Dixie Mercerizing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 285 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY and UNITED TEXTILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL
Case No. 10-C-2222.-Decided September 29, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On June 7, 1949, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended dismissal of
these allegations. Thereafter the Respondent and the Union filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the Respondent filed a
supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudical error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the Respondent's brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner insofar as they are consistent
with this Decision and Order.
The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the
record, the exceptions, and the Respondent's brief, in our opinion,
adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Samuel and Elsie
Couch were discharged by the Respondent in February 1947, at the
height of the Union's campaign, because of their membership in and
activities on behalf of the Union. The Trial Examiner's determina-
tion was based largely upon his credibility findings. On the basis of
these findings, lie accepted Couch's testimony that he had not signed
Foreman Harper's name on his own or his wife's time cards, and dis-
i Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three -member panel
[Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
86 N. L. R. B., No. 37. 285
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
credited the testimony of the Respondent's witnesses claiming that
Couch had done so. Upon the entire record, and particularly in view
of the contemporaneous antiunion remarks made by Overseer
Weatherford and by Harper to Couch and his wife, we are not impelled
to find that the credibility findings of the Trial Examiner were er-
roneous. We shall therefore adopt his findings as our own.
2. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent discriminatorily
changed the conditions of employment of Beatrice S. Shirley. We do
not agree.
Shirley had initially been employed by the Respondent as a doffer
in May 1946. After working as a doffer for approximately a month,
she became ill and was absent from work for a month. When she
returned to work, she was temporarily assigned to the job of sweeper,
doing "real light work." She subsequently resumed work as a doffer,
but a few weeks later in December 1946, she was transferred to the job
of sweeper.
When Shirley was given the temporary assignment to the sweeper
job, after her illness, she was not told that she would be expected to
carry food orders for employees in her section. A few weeks after
she was transferred to the job of sweeper in December 1946, however,
Shift Foreman Robinson told her that it was one of her duties as a
sweeper to obtain the food orders. Shirley indicated that she was
unwilling to do so. A few days later, Robinson had a box prepared
which would make it easier for Shirley to carry the food, and again
told Shirley that it was one of her duties to obtain the food orders.
Shirley again refused to comply, maintaining that this was not a
proper part of her duties as a sweeper in the card room. The
Respondent contends that the sweepers in the card room are re-
quired to obtain such food orders, and that Shirley had been assigned
only part of a sweeper's duties when she first returned to work after
her illness. This contention is supported-by another sweeper in the
card room, who testified that he had been told, when first hired, that
one of the duties of a sweeper was to take care of the food orders of the
comber hands. The question of whether or not Shirley was discrim-
inatorily discharged is not free from doubt, particularly in view of
Robinson's accusations, a few days before the discharge, that Shirley
had been soliciting for the Union "on the job." Upon the entire rec-
ord, however, we find that Shirley was discharged because of her
refusal to perform the nondiscriminatory work assignments required
by her supervisor. We shall therefore dismiss the allegations in the
complaint with respect to the alleged discrimination against Shirley.2
2 Dismissal of these allegations does not affect the conclusions set forth below, that
threats of discharge and other coercive statements and actions of Robinson constituted
interference , restraint , and coercion , as found by the Trial Examiner.
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY 287
3. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent discharged John
R. Wilkey and Clay Gooden because of their membership in and activi-
ties on behalf of the Union. We do not agree. Upon the entire record
and particularly in view of: (1) the Trial Examiner's finding that the
Respondent had a rule prohibiting doffers from leaving its premises
without the permission of a supervisor; (2) the Trial Examiner's
further finding that Wilkey had -been warned, some months before his
discharge, with respect to leaving the premises during working hours ;
(3) the length of time-more than an hour-that Wilkey and Gooden
were away from their posts at a time when work for which they were
responsible was to be performed; (4) the fact that another employee
had to be assigned to do this work in their absence; and (5) the failure
of Wilkey and Gooden to report to the plant superintendent, as di-
rected by Fixer Roberts when he laid them off, we conclude that
Wilkey and Gooden were discharged for cause. We shall therefore
dismiss the allegations in the complaint with respect to these alleged
discriminatory discharges.3
4. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. Our finding
is based upon the following acts and statements of the Respondent,
and its interrogations concerning union activities, all of which are
described in the Intermediate Report :
(a) The antiunion demonstration on January 30 and February
14, 1947.
(b) The formation and administration of the Dixie Good Citizens
League.
(c) The coercive acts or statements of :
(1) Foreman Harper directed to employees Emma Creasman,
Wilma Creasman, and Charles Branom.
(2) Foreman Pierce directed to employee Thomas Branom.
(3) Overseer Weatherford and Foreman Harper directed to em-
ployees Samuel and Elsie Couch.
(4) Foreman Robinson directed to employee Beatrice S. Shirley.
(5) Overseer Weatherford and Foreman Nations directed to em-
ployee John R. Wilkey.
(6) Fixer Roberts directed to employees John R. Wilkey and Clay
Gooden.
(7) Foreman Nations directed to employee Floyd Dodd.
5. We agree with the Trial Examiner's recommendation that the
allegations in the complaint that the Respondent discriminated in
0 Our conclusions below with respect to the Respondent's interference , restraint, and
coercion which are based upon the credible testimony of Wilkey and Gooden are not
affected by our dismissal of the 8 ( a) (3) allegations as to these two individuals.
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
regard to hire and tenure of employment of Ralph R. Roddy, Floyd
Dodd, John Higgins,4 and Lela Gooden (Mrs. Clay Gooden) be dis-
missed.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Dixie Merceriz-
ing Company, Lupton City, Tennessee, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL, or in any other labor organization, by discharging or re-
fusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist United Textile Workers of
America, AFL, of any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such
activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act and the amended Act :
(a) Offer to Elsie Couch and Samuel E. Couch immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Elsie Couch and Samuel E. Couch for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimina-
tion against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to the amounts each would normally have earned as wages dur-
ing the period from the date of the discrimination against him or
her to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement to a former
or substantially equivalent position, less his or her net earnings during
such period;
4In footnote 43 of the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner inadvertently stated
that Higgins admitted in his testimony that "I can ' t see no good ." The record shows that
Higgins testified : "I can ' t see so good. " This inadvertance does not affect the Trial
Examiner 's ultimate conclusions with respect to Higgins , or our concurrence therein.
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY 289
(c) Post at its establishment at Lupton City, Tennessee, copies of
the notice attached hereto marked Appendix A.5 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discharged Ralph R.
Roddy, Beatrice S. Shirley, John R. Wilkey, Clay Gooden, Floyd
Dodd, and John Higgins, and refused to reinstate Lela Gooden (Mrs.
Clay Gooden), in violation of Section 8 (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act and Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act as amended.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 offer to the following named individuals immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them :
Elsie Couch
Samuel E. Couch
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist UNITED TEXTILE WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
E In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there
shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words, "A DECREE
OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from
any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Sec-
tion 8 ( a) (3). of the amended Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of UNITED
TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA , AFL, or any other labor organization.
We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment against any employee because
of membership in or activities on behalf of any such labor organization.
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY,
Employer.
By ---------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Thomas H. Ramsey, for the General Counsel.
Mr. Frank Canstangy, of Atlanta, Ga., and Messrs. Finley, McCoy, Abernathy
d Witt, by Mr. E. S. Abernathy, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Respondent.
Mr. Lloyd E. Williams, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by.United Textile Workers of America,
AFL, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board,' by the Regional Director for the ,Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia), issued a complaint dated January 14, 1949, against Dixie Mercerizing
Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act, and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61
Stat. 136, herein called the amended Act. Copies of the complaint, the amended
charge, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the
Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges that the
Respondent: (1) On or about the dates set forth opposite their respective names
discharged the employees named in the footnote below;' (2) on or about April
15, 1947, and thereafter, refused to reinstate Mrs. Clay Gooden to her former
or substantially equivalent position; (3) discharged and refused to reinstate
said employees because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the
Union, and because they engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes
'The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are refei•red to as the
General Counsel, and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
2 Ralph R. Roddy, January 16, 1947 ; Elsie Couch, February 7. 1947 ; Caa.nel F. Couch,
February 7, 1947; Beatrice S. Shirley, February 11, 1947 ; John It. Wilkey. May 5, 19-17 ;
Clay Gooden, May 5, 1947; Floyd Dodd, May S. 1947: Jchn Higgins, May 12, 1947.
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY 291
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; (4) by its officers,
agents, and employees from on or about October 7, 1946,3 to the date of the
issuance of the complaint, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
by (a) vilifying, disparaging, and expressing disapproval of the Union, (b) ques-
tioning its employees concerning their union affiliation and activities, (c) warn-
ing and threatening employees with discharge in the event the employees affiliated
with or became active on behalf of the Union, (d) threatening or warning its
employees from assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of the
Union, (e) informing its employees that the plant would be closed or moved
to another city if. the employees joined the Union, and (f) granting a general
wage increase on or about February 14, 1947, without consulting the Union ;
and (5) by said Acts and conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and
the same Section of the amended Act.
