Clearwater Finishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 15, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 268 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of pay he may have suffered from August 22, 1952, to a time 3 weeks after the strike ended
when the Respondent offered him reinstatement and he rejected the offer.
Having found that the Respondent did not discriminate with regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Armand Caron, Anthony Del Monico, Joseph E. Walsh, and Donald Fulford, I
shall recommend that the complaint with respect to them be dismissed
It is apparent from the entire record that there is danger of the commission in the future by
the Respondent of other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act. In order to make effec-
tive the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act and to effectuate the policies of the
Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the right of employees guaranteed in Section 7
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Steelworkers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of Respondent, including the shipping clerk,
employed at its East Greenwich plant, exclusive of the assistant to the superintendent, the
leadmen, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. At all times since January 5, 1952, the Union has been and now is the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing at all times since February 28, 1952, to bargain collectively with
United Steelworkers of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
aforesaid unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
5 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Charles Arnold,
Paul Aslin (Ellin), John Clancy, James Cummisky, Peter Dubuque, Joseph Molis, Raymond
P. Reed, John W. Bunnell, Patrick Fogarty, Sidney Ivens, Albert Leduc, John A. McKenna,
Francis Earl Northrup, Ernest Provencher, Joseph A. Trudell, Philip Wilcox, and Eugene
Jacques. thereby discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America, CIO, the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of 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.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
8 The Respondent has not violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act as alleged in the com-
plaint with respect to Armand Caron, Anthony Del Monico, Joseph E. Walsh, and Donald
Fulford.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
CLEARWATER FINISHING COMPANY and UNITED TEXTILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 11-CA-572 (For-
merly 10-CA-1532). April 15, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 27, 1953, Trial Examiner David London issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,
108 NLRB No. 55.
CLEARWATER FINISHING COMPANY 269
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter , the Respondent and the United Textile
Workers of America, AFL, filed exceptions and supporting
briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
made at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has con-
sidered the Intermediate Report , the exceptions and briefs,
and the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the find-
ings , conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
except as modified below.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respond-
ent violated Section 8 ( a) (1). However , we do not rely upon all
of the conduct set forth by him to support that finding.
The Trial Examiner found that "Foreman" Durden told
employee Blackmon that the mill would shut doun if the Union
came in. The Respondent excepts on the ground that there was
no proof of Durden ' s supervisory status. We find merit in this
exception . Durden's duties were those of ticket writer and
shader. His task consisted mainly of checking the correctness
of the shade of color run upon some of the Respondent ' s textile-
printing machines , and making assignments of the machines.
On this record we do not find that Durden was a supervisor, and
therefore we will disregard his remark to Blackmon.
The Trial Examiner also credits the testimony of employee
Gregory as to statements allegedly made by Supervisors
Frost , Robinson , and Hendrix . The latter all denied making such
statements . Although Gregory was credited in this instance
over the denials of the 3 supervisors , he was not credited
elsewhere with regard to his version of his own discharge.
Instead, the Trial Examiner credited the testimony of Super-
visor Hendrix over that df Gregory as to the latter's discharge.
In view of the foregoing , we do not accept Gregor ' s testimony
that the 3 supervisors , who are not otherwise discredited in
the Intermediate Report , made the alleged coercive statements
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Clearwater Finishing
Company , its agents , successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of
America, AFL , or in any other labor organization of its em-
ployees , by discharging employees or discriminating in any
manner with respect to hire , tenure , or any term or condition
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employment , except to the extent permitted by Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Interrogating its employees as to their union activities
and/or threatening them with reprisals if they continued such
activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-or-
ganization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist the
above-named or any other labor organization , to bargain col-
lectively, through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any or all of such activities , except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Byron Colley , Lonnie Lott , and David Timmerman
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges and make each of them whole
for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to the amount determined in the manner
set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report , attached
hereto, entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request , make available to the Board or its agents,
for examination and copying, all payroll records, social-secu-
rity payment records, timecards , personnel records and re-
ports , and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts
due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Clearwater , South Carolina , copies of
the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked
"Appendix A."1 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, shall , after being
signed by Respondent's representative , be postedby 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 Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in
'This notice , however , shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking therefrom the words
The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner " and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A
Decision and Order ." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order"
the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
CLEARWATER FINISHING COMPANY 271
writing, within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the com-
plaint charging that Respondent unlawfully discharged Ruby L.
