respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. Respondent claimed surprise, advised the Examiner that Powell was no longer employed by Respondent, was out of the State, and requested a 2 weeks' continuance of the hearing. The motion was denied. The undersigned advised the parties, however, he would postpone the taking of testimony concerning Powell until near the close of the General Counsel's case and instructed the Respondent to then advise the Examiner of what efforts it had made to locate Powell. The latter's activities were not brought in to the case until Friday, September 17. Inquiry of Respondent's counsel at that time disclosed that no effort had yet been made to contact Powell. The General Counsel rested his case on -Monday, September 20, and at the request of both parties, a recess was taken until September 22. Powell came to Gainesville, apparently to testify in this proceeding, and was introduced to the Examiner by one of the Respondent's attorneys on either Septem- ber 21 or September 22. Shortly before the opening of the hearing on September 23, the Examiner was notified of the death of his mother that morning at Minneapolis, Minnesota. Without objection by the parties, the hearing was recessed to September 27, to permit the Examiner to attend the funeral. The Respondent began the presentation of its case on September 27 and concluded on September 30. Shortly before the close of the hearing on September 29, Respondent's counsel stated that, due to business pressure, Powell would not be able to return to the hearing. Although reminded of the right to subpena Powell, or to take his deposition, Respondent made no request with respect to either alternative. McGee's and Brown's testimony with reference to Powell's activities is credited and stands undisputed. CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1453 :get to pick blackberries during the summer." Soon thereafter J. M. Brown, of the same department, in a conversation with Powell about the Union, asked Powell whether he had told McGee that the men were "going to have to pick .blackberries this summer." Powell replied : "That's the way it looks now." (h) Incidents involving Foreman Alvin George In March 1946, Foreman George told Carnell Martin "he was sorry for all that :signed the Union ; that Johnson and Johnson would shut the mill down and send the machinery to South America." About a month later, George complained to .Martin that he knew who all the union members were except those on his own shift and asked Martin to get the union membership book so that George could .ascertain the names of all the union members." John McBrayer, a loom fixer, employed by Respondent for 13 years, was told in midsummer of 1946, by George, that if he (McBrayer) knew of anyone who -wanted to sign out of the Union, George knew who could get them out 16 (i.) Incidents involving Foreman P. DI. Probst 16 Shortly before the union election in 1947, Glass, during a lunch recess, was en- gaged in passing out union circulars. Immediately afterwards, Foreman Probst 1' and section-hand Crow told Glass that "it was agin the company' s rules to pass out literature in the mill ; . . . that they didn't want to see that happen .,any more." The following day Glass was called to the office by Industrial Rela- tions Manager Willis, and in the presence of Superintendent Lawson, told that "they didn't want that to happen any more." (j) Posting and circulation of union and antiunion literature It was undisputed that at various times from the beginning of the organizing 'campaign to the election, there appeared on the Company's locked bulletin boards a large number of unsigned antiunion bulletins. I find, because access to these boards was controlled by keys in the possession of Respondent's supervisory per- .sonnel, that they were posted with Respondent's consent. The General Counsel, however, admitted that the arguments and opinions expressed in these bulletins -did not go beyond the exercise of free speech, and were not, in and of themselves, violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Though there was a conflict in the tes- timouy as to whether or not union literature also appeared on these boards, no evidence was offered that demand had ever been made on Respondent for the exer- cise of that privilege, or that it had been denied. Except for the Probst incident related in the preceding paragraph, I find no evidence of discrimination with re- spect to the circulation or posting of prounion or antiunion literature. 14.George categorically denied the foregoing incidents, and their substance, and testified that Martin volunteered to secure the union book in return for George's promise to take no further action with respect to a complaint about Martin's work. Though George's denial and explanation were not questioned, my observation of both witnesses, and their demeanor .and attitude on the witness stand, leads me to credit the testimony of Martin and to discredit George's denials and explanation. 15 This incident is based on the credited. undenied testimony of McBrayer. 16 These findings are based on the credited testimony of Glass ; there was no denial by Probst. Willis' version of -the second incident is not in material variance. " Sometimes referred to in the record as Propes. 1454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (k) Surveillance At the opening of the hearing, the General Counsel sought, and was granted', leave to add to his complaint an allegation that in or about May 1946, Foreman Frank Thrasher engaged in surveillance of a union meeting at the Princeton Hotel. To substantiate this allegation, evidence was introduced to show that while a union banquet was in progress at that hotel during a Sunday in May 1946,. Foreman Thrasher came into the hotel, stood in the doorway of the dining room. for half a minute, looked about the room and departed. The hotel and dining room were public places, and no evidence was offered that any member of the public was put on notice that the banquet was under the auspices of the Union, or that Thrasher had any advance knowledge that it was so sponsored. Thrasher- had a perfectly legal right to be in the hotel at the time in question. In approach- ing the entrance to the dining room, where a large group was assembled, Thrasher was apparently satisfying a presumably innocent and not uncommon inquisitive- ness. I find the allegations of the complaint pertaining to this alleged unlawfuL surveillance not sustained. (1) Respondent ' s policy In its brief, Respondent argues that, even if it be conceded that the violative conduct of its section hands as heretofore described is found to have been com- mitted by supervisors, "management would not be bound by their remarks and, actions, as the testimony adduced at the hearing clearly shows that management's stated policy in its labor relations, was utterly at variance with and contrary to any attitude of. anti-unionism." That testimony referred to (1) statements- made by Vice-President Platt and Superintendent Lawson at meetings with- foremen, at which Platt and Lawson stated that the Company' s position was one of neutrality and that the question of union organization was for the employees. themselves to determine; (2) a circular dated August 6, 1946, signed by. Platt,. and posted on the company bulletin boards; 18 and (3) a letter over the signature. of Platt, mailed