In its answer duly filed, the Respondent admitted the jurisdictional allega-
tions of the complaint, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Chattanooga, Tennessee, from
February 15 to March 2, 1949, inclusive, before the undersigned Trial Examiner.
The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel, and the
Union by its representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was
afforded all parties. At the opening of the hearing and at the close of the
General Counsel's case, the Respondent- moved separately to dismiss certain
portions of the complaint. The motions either were denied or ruling was
reserved. The Respondent renewed its motions to dismiss at the close of the
whole case. Ruling was reserved on all motions. The motions to dismiss are
disposed of as hereinafter indicated. The General Counsel moved to conform
the pleadings to the proof, as to names, dates, and other minor variances. The
Respondent joined in the motion. The motion was granted.
The General Counsel and the Respondent argued orally before the Trial
Examiner at the close of the hearing. All parties were afforded an opportunity
to.file briefs or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, or both. The
Respondent has filed a brief with the Trial Examiner.
Both the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Tennessee corporation, having its principal office and
place of business in the city of Chattanooga, State of Tennessee, and a branch
manufacturing plant located at Lupton City, Tennessee. At its Lupton City
plant, the facilities herein involved and hereinafter referred to as the plant,
it is engaged in the spinning, mercerizing, and dyeing of cotton yarns and in the
manufacture of related products. During the year 1948, the Respondent pur-
chased ' and received at its plant, raw materials, principally cotton, valued in
excess of $1,000,000, of which amount more than 65 percent was shipped to the
plant from points outside the State of Tennessee. During the same period,
the Respondent manufactured, sold, and distributed finished goods valued in
3 The complaint specifies the date as February 13, 1.947. At the hearing, the General
Counsel moved to amend the complaint as above. The motion was granted without
objection.
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
excess of $1,000,000, of which amount more than 75 percent was shipped from
its plants to points outside the State of Tennessee. At the times mentioned
herein, the Respondent employed approximately 1,100 persons who were engaged
in production and maintenance work; and of these employees, approximately
425 worked on the first shift, approximately 325 on the second, and approximately
325 on the third.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America, AFL, is a labor. organization which
admits to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Respondent's supervisory employees
.At the hearing the parties stipulated that the following persons were super-
visory employees of the Respondent within the meaning of the Act:
E. W. Hill, Robert H. Weatherford, Ed Anglin, Raymond Wilson, Ray
Payne, Curtis Neil, Tom Nations, John H. Pierce, Homer Harper, T. L.
Wilkey, William G. Cordell, Orin Denton, Albert Millard, and Bryant
Robinson.
Hill was the plant superintendent, Weatherford was overseer of the spinning
department, Wilkey was overseer of the carding department,' and the other em-
ployees named above were either classified as supervisors or shift foremen.
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent's fixers or section men
are also supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act, and the amended
Act. The Respondent contends otherwise. The witnesses in their testimony
referred to these employees as bosses, section men, fixers, foremen, and section
foremen. They will be hereinafter referred to as fixers.
In my opinion, the evidence conclusively shows that fixers are supervisory em-
ployees. Although they perform manual work when fixing or repairing machinery
and are paid on the hourly rate basis, it appears that their main duty was to
patrol their respective sections, inspecting the quality and quantity of work
of the employees under them. The record is replete with evidence, undisputed
in all but a few instances, showing that fixers discharged or effectively recom-
mended the discharge of employees ; that they issued working orders to em-
ployees ; that they reprimanded employees for neglect of their duties ; that they
maintained time records for employees; that they recommended and obtained
promotions for employees ; that they granted leaves of absence to employees ; and
that they laid off employees. Although for reasons of brevity all of this evi-
dence is not discussed herein, it has been considered and found to be credible.
Accordingly, it is found that fixers are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act and the amended Act.
B. Background; sequence of events
In October 1946, four employees of the Respondent visited Lloyd Williams,
a representative of the Union, and requested his aid in organizing the plant.
Williams gave them membership application cards for use at the plant. There-
after, he personally participated in the solicitation of employees to join the
Union. Beginning shortly after January 1, 1947, Williams on some few occasions
distributed union circulars to employees in front of the plant. On or about
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY 293.
January 17, the Union sent the Respondent a letter which stated in part as
follows :
On behalf of the United Textile Workers of America, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, I wish to inform you that the afore-mentioned.
Union has been designated as the collective bargaining agent by a majority
of the employees of the Dixie Mercerizing Company plant located at Lupton.
City, Tennessee.
We would be pleased to arrange for a conference with you at your con-
venience for the purpose of entering upon negotiations looking to a con-
tractual agreement betwen the Unifed Textile Workers of America and the
Dixie Mercerizing Company (Lupton City plant).
We would like to call your attention to some of the activities of certain
of your foremen and sub-foremen at the Lupton City plant, involving
intimidation and coercion of the employees to prevent the exercise of their
right under the National Labor Relations Act to organize and bargain
collectively through a union of their own choosing. These activities in-
clude statements that when the Union "comes into" the plant the company
will close the cafeteria, raise the house rent of those occupying company
houses, install meters and make charge for electric and water services,.
close the hospital, stop paying bonuses, take away smoking privileges, cease
extending credit at the commissary. In addition, certain foremen have
threatened to discharge employees who join the Union, increase the work
load, and have made other threats of a similar nature. The foregoing
actions by the supervisory personnel are attested to by affidavits of various
employees who have been subjected to this intimidation.
We trust that you will properly instruct your subordinates so that they
will cease the practices enumerated above, and similar practices, which
are in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
By letter dated January 23, 1947, the Respondent replied to the Union's letter
as follows :
This will acknowledge your letter of January 17, written on behalf of
the Textile Workers Union of the A. F. of L., in which you state that
your Union has been designated as the collective bargaining agent of the
majority of our employees, at our Lupton City Plant, and request a con-
ference with me to negotiate a contract with you which would govern their
relations with the Company.
I must definitely disagree with your statement that your Union has been
designated by the majority of our employees. I do not believe that this
is a correct statement, nor do I believe that any considerable number of our
employees have any desire that your Union represent them.
You must know, and I believe that you do know, that if I should meet
with you as you request, for the purpose of entering on negotiations with
you for a contract, this would, under the law, constitute our recognition of
you as the collective bargaining agent for all of our employees.
This would mean that upon your request, and by that action, the Com-
pany would have taken away the rights of all our employees and their
liberty to make their own decisions, and to bargain with the Company as
free individuals for themselves, and turn these rights over to your Union
to use as it might see fit.
867351-50-vol. S6--20
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We have always respected the rights of our employees of whatsoever
nature, and we will continue to respect them . Among these rights, our em-
ployees may, if they wish to do so, freely and without coercion or inter-
ference designate you or any other organization of their choice to represent
them ; and may by that action voluntarily surrender their individual liberty
of action with respect to their employment. The Company will do no more
interfere with that right than with any other.
Our employees are free to join, properly support or properly advocate any
union of their own choice , including your own, and they are equally free to
refuse to join, to properly oppose any union , including your own, and to resist
by any proper means the ambition of any union to take over their bargain-
ing rights . Our employees know this and they know that their jobs are not
dependent on either joining or refusing the join a union.
In this connection, this is to advise you that it has been in the past, and will
continue to be in the future, a firm and fixed policy of this Company that no
employee will ever be required to join or to refuse to join any union in order
to hold his or her job without any discrimination of any sort in either case.
We suggest that you so advise your own agents and employees to this
effect, since it has been necessary for the Company to correct statements
contrary to this made to our employees. We also submit to you that any
form of coercion or intimidation by you, your Union or its agents or em-
ployees against people who work with this Company is improper and an
interference with their rights which will not be tolerated.
With respect to the charges in your letter that our supervisors have
threatened our own employees , and committed other unfair labor practices,
we do not believe this to be true. Both our supervisors and our employees
know that we will not sanction improper conduct.
Since this matter directly concerns our employees , we are taking the
liberty of making this letter available to them for their information, in
keeping with our long established policy of frank and open dealings with
them, which they have a right to expect us to continue and which we pro-
pose to continue.
As will be hereinafter related, Williams and other representatives of the Union
had difficulty in the distribution of union circulars at the plant on January 30,
and February 14. On February 25, representatives of the Union and the Re-
spondent met with a field examiner of the Board, for the purpose of discussing
the conditions for an election to be held by the Board. The parties, however,
were unable to reach a final agreement on the election, apparently for the reason
that the Union refused to sign a waiver of alleged unfair labor practices. Dur-
ing the meeting, Williams complained to George R. West, Jr., president of Re-
spondent, that supervisory employees had interfered with the distribution of
union circulars. West told Williams that he would "take care of it."