Ripley, Joe Wood , Edward L. Gregory , and James D. Blaxton
be dismissed.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by United Textile Workers of America, A.F.L., herein called the
Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, on May`8, 1953, issued
a complaint against Clearwater Finishing Company, hereinafter called Respondent or the
Company, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charge, complaint, and
notice of hearing were duly served on the appropriate parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint as amended at the hearing
alleged, in substance, that since on or about January 15, 1952, and continuously thereafter,
Respondent, by specified acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. The complaint further alleged
that Respondent , on designated dates , discharged or laid off the employees named in the
margin i and has at all times after the respective terminations failed and refused to reinstate
them because they joined or assisted the Union , or engaged in concerted activities with
other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
By its answer, Respondent admitted that it had discharged the employees named in footnote 1,
supra but denied that it was guilty of any unfair labor practice.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held August 19- 20, 1953 , at Augusta , Georgia, before the
undersigned Trial Examiner . All parties appeared and were represented by counsel or other
representative , were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross - examine
witnesses, to argue orally at the conclusion of the evidence, and to file briefs. Oral argument
was waived by all parties. Since the close of the hearing a brief has been received from Re-
spondent which has been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the
State of South Carolina, having its principal office and place of business in Clearwater, South
Carolina, where it is engaged in bleaching , dyeing, and printing cotton cloth. In the course
and conduct of its business operation at its Clearwater plant , Respondent causes and has con-
tinuously caused a substantial amount of raw materials , equipment , and supplies used by it
in the bleaching, dyeing, and printing of cotton cloth to be purchased, transported, and
delivered in interstate commerce from and through the United States of America , other than
the State of South Carolina, to its Clearwater plant . The Company also causes , and has
continuously caused , a substantial amount of its finished products of a value of more than
$ 100,000 annually to be sold, transported , and delivered in interstate commerce to and
through the States of the United States, other than the State of South Carolina, from its Clear-
water plant. Respondent is, and has been at all tunes material herein, engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
'Ruby L Ripley, Joseph W Wood, Jr., Byron Colley, Lonnie W Lott, Edward L. Gregory,
David A. Timmerman, and James D. Blaxton.
2 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Te.. tile Workers of America , A. F. L , herein called the Union, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 2
A. Background
The Union's organizational campaign began on or about December 14, 1951, at a barbecue
meeting attended by 78 employees. On March 21, 1952, it filed its petition to be certified as
bargaining representative for Respondent's production and maintenance employees. On March
26, 1952, the Company and the Union entered into a "Stipulation for Certification upon Con-
sent Election" pursuant to which an election was conducted on April 10, 1952, among the
employees aforementioned to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by
the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. At that election, 296 votes were cast
for the Union, 307 votes against the Union, and additional ballots, sufficient in number to be
determinative of the results of the election, were challenged
On April 16, 1952, the Union filed its "Objections to Conduct Affecting Results of the
Election " Thereafter, the Board's Regional Director conducted an investigation into the
issued raised by the challenged ballots and by the said objections On March 6, 1953, the
Regional Director filed his report on the objections and the challenged ballots Respondent
and the Union having both filed exceptions to the report, the Board, on March 31, 1953,
ordered that a hearing be held on the issues raised by the bojections and challenges. There-
after, the Union requested permission to withdraw its petition for certification On July 15,
1953, the Board granted that request, revoked its order 9f March 31, 1953, directing that
a hearing be held, and ordered the representation case closed 3
In the summer of 1952 management was concerned with a depreciation in the quality of
work produced and a drop in production In early August of that year, Raymond Warner, the
plant manager, discussed the matter with top supervisors and on August 4 addressed a notice
to all foremen instructing them to "take the necessary steps to correct the situation brought
about by employees leaving their work without permission. "On October 2, 1952, Warner
sent another directive to all foremen and instructed them "to discharge any employee found
away from his work station without permission." Respondent's records show that the number
of discharges increased materially and that from August 1, 1952, to December 31, 1952,
58 employees were discharged for "disciplinary or other involuntary reasons."
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
By the following conduct Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act '2nd in violation of Section 8
(a) (1) thereof-
I During the week of January 21, 1952, Foreman Hankinson said to employee Finley: "If
I hear you talking about the Union again I am going to have to fire you."
2. In February 1952 Foreman Durden told employee Blackmon that thcmill would shut
down if the Union came in.
3. About 4 weeks before the election in April 1952, Foreman Brockman told employee
Atkinson that "if the damn Union comes in, either lie [Brockman] or [Blaxton, the Union's
2 The testimony concerning most of the incidents involved in this proceeding is conflicting and
contradictory and the findings of fact made herein result from my attempt to reconcile the
evidence and determine what occurred. The findings of fact are based upon my consideration of
the entire record and my observation of witnesses. All evidence on disputed points is not
described so as not to burden unnecessarily this Report. However, all has been considered and,
where required, resolved. In determining credibility I have considered, inter alia the demeanor
and conduct of witnesses; their candor or lack thereof; their apparent fairness, bias, or
prejudice; their interest or lack thereof; their ability to know, comprehend, and understand
matters about which they have testified; whether they have been contradicted or otherwise
impeached; and consistency and inherent probability of the testimony.
3 The facts pertaining to the representation proceeding have been officially noted from the
Board's file in Case No 11-RC-510, formerly Case No. 10-RC-1846.
CLEARWATER FINISHING COMPANY 273
committeeman for that department] would have to leave and he had a damn good right to
think it would be[Blaxtonl"
4. On April 8, 1952, Foreman Brierly asked employee Palmer what he thought about the
Union and told him that if the Union "went in at Clearwater they were going to sell the
Company houses."
5. On or about October 13, 1952, Foreman Brierly, in discussing with employee Palmer the
termination of employee Colley hereafter found to have been discriminatorily discharged,
said to Palmer that there were more employees "that are going to'get the same thing [Colley]
got because the Company does not want no damn Union in Clearwater."
6. Two or three days before the election, Foreman Hankinson told employee Binnicker
that the men were making a mistake in trying to bring the Union in, that he didn't want him
"to get messed up in the Union . . . [and] he thought the Company might discharge some
[Union members]."
7. The interrogation by Supervisors Frost and Hendrix of employee Gregory 4 to 5 weeks
before the election as to how many employees had attended a Union meeting and how he felt
about the Union.