to employees shortly before the election 1D If we were.dealing: here with but one or two isolated or sporadic violative acts, I would be inclined! le The bulletin reads as follows : Following are the answers to some questions about Company Policy which some- of our employees have recently asked : Question : Is it true that the Company or its supervisors have said they want a Union? Answer : No. Neither the Company nor its supervisors have said the Company wants a Union. The Company has taken the position that this is a matter for the- employees to decide without any influence or suggestion from the Company as required' by law. Question : Is it true that the Union is going to sign up with Chicopee Manufacturing- Corporation without an election? Answer: No. The Company has made no commitments to recognize any Union without an election. Question : Is it true that a Chicopee employee must join a Union or else be- discharged? Answer : No, because on the basis of Company Policy, no employees will be dis- charged because lie or she has or has not joined a Union. Under the law, the- Company cannot advise employees not to join a Union or to join a Union as our- position must be neutral and impartial. To work here, employees do not have to go into a Union or stay out of a Union.. 18 To Employees of Chicopee : The Textile Workers Union of America of the C. I. O. filed, on June sixth, 1947, a petition to N. L. R. B. for an election. CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1455 to attach greater significance to these policy statements. Considering, however, the intensity of the campaign being waged by both prounion and antiunion advocates, the frequency and nature of the violative incidents, the company statements can hardly be deemed more than mild protestations of neutrality. Even if my judgment in evaluating the vigor, or lack thereof, to be attributed to Respondent's so-called policy statements is found to be in error, there was no evidence that Respondent ever publicly, or otherwise, disavowed the violative conduct of its foremen or section hands. It took neither this precaution, nor any other measure, to dissipate the coercive effects of its supervisors' conduct. The mere assurance against discrimination, embodied in the written exhibits and the instructions to foremen, is not sufficient to serve that purpose." 2. Conclusions as to interference, restraint, and coercion The foregoing findings are based on credited, and with a single exception, undisputed testimony, and show a well-established pattern of conduct and con- certed effort on the part of foremen and section hands 21 to discourage union activity by Respondent's employees.22 At this stage of our experience in indus- trial relations , it is no longer necessary to rationalize , or to analyze the Act, to reach the conclusion that such activity by supervisory personnel constitutes interference with the employees' "right to self organization [and to] join . . . labor organizations" guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act" The record abundantly shows, and I find, that Cantrell, Merritt, Ivey, Kinney, Crow, and George asked various employees whether they wanted to sign out of the Union, requested them to sign out, and offered them assistance for that purpose. Each of said acts constitutes a per se violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.2` Footnote 19-Continued In accordance with the procedure outlined by the Government, representatives of your Company participated in a joint conference with the National Labor Relations Board and State Representatives of the Textile Workers Union of America of the C. I.'O. on June 16, 1.947. As a result of this conference, a conclusion was reached under the guidance of the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board providing for an election to be held at the Chicopee, Georgia Plant on June 26, 1947. The purpose of this election will be for all production and maintenance employees to freely express their choice as to whether or not they desire to be represented by the Textile Workers Union of America of the C. I. 0., a National Union. This election places a very solemn and serious duty on every employee to vote and thus exercise the right given by the law. This right to vote is a very important possession of every employee, and places upon him a great moral responsibility. You owe it to yourself, your family, and your fellow employees to vote in this election, which will determine whether you will be represented by a union or not. You and only you will determine this all important question, which can only be satisfactorily answered by a full vote. I strongly urge that you recognize your responsibility and vote in the election on June 26th. It is necessary for everyone to vote in order to assure a democratic result. 20 Matter of Colonial Life Insurance Co., 76 N. L. R. B. 653 ; Matter of Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills, 75 N. L. R. B. 883 ; Matter of Wadesboro Full Fashioned Hosiery Mills, Inc., 72 N. L. R. B. 1064 ; Matter of Semet-Solvay Co., 68 N. L. R. B. 352. 21 The responsibility of Respondent for the conduct of section hands is treated in sub- sequent portions of this report. 22 In arriving at this conclusion, I'• attached significance to Respondent's failure to call as witnesses, except only Foreman George, any of the other foremen or section hands against whom the charges of violative conduct were levelled. 22 H. J. Heinz Co. v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 514. 24 Matter of General Shoe Corporation, 77 N. L. R. B. 124; Matter of The Duluth Glass Block Store Co., 76 N. L. R. B. 1064; Matter of Georgia Twine and Cordage Co., 76 N. L. R. B. 84; Matter of West Ohio Gas Co., 76 N. L. R. B. 179; Matter of Bluefield Garment Manufacturers, 75 N. L. R. B. 447; Matter of Harvey Chalmers & Sons, Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 434; Matter of Magnolia Cotton Mill Co., 79 N. L. R. B. 91. 1456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I further find the following conduct to be violative of the same section a. Cantrell's questioning of Shewbert about the Union, and his inquiry as to, how he "felt about it." b. Merritt's statement to Orr that "if he didn't sign out they didn't know what would happen to him," and his request to Orr that the latter surrender- the names of all the members who had joined the Union. c. Ivey's statement to Orr that those "that belong to the Union would go one- at a time, quietly." d. Delong's statement to Walker that if the latter had anything to do with the- Union "it would cause a fellow to lose his job." e. Powell's questioning of McGee as to why he had joined the Union, and his: statement to the same employees if a union was established, and a request was. made for "more wages than Johnson could pay, he would shut the mill down. before he would pay it." f. Powell's statement to McGee, in May 1946, that "if the employees went ahead: with their organizing campaign, you boys may get to pick blackberries during the summer." g. The same statement made by Powell seen thereafter to J. M. Brown. h. George's statement to Martin that "he was sorry for all that signed the. Union ; that Johnson & Johnson would shut the mill down and sent the machinery to South America." i. George's request of Martin that the latter secure for George the union membership book. Respondent contends that