C. Interference, rostra jut , and coercion
1. Distribution of union circulars on January 30 and February 14,1947; the League
On January 30, 1947, Williams and several other representatives of the Union
went to the Respondent ' s plant for the purpose of distributing circulars. They
arrived at about 1: 45 p. in. or before the change in shifts which took place at
2 p. in. Shortly after 2 p. ni. and when the circulars had been distributed, a
group of approximately 30 or 40 persons, including Fixers Allman and Ballard,
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY 295
approached the union representatives. Employees Sam Handy and Robert
Denton acted as spokesmen for ,the group. They made threatening and inciting
remarks, such as, "let's beat them up and throw them back across the railroad
tracks." After further threats and argument, the union representatives left
the plant.
On the same day and about 2 hours after the above-related incident, Fixer
Allman told the male employees in his section that they all had permission to
leave their jobs in order to go out of the plant and "join the mob" when the union
representatives returned to distribute circulars, and that the plant whistle would
be blown so that they would know when to leave the plant.'
At some time before February 9, notices were placed upon the Respondent's
bulletin board as follows:
NOTICE
There will be an organizational meeting of the
DIXIE GOOD CITIZENS LEAGUE
at the gymnasium , Lupton City Sunday, Feb . 9, 1947, 3 o'clock
Election of Officers
Talks by Rev. Brooks and Rev. Linkous
MEN, WOMEN-EVERYBODY WELCOME
BRING A FRIEND
On and after February 9, Respondent's supervisory employees solicited employees
in the plant during working hours to join the Dixie Good Citizens League, herein-
after called the League.' A meeting of the League was held on February 9.
The meeting was presided over by a Mr. Cochran, president of the League'
Concerning Cochran's statements at the meeting, employee Alvin Pritchett was
questioned and testified credibly and without contradiction as follows:
A. ... He [Cochran] got up and said that the Union-he was notified or
heard that they would be there; said, when they come, he said, "The whistle
will blow, the siren will blow." And said, "come on out." Said, "There will
be men out there to spot their cars." And said, "We will put them away or
they will go away." "Put them away," one of the two, something like that.
Q. Did lie have anything else to say, Mr. Pritchett?
A. No; that was about all he said that I can remember of.
Q. Did he say anything about being armed?
A. Yes, sir; he said, "If they said they would be armed-" and he said,
"If they are, we can be, too."
Q. Did he mention who the "they" were?
A. No; lie said, "if they said they would be armed; if they are, we can he,
too."
Shortly before 2 p. in . on February 14, Williams and other representatives of
the Union returned to the Respondent's plant and started to pass out union
4 Employees John Roddy and Paul Roddy testified without contradiction that Allman
made the above statements. Paul Roddy's test4nuony indicates that Allm:ui made similar
statements to employees on or shortly before Pd ruary 14.
'Testimony of wifeess:es for the General Counsel discloses that Shift Foreman Pierce
and Fixers 1lunt. Norris. .lenno. Melton and Jenkins engaged in the above activities.
`Cochran was present througliont the hearing. Statements by Respondent's counsel at
the hearing and in their brief indicate that Cochran was a "veteran trainee" and not a
supervisory employee of the Respondent at the tiums mentioned herein. Otherwise, his
official position with the Respondent is not disclosed by the record. He was referred to
by one witness for the General C'ou:iscl as an instructor in the Respondent's school.
Cochran was not called a5 a aitness.
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
circulars in front of the main entrance. At about 1: 55 p. nl. the plant whistle
was blown, or about 5 minutes earlier than usual. A group of about 50 or 60
persons then came out of the plant and surrounded the union representatives.
Included in the group were Cochran and Fixers Allman, Ballard, Shipley, Roberts,
and Clayton. The group placed itself around the union representatives so that
they were isolated and could not distribute circulars to the employees who were
entering and leaving the plant during the change in shifts. When one of the
group tore the circulars from the hand of one of the union representatives, they
started to return to their automobile. As they were walking, the circulars which
Williams was carrying were pulled from his hand. When he stopped to pick
up the circulars, either Allman or Cochran, who were directly behind him at
the time, or both, stated, "Come on, keep going, keep going." As the union men
reached their automobile, Cochran said to them "Get on out of here, we don't
want you back." At about the same time, Allman stated, in substance, "Let's
beat them up and throw them back out on the railroad tracks. We ran the
Union out of here once before, and we can do it again." Thereafter, as the union
men attempted to drive their automobile through the company village, Altman
and several others of the group got in the middle of the road and blocked their
way. Allman stated, "I don't even want you to drive into the village. Back on
out of here." Ralph Roddy, who at the time had been discharged by the Re-
spondent, as will be hereinafter related, mounted the side of the automobile
and told Allman and the others that the automobile would go through the village
as it was a one-way street. With Roddy clinging to the side of the automobile,
the union men then left the plant and the company village without further
molestation.
While the antiunion demonstration was taking place in front of the plant,
a number of second-shift employees left their jobs with the permission of their
supervisors. They either went outside the plant to watch or join in the demon
stration or looked at it from the plant windows. While employee Clay Gooden
and others in his department were at the windows, Superintendent Hill joined
them and stated, "Wonder why they are passing those out for? They don't seem
to be doing much good. I don't see any sense in doing that any way, they are
just wasting their time." Hill thereafter stood at the windows and watched
the demonstration.'
The undersigned finds that by the above antiunion demonstrations on Janu-
ary 30 and February 14, 1947, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees. The evidence conclusively shows that the Respondent
formed and sponsored the League for the specific purpose of combating the
Union and staging the demonstration on February 14. It is undisputed that
notices of the League's organizational meeting were posted in the plant and that
supervisory employees solicited employees to join the League during working
hours. Further, as predicted by Cochran at the League's meeting, the plant's
whistle was blown as a signal that the union representatives had appeared at
the plant. Accordingly, the Respondent was responsible for the League's con-
duct and for the statements and actions of Cochran, as president of the League..
Supervisory employees were participants in both demonstrations. With the
plant whistle as a signal, employees and supervisors on the second shift were
permitted to leave their jobs. and join the demonstration. Although the record
shows that the demonstration lasted until at least 2: 15 p. m., it does not appear
7 Gooden testified credibly and without contradiction to the above statements and acts..
of Hill . Hill did not appear as a witness at the hearing.
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY 297
that these employees lost any wages for the time that they were away from their
jobs or that they were reprimanded in this connection. Further, Plant Superin-
tendent Hill witnessed the demonstration on February 14 and made no effort to
stop it, although it appears that the demonstration took place on the Respondent's
premises. The above facts are indicative of top management's active participa-
tion in the demonstrations, especially on February 14. However, I do not find
it necessary to make any conclusions in this connection. The Respondent was
responsible not only for the conduct of its supervisory employees but also for that
of the League.
2. incidents involving supervisory employees a
Homer Harper vas shift foreman on the third shift. During January 1947,
Harper asked employee Emma Creasman if she wanted the Union in the plant.
When Creasman indicated that she was in favor of the Union, Harper said that
bonuses would be eliminated and that there would be continual strikes.
Sometime after Christmas 1946, and before February 7, 1947, Harper asked
employee Wilma Creasman if she had signed an application card of the Union.
Creasman replied that she had. Harper then asked her if she would get her card
back from the Union. When Creasman did not answer his question, Harper told
her that the usual Christmas bonus would be eliminated by the Union.
Shortly before February 7, Harper discussed the Union with employee Charles
Branom. Harper stated that he knew the employees who were distributing ap-
plication cards of the Union; that if the employees organized a union in the
plant, the Respondent would discontinue restaurant services, bonuses, and all
other privileges ; and that before the Union would be permitted in the plant,
the Respondent would "close it down and let grass grow over the top of it."
It is found that the above statements of Harper constitute interference, re-
straint, and coercion.
On about January 6, 1947, John Pierce, second shift foreman, had a conversa-
tion in the plant office with employee Thomas Branom. Pierce stated that in
union plants the employees worked 8 hours a day, did not have a cafeteria, and
had to obtain permission in order to smoke or to go outside the plant; and that if
a union organized the Respondent's plant, it "would be as strict as any other."
The undersigned finds that Pierce's statements constitute interference, restraint,
and coercion.
3. The general wage increase
It is undisputed that the Respondent granted a general wage increase on
February 14, 1947.
The General Counsel contends that by granting such an increase at the time in
question the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees.
I do not find any merit in this contention.
T. L. Wilkey, plant superintendent at the time of the hearing, testified credibly
and without contradiction that the increase was given on February 14, 1947, in
keeping with the general movement of wages in the textile industry, and in keep-
ing with past custom of the Respondent in granting wage increases under such
circumstances.
Accordingly, I find that by granting a general wage increase on February 14,
1947, the Respondent did not interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees.
8 Other interference by supervisory employees will be hereinafter discussed in connection
with the discharges.