8. Foreman Ribinson's rhetorical question to Gregory during the week of the election
whether Jack Jacobs (southern director of the Union) was "going to feed you all after they fire
you..,
C. The alleged discriminatory discharges
1. Ruby L. Ripley
Mrs. Ripley was employed by Respondent on July 3, 1940, and discharged on January 17,
1952, on which latter date she was employed in the sewing department. She joined the Union
the first week in January 1952, was elected to an organizing committee and at the January
12 meeting spoke in its behalf. However, she distributed no union membership application
blanks until after she was discharged.
A day or two before she was discharged, Mrs. Ripley, who was addicted to the free use
of profane language , on two different occasions, in the presence of Mrs. Adams, another
employee, referred to certain other fellow employees as "these sons-of-bitches that ain't
on the band wagon." Mrs. Adams complained to Finley, her supervisor, about Mrs. Ripley's
excessive profanity and he told her that he would look into it. Finley conferred with his
superior, Foreman Hankinson, and the latter instructed Finley to go back into the plant and
reprimand Mrs. Ripley. Finley went to her and told her that it had been reported that she was
using profane language, shouting, and causing disturbance and asked her to abstain there-
from so that the staff "could all work together better." Mrs. Ripley just laughed at the
reprimand but said nothing.
On the morning of January 17, 1952, after hearing another profane outburst by Mrs. Ripley,
Mrs. Adams went to Hankinson and complained that she didn't "like to work in a department
where [she] heard things like that going on." Hankinson informed her that he would try to
give her work at a different location. He went to Mrs. Ripley and told her that it had been re-
ported to him that she was creating a disturbance and that such conduct would have to be
stopped. Giving emphasis to her answer by the use of the scatological expression, Mrs.
Ripley informed Hankinson that she did not have to take his criticism or anybody else's.
Hankinson then told her that if that was her attitude, her services were no longer required.
Mrs. Ripley took her production card, tore it up, and threw the pieces in Hankinson's face.
I find that Mrs. Ripley was discharged because of the insubordination and insolence she dis-
played when Hankinson informed her that her conduct was causing a disturbance in the plant
and that she would have to mend her ways. I am convinced that when Hankinson approached her
on the day in question he had no intention of discharging her 4 In view of that, the further fact
that others in the plant also used profane language, but were not discharged, loses significance
in attempting to establish discrimination against Mrs. Ripley. Though her profanity was the
incident that brought about her rebukes, it was her insubordination and insolence that caused
her discharge Union membership or activity does not immunize against plant discipline for
insubordination or other misconduct. Accordingly it will be recommended that the allegations
of the complaint pertaining to her discriminatory discharge be dismissed.
4 Witness his statement to Mrs. Adams a few minutes earlier that he would transfer her
to another department so that she would no longer be annoyed by Mrs. Ripley.
339676 0 - 55 - 19
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Joseph W Wood, Jr.
Wood, employed by Respondent from 1948 to October 6, 1952, joined the Union December 29,
1951, and was elected as a committeeman for his department. He distributed 35 to 40 union
application blanks and secured the signatures of 4 or 5 employees to such applications From
February 1952 Wood, as did more than 200 other employees, wore and displayed a union
button
In the bleach-house department, where Wood was employed, it had been the established
practice to do the necessary cleaning of machinery and equipment on Friday of each week.
Because of the accumulation of lint and dust arising from the operation of the machines and
equipment, this cleanup work was essential to the successful and safe operation of the depart-
ment during the following week. To do this cleanup , it had always been the practice to assign
thereto employees in the department who had not yet completed 40 hours of work during the
earlier portions of the same week.
On the Thursday before he was discharged, Wood, who had not yet worked 40 hours during
that week, was told by Supervisors Ennis and Lowe to report for cleanup on the following
day Though Wood replied "OK" he did not come to work on Friday nor did he advise anyone
that he would not report on that day, though he was aware of the practice and the Company
rule requiring that it be notified when employees are unable to report for work. When Wood
returned to work on the following Monday, Hankinson, his foreman, informed him that he was
discharged because of his unexcused absence on the previous Friday
Wood admitted that none of his foremen or supervisors ever said anything to him about the
Union. On earlier occasions when he failed to report for work, he had "always called in or
sent work by one of the employees in[his] department" as required by company rules. The
record further establishes that others had been discharged for unexcused or unreported
absences On the entire record I am convinced and find that Wood was discharged because of
his failure to report for work on the Friday in question and not for the reasons alleged in the
complaint.
3 Byron Colley
Colley was first employed by Respondent in 1940 as an extra at about $ 13 a week and was
thereafter transferred to several other jobs until at the time of his discharge on October 10,
1952, he was engaged as a backtender on a print machine at $1 45 an hour He joined the
Union at its first meeting, was later elected chairman of its organizing committee and con-
tinued in that capacity until he was discharged from Respondent's employment. He distributed
all the union membership cards that were ever circulated among Respondent's employees and
"handled" all cards that were signed up by others on the committee. Individually he "signed
up" at least 50 employees before the election and more than that number thereafter. He dis-
tributed handbills on every occasion when handbills were circulated and was stationed for
this task in front of the gate at the personnel office. At the election, he acted as "an officer
for the Union."