the foregoing are merely statements of opinion and protected as an exercise of free speech. I disagree, and find them to be per se violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 2' I further find that the conduct of Probst and Crow," in denying Glass the right to circulate union literature during a lunch recess, to be a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The day after this happened, Glass was called to the office of Willis and was there told by him, in the presence of Superintendent Lawson, that such conduct "was against the Company's rule; . . . they [Willis and Lawson] didn't want that to happen any more." Glass' version of the inci- dent is credited. Lawson made no denial thereof, while Willis testified he told Glass "it was against the Company rule to pass out literature while on the job, Company time." Though the promulgation of a rule prohibiting such conduct while on the job would not be violative of the Act, it was undisputed that the incident which brought about the warning took place during a lunch period, nonworking time, when that activity was protected under the Act. Republic Aviation Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 324 U. S. 793; Matter of Tomlinson High Point, 74 N. L. R. B. 681; Matter of Lindley Box and Paper Co., 73 N. L. R. B. 558; Matter of LaSalle Steel Co., 72 N. L. R. B. 411. During the cross-examination of some of the General Counsel's witnesses, Respondent sought to prove, and secured an admission from several of them, that the alleged violative conduct had no effect on them and that they carried on their union activities in spite of them. Thereafter, in support of its motion to. dismiss at the close of the General Counsel's base, Respondent argued that coer- u H. J. Heinz Co. v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 514, 518, 520; N. L. R. B. v. Cities Service- Oil Co., 129 F. 2d 933, 934 (C. A. 2) ; Matter of Morrison Turning Co., Inc., 77 N. L. It. B. 670; Matter of Ames Spot Welder Co., 75 N. L. It. B. 352; Matter of Kopman-Woracek Shoe Mfg. Co., 66 N. L. R. B. 789, enforced in 158 F. 2d 103 (C. A. 8). 11 Set out in Section III B 2 ( j) supra. ' CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1457' cion , to be violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, "must be effective coercion.- ... [The Act] restrains the coercion of an employee. It does not make it an. unfair practice to attempt to coerce." The decisions of the Board and the courts are to the contrary. It has repeatedly been held that the Act is violated by the commission of coercive acts, regardless- of whether such acts are effective in accomplishing the intended results 24 3. Responsibility of Respondent for conduct of its foremen and section hands At the hearing, it was either conclusively established, or admitted by Re- spondent, that during the relevant periods, Foreman Alvin George, Foreman. W. A. Powell, Foreman P. M. Probst, Foreman DeLong and section-hand Hoyt Crow '8 were supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and I so find. The violative conduct of these foremen, as found in Section III B 2, is, therefore,. found to be the conduct of Respondent. The Respondent, however, strenuously contends that section-hands Cantrell,. Merritt, Ivey, and Kinney were not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and that Respondent was not, therefore, responsible for their alleged violative, conduct. A comprehensive view of all the evidence on this aspect of the case, however, leads me to the conclusion that these section hands are supervisors for whose conduct Respondent is amenable under the Act. They were regarded as- supervisors by the men who worked under them ; they were in charge of the department when the shift foreman was not present ; permission for "time off" was asked of, and granted, by them; "if there's any changes in the jobs .. . they tell [the men] what to do :" they placed and instructed spare hands as to, their duties. Thus, Hooper testified Cantrell "goes and tells you what to do,_ places help . . . keeps the time of broken down machinery." Williams testified that Cantrell "would tell you what to do . . . if it was anything out of the ordi- nary, different from your ordinary job"; he placed spare hands and frequently replaced the shift foreman. It was Williams' "understanding" that section hands have "supervisory authority." Carleton Smith, employed by Respondent for 19 years, described Kinney as a "section foreman." Orr testified that section-- hands Ivey and Merritt "placed the help and gave us instructions . . . about the job, anything extra, . . . they seen that we had to do it"; that Ivey and Merritt frequently, and for several hours at a time, took Foreman Thrasher's place. Superintendent Lawson testified that Ivey in 1946 was engaged in "running a shift." Though Lawson denied that the section hands had some of the authority heretofore described, and gave extensive testimony of certain additional mechan- "N. L. R. B. v. Illinois Tool Works, 153 F. 2d 811, 814 (C. A. 7), enforcing 61 N. L. R. R. 1129; N. L. R. B. v. Winona Textile Mills, Inc., 160 F. 2d 201 (C. A. 8), enforcing 68 N. L. R. B. 702; Matter of The Pure Oil Company, 73 N. L. R. B. 1; Matter of Minnesota' Mining & Manufacturing Co., 81 N. L. R. B. 557. It is true that the Fifth Circuit, in N. L. R. B. v. Caroline Mills, 158 F. 2d 793, said : "the record fails to show that any em- ployee was in any wise influenced by any statements alleged to have been made by any of the supervisory employees or officials of the respondent. On the contrary, the great majority of those to whom statements indicating opposition were made voted for the Union." Soon thereafter, the Court apparently came to the conclusion that the success or failure of the coercive acts could not be considered in determining whether the Act had' been violated, for, on the alternative motion of the Board to strike the sentences just quoted from the opinion, or to grant a rehearing, the Court ordered the sentences stricken from its opinion. 158 F. 2c1 793. 2e Hoyt Crow was described as a section hand by the witnesses who testified concerning his activities and Respondent so designated him in its brief, p. 29. Contrary to its present position as to other section hands, Respondent, at the hearing, stipulated that Crow was. R supervisor within the meaning of the Act. 1458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ical duties performed by them, there was no denial by the section hands them- selves that they actually exercised the supervisory authority above found. The Respondent must be deemed to have had knowledge thereof, and to have acquiesced therein. The spinning department employed 275-300 people , divided into 3 shifts. The department is housed in an area approximately 250 feet long and 225 feet wide, and contains 240 spinning frames, divided into two sections of 120 each, with a section hand assigned to each section . If Respondent 's contention that the secttion hands are not supervisors is sustained , the conclusion would follow that the supervision of 75-100 men operating 240 complicated spinning frames would fore described were also exercised by them . In addition , there was undisputed evidence of supervisory duties actually performed by the section hands, leads me to conclude that section -hands Merritt and Ivey were supervisors within the meaning of the Act and I