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. The discharges
Ralph R. Roddy:
Before his last period of employment, which was from November 8, 1946, until
his discharge on January 16, 1947, Roddy worked for the Respondent in 1923 and
1933. During his whole course of employment he worked in all departments of
the plant except the Spinning Department. He was rehired in November 1946,
during Respondent's "rush" season to replace a warehouse employee who had
become ill, and worked under Foreman Blaine Gann.
About December 1, 1946, Roddy joined the Union. Thereafter, while eating
lunch in the office of the warehouse , he solicited warehouse employees to join
the Union' Gann also ate his lunch with the warehouse employees, and at times
discussed the Union with Roddy. During one such conversation shortly after
January 1, Gann asked Roddy if he had signed an application for membership
in the Union. Roddy replied that he had."
On about January 13, Gann told Roddy, "I am going to have to let two boys
go in the plant." When Roddy asked the names of the employees who were to
be discharged, Gann replied, "I don't know exactly." Roddy then said, "I'll be
glad to go in the card room, if I may and not run ahead of anybody on the
seniority, . . . you see where they want me at. I have had experience
everywhere but in the spinning room." Gann said that he would "see about it."
Later that same day, Gann told Roddy that no other jobs were open for him in
the plant and that his orders were to discharge Roddy and employee Paul Hyatt
in accordance with Respondent's seniority rule or custom. Roddy continued to
work until January 16. when he was discharged.
Conclusions
The Respondent contends that Roddy was hired in November 1946, on a tem-
porary basis during the rush season, that when the rush season was over a re-
duction in its warehouse personnel was necessary, and that Roddy and Hyatt
were selected in accordance with a seniority rule.
The undersigned believes that the General Counsel has failed to sustain the
burden of proof and, therefore, finds that the Respondent did not discharge Roddy
because of his membership in or activities on behalf of the Union. It is undis-
puted that the Respondent had knowledge of Roddy's adherence to the Union, as
shown by his conversations with Gann, related above ; but such knowledge,
standing alone, is not sufficient. It is also undisputed that the Respondent
follows a seniority rule in the lay-off of employees, and that Roddy was the
last employee hired in the warehouse. Further, the evidence shows that Hyatt
was discharged at the same time as Roddy, although he worked in the ware-
house longer than Roddy. There is nothing in the record to indicate whether
or not Hyatt was an adherent of the Union. Since no charge of discriminatory
discharge was filed on his behalf, it logically may be inferred that he was not.
The General Counsel contends that the fact that some employees were hired
for the warehouse after Roddy's discharge is evidence of discrimination. T-.,e
record shows that the first employees hired were Fletcher Reed and Hyatt."
They were rehired about 3 or 4 months after Roddy's discharge. Subsequently,
0 The evidence indicates that Roddy also solicited employees of other departments after
working hours.
'0 Roddy testified credibly and without contradiction to the above facts. Gann did not
appear as a witness at the hearing.
11 Reed was the employee who was ill in November 1946, and whom Roddy replaced.
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY 299
Reed again left the Respondent's employ ; and Taylor Coulter, a former em-
ployee, was hired in his place. At about this time employee Charlie Berry
was also hired in the warehouse. In my opinion, the above evidence is not
conclusive, especially since it does not appear that Roddy applied for employ-
ment after his discharge.
Samuel E. Couch and Elsie Couch: 12
Samuel Couch was first employed by the Respondent in January 1945. Except
for about 2 months when he quit, he worked steadily until his discharge on
February 7, 1947. He was a spinning doffer at the time of his discharge and
worked on the third shift under Shift Foreman Harper and Fixer Melton.
During her last period of employment with the Respondent, Elsie Couch worked
from November 1946, until her discharge on February 7, 1947. During the last
3 or 4 weeks before her discharge, she was learning to run reels on the third
shift under Fixer Norris.
Samuel Couch joined the Union in December 1946, and his wife joined about
February 2, 1947. During January he solicited other employees at the plant
to Join the Union. About 2 weeks before February 7, Harper asked Couch
what he knew about the Union. Couch replied that he did not know anything
about it. Harper then told him, in substance, that he would be in favor of
the Union if it would do any good in the plant; that the Union would not benefit
the employees ; that it would cause strikes ; that the Respondent would close
the plant before it would recognize the Union ; and that if the Union organized
the plant, the Respondent would close the restaurant and require employees to
work 8 hours without smoking. About 1 week later,. Harper told Couch that
employees had complained to him about Couch's solicitations on behalf of the
Union and warned him not to solicit during working hours.i9
Shortly before February 7, Overseer Weatherford sent for Couch. In the
presence of Fixer Norris, Weatherford said to Couch, "I hear you have been
fooling around with the Union. I don't know ; I am not going to say you have,
or you haven't. Don't let me catch you fooling with it. I just want to give you
a warning." 14
About 1 week before February 7, Harper asked Elsie Couch if she had signed
a card for the Union. She told him that she had. He then said , "Sam's [Samuel
Couch] got a good job out there; in fact, he has got the best job in the mill. But,
if he don't leave that Union alone, he's not going to have a job long." She replied
that he would have to talk to her husband about that. Harper also stated during
this conversation that he would be for the Union if it would do any good ; and
that if the Union organized the plant, there would be 'a strike and the employees
would have to eat cold lunches as they would not have a restaurant.
On February 7, Harper discharged Samuel Couch, allegedly for marking his
and his wife's time cards. Harper also discharged Elsie Couch at the same time,
allegedly for the reason that it was Respondent's custom to discharge a wife
whenever her husband was discharged.
12 The cases of Samuel E. Couch and Elsie Couch , husband and wife , are discussed to-
gether since their discharges involve the same Incident.
11 Couch testified credibly and without contradiction concerning the first conversation.
The testimony of both Couch and Harper was substantially the same as to the second
conversation . The Respondent did not have any rule against solicitations In the plant
during working hours. Harper testified that the employees who complained to him were
paid on a piece -rate basis . Couch was paid an hourly rate.
14 Couch was helping his wife with her work when Weatherford sent for him. As re-
lated above , Norris was the fixer over Elsie Couch . Couch testified credibly and without
contradiction to the above conversation.
.300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Conclusions
The undersigned finds that the above remarks of Harper and Weatherford to
Samuel Couch and of Harper to Elsie Couch constitute, interference, restraint,
and coercion within the meaning of the Act.
With respect to the discharges, the Respondent contends that Couch was dis-
charged because he marked time on his and his wife's time cards and signed
Harper's name to the entries. The time cards in question were received in evi-
dence. The card of Samuel Couch shows time entries in ink on Friday night,
Saturday morning, and Tuesday night. Elsie Couch's card shows one time entry
in ink on Tuesday night. All entries are signed, "Harper."
Samuel Couch testified, in substance, that it was his custom to punch his
-wife's time card for her; that on one night during the pay-roll week ending on
February 6, either Tuesday or Wednesday, he was unable to punch the time on
-their cards because a time clock was out of order ; that he had entered the plant
that night shortly after the whistle for the start of the shift had blown; that
-he did not attempt to punch the cards at another time clock as employees were
lined up before it; that later that same week he entered by hand the missing time
on the cards; that he did not sign Harper's name to the entries; that he knew
-lie was supposed to request the foreman to enter missing time on a card when for
any reason he failed to punch the clock ; that at one time some months before
February 1947, Harper told him that he would charge him a "quarter" for every
time, he was required to enter time on his card for him ; that thereafter on some
few occasions he made time entries on his card when the clock was out of order
or he had arrived late for work ; 15 and that he did not request Harper to enter
the time on his card for February 6 as he could not find him 16 Leta Tolbert,
timekeeper in the Spinning Department, testified that on Friday morning when
-she collected the time cards for the week ending February 6, she noticed Harper's
-name written on the cards of Samuel and Elsie Couch ; that the writing was not
Harper's signature ; and that she sent the cards to Harper. Harper testified, in
substance, that in the presence of Norris and Elsie Couch he asked Samuel Couch
if he knew who had signed the cards ; that Couch replied that he had signed them ;
and that Elsie Couch said, "I told Sam he couldn't do that." Concerning the
-conversation at the time of his discharge, Couch testified that Harper asked him
if he knew it was against the rules to "mark" time cards; that he replied that he
did not know of the rule and that cards which he had marked before had been
passed; and that Harper said that such cards had not been noticed by the
- timekeeper.
It is undisputed that Couch made the time entries on the cards. The only
substantial disputes in the evidence are whether or not Couch signed Harper's
name on the cards and admitted this fact at the time of his discharge. Couch
denied that he had signed Harper's name on the cards, and the undersigned
'believes and finds that his testimony is credible in this respect. Samples of
-Couch's handwriting are in evidence, which, in my opinion, do not resemble the
-handwriting on the cards in question in any manner whatsoever 17 Accordingly,
the undersigned believes that Couch's version of the conversation at the time of
11 The evidence discloses that employees were instructed not to punch the clock if they
-were more than 15 minutes late for work.