Before the election, apparently in behalf of grieving employees, Colley talked to Mr. Warner,
the plant manager, and told him "the boys" were complaining "about the boss printer ...
mistreating the help." At Colley's request, Warner called a meeting of the men engaged in
the printing department Warner there assured the men that management would insist upon
fair treatment for them and "that if any other trouble came up . . [they were] to let Mr
Colley knpw" and the latter would report the matter to Warner On several other occasions
Colley complained to Dunham, Warner's administrative assistant, that the boys "did not
feel they were getting their money's worth" in the Company's cafeteria. Right after Wood
was fired on October 6, Colley complained to Dunham about that discharge At about the
same time Lewis, Colley's foreman and with whom Colley had previously discussed the Wood
discharge, instructed him "to stay out of the office and [not to] go over there and talk to
Mr. Dunham or Mr . Warner or any person pertaining to the management about anything."
On October 10, 1952, Colley was engaged as a backtender on print machine No. 12, a large
machine which prints the design on the fabric as it goes through the machine. The entire
machine is approximately 40 feet long and has a number of rollers around which the fabric
rotates. The printer is stationed at the front of the machine while the backtender stands at
the rear thereof. There it was Colley's job to watch the back of the machine and, among other
duties, to see that the rollers have the proper color, the brushes and rollers are turning
properly, and the cloth coming through in order.
CLEARWATER FINISHING COMPANY 275
At about 10 a m. of October 10 Robert Lewis, foreman of the print shop, was advised by his
assistant that an ice cream stick, approximately 4 inches long and about a sixteenth of an inch
thick, had gone through the rollers of the No. 12 print machine and had been found by Toole,
the printer. The machine was stopped immediately and only about 221 yards of the cloth was
spoiled. Toole asked Colley whether he knew where the stick came from. The latter replied
that he hadn't seen it before and didn't know how it got there Toole said he didn't know how it
got their either. Lewis was called, took the piece of cloth and stick to the supervisor of the
bleach house, and discussed the possibility of the stick being in the roll of cloth before it came
to the print machine and both decided that it could not. Lewis and the printer examined the
parts of the equipment affected and found nothing that would substantially interfere with the
operation then in progress . The presses resumed operations and the pattern then being printed
was completed. The next few jobs were checked and were found not to have been affected by
the mishap.5 At 3 p. m., the close of the shift, Colley was told to report to the office where
the personnel manager told him thathewas being discharged because of "a stick going through
his machine."
On the following Monday, October 13, Foreman Brierly asked employee Palmer whether he
wanted to take Colley's place. In the course of the conversation, Brierly told him that Colley
had "been playing fiddle around here a long time and the damn rascal can dance now... .
There is (sic) some more that are goind to get the same thing he got because the Company
does not want any damn union in Clearwater."
When the General Counsel rested his case-in-chief, the state of the record was such that
it was incumbent on Respondent to go forward with the evidence to show why it discharged
Colley. In its brief, Respondent summarizes its reasons for the termination as follows:
"There was ... every reason to believe that Colley had deliberately placed the stick in the
machine, even without an eye witness to his having done so. Whether he had placed it there
or not, he was guilty , at the least , of serious carelessness and inattention to duty, and this
following a reprimand 2 days before for absence from his machine, while it was in operation,
without permission." With respect to the first contention, I am mindful that it would be a
sufficient defense if Respondent honestly believed that Colley had thrown the stick in the
machine and discharged him for that reason. In other words, the issue is not whether in fact
Colley was actually guilty of the misconduct, but whether Respondent honestly believed that
he was, and discharged him for that reason. Atlanta Broadcasting Company, 79 NLRB 626.
However, contrary to Respondent's contention that it had "every reason to believe that
Colley had deliberately placed the stick in the machine," I am convinced and find that it had
no reason to so believe The record is utterly devoid of any suggestion as to why Colley,
with a record of 12 years' faithful service behind him, should commit an act of sabotage. The
failure of either the General Counsel or Respondent to otherwise explain its presence cannot
be used to impute to Respondent a reasonable belief that Colley had deliberately thrown the
stick into the machine
Nor is there any evidence to sustain Respondent's alternative contention that Colley was
"guilty, at the least, of serious carelessness and inattention to duty" in connection with this
incident and that he was discharged for that reason Indeed, Lewis testified that "the only
possible way [the stick] could have got in No. 12 machine was to throw it in" and that was why
he "decided to discharge him " It is thus apparent that the charge of "serious carelessness
and inattention to duty" was an afterthought. In any event, there is no credible evidence in
support of Respondent's alternative contention. Although it was one of Colley's duties to
watch the cloth as it went over the rollers at the end of the machine, he had other duties to
perform which occasionally, and for brief intervals, required him to change his position from
directly behind the rollers. At the time of the mishap in question, he was "throwing a grey
roll back in the winder," a taskapparently assigned to him Under such circumstances, I can-
not attribute carelessness or negligence to Colley in failing to discover the stick before it
went through the roller at his end of the machine.
As previously noted, only about 22 yards of material were spoiled and Respondent suffered
no other substantial damage as a result of the mishap. Other mishaps resulting in the spoilation
of cloth occur every day, in some instances involving more than a 1,000 yards of cloth, and
for which no employees were discharged. Lewis testified that "we have blankets [costing
5 While there was considerable testimony as to substantial damage that might have resulted
if a foreign object were to run further through the presses, or was of a material or substance
that would damage or cut the lapping or rubberized blanket on the machine, admittedly there
was no such damage caused by the incident under consideration.