so find. The carding department only had one section, with Cantrell assigned to the first shift and Kinney to the second . The general supervisory duties hereto- fore described , were also exercised by them . In addition , there was undisputed testimony of express supervisory authority to Cantrell . Thus, on one occasion, when W. It. Shewbert challenged section -hand Cantrell 's authority , he was told by Foreman A. C. Bennett that Cantrell "had the authority to tell him what to do and what not to do and [Shewbert ] was supposed to do what Cantrell said to do, just as well as him [ Bennett]." Williams testified that he "took orders from Cantrell as to what he had to do." Alvin Barnes testified " if there's any changes in the jobs , [ Cantrell] tells you what he wants you to do , and if the boss man is off on Saturday evening, or all day , [ Cantrell] takes his place until [the boss man] gets back. If there is any break -down or anything like that , you have got to turn it in to him to get paid for while your job is stopped." In view of the fact that Kinney had a similar status on the second shift, I find that he like- wise had express authority to supervise the operations of the men in his shift. The section hands involved in the violative conduct were employed either in the spinning or the carding departments , the only departments in which section hands were then employed . Lawson testified there were approximately 80-85 employees in the carding department and approximately 295 in the spinning room. According to an official survey prepared by Respondent , for budgetary purposes , and received in evidence at the request of the General Counsel, the section hands in the carding department were paid at a higher hourly rate than any of the other 17 classified jobs in that department . In the spinning depart- ment, where there was a classification of 28 jobs , only a single "overhauler" earned a higher hourly rate than the section hands.`9 In Matter of pI'oro'ioebb Cotton . Mills Company, 75 N. L. It. B . 9S7, the Board was called upon to similarly consider the status of section men as supervisors in a mill engaged in the manufacture of yarns. In ruling that such section men were supervisors , the Board relied upon the following testimony pertaining to 29 During the hearing, the Respondent was asked to produce a schedule of the actual earnings of the different types of employees. The request was not complied with during the hearing, but after it was closed, Respondent mailed to the Examiner and the General Counsel a so-called "pay-roll analysis for week ending May 26, 1946." I have marked the same as Respondent's Exhibit 34 for identification. The General Counsel, by letter to me, with copy to Respondent, objected to its introduction on the ground that (1) it was not furnished until after the hearing closed and thus afforded him no opportunity to cross- examine the person who prepared it and (2) "it does not reflect a true picture of the comparative earnings of the section hands and other employees." The objection is sus- tained and the exhibit is rejected. CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1459 the duties of a section man, most of which is descriptive of the duties performed by section hands in the instant proceeding: if a section man observes a production employee violating a rule, he may call his attention to the violation ; if the production employee persists, the section man reports the matter to the overseer, who makes an independent investigation ; that frequently, production employees make requests to the overseer through the section men, and the overseer relays orders or instruc- tions to the production employees through the section men ; that if a produc- tion employee is temporarily caught up on his work, he reports this fact to the section man and the section man may change his job temporarily and find something else for him to do until the matter can be reported to the overseer ; and that if, upon change of shift, the section man discovers that an employee is missing, and the overseer is absent temporarily, the section man can make changes in the assignment for the day. According to the testimony of one overseer, if a production employee has a problem with respect to his work, he takes it up with one of the section men, who may make final adjustment of the matter or, in the event he is unable to do so, refers it to one of the overseers. The overseer added : "You see, he [the section man] is there all the time with just a few employees and I am not." . . In determining whether or not section men are supervisors, we have taken into consideration, among other things, the large number of rank and file employees in the plant and the fact that the only admitted supervisors in the plant at a given time are the superintendent and one overseer. The latter is frequently absent for substantial periods of time. Under these circumstances, it is, in our opinion, inconceivable that the section men have no supervisory authority. . See also Hatter of Caroline Hills, Inc., 64 N. L. R. B. 200, enforced in 158 F. 2d 794 (C. A. 555) ; Aragon-Baldwin Hills, Inc., Aragon Plant, 80 N. L. R. B. 1042, and Fitzgerald Mills Corp., 77 N. L. R. B. 1156. I find that section-hands Crow, Cantrell, Merritt, Ivey, and Kinney are super- visors within the meaning of the Act, and that Respondent is responsible for their violative conduct. 4. Concluding findings on interference, restraint, and coercion By interrogating employees concerning their union activities, by offering its assistance to secure their withdrawal from the Union, by threatening to remove its plant from Chicopee if the Union were successful in organizing the plant, by threatening to discharge those of its employees who joined or remained in the Union, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 30 C. The Chasteen discharge Respondent, in its answer, admitted that Chasteen was discharged, but denied that the discharge was discriminatory, or due to Chasteen's union activity. Early in the hearing, it made clear that its only reason for the discharge was m Except as to the affirmative findings of violations heretofore made, the General Counsel has not sustained the burden of proof as to the remainder of the allegations in the com- plaint pleading violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 857829--50--vol. 85-93 1460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD because of a disturbance created by Chasteen on the night of August 11, 1946, in and about the house occupied by him and his family , in the company village. The, discharge , it claimed , was ordered by Vice-President Platt "to maintain discipline in the village . . . because it [ the disturbance ] was one of the worst incidents that ever happened in Chicopee village. . . . We were trying to keep the commu- nity clean morally and orderly and we couldn ' t do it with permitting such things to go unpunished . Then I authorized Mr. Willis to discharge Mr. Chasteen." Chasteen , a loom fixer, was hired at the Respondent 's Chicopee plant in August 1945, and assigned to the weaving department under the general supervision of Foremen Powell and George . Because of the prevailing housing shortage, Chas- teen's wife and child were compelled to remain in North Carolina , where Chasteen worked before coming to Chicopee . Soon thereafter ,. Chasteen complained to Powell that , unless arrangements could be made to get Chasteen a company house in Chicopee so that his family might join him there , he would be compelled to look elsewhere for employment. Powell called Willis, and , within a few days, Chasteen was given a residence for himself and family at 39 Sixth Street, Chicopee. Because Chasteen 's discharge was allegedly occasioned by his misconduct in the company village , a brief description thereof is appropriate at this time . 