11 Other time cards of Couch and his wife, which were introduced in evidence by the
Respondent, and the testimony of Harper show that on a number of occasions, including
-some dates in January 1947, Harper marked and signed their cards.
17 The signatures on the cards have a close resemblance to samples of Harper's hand-
-writing, which also are in evidence. Harper denied that he had signed the cards.
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY 301
discharge is more reliable than Harper's and therefore does not credit Harper's.
testimony in this connection 19
The undersigned finds that the Respondent discharged Samuel and Elsie Couch
because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. Shortly
before February 7, Weatherford warned Couch about his adherence to the Union,.
as related above. At about the same time, Harper told Elsie Couch that her hus-
band would lose his job if he continued to adhere to the Union. In view of these-
remarks, the above finding of discrimination is inescapable.
The Respondent contends that Couch committed a serious offense by marking
the time cards. However, it is undisputed that the fixers also maintained a rec-
ord of employees' time. In view of this fact, Couch's action loses some of
its importance. The evidence conclusively shows that it was a rule of the
Respondent that when employees for any reason failed to punch their time,
they were required to present their cards to the shift foremen in order to have
their time marked. It appears, however, that this rule was not strictly en-
forced. Couch testified without contradiction that about 7 or S months before
his discharge he marked his card in the presence of Fixer McDonald ; that he
marked another card about 4 months later in the presence of Fixer Bryson ; and
that he was not thereafter reprimanded. Employee Charles Branom testified
without contradiction that about January 1947, he marked his time on a card
and signed Harper's name to it; and that Fixer Melton thereafter told him not
to do it again as "it might cause some trouble." 19 Accordingly, after due con-
sideration of all the evidence in this connection, the undersigned is convinced
and finds that the Respondent did not discharge Samuel Couch for cause and
that the Respondent used the violation of its rule as a pretext in discharging
Couch and his wife.
Beatrice S. Shirley:
Shirley was hired by the Respondent on about May 29, 1946. Except for a
month when she was ill, she worked steadily on the third shift until her discharge-
on February 11, 1947. Before her illness her job was learning to doff frames.
When she returned to work, Shift Foreman Robinson gave her light jobs, such
as sweeping. around frames or laying up roving. She then worked for a few
weeks as a doffer. Shortly before Christmas, 1946, she was transferred to the
job of sweeper in the card room under the supervision of Fixer C. B. Smith. She-
continued on this job until her discharge. At sometime in December she signed
an application for membership in the Union. It does not appear, however, that
she solicited other employees or was otherwise active on behalf of the Union.
Some few nights before her discharge, Robinson went to Shirley and asked her
what she knew about the Union. She replied that she did not know anything
about "a cotton mill union ." He then asked her what she knew about other-
unions. She told him that she once had belonged to a union for-4 or 5 years and
was in favor of it. Robinson inquired if she had signed an application card of"
the Union. She replied that she had signed one. Robinson then said that he had
two reports that she had been trying to organize employees "on the job," and
that if lie received another such report, she would be discharged. The next night
Robinson again spoke to Shirley about the Union shortly before the end of the
shift. Ile told her that he had more reports that she was attempting to organize
Is Elsie Couch gave substantially the same testimony as her husband concerning this,
conversation.
19 McDonald , Melton , and Bryson did not appear as witnesses at the hearing . There is;.
other uneontradicted testimony to the same effect as the above in the case.
302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union in the plant . Shirley denied the charge and asked him to name his
informers . Robinson refused. At Shirley ' s suggestion , she then went to all the
employees in her section and , in the presence of Robinson , asked each of them if
she had been soliciting for the Union. Immediately after interrogating . the em-
ployees, Shirley accused Robinson and Smith , who was present at the time, of
making up lies about her." Robinson then asked her if she had been going to the
plant cafeteria for the employees in her section . She replied that she had not
been performing such service as it was not a part of her job. Robinson told her
that it was one of her duties, that she should take the food orders of all the
employees , that she should go to the cafeteria and bring the food back to them,
and that lie would provide her with a box for the purpose . Shirley replied, "well,
I will see if I have got to go, and if I have to go , I will be glad to do it for my
job ; if it is part of my job, I will be glad to do it." She also stated during this
conversation that she should have been told abort this duty when she was as-
signed to the sweeping job?'
On February 11, shortly after the start of the shift ," Robinson told Shirley
that he would have a box ready so that she could get food orders. She replied
that she would not go to the cafeteria for other employees as it was not part of
a sweeper's duties.23 Robinson left her without making any comment . Shortly
before 12 o'clock that same night , Smith told Shirley that the box was ready
and directed her to get the food orders from the employees . She refused. Smith
then told her to "punch " her time. She replied, "you go punch it ." Thereafter
she left the plant.''
Conclusions
As related above, Robinson accused Shirley of soliciting employees to join the
Union during working hours, threatened to discharge her if he received any
further reports of such activities, and accompanied her while she questioned
20 Shirley testified credibly to the above facts and coui'ersations with Robinson . Robin-
son, when questioned as to whether or not he had had any discussions with Shirley con-
cerning the Union , testified that he warned her not to solicit during working hours . Other-
wise he did not deny the statements attributed to him by Shirley . Smith did not appear
as a witness at the hearing.
n Shirley testified credibly to the above conversation concerning the cafeteria . Robinson
testified that when Shirley started as a sweeper , he explained her duties to her; that at
that time he told her that she would be required to go to the cafeteria and get food for "the
comber tenders and lapper tenders" ; that she had gone to the cafeteria for the employees
ever since she had been a sweeper; that about 3 days before her discharge Smith told him
that Shirley had refused to go to the cafeteria for some of the employees ; that he again told
her about her duties in this connection ; that she claimed she could not carry the food ; and
that he told her that he would get a box for the purpose. The undersigned does not credit
Robinson 's testimony in this connection . Employee James Gutshall testified that he was a
sweeper in the card room ; that it was one of his duties to take orders and bring food to
the "comber hands" ; that "at least once" he saw Shirley go to the cafeteria for other em-
ployees ; and that he went with her "a lot of times ." Gutshall's testimony in this connec-
tion is not conclusive . Shirley testified that she at times brought back food from the
cafeteria as a favor to employees.
22 The third shift started at 10 p. in . and ended at 6 a. in.
23 Witnesses for the General Counsel testified that sweepers were not required to go to the
cafeteria for other employees . The Respondent's witnesses testified to the effect that
sweepers were required to go to the cafeteria only for comber tenders and lapper tenders
for the reason that those employees were unable to leave their machines unattended.
24 Shirley testified credibly to the above conversation with Smith . Robinson testified
that he personally discharged Shirley. Since his testimony has been heretofore dis-
credited , it is not credited in this connection.
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY 303
and obtained denials from other employees in her section. It is found that the
statements and actions of Robinson in this connection constitute interference,
restraint, and coercion. It is admitted that the Respondent did not have any
rule against union solicitations. Further, the undisputed evidence discloses that
supervisory employees attempted to organize the League during working hours.
The Respondent contends that Shirley was discharged because she refused to
obey the reasonable orders of her supervisors. The Respondent's contention is
rejected and I find that the Respondent discharged Shirley because of her member-
ship in and activities on behalf of the Union. From the above-related conversa-
tions between Robinson and Shirley, the conclusion is inescapable that he assigned
her the menial job of collecting food orders in order to persecute or punish her
for her adherence to the Union. He directed her to perform this job immediately
after reprimanding her for union solicitations in the plant.
The Respondent further contends, in effect, that the assignment was not dis-
criminatory because it was one of the duties of sweepers in the card room to
obtain food orders for comber tenders and lapper tenders. In support of its
position the Respondent cites in its brief the testimony of Gutshall in the effect
that Smith told him of this duty when he started work as a sweeper and that
he obtained food orders for comber tenders during his whole period of employ-
ment as a Sweeper. Although a number of witnesses for the General Counsel
testified without contradiction that sweepers were not required to perform such
duties, their testimony is not deemed conclusive with respect to Shirley' s case,
since it appears that departments other than the card room were involved.
However, it is found that Shirley was not instructed concerning food orders when
put on the sweeping job in December 1946, by either Robinson or Smith; and
that she was not required or instructed to perform this duty until the night
before her discharge. Accordingly, this contention of the Respondent is also
rejected, and I conclude and find that the assignment to obtain food orders for
other employees was discriminatory.
John R. Wilkey and Clay Gooden: 2`
Wilkey and Gooden were twister doffers on the second shift. They were paid
on an hourly rate basis and, together with Allen Nichols, a "piece-up hand,"
worked on the same sets of twister frames."' Their supervisors were Fixer
Roberts and Shift Foreman Nations.