27 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
$1,560] tear up on occasions ... due to [ loose] machine rollers ," or a bearing giving way
and, because such incidents were deemed unavoidable, no one was discharged therefor.
Foreman Rouse testified for Respondent that on October 21, 1952, he found employee Gregory,
admittedly without proper cause, and in violation of Company rules, "roaming all over the
place" several hundred feet from his post and resulting in a spoilage of approximately 300
yards of cloth. Gregory, however, was only given a warning notice on that occasion.
Colley had been employed by Respondent since 1940. His services during that period must
be deemed to have been most satisfactory because he was advanced from $13 a week to $1.45
an hour. Except for the evidence summarized in the margin, 6 there was no credible testimony
that Colley had ever been guilty of, or had been warned for, any infraction of the Company's
rules or any shortcoming in his work.
On the entire record I am convinced and find that Colley was discharged for his union
activities (characterized by Brierly as "playing fiddle"), and that the reasons assigned
by Respondent were mere pretexts to rid itself of his influence as an active union protago-
nist among the remainder of its employees . The recital of his activities establishes not
only that Colley was extremely active in carrying on all types of union activities, but that
Respondent had knowledge thereof. Indeed, Warner recognized that leadership when he in-
structed the employees to report their grievances to Colley who in turn would take the matter
up with Warner. It was in compliance with this instruction that Colley talked to Dunham,
Warner's administrative assistant, shortly after Wood's discharge on October 6 and for which
intervention Colley was reprimanded by Lewis. On the entire record I find that Colley's
discharge several days later was in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. Lonnie Lott
Lott was hired by Respondent in April 1943 as millwright helper at 85 cents an hour and
continued his employment until October 20, 1952, when he was discharged. At that time he
was classified as a millwright, first class, and receiving $1.72 an hour, plus a bonus, the
second highest-paid job in the department. Ross Laws, Respondent's master mechanic and
in charge of the department in whichLottwas employed during the entire period of his employ-
ment, considered him "a very satisfactory employee [who] ran the job very well." Lott
joined the Union in January 1952, wore its button, distributed membership cards both before
and after the election in April 1952, had charge of the organization of the machine shop, and
secured the signatures of 13 to 15 employees to such cards.
At the hearing, when Lott was asked whether any of his foremen or supervisors ever spoke
to him about the Union, he testified as follows: "Never directly about the Union. I was called
in there in a group a couple of times and was warned [ by Sanders , assistant foreman and
Lott's immediate supervisor] about talking to people in the plant." This occurred once prior
to the election and 2 or 3 times thereafter. Shortly before he was fired, Sanders called him
to his office and said: "I don't want you to talk to nobody in this shop" and that he didn't
want him "to go in the rest room or be smoking in there." No evidence was offered, how-
ever, that there was a rule against talking in the plant, or against smoking in the restroom.
About a month before he was discharged, Lott, with Nathan Smith and Sid McGee, two other
employees, was seated at a cafeteria table when Dunham, administrative assistant to the
plant manager , joined them at the same table. Colley entered the cafeteria at about the same
time and Dunham, referring to Colley, said to Smith: "There goes your boss." Smith
remonstrated that Colley was Lott's "boss" and Dunham agreed stating that he, too, under-
stood that Colley was Lott's "boss." Colley had no supervisory status in behalf of Respondent
and I construe the characterization of Colley as a boss to have reference to him as boss
of Lott's union activities. During the same conversation McGee said to Lott: "You signed
a card for him" and Lott admitted that he had.
6Lewis testified that approximately a week before Colley was discharged on October 10,
it "had been reported" to him, by an undisclosed person, that Colley was leaving his machine
and "running off smoking." Lewis further testified that he made out a reprimand slip, pur-
porting to show the violation as having occurred on October 8, only 2 days before the discharge,
gave it to Beard, Colley's supervisor, and told him to show it to Colley and to reprimand him
for it. Colley denied he left his machine on October 8, or at any other time, in violation of
Company rules and that he had ever been warned for such an offense. Beard was not called
as a witness. On the entire record, I credit Colley's denial of the alleged incident.
CLEARWATER FINISHING COMPANY 277
On Thursday, October 16, 1952, a serious mishap occurred to the No. 3 printing machine.
Lott immediately began making the necessary repairs and continued in that task through
the following Saturday morning at which time he completed the job. When Lott reported
for work at 7 a. m. on the following Monday morning, the printer asked him whether he had
completed the repairs. Lott replied that he had "put in new pipes and that the blanket is in"
but that he didn't know whether they were adjusted right or not.
It had been the established practice in the shop, after mechanical repairs of the type
made by Lott were completed and before the machine was put into operation, to have it
thoroughly inspected by the printer, the backtender, and the gray tender, to see that "the
air pipes are set at a proper angle" and that the machine is otherwise ready for operation.
Neither the printer, the backtender, nor the gray tender was called to testify whether they
made such an inspection after Lott completed the repairs. However, Lewis, the press fore-
man, testified that "there could have been a failure to inspect," and Laws, the master
mechanic, testified that the machine "had not been checked." Later that same morning,
after the machine had been running slowly for 2 to 3 minutes, Sanders reported to Laws that
an alemite fitting approximately 11 inches long had been found behind the rubberized blanket
on the machine that Lott had repaired. The fitting had been observed by another employee
who stopped the machine immediately with the result that no damage resulted.
Laws inquired of Sanders as to who had made the repairs and when the latter stated that
he was not sure, Laws instructed him to find out. When Sanders reported that it was Lott,
Laws instructed him to see Lott and if the latter admitted that he had worked on the machine
the previous Saturday, Sanders was directed to discharge him. Sanders called Lott to his
office where the latter admitted he had worked on the machine on the day in question. Sanders
showed him the alemite fitting and asked how he happened to leave it in the blanket. Lott denied
leaving it there, stating instead that he remembered definitely removing it from the machine
and throwing it "down on the floor."7 Sanders discharged him immediately thereafter.
On the entire record I am convinced and find that Lott was not discharged for the reasons
assigned by Respondent and that the incident was a pretext seized upon by Respondent to rid
itself of an active Union adherent, I am unable to believe that an employee who had rendered
almost 10 years of faithful service during which his wages were more than doubled, who had
"never been warned about carelessness" and who was considered by his superiors to be a
"very satisfactory employee who ran the job very well," would be dismissed, without warning,
for an act of negligence which resulted in no damage to equipment and no substantial loss
to the Company.
There are other factors present which cast doubt on Respondent's plea that Lott was
discharged because of the incident heretofore discussed. It was the duty of three other
employees to inspect the machine before it was put into operation, especially by the printer
after he was informed by Lott that the latter had put in new pipes. The required inspection
by the printer to determine whether the pipes were "set at a proper angle" would have dis-
closed the fitting. However, though Respondent's own testimony established that there had been
no inspection or checking of the machine after the repairs were completed, no evidence
was offered that these other employees were disciplined because of the negligent manner
in which they performed their duties, and they presumably continued in their employment.
The record also establishes that other employees were warned for infraction of Company
rules or misconduct by means of written warning notices supplied by management, but no
evidence was offered that Lott had ever been so warned.
On the entire record I find that Lott was discharged on October 20 because of his Union
activities and in fulfillment of Foreman Brierley's threat of a week before, that, just as
Colley had been fired for his Union activities, "more ... are going to get the same thing
because the Company does not want any damn union in Clearwater." By that discharge
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
T While Lott knew that there was a long-established rule which required all mechanics to
take any parts removed from the machine to the machine shop, he testified that the rule
applied only to parts "that somebody will stumble over, or a bearing, or a gear or something
of that nature, , . , but, with a little piece like [the fitting in question, he] did what every body
has done, [he] threw it on the floor." In view of the ultimate finding that follows with regard
to his discharge, I find it unnecessary to decide whether Lott allowed the fitting to remain in
the blanket or threw it on the floor.
27 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. Edward L. Gregory
Gregory was employed by Respondent from August 1946 until he was discharged on October
22, 1952 . He joined the Union at the barbecue gathering , attended "about every " meeting,
and wore its button practically every day untilhe was discharged . He signed up approximately
40 employees for Union membership before the election and about the same number there-
after . On several occasions about 4 or 5 weeks before the election , Supervisors Frost and
Hendrix asked him how many employees had attended a Union meeting and how he felt about
the Union . Gregory replied that they knew how he felt on the subject and that they were
wasting their time trying to talk him out of it . During the week of the election , Foreman
Robinson met Gregory in the waterhouse and said to him: "Is Jack Jacobs (southern director
of the Union ) going to feed you all after they fire you? " A day or two before Gregory was
fired Frost approached him and, while holding a medium-sized ball bearing in his hand, told
him that he could tell him "the past and future ; [that] ... the past looked pretty good until
6 or 7 or 8 months ago , [ but that the] future ... is black."
During , the period prior to Gregory 's discharge he was engaged as an inspector to watch
the cloth as it came through the print machine to see that it was running right . If he found
anything wrong with the cloth , it was his duty to either stop the machine or signal the printer
to stop it. As an inspector , it was his duty not to leave his post unless properly relieved.
At about 4 p. m. on October 21, Gregory had 300 yards of "misclean ," a run of bad cloth.
Foreman Rouse found him "roaming all over the place " and asked him where he had been.
Gregory made no reply , following which Rouse prepared and handed him a warning slip
stating that he was being reprimanded for being careless and permitting too much bad work
to go through the machine . At the same time Rouse told him that if it happened again he
would have to let him go . On the next day, another misclean of approximately 750 yards
was discovered on Gregory 's machine while no one was in attendance at his post. Rouse
went in search of Gregory and met him coming out of the waterhouse where the latter had
been smoking for approximately 10 minutes . Rouse told him "that he had quite a mess."
Gregory made no reply, "just acted a little silly and walked on ." It was then that Rouse
decided to discharge him, though he was permitted to finish that day's shift.
Gregory testified that before he left his machine on the occasion in question he got the
floorman , James Scott , to watch his machine . However, Hendrix testified that immediately
after the spoiled cloth was discovered when he asked Scott , whose post was nearby , whether
he knew where Gregory was and whether Gregory had asked him to act as his relief, Scott
replied in the negative to both queries.
Though the timing of the discharge , following so closely upon Frost's prediction that
Gregory's future "looked black ," makes that termination suspect, on the entire record I find
that Gregory left his machine in violation of Respondent 's rules and without arranging for a
proper replacement . Having been warned theprevious day for a similar infraction , Respondent
discharged him for a repeated violation of its rules and not for the reasons alleged in the
complaint.
6. David Timmerman
Timmerman went to work for Respondent in 1943 as a "color boy" and worked steadily
thereafter until January 28, 1953, when he was discharged at which time his job was that of
a backtender. Though his beginning wage was only $ 9.30 a week, his hourly rate at the time
of discharge was $1.47 an hour.
Timmerman and another employee were the first employees to get in touch with the Union
organizers . It was Timmerman who arranged for the barbecue of December 14, 1951, and
"cooked everything for the boys ." He wore a Union button from that time until he was dis-
charged and attended every Union meeting . He signed up about 90 employees of which 60 to
65 were signed up after the election . Of this total of 90 employees, only 25 to 30 were in his
own department.
On Tuesday, January 27, 1953, Timmerman asked employee Ray Jones, who was employed
at the same machine, whether he had ever "signed his brother up ." Jones answered that he
had not but that he would see what he could do about it. Timmerman then observed Jones
talking to Foreman Rouse following which the latter approached Timmerman and said to him:
"Me and you have been friends a long time and we are today , and I want you to quit standing
CLEARWATER FINISHING COMPANY 279
around talking the union in this plant."8 About 30 minutes later Rouse returned to him and
said: "This gets back there in the office . .. I don't want you to do that because they come
back here and eat me out ... Now damn it, quit talking the union in the plant."
On the following day, Wednesday , January 28 , Timmerman , in the presence of Jones,
remarked to several other employees in the locker room that Jones must have reported to
Rouse that Timmerman had "tried to sign him up." Jones replied: "If you tell that to the
rest of these employees you ain't going to punch in but a very few more tunes . Pull off your
glasses ." Timmerman took off his glasses and laid them in his locker. Jones caught hold of
Timmerman 's arms and forced him back against the locker . Several employees intervened,
no blows were struck , and both men returned to their work . At the close of the shift Rouse
called Timmerman to his office and said to him: "I told you yesterday to quit talking union
in this plant , and today you liked to had a fight and I got to pay you off and here it is."
Rouse and Jones both testified in behalf of Respondent . Rouse testified that about 12' weeks
before Timmerman was discharged , Jones came to him and told him that Timmerman "was
calling him all kinds of names and calling him yellow and bothering Jones all of the time."
Rouse further testified that thereafter Jones complained to him of the same conduct "two
or three times " and that because of Jones' complaint Rouse went to Timmerman on Tuesday
before he was discharged and said: "We have been working together a long time and this has
got to stop . We don 't want any trouble." However , Jones , who while working for Respondent
was also an unordained "preacher in the Church of God ," testified credibly that the only time
he ever mentioned Timmerman to Rouse was after the locker room incident . Although Jones
testified that he went to Rouse on Tuesday and merely reported to him "that there was too
much talking in the print shop to the folks," he did not "tell him who was talking."
In its brief Respondent states that "Timmerman was discharged on January 29, 1953, for
repeatedly causing dissension and baiting another employee to the point of an open quarrel,
although he had been warned to stop such conduct and had agreed to do so." If there was any
"baiting to the point of an open quarrel ," it was provoked by Jones who asked Timmerman
to remove his glasses and it was Jones who admittedly advanced towards Timmerman,
locked the latter's arms , and forced him against the locker.
In support of Respondent 's contention that Timmerman had been reprimanded and warned
in writing for "repeatedly causing dissension and baiting another employee " Respondent
offered in evidence its Exhibit No. 7, a warning notice which Rouse testified he "showed"
Timmerman , although he admitted he didn't know whether or not Timmerman could read.
The reason for the reprimand noted in the exhibit is as follows : "Employee informed this
date to stop interfering with Ray Jones and workers and causing confusion and disrupting
harmony in the department . Also this would be the last and final warning and the next occur-
rence he would be discharged." The exhibit is dated January 27, 1953, and recites that at
8 p. m. of that date " it was necessary to reprimand" Timmerman for the reasons noted
above . But, as previously indicated , Jones testified that he made no mention of Timmerman
to Rouse or anyone else until Wednesday after the locker room incident. Timmerman denied
that he had ever been warned in writing , or otherwise , and I credit his denial.
Rouse also testified that the "next day Ray Jones came to [ him] again and said they had
quite an argument in the dressing room ... [he] just decided to let him go that night."
Jones , however , as indicated above, testified that he never reported the altercation in the
locker room to Rouse . Rouse testified further that he never asked Timmerman for his version
of that incident and that the "fracas in the dressing room" was investigated for him by
second hand Parkman who made a report to him. Parkman, however, was not called as a
witness and Rouse did not disclose the nature of that report.
On the entire record I am convinced that none of Rouse's testimony with reference to the
warning notice , and his reasons for Timmerman 's discharge , are worthy of belief , and all of
his testimony with reference thereto is hereby discredited . It is abundantly clear , and I find,
that Rouse had notice of Timmerman 's activities as late as the day before the latter's dis -
charge . I further find that Rouse discharged him because of those activities and to make
certain that "the office" would not "eat him out" because of his failure to put an end to
those activities . By that discharge , Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
8 This was the only subject he had ever been "told to stop talking about." The same
limitation was put on employee Finley by Foreman Hankinson.