31 Both the plant and village are located about 31/2 miles from Gainesville , Georgia, and, by themselves , constitute what is -known as Chicopee , Georgia. The two locations are separated by a State highway, with expansive and well-kept lawns surround- ing the plant , the village and its 215 residences. These houses , of brick con- struction and attractive in appearance , are occupied exclusively by Respondent's employees and supervisory personnel . The village includes a post office, a com- pany-owned store, tennis courts , other recreational facilities , and a community center. The examiner was immensely impressed by the neatness and generally desirable appearance of the entire village, a project of which the Respondent was justifiably proud. On August 5, 1946, Chasteen , because of a general run-down condition, went on sick leave , which his doctor recommended should be extended for a period of 30 days. . On Sunday , August 11, 1946, at about 9: 30 p. in., Chasteen and his family, in response to an invitation , went to the home of a neighbor to partake of watermelon . The Chasteens returned to their own home about 11 p. m. Mrs. Chasteen began to wash the supper dishes, while Chasteen busied himself with pencil and paper, engaged either in writing a letter or doing some " figuring." Chasteen asked his wife for a drink of water to which she replied, "that if he wanted it he could get it hisself ." He countered with : "It looks to me like I'm going to have to get me somebody else around here to help you wait on me. " She suggested : "I guess you would like to get that little Jeannette Monks." 2r (Jeannette was a WAC or a WAVE with whom Chasteen became acquainted during the war.) Chasteen remonstrated that he was no longer interested in Jeannette , and volunteered , then and there , to write her a letter, which Mrs. Chasteen could post , advising Jeannette "that I'm married now and don't have any time to take up with single girls , and tell her to leave me alone." Chasteen asked his wife to go to his foot locker to get a letter from Jeannette , so that he could secure the proper mailing address . She got the letter and read it. Be- cause the intensity of feeling which the letter engendered is in dispute , provoca- 21 The following description Is based on my personal inspection of the plant and village made at the request, and In the company of, attorneys for the General Counsel and the, Respondent. 11 Sometimes referred to in the record as Jeannette or Janet Monts, or Mont. CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1461 tive portions thereof are quoted" in the margin. The search for the letter also disclosed a photograph of Jeannette, which Mrs. Chasteen threatened to destroy. Chasteen objected, and Mrs. Chasteen picked up an icepick or, hammer, or both,. and warned him "to let her alone." Both testified that he pinned her arms to her side, that they "scuffled around, in the kitchen" and that she scratched his face with her fingernails. They "scuffled on into the hall. . [She] ran on through into the living room and tore the picture out of the frame, . . . ran out on the porch . . . and called [Mrs. Martin, her neighbor] several times." At least four disinterested witnesses heard her scream that Chasteen was trying to kill her. She then went to the home of A. L. Carlin (sometimes referred to in the record as Collins), Chief of the Chicopee Police, and a deputy sheriff of Hall County, in which Chicopee is located. Carlin was asleep at the time but was awakened by Mrs. Chasteen's screams and the pounding on his door. She told Carlin "that Cecil had been trying to kill her and would have killed her if she hadn't hit him over the head with a hammer. . . . She said that she wanted [Carlin] to lock Cecil up, that he was drunk on home brew." Carlin then ob- served bruises on Mrs. Chasteen's neck, which she ascribed to Chasteen's chok- ing.eS Carlin told her that he was then on vacation, but that he would get assistance, and come to her house. He drove to his office to get his assistant, Elrod. The latter had already received a report of the disturbance and was then on his way to the Chasteen home. Carlin, not being aware of this, flashed 88 EL PASO, TEXAS, 4 August 1945. DEAR CECIL: Received your letter today and was really glad to hear from you again. I've written you two letters since I received your first one from Brevard. I sent both of them to Ilrevard to Goodson as you asked me to. Pont'know whether you got the last one or not. I wrote to you right away as soon as I found out that my ferlough had been canceled. We have so many boys coming back now from overseas that all ferloughs have been cancled for a few months. Dont know when I will get one but if you continue to let me know where you are I will try to see you. I'm very glad you did what you did. Now I know you are a man insted of a coward. I had began to believe that you had become one and was really afraid of her. You had best leave her alone and let me know what the outcome is. You had better not ever have any thing to do with her again and get free as soon as possible if you want me at all. I think we could start where we left off (if you get a divorce) if you will be honest with me and we could really make a go of it. You know you werent honest with me but I love you enough to forgive that. I was always honest with you, that's what hurts so much. I am on night duty now and the nights are really long. I think about you a lot. . . . I cant understand why I keep on loving you. I suppose we were together so much that I just never get over it. I still dont see how you could have hurt me so much. I was in a bathing beauty contest 24th August and took away first place. . . . You know I havent cut my hair yet and its real long now. You always liked it long and I just couldn't have it cut. . . . Write to me real soon and tell me about everything and please dont start living with her again. If you do, regardless of how much I love you I'll be through with you if you do. I still want a picture of you, one that I can carry in my bill fold. If you send me one I will send you one of me in uniform. Let me know where you are if you move. What did your Dad & Mom say about you taking her home. I want to know everything. Please dont keep any thing from me. Please write soon and send it air mail so I will get it quick. I'll let you know if possible when I will get a ferlough. I get pretty lonesome at times and it seems like I always think of you then. Some times I think I'm a fool to go on loving you but I just can't help it. Write to me real soon and remember you had better be honest with me and leave her alone. Always the Same, JANET. 86 The presence of bruises on her neck was attested to by a number of witnesses, including Rev. Paul Smith, who observed them the following Tuesday. 