Wilkey worked for the Respondent from June 25, 1940, until September 18,
1942, and from December 3, 1945, until his discharge on May 3, 1947. About
August of 1946 he joined the Union. Thereafter, and until about February 1947,
he solicited about 70 employees to become members of the Union. He was elected
treasurer of the Union in December 1946.
Gooden was employed by the Respondent at various times from February 1943,
until his discharge on May 3, 1947. His last period of employment started on
May 30, 1946. In October or November 1946, he joined the Union. From that
date until his discharge, he solicited about 15 or 20 employees on behalf of the
Union.
At some time in December 1946, Wilkey asked Nations if he knew Nations
was "being run off from the mill." Nations replied that he had heard about it,
=' The cases of Wilkey and Gooden are discussed together since their discharges involve
the same incident.
'° Wilkey was the "head" doffer ; and Gooden and Nichols worked with or assisted him
in the doffing operation.
304 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and said, ,you know, I think its might dirty of them. Mr. Hill [Plant Superin-
tendent] asked me to go around and get the names of everybody that has signed
Union cards and who was getting them signed up. After I clone that, now he
thinks that the Union started on my shift, and it makes him mad at me, and
now he's trying to run me off." Nations then asked Wilkey, as a favor to him,
if Wilkey and the other employees on his shift would "go out and see Mr. Hill."
Wilkey replied that he would talk to the other employees about it27 About 2
or 3 weeks later, and in January 1947, General Overseer Weatherford and
Nations came to Wilkey at his place of work. Weatherford said to Wilkey, "I
hear there is a lot of cards being signed in here, I don't know whether you are
getting any signed or not. All I want to do is just tell you it is against the law
to get them signed in here, . . . we don't want you to get none signed on the
job." 28 At various times before Wilkey was discharged, Roberts asked him
how we was "coming along with the Union." At some time during April 1947,
Roberts asked Gooden if he had signed an application card of the Union. Gooden
replied that he had signed one. During this conversation, Roberts also asked
Gooden how the Union was "getting along." 29
On Saturday, May 3, at about 4 p. in., Wilkey and Gooden left the Respondent's
plant and premises for about 1 hour. Before leaving they (lid not ask or obtain
permission from any supervisor. Roberts was outside of the plant at the time.
He saw Wilkey and Gooden come out of the plant, get into their automobile
and drive away. He did not ask them where they were going or make any
comment. During their absence and about 15 or 20 minutes after they left
the plant, the "creelers" had some frames ready to be creeled. One of the
duties of the doffers was to "pull down ends" in the creeling operation.'0 Roberts
requested Nichols to perform this job. About 45 minutes after Wilkey and
Gooden left the plant, and at 4: 43 p. in., Roberts punched out their time cards.
When they returned to the plant about 15 minutes later, Roberts told them that
they were being laid off for the rest of the day and that they would have to
see Hill before they returned to work. They .then left the plant. On the
following Monday, Wilkey and Gooden went to the Respondent's office where they
were given separation notices, stating that they were discharged for leaving
the plant without permission. They did not attempt to see Hill, as directed or
advised by Roberts.
27 Wilkey testified credibly to the above conversation. Nations did not deny specifically
the statements attributed to him by Wilkey. Nations testified, however, as follows :
Q. Did you ever, at any time, talk to Mr. Wilkey about his signing people up on the
job
A. Never did.
Q. Never did have any conversation with him about it?
A. No, other than this : I went to my foreman one clay , and he asked him not to
sign anybody up on the job.
Q. That is the only conversation you had or were present when that was asked?
A. About the Union, yes sir.
29 Wilkey testified credibly and without contradiction to the above conversation. See
footnote 27, above.
29 Wilkey and Gooden testified credibly to the above conversations with Roberts. When
questioned if on any occasion he had asked Wilkey and Gooden about the Union or mem-
bership in the Union, Roberts testified, "No sir. I don't think I did. I never said any-
thing about the union , much."
39 It appears from the record that the twister doffers were required to pull down ends
on about four or five frames during each shift. Wilkey testified that when he and Gooden
left the plant, they had about an hour and a half before another frame would have been
ready for doffing.
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY
Conclusions
305
The job of a twister doffer was such that there were times during which he
did not have to be actually on the job. This "free time" mainly was between doffs
and varied from a few minutes to more than an hour. Pulling down ends in the
ereeling operation, "cutting off pieces" and "mopping up" were other duties
of the doffer which further limited his free time. It is undisputed that twister
doffers were permitted to use this free time for their own personal benefit,
such as smoking or going to the cafeteria.
The Respondent contends, in substance, that it had a rule which required that
doffers obtain permission from the fixer or shift foremen if they left the plant
(luring their free time, and that Wilkey and Gooden were discharged because they
left its plant and premises in violation of this rule.
The Respondent's witnesses testified to the effect that the rule was not printed
or otherwise published, but was called to an employee's attention when he was
placed on the job as a doffer. Concerning this rule, however, the testimony of
these witnesses is somewhat vague and in conflict, particularly as to whether
or not the rule applied to the plant itself or included the Respondent's premises
or "village."" Shift Foreman Harper testified as follows :
Q. Are you over the twister doffers?
A. Yes sir, on the third shift.
Q. Do you know what the rules or practices or regulations of the Company
are as to whether or not twister doffers may leave the plant or the village
without permission?
A. They are supposed to get permission when they leave.
Q. Will you tell us exactly what it is a twister doffer would do about
leaving, and continue to do about leaving?
A. Well, if they want to leave, why they generally ask the fixer: And if
it is going to be, maybe, too long, why, sometimes he comes and talks to the
shift foreman about it and they talk it over.
Q. Can they go outside the department without permission?
A. They can go outside the mill but that is the only place they are supposed
to go out.
Q. How far is included in that limitation?
A. On the third shift everything is closed around there, so they haven't
got any right only to go outside on the third shift, because everything is
closed.
Q. Is the cafeteria or restaurant open on the third shift?
A. Yes, but it is right beside the mill.
Q. (By Mr. Constangy.) Can they go to the cafeteria on the third shift?
Do they have to have permission to go?
A. No sir.
Q. Can they go to their homes on the third shift?
A. Have to get permission to go home.
In this testimony, Plant Superintendent Wilkey gave the following testimony : eR
81 The record discloses that there was a drug store In the village which the doffers at
times frequented during their free time.
81 It appears that T. L. Wilkey is a distant relative of John R. Wilkey. In 1947, he was
general overseer of carding.
306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. What is the policy of the Dixie Mercerizing Company about employees
tending to their jobs, staying on their jobs?
A. They are supposed to stay on their job.
Q. Can they have the right to leave their jobs?
A. Yes, within the plant.
Q. Within the plant?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What happens if they want to leave their job and go outside of the
plant?
A. Have to have permission.
Q. From whom do they obtain permission?
A. The foreman.
Shift Foreman Nations, in conflict with the above testimony of Wilkey, testified
that if a doffer wants to leave his job, he is required to obtain permission from
his fixer and not the shift foreman. Weatherford testified, in substance, that
during their free time doffers could smoke and go to the cafeteria, and that they
could not "go outside the mill at any time" without permission from "their
foreman." Roberts testified that it was necessary for a doffer to obtain permis-
sion from him in order to go to the drug store : and that a doffer could go outside
of the plant without permission provided that he remained within calling
distance.
The testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel indicates some knowledge
of a rule concerning doffers. Employee Thomas Branom testified that at some
time after February 1947, he desired to leave the Respondent's village during
his free time, and that he asked and obtained permission from his shift foreman.
Gooden testified that he once saw a notice posted in the plant concerning
doffers' free time ; and that "it advised us some way to ask the foreman to
leave, and we kept that practice up just a little while, and everyone quit it, and
they started just going whenever they got ready." 33 Wilkey testified that at
one time he was reprimanded by Roberts when he left his job and could not be
found. Employee Donald Westbrooks testified that before the discharge of
Wilkey and Gooden, Roberts told him and other employees that they were
to "stay on the job"; and that at some time in 1945, he was reprimanded by his
foreman for leaving the company village without permission in order to eat.
From the preponderance of the credible testimony it appears and I find that the
Respondent had a rule which prohibited doffers from leaving its premises during
their free time without permission of a supervisor. Knowledge of the rule
among employees was not general, however, and even the supervisors appar-
ently were not aware of its exact requirements, as shown by the testimony dis-
cussed above. This state of confusion was caused by the Respondent's failure
to publish the rule or to forcefully call it to the attention of employees. The
evidence shows that all of the doffers understood that they were required to
be on the job when frames were ready to be doffed or when they had. other
duties to perform. It was customary for them, however, to use their free
time as they saw fit, without regard to the rule. In fact, it appears that
Roberts was so lax in enforcing the rule that it was almost, if not entirely,
meaningless insofar as the employees under his supervision were concerned.
Wilkey testified credibly and without contradiction that at some time in January
83 Gooden was the only witness, either for the General Counsel or the Respondent, who
testified that such a notice was posted in the plant.
