Collins & Aikman Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 735 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of COLLINS & AIRMAN CORPORATION and TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 5-C-1513.-Decided March 24., 1944
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On January 3, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief. Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument
was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on February 22,
1944, in which the respondent and the Union participated.
The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the respondent's except ions and brief, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions and
additions noted below :
1. The 'Trial Examiner found that in 1937 the respondent violated
Section 8 (1) of the Act by questioning an employee about the Union
and by urging all the machinists not to join the Union. The respond-
ent contends that this finding is remote and unconnected with the
principal unfair labor practices involved in this proceeding. We find
some merit in this contention, since there is no evidence of any unfair
labor practice during the 5-year interval between 1937 and 1942,
when the events occurred which gave rise to this proceeding.' Ac-
cordingly, we do not base an unfair labor practice finding on the 1937
incidents. However, we do consider the occurrences as properly
I The original charge in this proceeding was filed in May 1943.
55 N. L. R. B., No. 132.
735
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cognizable to establish the respondent's background of hostility to
union organization 2
2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the respondent
engaged in surveillance of the union activity of its employees during
a 2- or 3-week organizational period in July 1942, in that Plant Man-
ager Ford, Departmental Manager Currier, and other supervisors
admittedly made it their business to keep watch over such activity at
the drug store in the company-owned village. The respondent assails
this finding, on the ground that the store was open to the public, in-
cluding management representatives as well as rank-and-file em-
ployees ; that the presence of management representatives was not
surreptitious; that management took no other overt action to obstruct
the union activity of its employees; and that the presence of manage-
ment representatives was for the purpose of preventing any disorder
or violence which might result. We find no merit in these contentions.
The respondent's representatives admitted that their purpose in visit-
ing the drug store was to keep watch over the organizational activities
of the employees. Whether such conduct be carried out openly or
surreptitiously, it constitutes surveillance proscribed by the Act.
3. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the respondent discrimi-
nated against Hanks for the purpose of curbing his union activities, in
violation of the Act. We have found above that the respondent's
representatives engaged in surveillance of the union activities of its
employees during the organizational campaign of July 1942. The
record clearly shows that they had ample opportunity to, and did,
observe Hanks taking a prominent part in these organizational ac-
tivities at the drug store.
The Trial Examiner found without merit the respondent's con-
tention that Hanks was discharged for "insubordination, misconduct,
and poor work." We concur in this finding for the additional reason
that, although the respondent claimed that Hanks' work had been
poor for a period of 3 months, it does not appear chat he was ever
warned or reprimanded about his work. We also agree with the Trial
Examiner's finding that the argument between Hanks and his foreman
just before the discharge, viewed in its setting, may not reasonably be
m egarded as amounting to nmsubordination or misconduct. Moreover,
even if it were to be so regarded, we find that it was not the motivating
cause for Hanks' discharge.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
2 Matter of Green Colonial Fu>nace Company, 52 N T, It Ti 101
COLLINS & AIKMAN CORPORATION 737
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Collins & Aikman Corpora-
tion, Roxboro, North Carolina, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner and for any purpose keeping under surveillance
the activities of its employees in or on behalf of Textile Workers Union
of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by dis-
criminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of their employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Arthur A. Hanks immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) -lake whole Arthur A. Hanks for any loss of pay he has suf-
fered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him, by pay-
ment to hun of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally
would have earned as wages during the period from the date of his
discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings during such period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at
Roxboro, North Carolina, and maintain for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive clays from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and
(c) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative
action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3)
that the respondent's employees are free to become and remain mem-
bers of Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor
organization; and that the respondent will not discriminate against
any employee because of his membership or activity in such organiza-
tion ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing.
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
^,pondent has taken to comply herewith.
578129-44-vol 55-48
738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect to Huey M. Pearce
and Samuel Seamester, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. JOHN M. HousTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTEPDIEDIA'l'Fi REPORT
Mr Geoi ge H O'Brien, for the Board
Ali'. R'ilbam B Unisleuil, of Durham, North Carolina, and Hr R P Burns, of
Roxboro, North Carolina, for the respondent.
Mr Harold G7cffitlis, of Spray, North Carolina, for the Union
Sr\TEMi.NT or TIME CASE
Upon a third amended charge filed September 27, 1943, by Textile Workers
Union of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union. the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for. the Fifth
Region (Baltimore, Maryland), issued its complaint, dated November 30. 1943,
against Collins & Aikman Coi poration, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called
the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon wore duly sei ved
upon the respondent and the Union
With respect to the unfair labor practices. the complaint as amended at the
hearing alleges, in substance (1) that the respondent has urged its employees
not to become or remain members of the Union, questioned them concerning their
Union membership, kept under surveillance its employees' meeting places to
ascertain their Union activities, and transferied and thieatened to transfer
its employees to less desirable working shifts to discourage their Union activ-
ities; (2) that the respondent discriminatorily discharged Arthur A Hanks
on August 1 and Huey M. Pearce and Samuel Seamester' on August 7, 1942,
because of their Union activities; and (3) that by these acts the respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
On December 10. 1943, the respondent filed its answer in which it denied
having engaged in any unfair labor practices Af&rnnatively, the answer alleges
that Hanks was discharged for good cause, and that Pearce and Seamester 2
were laid off because of lack of work
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Roxboro, North Carolina, on
December 17 and 18, 1943, before C. W. Whittemore, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the respondent were
i epresented by counsel, the Union by the Director of its Bi-County Joint Board.
All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues.
' Without objection the complaint was amended at the opening of the hearing to include
the allegation as to the discharge of Samuel Seamester.
2 The answer was similarly amended to cover the allegation , in the amended complaint,
as to Seamester.
COLLINS & AIKMAN CORPORATION 739
At the close of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a joint motion by
counsel for the Board and for the respondent to conform the pleadings to the
proof in minor particulars Also at the close of the hearing ruling was re-
served upon a motion by counsel for the respondent to dismiss the complaint.
Disposition of the issues raised by this motion is made hereinafter
Following the receipt of all evidence and testimony, counsel for the Board
and for the respondent argued orally before the Trial Examiner, the aigument
appearing in the official transcript of the pioceedi ngs. Oppoitunity was af-
forded to all parties to file briefs with the Trial Examiner A brief has been
i eceived from the respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and fioui his ob,4er%ation ut the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF TIlbl IiESPONDENT
Collins & Alkman Corporation is a Delaware corporation, having its prmccipal
office in New York City. It owns and operates a textile null situated in
Roxboro, North Carolina, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale and dis-
tribution of textile products
Its principal raw materials include wool top, worsted and cotton yarns and
dyestuffs. The value of such raw materials amounts annually to about $5,000,-
000, of which about 70 per cent originates in States other than North Carolina.
Its finished products include serge for Army uniforms, duck for Army and
Navy use, worsted yarns for uniform materials, and upholstery fabrics The
annual sales value of such products is between $7,000,000 and $8,000,000, all
of which is shipped to points outside North Carolina.
The respondent employs about 1,100 persons at its Roxboro plant
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0, is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the respondent.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACPICES
A. Organizational efforts in 1937; interference, restraint, and coercion
Sometime in 19;;7, during organizational activities among the respondent's em-
ployees at its Roxboro mill, Plant Engineer Warren called to his office employee
B. F. Wright, who was soliciting Union memberships, and asked him about the
organization. Soon after this occurrence Warren summoned all of the machinists
to his office and told them that if they joined the C. I. 0. they would be working
for and taking orders from the Union, and that the company could not afford to
let this labor organization run the plant 3
B Organizational efforts of the Union in 1942; the discharge of Arthur A. Hanks
and layoff of Hucy Al. Pearce and Samuel Seamester ; interference , restraint,
and coercion
1. Surveillance of organizing meetings by the respondent's officials
The record contains no evidence of Union activity among the respondent's
employees after the above-described incident in Warren's office until July, 1942.
" The above findings rest upon the undisputed testimony of Wright. Warren is dead.
The respondent called no witness to refute Wright' s account of the mass meeting of all
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On July 13 Union organizer Fred Pearce came to the mill village, near Roxboro,
at the request of his brother Huey M. Pearce, then employed by the respondent.
After Huey Pearce signed an application card, he and his brother went to the
home of Arthur A. Hanks, a loom fixer who also lived in the mill village adjacent
to the plant. Hanks and the organizer then went to the mill village drug store,
situated on company-owned property, and began to solicit Union memberships
among employees gathered there awaiting the next shift
The respondent's officials were at once informed of the organizer's presence
and the Union activity. Resident Manager Stewart M. Ford testified that he
learned of the activity from the personnel manager on July 14. Ford admitted
that thereafter and until organizational activity ceased two or three weeks later
he made it his business to be present each evening among the employees at the
drug store He declared that he went there because he "feared there might be
some disorder or violence," but admitted that he saw neither. After two or three
weeks he ceased to spend his evenings at the drug store, according to his testi-
mony, "because the organizer had left and there seemed to be no further discussion
about either him or anything else, so I just dropped back to my usual habits"
George Currier. manager of the respondent's dyeing and finishing departments in
July 1942, admitted that he also attended the employees' gatherings at the drug
store. He stated that he was there "just out of curiosity, for one thing; and
another thing, I was afraid there might be a flare-up, so I went there. Quite
possibly I thought I might be of some assistance, and curiosity, as well as anything
else." W. G. Bradsher, assistant resident manager, and other management
officials also were at the drug store meetings. The Trial Examiner finds that
the respondent's officials thus engaged in surveillance of union's activities.
2. The discharge of Arthur A Hanks
(a) Events leading up to his discharge
Despite the presence of management officials at the drug store, Hanks con-
tinued to solicit Union memberships and to pass out application cards' among
the employees during the evening before going to work on the 11 p in. to 7
a. in. shift. Hanks was a loom fixer, and had been employed by the respondent
since 1929. A few days after lie began assisting the Union organizer at the
drug store, Hanks was informed by W. D Carver, one of the two foremen of
his shift, that lie was to be transferred to another shift and that the order
came from "higher tip"' Hanks went to consult Currier, above identified, who
was in charge during Bradsher's absence. Hanks protested that since his wife
also worked at the mill, transfer to another shift would deprive him of the
opportunity of ever getting a home-cooked meal Currier agreed to look into
the matter. Later the same day he carne to Hank's home, in the mill village.
and told him that arrangements had been made for him to stay on the third
shift. At the same time he asked the employee, "Why pay for something that
you can get for nothing?" Hanks replied that the employees were asking only
for the right to organize'
machinists called by the plant engineer, nor did it claim that other machinists also employed
in 1937 were now unavailable as witnesses.
' This finding rests upon the undisputed testimony of Hanks Counsel for the respondent
stated that Carver is no longer in the respondent's employ, he had been unable to ascertain
his present whereabouts. E W Dickerson. the other foreman on flanks' shift, was a wit-
ness but was not questioned about the transfer
6 This finding is based upon flanks' credible testimony Currier denied making the last
statement attributed to him, but adnntted the occasion and the accuracy of flanks' testi-
mony as to other remarks made b3 lnm The Trial Examiner does not accept his denial as
ti ue.
COLLINS & AIKMAN CORPORATION 741
As a loom fixer, Hanks had charge of keeping in repair a section of 12 looms.
Operating these loons at this time was one experienced weaver, running four
looms, and four inexperienced weavers, each of whole was running two looms.'
At about 4 a. m. August 1, 1942, Hanks and one of the weavers were called by
Foreman Dickerson to the cloth room, where they were shown certain pieces
containing defects The foreman accused Hanks of not having checked the
run of cloth for three months, and declared that lie did nothing but stand
around and eat and drink Coca Cola. Hanks replied that he checked the
cloth whenever he had an opportunity. and added that he had come into the
world eating and drinking and expected to continue. When Dickerson re-
marked that he was supposed to eat during the 10-minute rest period, Hanks
replied that "Mr. Ford plainly said that was a smoking period and not a lunch
period." Hanks then inquired whether Dickerson himself ate during the rest
period. The latter answered that he ate "when lie was good and ready"
Hanks retorted, "Brother, I do the same." Dickerson thereupon told the loom
fixer to "mark off his picks" and come in on Monday, the next, working day,
for his pay.' On Monday Hanks was told by Ford that the discharge "goes
as it lays." The manager also remarked to the employee that he "often won-
dered what goes on in a man's head when he signs a union card "'
Hanks thereafter obtained employment at a plant in Durham, North Carolina.