1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the corner street lights throughout the village, a prearranged police signal in- structing officers to report to Carlin's office. Elrod, and another deputy, Pinson, summoned by Elrod, observed the signals and returned to the office where Carlin was waiting. The three of them drove to the Chasteen residence. When they got there, 15 to 20 people, in various stages of attire, were scattered in the street adjacent to the Chasteen house. Pinson inquired of Mrs. Chasteen, who was then in front of the house, as to the nature of the trouble and she stated that Chas- teen "mighty near choked her to death," and that she wanted the officers to "put [him] in jail." The officers went into the house and found Chasteen sitting on the edge of his bed preparing to retire. They asked him to dress and accompany them. He complied without protest, and was lodged in the county jail, at Gainesville. Prior to leaving the house, Chasteen complained to the officers "his wife had knocked him in the head with a hammer and he needed a doctor." While waiting for Chasteen to dress, Pinson observed blood on Chasteen's face, -a hammer on the bed and blood on the pillow. When the policemen and Chasteen arrived at the jail, Pinson told the jailer of Mrs. Chasteen's experience, her request that he be locked up, and that Chasteen "said he needed a doctor." Upon returning to the village, Elrod and Pinson drove to the Chasteen residence to assure Mrs. Chasteen "she needn't to be uneasy any more tonight about her husband, because he's in jail." Mrs. Chasteen then told Pinson about "three gallons of home brew in the other room,"'' and requested Pinson to dispose of it. Pinson did not comply, but, instead, reported the matter before he went off duty at 8 o'clock the following morning to Carlin, his superior officer. Carlin at that time went to the Chasteen house with an assistant, and was directed by Mrs. Chasteen to the location of the home brew. The brew "began to spew out of the can as soon as air got to it, and Mrs. Chasteen gave him [the assistant] an apron to put on to keep it off his clothes." " Chasteen remained in jail until Friday, August 16, 5 days later, on charges of "fighting," and manufacturing home brew. On the latter day, he posted bond and was released from custody. In the meantime, Mrs. Chasteen, on August 13, 1946, appeared before Justice of the Peace Luther in Gainesville, told him her husband "beat her up," and swore that she was "afraid of him," the latter being a prerequisite to issuance of the peace warrant requested by Mrs. Chasteen of the Justice. The warrant was issued and delivered to her. It was apparently never served. Respondent claims that Chasteen was discharged August 12, because of the disturbance he created the night before in the company village. Cbasteen alleges he was discharged on September 23, because of his union activities. The date of the discharge, therefore, has unusual significance. If the dismissal was made because of the disturbance, it is reasonable to assume that the Respondent would act promptly. I find that it was made on August 12. On the morning of that day, Willis gave a detailed report of the incident to Vice-President Platt. The latter then called Mr. Dixon of Johnson & Johnson, and it was agreed between them that the Company had no other recourse but to discharge Chasteen. Platt then ordered Willis to make the discharge. During the same day, Willis prepared and filed, as part of Respondent's regular personnel records, a "Separation Notice," which recites that Chasteen was discharged on August 12 because of the disturbance the night before. A succinct account of Se Chasteen admitted he had made some home brew. 36 The officers had on the previous evening observed that Chasteen was in an intoxicated condition. CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1463 the incident was contained in this notice, which bears the signature of Willis and Chasteen's foreman, Powell. According to Willis' credited testimony, Chasteen on or about September 23, requested a formal notice of dismissal. Willis, on the same clay, mailed him a copy of the "Separation Notice." - On August 16, after Chasteen was released from custody, he went to the plant to see Powell, his foreman, who told him he had heard about the disturbance. Chasteen testified Powell then told him : "Cecil, your work is all right in here. I don't have a thing in the world against it but before you go back on the job I wish you would go out and see Mr. Willis at the main office." Chasteen imme- diately went to see Willis who, according to the latter's credited testimony, told Chasteen he no longer had a job because "he had violated the Company rules, the village rules," to which Chasteen replied "that's all I want to know." Chas- teen denied Willis' testimony in this respect, claiming that he did not know he was discharged until he received an O. P. A. notice, on or about September 23, advising him that the Respondent had been granted leave to pursue local court remedies for the purpose of evicting Chasteen from the house. On that day, in the company of J. M. Brown, a fellow worker and a member of the Union Organizing Committee, Chasteen went to see Willis. Brown cred- ibly testified that when Chasteen asked Willis whether or not he was fired, Willis "told him he thought lie made that clear to him once before. . . . I don't know what the conversation was before, but Mr. Willis said he thought he had done made that clear to him." Chasteen did not remonstrate as to his lack of under- standing, but merely "said he was sick and wasn't able to move, couldn't get out and get him a house, and Mr. Willis told him he would have as much time to move as the law would allow." It was apparently to secure an extension of time to vacate the house that Brown's assistance was enlisted 34 Several other incidents lead me to discredit Chasteen's denial that he had been advised on or about August 12 of his discharge and to credit Willis' testimony in this respect. Chasteen was asked why he went to see Powell on August 16. His testimony with respect to that conversation was as follows : A. Well, after these company policemen had arrested me and me working for that same company, I didn't know what the score was. I wanted to find out. That is the main reason. Q. Did Mr. Powell say anything about your working in the weave room at that time? A. No, all he said was "Cecil your work is alright in here" he said, "I don't have anything in the world against it., but before you go back on the job I wish you would go out there and see Mr. Willis at the main office." Chasteen admittedly went to see Willis, but according to the former's testimony, Willis merely told him that he had "violated company policies and nothing more." I do not credit Chasteen's version of this incident, because, to do so, would leave him in the uncertain status he sought to avoid, and would hardly tell him "what the score was." On October 9, 1946, Chasteen filed a' claim for unemployment compensation with the State of Georgia. His signed application for that compensation stated 37 Chasteen testified that Brown, in the conversation of September 23, also asked Willis to give Chasteen "his job back." Unless Brown had previously been advised by Chasteen that the latter had been discharged, there would be no occasion for Brown to ask for Chasteen 's reinstatement. 