280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. James D. Blaxton
Blaxton was employed by Respondent in 1941 at a wage of $ 13 a week, and continued his
employment, except for a brief period of 3 months, until February 6, 1953, at which time his
pay had been advanced $1.30 an hour. He joined the Union on December 14, 1951, and attended
all of its meetings thereafter but 1 or 2. He was a member of the organizing committee for
the first shift in the jack roomwherehe was employed and signed up about 35 to 40 employees.
He began wearing a Union button in February 1952, but "took it off" in the following June or
July.
One of the privileges which Respondent extended to its employees was to purchase cloth
for their personal use from the Company's remnant cloth room . However, the time during
which the purchases could be made was fixed by a bulletin issued by Respondent and posted in
that room. For Blaxton, the appropriate period was on Tuesday and Thursday beyween 3 p. m.
and 4 p. m. On February 5, 1953, at about 2:55 p. in., approximately 5 minutes before the
close of the shift and without punching out at the time clock , Blaxton appeared in the remnant
cloth room, made a purchase and then left the plant. When he reported for work the following
morning, Brierly, his foreman, told him he was being discharged because he had not punched
out the day before.
The record establishes that Blaxton had on 8 or 10 occasions during the year preceding
his discharge , and at numerous tunes before , made purchases in the cloth room a few minutes
before 3 p . in. On all such occasions he never punched out but Brierly "marked [his] card
with a pen and ink" on the following morning.
The evidence is undisputed that Blaxton left his post of duty prior to the close of the shift
and that he failed to punch out in violation of Respondent's rules. The mere fact that his
discharge as a disciplinary measure for a violation that had been repeatedly condoned and
for which he had never been warned may seem to be unduly harsh, is not sufficient on which
to base a violation of the Act. As previously noted, the burden of proof is on the General
Counsel to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the discharge was made because
of Blaxton's Union activities. One of the necessary elements to establish such discrimination
is proof that Respondent had knowledge of such activities . Here , Blaxton admitted that no
Company official, supervisor, or foreman ever talked to him about the Union. While the facts
heretofore found establish Union activities by Blaxton, the General Counsel failed to offer
any proof that Respondent had knowledge of his participation therein after March 1952, almost
a year before his discharge . Indeed , while several hundred employees continued to do so,
Blaxton, about 6 or 7 months before his discharge, took off and thereafter failed to wear
the Union button he had previously worn. On the entire record I find that the General Counsel
has not sustained the allegations of the complaint pertaining to Blaxton 's discharge by a
preponderance of the evidence and will accordingly recommend that the same be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent , set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with
the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close , intimate , and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructuig commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , I will recommend that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the
policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent discriminatorilydischargedByron Colley, Lonnie Lott,
and David Timmerman, it will be recommended that Respondent offer each of them immediate
and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges , and make each of them whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them by the payment
to each of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages from
the date of the discrimination against him to the date of offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during that period. All computation of back pay shall be made in accordance with
the rules and methods laid down by the Board in Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, and
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
CLEARWATER FINISHING COMPANY 281
Because of Respondent 's unlawful conduct as heretofore found , and its underlying purpose,
I am convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other
unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and that the danger of their commission in the
future is to be anticipated from thecourseof Respondent 's conduct in the past . The preventive
purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless the recommendations are coextensive with the
threat. In order , therefore , to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to
prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices , and to minimize strife which burdens and
obstructs commerce , and thus to effectuate the policies of the Act , it will be recommended
that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Byron Colley, Lonnie Lott, and David Timmerman, thereby discouraging
membership in the Union , Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. By said discharges , by interrogating its employees as to their Union activities, and by
threatening them with reprisals if they continued such activities , Respondent interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) thereof.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not violated the Act by discharging Ruby L. Ripley , Joe Wood , Edward
L. Gregory , and James D. Blaxton.
(Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
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 discourage membership in United Textile Workers of America, AFL,
or in any labor organization of our employees , by discharging any of our employees, or
in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or
any term or condition of their employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union activities , threaten
them with reprisals to discourage union affiliation and activities , or in any other manner
interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
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 , or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in labor organizations
as a condition of employment , as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole the following named individuals for any loss of pay they may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them and offer them immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without preju-
dice to any seniority or other rights and privileges:
Byron Colley
Lonnie Lott
David Timmerman
282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of the
above-named Union, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may
be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3 of the Act.
CLEARWATER FINISHING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ... ............. By..............................................................................................
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered,
defaced; or covered by any other material.
MILLS INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED and DISTRICT NO. 8,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,
Petitioner . Cases Nos .13-RC-3427, 13-RC- 3428 , and 13-RC-
3429. April 15, 1954.
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jewel G. Maher,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Ac't.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to representcer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the
following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks three separate bargaining units of the
Employer's painters , carpenters , and machine repairmen. The
Employer and the Intervenor ( International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 1031, AFL) contend that the units
sought by the Petitioner are inappropriate.
After an election and certification of representatives issued
by the Board,' the Petitioner , from 1944 to 1952, represented
all production and maintenance employees , including painters,
carpenters , and machine repairmen in a single bargaining unit.
In August 1952 an election was conducted by the Board in the
foregoing unit in which the Intervenor defeated the Petitioner
and the Intervenor was certified as Vie exclusive bargaining
representative for the same unit of employees formerly repre-
sented by the Petitioner.'
157 NLRB 467.
2 Case No. 13-RC-2710.
108 NLRB No. 49.