Sometime in the spring of 1943, while visiting at the home of one of Hanks'
fellow workers at the Durham plant Dickerson inquired how Hanks was
getting along, and remarked that he had hated to fire hum, but had been
"told to do it."'
(b) Contentions of the respondent as to Hanks ' discharge
Dickerson testified that he had discharged Hanks for his "bad work," for
"hanging around off his job," and for "flying up and getting mad ." As to bad
work , the foreman stated that for two or three months before Hanks ' discharge
it was "gradually getting worser ," and that "it looked like he wasn't trying to
do his job as he had been, just gradually falling off a little at a time." No
records were produced by the respondent to corroborate Dickerson 's testimony,
although the foreman testified that they were made and should be available
The only incident of "flying up and getting mad" has been described above.
Dickerson admitted that other weavers and loom fixers has gotten "mad"
before, but that he had never fired any of them Dickerson admitted that
there was no special time alloted for employees to eat, and that other loom
fixers did not confine their eating and drinking to the single ten-minute rest
period provided on the shift.
The foreman further admitted that Hanks had served under him as a loom
fixer for about 5 years , and that during this period no other loom fixer had
been discharged for any cause.
6 This finding rests upon Hanks' testimony. Dickerson, his foreman , testified that the
loom fixer had two experienced weavers operating four looms each. He admitted, however,
that the four inexperienced weavers named by Hanks might have been working under him
at the time.
P The testimony of both Hanks and Dickerson is in substantial agreement on this event
H The finding as to Ford's remark is based upon Hanks' credible testimony The manager
admitted the conversation, and that Hanks had expressed the belief that lie was being dis-
charged because of the Union, but denied having made the above-quoted remark In view
of Ford ' s admitted concern about and surveillance of the union organizational meetings, the
Trial Examiner does not accept his denial as true
ll The above finding is based upon the credible testimony of T. G Crowder, the Durham
employee at whose home Dickerson visited Dickerson denied making the statement, but
admitted hni rug been at Crowder ' s home The Trial Examiner does not accept his denial
as true.
742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Conclusions as to the discharge of Hanks
The reasons for Hanks' discharge, appearing on his separation slip, were
recorded as "insubordination, misconduct and poor work." No evidence was
adduced by the respondent as to acts of Hanks which may reasonably be viewed
as having constituted either insubordination or misconduct. Dickerson's lame
explanation that Hanks, by his remark about eating, "left the impression that
he was going to continue to do as he had been doing" fails to convince the
Trial Examiner that the foreman's individual sensitivity was seriously offended
or that he considered his supervisory powers to be challenged No order was
given and no order disobeyed. He admitted that other loom fixers continued
to do what Hanks had said he would continue to do, and that none but Hanks
was discharged A machine dispensing Coca Cola is located near Hanks'
section, available to all employees at any time. The record contains much
testimony of other loom fixers establishing that the production of defective cloth
is not uncommon, and that all of them have had varying amounts deducted
frequently from their pay because weaver s under there have spoiled pieces.
Hanks had served the respondent for many years as a loom fixer, and there
is no evidence that his work had ever been such as to place his job in jeopardy.
At the time of his discharge four of the five weavers operating his looms were
inexperienced. It is reasonable to believe that their work would contain more
defects than that of experienced weavers The Trial Examiner concludes and
finds that the respondent's contentions as to Hanks' discharge are wholly
without merit.
Ford's concern about the Union organization was admitted by him. He was
plainly well aware of Hanks' leadership in seeking members. The threat to
transfer him to another shift failed to curb his Union activity. Within a few
days he was summarily discharged The Trial Examiner is convinced and
finds that Hanks was threatened with transfer and thereafter dismissed because
of his Union activities.
3 The layoff of Huey M. Pearce and Samuel Seamester
(a) Events leading up to the layoffs
During the brief organizational campaign of the Union in 1942 Huey Pearce
and Samuel Seamester 1° were working in the respondent's maintenance de-
partment under the supervision of Master Mechanic J. E. Spake. The quality
or quantity of their work is not in issue.
Pearce aided his brother and Hanks in their Union activities at the drug
store Both Pearce and Seamester carried Union application cards in their
shirt pockets while at work Spake, admitted that he believed Pearce was a
Union member. In view of the above-described surveillance of the employees
by the respondent's officials it is reasonable to believe and the Trial Examiner
finds that management was also aware of Seamster's Union activities.
During the latter part of July Pearce was transferred from the third shift
to the second. Spake's testimony is unchallenged that the transfer was made
because of lack of work for the few mechanics on the third shift. There is
no evidence that any other emplo3ee took Peaicc's former place on the third
shift.
Early in August, according to Spake's uncontradieted testimony, he requested
the personnel. department to send him a list of the six most recently hired
mechanics. On August 7 he laid off three of the six Wen named on this list;
10 Seamester was in the U. S Army at the time of the hearing and was not a witness.
COLLINS & AIKMAN CORPORATION 743
Pearce, Seamester and another . A few days later a service mechanic , also on the
list, was laid off, together with a carpenter and a tinsmith 's helper. Spake 's testi-
mony that these layoffs were necessary because of lack of work in the depart-
ment is unrefuted No new employees have been hired in Spake's department
since these layoffs.
There is no evidence that any of the employees thus laid off, except Pearce
and Seamester , were Union members or active on its behalf.
(b) Conclusions as to the layoffs
in selecting men for layoff Spake stated that he kept but one machinist with
less seniority than the three let go on August 7. This individual operated the
milling machine. Spike stated that none of those laid off could operate the
milling machine Pearce admitted that be had never run this machine and
there is no evidence in the record to refute Spake's conclusion as to Seamester's
lack of experience on it.
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the evidence does not support
the allegation in the complaint that Pearce and Seamester were discriminatorily
laid off on August 7, or that since that date they have been discriminatorily
refused reinstatement Nor does the evidence warrant a finding that Pearce's
transter to the second shift, above described, was discriminatory.
4 Conclusions in general
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that by the above-described conduct
and remarks of Warren in 1937 and of Ford, Currier, Bradsher and other
management officials in 1942 the respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by
Section 7 of the Act.
It is further found that by the discharge of Hanks because of his Union
membership and activity the respondent discouraged membership in that organi-
zation and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
The Trial Examiner also concludes and finds that Pearce and Seamester
were not laid off on August 7, 1942. or thereafter refused reinstatement,
because of their activity on behalf of the Union
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 operation of the respondent's business described in Section I
above, have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Arthur A. Hanks by discharging him on August 1,
1942. Therefore it will be recommended that the respondent offer him immediate
and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position. It
will be further recommended that the respondent make him whole for any loss
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination by payment to him
of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as
wages during the period from the date of the discrimination against him to the
date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings" during such period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF 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 discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Arthur A. Hanks, thereby discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of
America, C. I O, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section S (1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. In laying off Huey M. Pearce and Samuel Seamester the respondent has
engaged in no unfair labor practice within the meaning of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned Trial Examiner recommends that the respondent Collins & Aik-
man Corporation, its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall :
1 Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0,
or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing
to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other mariner discriminating in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of
their employment ;
(b) In any other manlier interfering, with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Arthur A. Hanks immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges;
By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter of
Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R B. 440 Monies received for work performed
upon Federal , State , county, municipal , or other work-relief projects shall be considered as
earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R B., 311 U S 7
COLLINS & AIKMAN CORPORATION 745
(b) -Make whole Arthur A. Hanks, in the manner set forth in the section
entitled "The remedy," for any loss of pay he may have suffered,
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Roxboro, North
Carolina, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days
from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respond-
ent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease
and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of these recommendations; (2) that
the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and
(b) of these recommendations; and (3) that the respondent's employees are
free to become or remain members of Textile Workers Union of America, C. I 0.,
and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of
membership in or activities in behalf of that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Direc-
tor 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 further recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to the allegation
that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices with respect to
Huey M Pearce and Samuel Seamester
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, effective November 26, 1943, any
party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date of
the entry of the order transferring thecase to the Board, pursuant to Section 32
of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building. Washington, D C, an original and four copies of a statement in writ-
ing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other
part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all inotions or objec-
tions) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in
support iheieof Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions
and/or brief. the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a
copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the
Regional Director As further provided in said Section 33, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be
made in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the
case to the Board.
C. W. WHITTEMORE,
Trial Examiner.
Dated January 3, 1944