1464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that he was "discharged," and last worked for the Respondent on August 12, 1946. It is undisputed that the last day he actually worked was August 5, when he became ill. His reference to August 12, the day following the disturbance, and the day from which he wanted his employment computed, can therefore only be construed as his acknowledged date of discharge. Another incident which leads me to question Chasteen's veracity on this, and other material aspects of the case, is his testimony concerning the information contained in the above-described application for compensation. That document was prepared by clerks in the office of the Unemployment Compensation Com- mission, and contained the following item : 13. Explain reason for separation fully : discharged because of a dis- turbance at my house, which was not connected with my job in any way. Though Chasteen admitted he "answered questions they asked [him] at that time," he denied that the quoted answer was in the application before he signed it. "I don't think that was in there before I signed it. If it was, I didn't intend for it to be in there, because I didn't make no statement like that. If they just went and put that down on there, I didn't tell them to." No other explanation being offered as to how the statement crept into the application, and it being part of an official record, I find that the statement contained in the application was made by Chasteen, that he deliberately testified falsely with respect to the manner in which the statement was incorporated in the application and that he knew that the reason for his discharge was because of the "disturbance at [his] house," and not because of his union activity as he now claims. I likewise discredit the testimony of both Chasteen and his wife as to the mild nature of the disturbance at their house on the evening of August 11. Chasteen denied his wife was "mad," that she hit him with either a hammer or an icepick, that he threatened to kill her, that he choked her, that he had a scar or "bump" on his head, that he asked for a doctor, that his wife ran out of the house, or that she screamed. According to his testimony, though he claimed to be sober at the time, he noticed no people in the yard when the officers took him to their automobile at the time of his arrest. That all of said incidents actually took place was credibly established by a large number of disinterested witnesses, who were either eyewitnesses, or related res gestae statements made by Mrs. Chasteen on the night of August 11. Likewise, Mrs. Chasteen's own watered- down version of the affair is contradicted and discredited by her recitals to her neighbors on the night the incidents actually occurred. I therefore conclude that a violent disturbance actually took place at Chas- teen's house on the night of August 11. Indeed, it is not necessary for me to find that the occurrence was actually as violent as I find it to be. It is sufficient if Platt believed the facts as related to him by the police officers and discharged Chasteen for that reason's The evidence casts no doubt on that belief, or the sincerity of Platt in relying and acting thereon. While it is true that Chasteen was a member of the Union, "mere union mem- bership on the part of a dischargee does not make a discharge discriminatory.BD Chasteen claimed that he was a member of the organizing committee of the Union from the date he signed his application for membership in March 1946, as N. L. R. B. v. Clarksburg Publishing Co., 120 F. 2d 976, 982 (C . A. 4) ; Matter of J. W. Woodruff d/b/a Atlanta Broadcasting Company, 79 N. L . R. B. 626. so Matter of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, 81 N. L. R. B. 557; N. L. R. B. v. Mylan-Sparta Manufacturing Company, 166 F. 2d 485 (C. A. 6). CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1465 .but no testimony was offered that Respondent had any knowledge of such addi- tional activity by Chasteen. Though a large number of union leaflets circulated ,by the committee were introduced in evidence, some of which bore the names of .a number of Respondent's employees as officers or members of the organizing committee, Chasteen's name did not appear on-any of the circulars until October 1946, long after his discharge. The General Counsel at the hearing sought to attach an improper motive to Platt's telephone call to Mr. Dixon , of the New Brunswick office, to ascertain the latter's views as to whether Chasteen should be discharged . In that conver- sation Platt related the incidents of August 11 as they had been reported to him. He told Dixon that he believed Chasteen was a member of the Union. Dixon .nevertheless "agreed that we could not maintain discipline in our village and keep [it] morally right and orderly if we would permit some of these incidents like this to take place." The discharge followed immediately. Though Dixon's advice on discharges was not frequently requested, I find nothing in this episode in aid of the General Counsel's contention that the call to Dixon adds support .to the theory that Chasteen was discharged for union activity. Dixon, a lawyer, .was in charge of industrial relations for all the Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries, and it was entirely reasonable to enlist his advice on the legality of the discharge. Indeed, it may well be that Platt took this extraordinary precaution to ascertain whether Respondent was within its legal rights in making the discharge. The General Counsel offered evidence to prove various types of misconduct by other employees, but which did not result in their discharge. The incidents relied on are not, however, criteria to be used in weighing the treatment accorded Chasteen in order to determine whether discrimination had been practiced against him. In all of the other incidents, one or more of the following distinguishing factors were present: (1) Respondent was not made aware of the incident; or (2) the occurrence took place neither in the plant, nor the village; or (3) the incident was comparatively trivial. While a great deal of testimony was offered by Chasteen for the purpose of proving that his supervisors "rode" him and were unduly and unjustifiably criti- cal of his work, I do not so interpret that testimony. The evidence on this phase of the case convinces me that Chasteen was treated. no differently in this respect than other employees, and that the demands made on him were not improper. Chasteen was never threatened with discharge because of his workmanship, and Respondent maintained a consistent position that the only reason he was dis- charged was because of the disturbance in the village on the evening of August 11. The only direct testimony tending to prove that he was discharged or refused reinstatement because of union activity was offered by Chasteen and his wife. The former testified that in the fall of 1947, when he sought reemployment of Willis, the latter declined to grant it because Chasteen "had lined up with a bunch of cut throats and caused trouble for eighteen months." Mrs. Chasteen testified that, in the fall of 1947, when she went to Willis to find out why Chasteen could not get a job at Chicopee, or elsewhere in the vicinity, Willis went to his file, 'jerked out a union leaflet, and said "you see Cecil's name on it . . . that's the reason Cecil can't get a job or you either." Willis denied both statements. Be- cause, as heretofore found, I have come to the conclusion that both Chasteen and his wife