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY '307
1947, Roberts said to him, "I have been noticing here lately, . . . when you leave
the mill, you take a carload of boys with you. Don't take so many like
that; they all get over there and get to drinking, and some of them will come
back here pretty full, and they are going to get on you about it." "
The conversations between Nations, Weatherford, and Wilkey, related above,
conclusively show that the Respondent knew that Wilkey was an adherent of
the Union and indicate that it was concerned about his activities. Although
admittedly there was no rule concerning union solicitations in the plant,
Weatherford warned him against it. The conversations between Roberts, Wilkey,
and Gooden further show the Respondent's concern about union activities and
knowledge that Gooden was an adherent of the Union.
Roberts discharged Wilkey and Gooden. In this connection he testified, "it
had made me a little sore because they had left and was gone so long, and I
went and punched their cards out." In view of his past record of enforcement
of the above rule, I do not believe that he would have discharged Wilkey and
Gooden for its violation on May 3, absent their activities on behalf of the
Union. It is undisputed that no frames were doffed during their absence; and
the record indicates that pulling down ends was a minor operation, insofar as
doffers were concerned. Moreover, Roberts saw Wilkey and Gooden leave the
plant in their automobile, and made no attempt to stop them or ask where they
were going.
Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the Respondent discharged Wilkey and
Gooden on May 3, 1947, because of their membership in and activities on behalf
of the Union.
Floyd Dodd:
Dodd was employed by the Respondent from June 30, 1944, until January 22,
1945; from August 22, 1945, until March 14, 1946; and from May 27, 1946,
until May 8, 1947. He worked as a sweeper under the supervision of Fixer
Roberts and Shift Foreman Nations. Dodd joined the Union in November 1946.
In February or March 1947, Dodd asked Nations if he could have a leave of
absence in order to engage in fanning. Nations told him to speak about it to
Shift Foreman Payne.36 Dodd then spoke to Payne, asking leave of "a couple
of days to do some plowing." Payne refused the request by telling Dodd that if
he took leave, a new man would be hired in his place.
At some time during the latter part of March 1947, Roberts and Dodd dis-
cussed the Union. During the conversation Dodd stated, "I am 100 per cent
union." " About 3 weeks later, Nations called Dodd from his work. In the
presence of Roberts, Nations asked Dodd if he had joined the Union. Dodd
replied, "Well, Mr. Nations, you know I told you some time ago I was 100 per-
cent. Mr. Roberts, you know I told ) ou the same thing." Nations then asked
him if he had signed a union card. At first Dodd denied having signed a card,
but after further questioning admitted, "one of my friends did for me." There-
34 Wilkey testified that he and other employees would at times leave the Respondent's
premises during their free time and go to various establishments where they could eat
and drink beer . Roberts did not deny the above statements attributed to him by Wilkey.
He testified , however , that lie had never given permission to any employee to leave the
company village.
36 Dodd testified that lie is unable to sign his name ; and that his nephew, John Thomas,
signed a membership card of the Union for him.
'"The record indicates that Nations was transferred to another position at about the
time of the above conversation, and that Payne took his place.
37 Dodd testified credibly and without contradiction to the above conversation.
308 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
upon Nations said, "You know what will take place when the Union comes in
here . . . I will take down the aisle with the toe of my shoe after you." 33
On about May 2, 1947, Dodd asked Nations for an indefinite leave of absence
in order to take care of his "strawberries and things." Nations told Dodd that
he could not grant him any farm leave as it would be necessary to hire a new
-man for the sweeping job. Dodd replied, "I'll work out a notice with you so
.that you will have time to get a man in my place." Thereafter, Dodd worked for
the Respondent until May 8. In June and July 1947, Dodd returned to the plant
.and asked Superintendent hill for work. On both occasions Hill told him that no
job was open.
Conclusions
The above remarks of Nations to Dodd concerning the Union are found to con-
stitute interference, restraint, and coercion.
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent constructively discharged
Dodd and thereafter refused to reinstate him because of his adherence to the
Union. It is claimed that he was constructively discharged by reason of the
fact that lie was permitted to take leaves of absence in 1945 and 1946, in order
to farm, but was refused such leave in 1947.39 The General Counsel's contentions
are rejected.
The evidence discloses that in February or March 1947, Dodd asked for and
was refused leave. At the time he was told by Payne that a new nman would have
to be hired in his place. There is nothing in the record to show that the Re-
spondent knew that Dodd was an adherent of the Union when that request was
made. Although Dodd in his testimony was confused as to dates, it definitely
appears that he made the above request for leave before he told Roberts that he
was in favor of the Union. When he made his second request for leave shortly
before May 8, Nations also. told him that it would be necessary to fill his job. As
found above, Nations then knew that Dodd was a member of the Union. However,
there is nothing in the record which indicates that other employees were granted
indefinite leaves of absence for farming or other purposes. Although it is undis-
puted that Dodd was permitted to take such leave in 1945 and 1946, I do not be-
lieve that it reasonably could be held under the circumstances of the case that the
Respondent discriminated against him by refusing a request for leave of indefi-
nite duration in 1947. Especially is this true since it appears that the Respondent
changed its policy of granting Dodd farming leave before it knew that he was an
adherent of the Union, as shown by its refusal in February." For all of these
reasons I conclude and find that no, discrimination has been shown"
It is undisputed that Dodd's job was filled when he applied for employment in
June and July 1947. Further, no showing has been made that other jobs for
which Dodd might have qualified were open at those times.
Accordingly, I conclude and find that the Respondent did not discharge Dodd
.and fail and refuse to reinstate him because of his membership in and activities on
behalf of the Union, as alleged in the complaint.
°° Dodd testified credibly to the above conversation with Nations and Roberts . Nations
denied the remarks attributed to him by Dodd . His denial is not credited.
31 The personnel records of Respondent show the notations , "quit 2 /22/45 Reemploy pro-
duction permitting " and "3/14/46 Worked notice ; farming ; reemploy if possible."
4° Nations testified to the effect that when Dodd was rehired in 1946, he told Dodd that
in the future he would not be granted farming leave . Dodd testified that ."not .a word"
was said by Nations about leave when he was rehired in 1946. Since Nation's -testimony
has been heretofore discredited , it is not-credited in this connection.
" Matter o f Russell Electric Co., 74 N. L. R. B. 769.
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY 309
John Higgins:
Higgins was employed by the Respondent from February 19, 1943, until October
6, 1943; and from October 27, 1943, until May 1, 1947. In 1947 his supervisors
were Fixer Clayton and Shift Foremen Nations and Payne. Until shortly before
he left the Respondent's employ he worked as a yarn hauler. He joined the Union
in October 1.946. Thereafter, and during about February 1947, he solicited some
few employees on behalf of the Union.
At sometime during the latter part of November 1946, Clayton said to Higgins,
"John, did you sign up? Don't let them talk you into joining that damn Union."
Higgins did not make any reply. About 1 week later, Clayton asked Higgins how
the Union was "getting along." Higgins replied, "James, we heard enough about
the Union. Let's not talk about it. Don't name it to me any more." 42 In Jan-
uary 1947, employee Willard Watts noticed Clayton talking to Higgins. Watts
questioned Clayton concerning the conversation. Clayton told him that Higgins
was "pretty hot about the Union," and that he would discharge Higgins at the
first opportunity. During about March, Clayton said to Higgins, "John, all I
done is against the Union, and the Company is about to fire me." Higgins re-
plied, "I thought you were talking against it all the time, the way you done me."
Shortly before May 1, 1947, Payne and Geiieral Overseer Weatherford showed
Higgins some mixed yarn and told him that he had not been putting on the proper
labels. Higgins replied that he did not "think" he was responsible. He was then
shown some labels and asked to. identify them. Higgins was unable to do as
requested.43 Weatherford then told him that he could not remain on the yarn job
and asked him if he would accept a transfer to another department. Higgins
agreed. He met Payne and Weatherford 10 or 15 minutes later and told them,
"You had just as well give inc my separation; you are going to fire me anyhow."
They replied, "You will get over it, and come back Monday and we will give you a
job that you can stand a whole lot better." 44
When Higgins returned to the plant, he was assigned to a sweeping job under
the supervision of Fixer Jenno and Shift Foreman Pierce. As a sweeper, his
rate. of pay was reduced 6 cents an hour. Higgins worked for a few days and
on May 1, he told Jenno that he was quitting his job as the work was too heavy
and "hurting" him. Jenno said, "You can't quit. . . . you can't draw no security
money." Higgins replied, "That is all you know about it." On May 5, Higgins
returned to the plant and told Superintendent Hill that he wanted a separation
slip if he could not return to his yarn job. Hill gave him a separation slip.
Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that Higgins was constructively discharged be-
cause of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. While the
Respondent's motives in demoting Higgins to the sweeping job are not altogether
free from suspicion, especially in view of Clayton's statement to Watts, I believe
that the preponderance of the credible evidence shows that lie was removed from
the yarn job for cause. Therefore, the General Co.iulsel's contention is rejected.
The evidence conclusively shows that the Respondent knew that Higgins was
an adherent of the Union; and it is undisputed that there had been no com-
42 Higgins testified credibly and without contradiction to the above conversations. Clay-
ton did not appear as a witness at the hearing.
43 It appears that Higgins' eyesight is poor. He admitted in his testimony, "I can't see
no good." Also, when questioned concerning an exhibit, he answered that he was unable
to read it. The record further indicates that Higgins suffers from color blindness. Watts
testified to this effect.
44 The above conversation took place on Saturday.
R67351-50-vol. 86--21
310 DECISIONS 01' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plaints concerning the quality or quantity of his work before his demotion.
However , Higgins did not . deny that he had mixed the yarn or put wrong labels on
it. He merely testified that he thought he did not do it. Weatherford testified
credibly that complaints of mixed yarn had been received from a customer of the
Respondent ; and that he requested the foreman to discover the employee who
was responsible . When Higgins was confronted with the mixed yarn and
asked to identify the labels, he admittedly could not meet the test . Watts testified
that he had helped Higgins in his work , and this may explain why Higginshad
not made mistakes previously.
Accordingly , .1 find that the Respondent did not discharge Higgins because of
his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union.
E. The alleged refrrso ,i to reorstote Lela Onoden"
Gooden's last period of employment with the Respondent : was from February 5,
1946, until October 3, 1946. She worked as a spinner on the second shift under
Shift Foreman Pierce. She quit her job on October 3 because of pregnancy. She
was not told at the time that her job would be held for her , but Pierce did tell
her that lie hoped she would return as soon as possible . At sometime after
October 3 she joined the Union.
On about April 15 , 1.947, Gooden returned to the plant and asked ' Superintendent
Hill for a job on the second shift. Hill told her that he might be able to find
work for her on the third shift, but that nothing was open on the second. She
refused a job on the third shift . Hill then told her that he would try to find a
place for her , and that she should return in about 2 weeks. When Gooden
returned as directed , Hill told her that he had not been able to find another
employee who would change shifts , and that she should return again . Gooden
returned about 1 week later, and Hill again told her that nothing was available
on the second shift . As related above, Gooden 's husband was discharged oil
May 3.
Some few months after her last talk with Hill , Gooden returned to the plant
and applied to Personnel Manager Clyde Abernathy for employment as a spinner
on the second shift. . '6 Abernathy wrote , "Good record " on a slip of paper. He
then asked her the name of her husband. When she told him, he erased his nota-
tion on the slip of paper and wrote in its place , "Clay Gooden 's wife ." 41 Aber-
nathy gave her the slip of paper and to]d her to see Overseer Weatherford.
Weatherford asked Gooden if there had been some " trouble" with her husband at
the plant .48 She replied that it had been settled . Weatherford then told her that
he did not need any help as he had "a bunch of nice learners ." Thereafter, and
until the date of the hearing , Gooden had not been employed by the Respondent.
45 Lela Gooden is the wife of Clay Gooden. In the complaint she is named as Mrs. Clay
Gooden.
a° Gooden testified that she told Abernathy that she preferred the second shift.
41 Goodell testified credibly to the above interview with Abernathy. Abernathy testified
that he did not " think" he made a notation on the slip about Clay Gooden, and that be did
not make an erasure . Accordingly , the undersigned believes that Goodell is the more reliable
witness in this connection.
as Lela Gooden's personnel record contains the following :
On 4/29/46, she quit without notice because we asked her husband not to hang
around in the mill, at the request of her foreman. She was returned to work on
5/7/46. . . . -
The foreman said she had a good record until she married and would like to have
her back if her husband would stay out of the mill. . .
Clay Gooden (lid not work for the Respondent during April and May 1946.
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY
Conclusions
31.1
The undersigned is convinced and finds that the Respondent did not discrimi-
natorily fail and refuse to reinstate Gooden on and after April 15, 1947. The
Respondent knew that her husband, Clay Gooden, was an adherent of the Union,
and as found above, discharged him for that reason on May 3. Nevertheless, I
do not believe that the facts are sufficient to ascribe an illegal motive to the
Respondent in the case of Lela Goodell. It is undisputed that she refused a job
on the third shift when an offer was made to her by Hill. With one exception,
there is no evidence in the case that any spinning jobs were open at or about the
times when Gooden applied for employment. Gooden testified without contradic-
tion that a Mrs. Pitman was a spinner who quit her job because of pregnancy ;
that she was rehired shortly after she (Gooden) first applied; and that she
called this fact to Hill's attention. This evidence is not conclusive, however,
since the record is silent concerning the shift for which Pitman was employed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent as set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of Respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
The undersigned has found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Elsie Couch, Samuel E. Couch, Beatrice S.
Shirley, John R. Wilkey, and Clay Gooden. Therefore, it will be recommended
that the Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent position 49 without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and that the Respondent make them whole for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against
them., by payment to each of them a sum of money equal to that which he or she
normally would have earned as wages from the date of such discrimination
to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his or her net earnings 60 during said
period.
It has also been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain acts of in-
terference, restraint and coercion, in violation of the rights guaranteed employees
under Section 7 of the Act and the same Section of the Amended Act. Because
of the Respondent's unlawful conduct and the underlying attitude of opposition
to the purposes of the Act and the Amended Act revealed thereby, the under-
signed is convinced that the unfair labor practices found are closely related to
the other unfair labor practices prescribed by the Amended Act, and that a
11 In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position " is intended to mean "former position wherever
possible, but if such position is no longer in existence, then to a substantially equivalent
position ." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, an Juan,
Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N. L. H. B. 827.
50 Matter of Crossett Lumber Co., 8 N. L. R. B. 440 , 497-498.
312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of
the Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purpose of the Amended
Act may be frustrated unless the order of the Board is coextensive with the
threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of
Section 7, to prevent the recurrence of unfair labor practices and thereby to
minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus to
effectuate the policies of the Amended Act, the undersigned will also recommend
that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from interfering with, re-
straining or coercing its employees in any other manner, in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by the Amended Act.
It has been found above that the Respondent did not discriminate in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Ralph R. Roddy, Floyd Dodd, John
Higgins, and Lela Gooden (Mrs. Clay Gooden). Therefore, it will be recom-
mended that the complaint be dismissed as to them.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case the
undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1. United Textile Workers of America, AFL, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, and the same Section of the Amended
Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Elsie
Couch, Samuel E. Couch, Beatrice S. Shirley, John R. Wilkey and Clay Gooden,
thereby discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of America, AFL,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (3) of the Amended
Act.
3.. By interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and the same Section of the
Amended Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Amended 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, and the same
Section of the Amended Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
'undersigned recommends that the Respondent, Dixie Mercerizing Company, its
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of America, AFL, or
any other labor organization by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its
employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist United Textile Workers of America, AFL, or any other
labor organization, to bargain. collectively through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such
DIXIE MERCERIZING COMPANY 313
activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Amended Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act and the Amended Act:
(a) Offer to Elsie Couch, Samuel E. Couch, Beatrice S. Shirley, John R. Wilkey,
and Clay Gooden immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions 63 without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Elsie Couch, Samuel E. Couch, Beatrice S. Shirley, John R.
Wilkey, and Clay Gooden for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of
the Respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to them of sums of
money equal to the amounts determined in the manner set forth in the Section
entitled "The remedy" above ;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in Respondent's establishment at
Lupton City, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached hereto marked Appendix A.
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Office of the Tenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within
twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that, unless Respondent shall within twenty (20)
days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report notify said Regional
Director 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 allegations of the
complaint pertaining to Ralph R. Roddy, Floyd Dodd, John Higgins and Lela
Gooden (Mrs. Clay Gooden) be dismissed.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-.Series 5, as amended August 18, 1048, any party may,
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring
the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations
file with the Board, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a
statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report
or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all mo-
tions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies of
a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period, file an orig-
inal and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately
upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements of
exceptions and briefs shall designate by previse citation the portions of the
record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeo-
graphed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all
papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section
51 See footnote 49, supra.
314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46 should any party desire
permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in
writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order
transferring the case to the Board. -
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein. contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said
Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, con-
clusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 7th day of June 1949.
JOHN H. EADIE,
Trial Era-nviner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL offer the following named individuals immediate and full em-
ployment at the same or substantially equivalent position to which they
would be employed, without prejudice to the seniority or other rights or
privileges they would have enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them :
Elsie Couch John R. Wilkey
Samuel E. Couch Clay Gooden
Beatrice S. Shirley
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to. self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and
to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of UNITED TEXTILE
WORKERS OF AmERICA, AFL, or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
DIXIE MERCERIZING COlrl'ANY,
1DP p toyer.
By --------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated----------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the (late hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.