testified falsely with respect to other material matters, I reject their version of the two incidents and credit the denial made by Willis. . While I have heretofore found that Respondent interfered with the right of its employees to self-organization, I do not find that such conduct permeated or 1466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD influenced its decision to discharge Chasteen. As already indicated, the village was a model one, and compares well in appearance and orderliness with the better residential districts of a metropolitan city. I cannot say that, in order to maintain dignity and order in the village, the disciplinary action taken was im- proper. Even if it be assumed, arguendo, that the action was too severe, such an admission would be of no avail, unless it is established that the reason assigned by Respondent was a sham and mere cover for the General Counsel's alleged motive-discrimination against Chasteen for his union activity. Respondent had the legal right to discharge Chasteen for any reason deemed appropriate to it, or, for no justifiable reason, if it desired to exercise that prerogative, save and except only that it could not discriminate against him because of his union activities, or the exercise of any rights guaranteed under the Act. There was no credible evidence received showing such discrimination ; "rather, the evidence does show cogent reasons, within the discretion of the company, for [discharging him]."' I therefore find that the General Counsel has not sustained the burden of proving that Chasteen was discharged on or about September 23, 1946, because of "his membership in and activities on behalf of the union, [or] because he engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection." D. The refusal to hire Mrs. C. E. Chasteen The complaint alleges that on or about August 14,.1946, and since, Respondent "refused and failed to hire Mrs. C. E. Chasteen . . . because of [her and her hus- band's] membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and because [they] engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection." On August 14, while Chasteen was in jail, his wife applied to Assistant Person- nel Manager Brooks for a position with Respondent, she having previously been employed as a spooler at the Joanna Textile Mills in South Carolina. Not being called to work, she saw Brooks again about September 1, at which time he in- quired whether her husband were home. According to her testimony : "He said `Well, are you all going to live together?' I told him yes, as far as I know, and he said `Well'-he studied and drummed on his desk a couple of times-he said `Under the circumstances I can't hire you."' It having already been found that Respondent was not guilty of discrimination in discharging Chasteen, a similar finding is hereby made that Respondent did not refuse to hire his wife because of his union activities. Chasteen having forfeited his right to continued occupancy of the house by reason of the occurrences of August 12, it was entirely reasonable for Respondent to refuse Mrs. Chasteen employment upon being advised by her that she expected her husband to continue to live with her in the house, the possession of which Respondent was justifiably determined- to take from Chasteen. For the foregoing reasons, I find that the General Counsel has not sustained the burden of proving that Respondent has refused to hire Mrs. Chasteen on the grounds alleged in the complaint. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above , occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above, 'ON. L. R. B. v. Sewell Manufacturing Company, 172 F. 2d 459 ( C. A. 5), February 11, 1949. CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1467 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 ob- structing commerce, and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effect the policies of the Act. By interrogating employees concerning their union membership and activities, by offering its assistance to secure their withdrawal from the Union, by threat- ening to remove its plant from Chicopee if the Union were successful in organ- izing the plant, by threatening to discharge those of its employees who joined, or remained in the Union, and by the other violative conduct heretofore found, Respondent has evidenced a determination to deprive its employees of their statutory rights under the Act. In order to minimize the likelihood of recur- rent unfair labor practices and to assure to the employees enjoyment of their statutory rights, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act. It will also be recommended that the complaint, so far as it alleges discrimina- tion, by the Respondent, against C. E. Chasteen and Mrs. C. E. Chasteen, be dismissed. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OT LAW 1. Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. . 2. 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 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Respondent has not discriminated against C. E. Chasteen, or Mrs. C. E. Chasteen, as alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed hereby recommends that the Respondent, Chicopee Manufacturing Cor- poration of Georgia, of Chicopee, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the 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 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. 1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2, Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at its plant in Chicopee, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto; and marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it 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; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing, within twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply with the foregoing recommendations. It is further recommended that, unless the Respondent shall, within twenty (20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid. It is also recommended that the complaint, so far as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated in regard to'the hire and tenure of employment of C. B. Chasteen and Mrs. C. E. Chasteen, be dismissed. As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building , Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as it relies upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeo- graphed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as re- quired by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46, 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 service of the order transferring the case to the Board. In the event, no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom- mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and order , and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Dated at Washington, D. C., this 16th day of March 1949. DAVID LONDON, Trial Ewwnviner. 0 CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1469 APPPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL 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 hereby 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 their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA, Employer. By ------------------------------------------------------ (Representative ) ( Title) Dated ___________________ This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation
