General Shoe Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 1005 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION and GEORGIA FEDERA-
TION OF LABOR
Case No. C-277-.-Decided March 15, 1938
Shoe Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint and Coercion: repeated
appeals and warnings to employees to refrain from joining outside labor organi-
zation; support of foremen in attack upon union organizers-Discrimination:
discharges ; refusal to interfere with group of employees ousting union members-
from plant-Company-Dominated Union: instigation of and interference with
formation of; grant of special privileges to-Rcinstatement Ordered: with pro-
tection from violence during working hours-Back pay: awarded.
Mr. Maurice J. Nicoson, for the Board.
Bass, Berry & Sims, by Mr. Cecil Sims, of Nashville, Tenn., and
Brandon, Hynds e Tindall, by Mr. Morris Brandon and Mr. Morris-
Brandon, Jr., of Atlanta, Ga., for the respondent.
Mr. Joseph Jacobs, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
Mr. Howard Lic&;t istein,, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
- Charges and amended charges. having been filed in the name of,the
Georgia Federation of Labor,' the National Labor Relations Board,,
herein called the Board, by Charles N. 'Feidelsoii, Regional Director
for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued and duly served its'
complaint dated July 16,'.1937','-'against General Shoe Corporation,
Nashville', Tennessee, the respondent herein, alleging that the respond-
ent, at its Atlanta, Georgia, plant, had discriminatorily discharged,24
of its employees, and had otherwise engaged in and was otherwise
engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49'Stat: 449, herein called the Act. A
week later the Board issued and .duly served an amended complaint
covering the allegations above stated and including the allegation that
the respondent' was dominating and interfering =with 'the formation
i See footnote 3, infra.
1005
1006 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and administration of Shoemaker's Association, a labor organization
of its employees herein called the Association, thereby also engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Thereafter the
respondent filed its answer to the complaint, as amended, denying that
it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged therein but ad-
mitting that its business is in interstate commerce.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent and the Georgia
Federation of Labor, a hearing was held in Atlanta, Georgia, from
July 29 to August 6, 1937, before William H. Griffin, the Trial Exam-
iner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and
the Georgia Federation of Labor were represented by counsel, par-
ticipated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing upon the issues.2 At the commencement of the hearing
the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
charges were improperly filed. The Trial Examiner permitted the
introduction of evidence, in support of the motion and reserved
decision thereon. The motion is hereby, denied.
On October 30, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, in which he denied the respondent's motion to dismiss . Having
found that the respondent had discharged 15 employees because of
their union membership, and that the respondent was dominating and
interfering with the administration of the Association, he accordingly
recommended that the respondent cease and desist from engaging in
the unfair labor practices, that the employees be reinstated, and that
the Association be disestablished as a collective bargaining representa-
tive. Subsequently the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and on March 1, 1938, it presented oral argument; thereon, be-
fore the Board.
The Board has, reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on mo-
tions and on objections to the admission of, evidence and finds. that no
prejudicial errors were, committed. , The rulings, are hereby affirmed.
The Board has also considered the exceptions to the. findings and
recommendations of the Intermediate. Report and finds them to be
without merit.
Upon the entire, record in the case, the, Board makes, the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
' I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The,respondent, a corporation organized under the laws of Ten-
nessee and maintaining its principal offices in Nashville, is a manu-
2TheeAssociatiomdid -not•move to - intervene in.the proceeding, although w. E. Ellis, its
president , appeared as a witness for the respondent.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1007
facturer and retailer of men's and boys' shoes, operating factories
in Gallatin, Nashville, and Tullahoma, Tennessee, and in Atlanta,
Georgia. It also operates a number of retail stores in various parts
of the country. The Atlanta, Georgia, plant, with which the events
herein are concerned, occupies a two-story building, employs approx-
imately 500 workers, and has a productive capacity of 4,500 pairs
of shoes per day.
The Atlanta plant purchases about $500,000 worth of raw mate-
rials yearly, consisting of leather, glue, thread, staples, eyelets, boxes,
rubber heels, compositions of rubber and fiber, cotton cloth, shoe-
laces, polishes, and wood and steel shanks. Approximately 90 per
cent of these materials are shipped to the plant from points out-
side the State, chiefly from Ohio, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Penn-
sylvania, New York, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri.
Yearly production of this plant amounts to $1,250,000, approxi-
mately 50 per cent of which is shipped outside Georgia. The re-
spondent advertises nationally and retails its products under a trade-
mark registered with the United States Patent Office.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Georgia Federation of Labor, a federation of local unions in
Georgia, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor. United Shoe Workers of America, herein called
the Union, on whose behalf the Georgia Federation of Labor filed
the charges in this case, is likewise a labor organization, but affiliated
with the Committee for Industrial Organization.3 The extent of
its jurisdiction is not disclosed in the record although it admits to
membership employees of the respondent working in the Atlanta
plant.
Shoemakers ' Association is an unaffiliated labor organization, mem-
bership in which is limited to the employees in the respondent,'s.
Atlanta plant.
8 A. Steve Nance filed the charges herein as president of the Georgia Federation of Labor
after he had been suspended from that office by the executive council of the American
Federation of Labor. We are not concerned with the controversy between Nance and the
American Federation of Labor, nor can it In any manner affect the jurisdiction of the
Board. Even If Nance had no authority, as president , to file the charges, they - may, be
deemed to have been filed by him as an individual , thus satisfying the requirements of
the Board 's Rules. See Article II , Section 1, National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 1, as amended
The respondent erroneously urges that even if Nance were its president , the Georgia
Federation of Labor is not a labor organization , within the meaning of the Act, and hence
is not a person or labor organization authorized to file charges, as provided by Article
II, Section 1, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as
amended . The Board has consistently held, however , that federations of unions , similar
to the Georgia Federation of Labor, are labor organizations within the meaning of the
Act In any event the record discloses that Nance *as organizing the respondent's em-
ployees for United Shoe Workers of America and that the unfair labor practices arose
to obstruct such organization . ( See Respondent Exhibits F and H).
1008 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The organization o l the Association and the discharges
Late in April 1937, Local 34 of the United Automobile Workers,
an organization of employees of a Chevrolet factory located several
miles from the plant of the respondent, distributed circulars among
the respondent's employees in an attempt to organize them under
the Committee for Industrial Organization. At about the same
time, Nance addressed the employees for the same purpose. On May
1 an organization meeting was called and attended by about 65 of
-the respondent's employees. Several days later, at another meeting,
temporary officers were elected, including Charles T. Mitchell, presi-
dent; W. E. Ellis, treasurer; and Robert L. Sanders, Jr., secretary.
News ' of these organizational activities spread rapidly through
the plant, and on June 8 C. W. Butler, the respondent's general
:manager , summoned all. the employees to a meeting which was held
on the premises during working hours. Butler introduced Mr. Bur-
ton, superintendent of the plant, who delivered a prepared address
to the assembled employees.4 Among other things he said that "dur-
ing the time that we have worked together . . . I don't believe either
you or I have ever felt it necessary to call in outsiders to help us
settle our family affairs." He reminded them of their need for
the respondent because of their ownership of homes in the vicinity
and the adverse effect on their lives should the respondent cease
to prosper. Commenting on the fact that some of the employees
had been urged to join labor organizations, and advising them that
they had the right to join or refrain from joining any. organization,
he stated that "you may be wondering, perhaps, how we feel about
it and whether you should join up with an outside organization and
obligate yourself to follow certain rules and later to pay dues, that
steadily increase ." He 6autioned them against strangers and their
-suggestions, advised them to inquire into the personal interest of the
organizer, the source of the funds for putting on campaigns, hiring
-halls, lodging representatives at expensive hotels, and renting expen-
sive offices, and concluded with the admonition that "while you have
a right under the law to share in these expenses, why should you
The sucker enough to do so?" He gave assurances of wage increases
and other benefits to the employees with the qualification that if their
fine spirt continued, the respondent could assure them of steady
-profitable employment, "but if we bring in outsiders it might not
-be possible for us to carry out our plans." In his peroration, he
.expressed as his sincere thought on the subject :
You do not need to join anything. You will not lose your
job if you don't join. You do not need to pay dues to get the
' Board Exhibit No. 7.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1009
best we can give you. You do not need to hire a representative
to get a hearing with us. You do not need to be controlled by
any labor dictator. You do not need to have some outsider to
tell you how to handle your own affairs.
His final plea left no doubt of his desire :
Are you going to let the policies of outsiders who are only in-
terested in what they can get out of you upset this [existing]
happy condition. Fellow workers and friends, let us continue
to work together and settle our family disputes among ourselves.
The effects of this speech can only be understood in the light of
the relationship which had heretofore existed in the plant between
the respondent and its employees. Employee witnesses admitted that
they had never been mistreated by the respondent and had never
aired grievances that were not satisfactorily adjusted. The respond-
ent had organized a credit union among the employees; it encouraged
savings among them by facilitating bank deposits; it encouraged
purchases of its capital stock at a price considerably below the mar-
ket price, and on the installment plan. It provided special facilities
to aid new workers to learn the trade and to increase their earnings;
it provided proper medical attention and hospital facilities to in-
jured employees; and the superintendent himself was always avail-
able to advise employees on their personal affairs and problems.
Such policy and such activities naturally inspired a strong sense of
loyalty to the respondent. The speech recited above, in its direct
appeal for loyalty and its denunciation of outside organizers, inevi-
tably incited the "loyal" employees to the extreme measures that
followed.
On the day after the speech, rough sheets of paper were circulated
among the employees in the plant during working hours, bearing
various headings : "Those who will stand by the Co. and Mr. Burton" ;
"We the undersigned taking this step to show Mr. Burton that we are
loyal and whole hearted to the Company"; "We the undersigned will
be loyal to you (Mr. Burton) and our company not to bring any out-
side organization into our company as we should have a company to
ourself or untill reckemended by the Company.''' 6 These loyalty
pledges were signed by the employees and later delivered to Burton,
who summoned the employees to another meeting. He thanked them
for their pledges, assured those who had not signed that there would
be no "hard feelings," and announced a general five-per cent wage
increase. Since most of the employees were compensated on a piece-
work basis, he further announced that they would be reimbursed for
the work they had lost by reason of their attendance at the meeting
of June 8.
5 Board Exhibit No. 8 (a ) through (1).
1010 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Meanwhile the results of Burton's speech were not confined to mere
expressions of loyalty. On June 12 Frank Jarrell and Monte Edmond-
son, two employees, conceived the idea of an "inside" union. On the
following day, having consulted the classified telephone directory and
having advised Ellis, union secretary, of their plans, they visited the
law firm of Candler, Cox & McLamb and arranged for the attendance
of these attorneys at an employees' meeting to be held four days later.
Ellis testified that he had already prepared his resignation from the
Union and had it in his pocket when he attended this meeting on June
17. Approximately 40 employees were present, including Charles T.
Mitchell and other union members. The meeting was thrown open to
a discussion of the relative merits of an unaffiliated union and one
affiliated with an outside organization while the attorneys, addressing
the employees, assured them that an "inside" union would not be
illegal. At the conclusion of the meeting a committee of six was
chosen, composed of three union members and three non-members, to
determine whether the employees should join the Union or organize an
independent association. Mitchell and Ellis, who had not announced
his resignation, were chosen as two of the three union representatives
on the committee. The committee met immediately after the meeting
adjourned, and although the testimony regarding the discussion that
arose is conflicting, it appears that a majority of the committee decided
in favor of organizing ap independent union.
On June 21, 1937, the newly created Association held its first meet-
ing, and the forty or fifty employees who attended adopted the con-
stitution and bylaws and elected officers. Ellis, the former union
treasurer, was elected president. Subsequently, the Association,
through its attorneys, communicated with the respondent in order to
negotiate a contract.
The evidence clearly indicates that following the committee meet-
ing of June 17, bitter hostility and competition between members of
the Union and proponents of the Association became pronounced
throughout the plant. The situation at the time was aptly described
by one witness thus: "All of (the employees) thought they ought to
join something, and the majority of them didn't know which side was
going to will out; so they were waiting; if the C. I. O. won out they
were going to join the C. I. 0., and if the independent union won out
they were going to join it." On June 21, the day of the Association's
first meeting, Butler called the foreman together, gave them copies of
the Act, and instructed them not to take part in any controversy that
should arise between the unions. Three days later open conflict be-
tween the Association and the Union broke out.
On the morning of June 24, Ellis and Ralph Chastain, another
Association member, went outside the plant and took away union
circulars from a boy who had been hired to distribute them at noon.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1011
Thereupon Mitchell and Sanders, during their lunch hour, drove to
the headquarters of Local 34 and arranged for the distribution of
other circulars after working hours. Upon their return to the plant,
Chastain searched Sanders and warned him that no circulars would
be distributed on that day by the Union or anyone else. Following
this incident, Ellis and several companions , in relays, spent the after-
noon outside the plant and away from their work watching in order
to prevent the expected distribution of circulars. On no occasion
were they asked by their foremen why they were not working, although
their unusual conduct must have been observed.
At about three-thirty, the hour when plant operations usually cease,
B. T. Judd, an organizer for the Steel Workers Organizing Commit-
tee, approached the plant with several members of Local 34 in order
to distribute circulars. They were immediately accosted by Ellis,
Chastain, and several other employees, whereupon they withdrew
down the street some distance from the plant. As a crowd of home-
going employees collected, Chastain, who had followed Judd, struck
him and a general fight started. In the melee which ensued, Ellis
was struck in the head with a' brick and had to be removed to a hos-
pital. Participating in 'this attack upon union organizers were Guy
Thomason and Sam F. Sumner, foreman.
Threats of reprisals having been circulated, Butler immediately
communicated with the Atlanta Chief of Police, who arranged to
station 40 policemen at the plant the following morning. Butler
testified that he made this arrangement to protect the respondent's
property and employees from an expected attack by outsiders. He
had no thought 'that trouble would arise within the plant. The
same evening 25 or 50 friends of Ellis had called at his home and had
decided to oust every union member from the respondent's plant the
next morning.
On Friday morning, June 25, when the respondent's employees
came to work, they found a cordon of city police outside the plant
and several of them inside. About two hours after work had com-
menced, the "bouncer squad," which had been formed the previous
evening, started to operate. Union members were approached by
groups of from two to five "bouncers" and told to leave the plant
or they would be thrown out. Charles T. Mitchell, who received
the warning from Chastain and stopped working, passed Barney
Newman, Guy Thomason, and Sam Sumner, foremen, as he left the
plant. All three had seen the occurrence. None sought to intervene.
Sanders, whose nose was bleeding and whose shirt and undershirt
had been torn in a scuffle with Chastain, passed the same three fore-
men. All of them had seen the acts of violence. Again none inter-
vened, the only reaction coming from Newman, who is reported to
have shouted, "Throw 'em out, throw every God-damn one of them
1012 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
out." Thomas W. Bobo, a union member, was struck in the eye by
another "bouncer," Oscar Sumner, a brother of a foreman, Sam
Sumner. Oscar Sumner thereupon grabbed Bobo by the neck and
the seat of his trousers and proceeded to usher him out of the plant
past the same foremen.,, Again none intervened. As Stunner and
Bobo neared the front door, M. E. Taylor, the assistant superintend-
ent, told the former to throw Bobo out the back door.7 Policemen
were,posted at the front exit, but not at the back.
Nor did the women fare better. Charles T. Mitchell's wife, Lou-
venia, was seized by three female "bouncers," Ruby Wade, Ruby
Davis, and Betty Hall, and forced to leave the plant. Stella M.
Parker, though not a member, refused to admit that she had not
joined the Union. She was shoved and pushed toward the exit until
her forelady, Eva Clark, interceded. She returned to work and
shortly thereafter, fainted. Apparently, mass hysteria seized the
girls, and one after another proceeded to faint. Other union mem-
bers, including Opal Baker, Ruby Moss, J. B. Durden, James Horton,
Reuben Moody, C. C. Finley, L. W. Griffith, T. W. Allums, George
A. Hood, L. W. Busby, Betty Jo Pickens, and Doris Young, left;
the plant without offering any resistance when told to leave by mem-
bers of the "bouncing squad."
Two incidents marred the complete success of this wholesale ejec-
tion of union members. Jack Culver, during a scuffle with Chastain
and another "bouncer," Elrod, who were attempting to oust him,
was thrown to the floor. A policeman stationed in the plant ordered
the men to stop fighting, and as Culver proceeded to leave the plant,
Knight, a "bouncer," told him to return to work. Thereafter Culver
was not molested. L. M. Mitchell, also a union member, was told by
Chastain to leave if he did not want to be thrown out. On his way
out, Mitchell passed his foreman, Thomason, who asked him where
he was going. When Mitchell responded that he had been ordered
out, Thomason told him to return to work and to disregard the
threats. With the exception of this latter incident, none of the re-
spondent's supervisory employees made any serious attempt to enlist
the aid of the police or assert their authority to stop the assaults and
evictions. Butler, who was not present during the commotion, ar-
rived later in the morning after receiving a telephone message from
Burton that "Hell has broken loose at the factory." Butler later
heard that Local 34 members were planning to attack the employees
at the close of work that day. He accordingly dismissed the eni-
6 Bobo later swore out a warrant for the airest of Sumner on charges of assault On
the day the case came before the court , Edmondson appeared at the request of Butler,
and sought to induce Bobo to drop the charges In order to secuic reinstatement
' Taylor did not deny making this statement . Ile testified , however, that he did consult
the police during the eviction "I met two policemen on the landing and asked them about
it, and they said, We cant do anything in the world as long as they don 't hurt anybody ;
they can lead them out all day as long as they don ' t hurt anybody or do any violence '
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1013•
ployees earlier than usual in order to avoid a riot similar to the one.
that had taken place the previous afternoon.
On the following Monday morning, June 28, the first working
day after the purge of union members, the evicted employees all re-
turned to work, having previously decided to avoid all violence and
leave should a repetition of Friday's occurrence seem imminent., Ellis
testified that he instructed the "bouncing squad" to proceed again
and that he warned Burton and. the foremen not to interfere. Again
the union employees were approached, by "bouncers," and this
time all proceeded to leave without offering any resistance. Although
previously warned of Ellis' program, and with policemen stationed
both inside and outside the plant, the respondent again made no,
attempt to interfere. In several instances, when the employees being;
evicted sought the aid of their foreman, they were told that their-
jobs were available and that they were free to return to them. Police
were not called upon, however, to protect them. On this day also,
the success of the wholesale ejection was not complete. While sev-
eral "bouncers" were attempting to persuade Finley and Griffith to
leave, a policeman interfered and asked the "bouncers" whether they
had the authority to order these men out. He then spoke to an
assistant foreman, Leroy Dempsey, who told Finley and Griffith
to return to work. These two men were molested during the rest.
of the day with admonitions to join the Association and resign from
the Union. Late in the afternoon they were told to leave work by
Association members, and to return on the following morning with,
their signed resignations from the Union and signed applications for
membership in the Association. Neither of these employees returned'
to work on the following day.
On the Monday of this second eviction, the Association's attorneys.
requested the respondent to enter into a closed-shop agreement. After
several days of negotiation during which the Association showed'
the respondent its membership cards to prove that it had a majority
of the respondent's employees, the respondent agreed to enter into a.
contract. On July 2, after a full clay's negotiation at which the
Association's bargaining committee was present, the contract was
signed and at a meeting of the Association that same evening ap-
proved by the members. No closed-shop provision, however, was
included in the contract. Butler testified that the five employees
who constituted the Association's bargaining committee were paid
for the time they had lost from work during the negotiation that had
continued throughout the entire day.
Following the consummation of the collective bargaining agree-
ment of July 2, an Association committee of eight or nine employees
appropriated an office in the plant which the agreement provided
might be used for the collection of dues, and invited the ousted
1014 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees to return to work. Receiving such invitations to return,
a number of the ousted employees did call at the factory on July 8
and 9, and later dates. But instead of being received by their fore-
man or Burton, they were required to wait until they could appear
singly before the Association committee. Many of the employees
so interviewed were asked to sign affidavits to the effect that they
had voluntarily left their jobs on June 25, and all were requested to
resign from the Union and sign membership application cards for
the Association. Those who refused to accede to these requests were
told to leave, whereas the others were permitted to return to work.
All of these interviews occurred during working hours in the room
assigned to the committee by the respondent.
The treatment accorded to two employees who were thus invited
to return is worthy of particular mention. When Ruby Moss re-
turned on July 12 she was told by a member of the committee that
she would have to resign from the Union and join the Association
in order to resume work. Before leaving the plant, she reported this
conversation to her foreman, W. G. McElroy, but he did nothing to
prevent that disposition of her case or to provide her with work on
his own initiative. Opal Baker returned to the plant on July 23,
having been told by an employee that Burton wanted to see her.
Although she asked for Burton, she was ushered into the committee
room and asked-to resign from the Union. Miss Baker testified that
as she left the room after refusing, Butler invited her into his office
where he discussed the relative advantages of the Union and the
Association, and suggested that she again see the committee. Miss
Baker returned to the committee room and was again urged to resign,
being promised a promotion to a better position. Burton was called
in and gave his assurances that the promise would be fulfilled.
Thereupon she was permitted to return to work without resigning
from- the Union pending the hearing in this proceeding. Opal
Baker's testimony was not contradicted.
Annexed hereto as appendix "A" is a list of the employees who
were ousted on June 25, their average weekly wages, and, the dates of
their reinstatement to their former positions. Those who had not
been reinstated up to the time of the hearing had not secured sub-
stantially equivalent employment elsewhere, and none of the ousted
,.employees had earned any money during the period of their eviction,
with the exception of Thomas Bobo, who has earned two dollars.
B. Conclusions with respect to the unfair labor practices
The respondent denies that it in any manner dominated or inter-
fered with the formation or administration of the Association, and
it contends that none of its actions during the conflict that arose in
-the plant can be interpreted as ' being other than strictly neutral.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1015
Both its denial and its contention are plainly contradicted by the
record. We have already summarized the speech made on June 8
by Burton, the respondent's superintendent. For 20 minutes he de-
bated the dangers and disadvantages of membership in an "outside"
labor organization and exhorted the respondent's employees with
every possible appeal he could summon to settle "family disputes"
among themselves. The respondent now denies that -Burton's words
were,intended to show hostility toward the Union or were intended
to fortify the employees against union propaganda then circulating
among them. These denials obviously have no merit. No reason-
able inference can be drawn from Burton's denunciation of outsiders
other than that he desired and expected the employees to take steps
to remove them. These highly inflammatory words of advice and
fervent pleas for loyalty, directed to employees who were the recipi-
ents of many substantial benefits donated by a paternalistic em-
ployer, ignited a flame of resentment against the Union, which un-
questionably explains the formation of the Association, and the acts
of violence that followed. Had the respondent actually participated
in the organization of the Association, such direct action could have
had no stronger effect upon the employees than had Burton's moving
address. We are firmly' convinced that the formation of the Associ-
ation with its attendant bitterness and conflict were directly attribu-
table to the unlawful influence ' the respondent exerted over its
employees.
It is not claimed, nor does the record show, that the "loyalty"
petitions which appeared throughout the plant the day after the
speech were prepared or circulated by the respondent. But the
causal connection between a plea for loyalty and •a pledge of loyalty
together with a promise to refrain from bringing an 'outside organi-
zation into the plant requires no elucidation.
The attack upon Judd and other union organizers who attempted
to distribute circulars on June 24, and the' wholesale evictions ° of
union employees on June 25 are further indicative of the partiality
of the respondent to the Association. We have carefully examined
the testimony describing 'the riot on June 24; The record indicates
that three of the respondent's supervisory employees, Guy Thomason
and Sam Sumner, foremen, and M. E. Taylor, assistant superintend-
ent, participated in this riot. The weight of evidence further ihdi-
cates that while Taylor intervened in order to stop the fighting,
Thomason and Sumner took part as active combatants against the
union organizers.
The respondent seeks to justify its position of total abstention from'
and non-interference in' the evictions of June 25 upon 'two grounds:
It claims that the Act itself required that it remain neutral, and
that even had it attempted to intervene'to protect the employees who
80535-38-vol v-65
1016 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were being ousted, its supervisory employees would have been subject
to violence by the allegedly infuriated employees. Furthermore, the
respondent denies that any acts of violence took place on the morning
of June 25, its foremen testifying that they saw no one physically
abused or mistreated. Nevertheless, Burton's characterization of the
situation to Butler as "hell broken loose" was hardly descriptive of
the evictions had they been quiet and peaceful. The weight of the
evidence, the respondent's own defense that it feared to intervene,
are ample proof that physical force was exerted to remove Union
employees.
The respondent here owned the plant, exercised exclusive control over
it and exclusive authority over its employees and the conditions under
which they worked. It had the correlative and affirmative duty to
protect its employees during working hours and to maintain safe
working conditions for them. Instead of fulfilling the obligation
which every employer owes to his employees, instead of exercising
the authority, inherent in its position, to protect them from assaults,
it stood by idly and indifferently surrendering complete control to a
group who proceeded to carry out the respondent's desires. Viewed
in the light of the events that occurred, the respondent's conduct
amounted to a delegation of authority which it knew and expected
would be invoked and unlawfully exercised at the expense of union
employees. It had expressed the desire that its employees withstand
the inducements of an outside labor organization. It saw its desires
brought to complete fruition in a manner which would have been im-
possible, had it maintained and exercised a neutral attitude toward
the two organizations competing for employees' support. We con-
clude that the respondent was responsible for the activity in its plant
on June 25 and June 28 which throttled the Union, encouraged the
Association, and directly interfered with the right of self-organiza-
tion, guaranteed employees under the Act.
The respondent's further assertion that it could not have prevented
the occurrences of June 25 and June 28, that its own intervention
would have provoked a wholesale attack upon its supervisory em-
ployees, is not borne out by the record. As we have noted above,
Butler took steps to protect his employees from an assault on June
25 which union organizers and members of Local 34 had threatened.
With 40 policemen on the scene, we cannot understand why the re-
spondent did not call upon them to prevent the disorder that arose
in its own plant.
There is nothing in the record to indicate that the feeling of an-
tagonism against union members was as widespread or as violent as
the respondent would have us believe. In the one instance on that
Friday morning when a policeman intervened to protect an em-
ployee, he was not prevented from carrying out his duty, nor did his
IT I
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1017
intervention provoke further violence. Similarly, when a foreman,
Thomason, intervened and ordered L. M. Mitchell to return to work
after the latter had been told to leave by Chastain, the incident did
not have the effect of directing the employees' resentment against
Thomason.
On the following Monday, when tempers must have been cooled
over the intervening week end, there was even less justification for
the respondent's failure to protect its Union employees. Ellis testis
fled that he advised Burton and the foremen not to interfere. It
cannot therefore be claimed that this second usurpation of control
by the "bouncing squad" was unforeseen or could not have been p^e-
vented. Policemen were again available inside the plant but were
not called upon to protect union employees. In the one instance
that a policeman took it upon himself to intervene and protect two
of these employees, he was not molested. The inference is ines-
capable that the respondent was desirous only of protecting Associa-
tion members against assaults from the Union and its sympath;zers.
When these assaults failed to materialize as expected, but were di-
rected rather against Union employees, the respondent remained un-
concerned, choosing to cloak its appalling disregard for the safety
of its employees in a mantle of false neutrality.
The inactivity of the policemen during the evictions of June 25
casts doubt on the motive of the respondent in obtaining their serv-
ices. Butler testified that when he asked for police protection, the
chief of police told him that his men would not take sides in a
labor dispute but that "he would prevent disorder from occurring"
around the plant. As we have noted above, Taylor testified that
when he consulted two policemen during the evictions on that day, he
was told that "they can lead them out all day as long as they don't
hurt anybody or do any violence." Unquestionably every eviction,
even those which were not physically resisted, amounted to an as-
sault. The situation plainly called for intervention by the police
who were stationed within the plant and were fully aware of in-
fractions of the law taking place before their eyes. Indeed, Lou-
venia Mitchell's testimony remained uncontradicted :
I said, "Mr. Burton, they are throwing them all out in there."
He said, "I know." . . . and after I got out there I talked to some
policemen and I asked them if they had a right to do anything
like that, and he said no, but they didn't do anything, and I went
to the lieutenant and asked him the same thing, and he said they
were not supposed to do anything like that, but he didn't do any-
thing about it either.
The inference is difficult to resist that the police deliberately re-
frained from preventing the evictions under the respondent's instruc-
tions.
1018 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nor did the respondent 's encouragement of the Association cease
after the purge of union employees . Although it refused to include a
closed-shop provision in the contract which it signed with the Associ-
ation on July 2, nevertheless it granted to the Association all of the
rights and privileges afforded by such provision . The employees who
were ousted were invited to return , yet were met by a committee of
the Association and required to renounce their Union affiliation and to
join the Association before they were permitted to work. Those who
refused to accede to the conditions imposed by the Association were
told to leave the plant. The Association conducted its interviews with
these employees in the plant ; the respondent was fully aware of the
conduct of the Association , yet offered no protest that the Association
was adopting a prerogative not granted by the contract . Indeed,
throughout the entire course of events, the respondent never sought
to discharge or otherwise discipline a single employee for the flagrant
invasion of the respondent 's control over its own plant.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Association , and has contributed
support to it. By its conduct , it has caused the discharge of employees
who were members of the Union , and has thereby encouraged member-
ship in the Association and discouraged membership in the Union.
Since Albert Wilson, John H. Pickens , Redell Steadman , B. H. Liv-
ingston, and Frances Gary did not appear to testify , we make no find-
ing with respect to the allegations in the complaint that they were dis-
criminatorily discharged.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since we have found that the respondent's conduct has caused the
discharge of its employees who are members of the Union, we shall
order the respondent to restore to them their full rights and privileges
that they previously exercised as employees prior to June 25, 1937, and
to make them whole for any losses they may have incurred by reason
of their discharge. During the hearing the respondent offered to rein-
state all employees who had not already been reinstated at that time.
It did not, however, guarantee them the full protection at their em-
ployment which every employer normally owes to his employees. The
offer was not therefore an unqualified offer. The respondent will be
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1019
required to provide to those employees indicated on Appendix "A" as
not having been reinstated, full reinstatement and adequate protec-
tion from violence or molestation by other employees during working
hours.
The respondent, by its conduct, instigated the formation of the
Association and thereafter encouraged its activities while it dis-
couraged membership in the Union. We shall order the respondent
to disestablish the Association as a collective bargaining agency for
any of its employees, and to cease recognizing it as such. The em-
ployees will thereby be restored their right to self-organization and
collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing,
without interference by the respondent.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS or LAW
1. Georgia Federation of Labor, United Shoe Workers of America,
and Shoemakers' Association are labor organizations, within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of the employees listed on Appendix "A" herein, and thereby
discouraging membership in United Shoe Workers of America, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By its domination and interference with the formation and ad-
ministration of Shoemakers' Association, and by its contribution of
support thereto, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the
Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
General Shoe Corporation, Nashville, Tennessee, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From in any manner discouraging membership in United Shoe
Workers of America, or any other labor organization of its em-
1020 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees, by discharging , refusing to reinstate , or otherwise discrim-
inating against its employees in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment;
(b) From in any manner dominating or interfering with the ad-
ministration of Shoemakers ' Association or any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees , and, from contributing support to Shoemakers'
Association or to any other labor organization of its employees;
(c) From in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organiza-
tion , to form, join , or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following action which the 'Board finds will effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Charles T. Mitchell , L. W. Griffith , C. C. Finley,
T. W. Allums, Louvenia Mitchell , Ruby Moss, and Thomas W. Bobo,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions , without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges and afford
them reasonable protection from violence during working hours;
(b) Instruct all of its employees that physical assaults and other
acts of intimidation and coercion of employees shall not be permitted
in the plant during working hours;
( c) Make whole said Charles T. Mitchell , L. W. Griffith, C. C.
Finley , T. W. Allums, Louvenia Mitchell, Ruby Moss, and Thomas
W. Bobo for any losses of pay they have suffered by reason of their
discharge , by payment to each, respectively , of a sum of money equal
to that which he would normally have earned as wages during the
period from the date of his discharge to the date of such offer of
reinstatement , less the amount which each has earned during that
period ;
(d) Make whole George A. Hood, Reuben Moody , L. W. Busby,
James E. Horton, Robert L. Sanders, Jr., Opal Baker , Betty Jo
Pickens, Doris Young, and J. B. Durden for any losses of pay they
have suffered by reason of their discharge by payment to each, re-
spectively , of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally
have earned as wages during the period from the date of his dis-
charge to the date of his reinstatement , less the amount which each
has earned during that period;
(e) Withdraw all recognition from Shoemakers' Association as
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing
with the respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment , or conditions of work; and com-
pletely disestablish Shoemakers' Association as such representative;
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1021
(f) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
Atlanta, Georgia, plant and maintain such notices for a period of
thirty (30) consecutive days, stating (1) that the respondent will
cease and desist as aforesaid, (2) that physical assaults and other
acts of intimidation and coercion of employees will not be permitted
in the plant during working hours, and (3) that the respondent will
withdraw all recognition from Shoemakers' Association as the rep-
resentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work, and that Shoe-
makers' Association is disestablished as such representative;
(g) 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;
And it is further ordered that the complaint, in so far as it alleges
that the respondent discharged Albert Wilson, John H. Pickens,
Redell Steadman, B. H. Livingston, and Frances Gary be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX "A"
Employees who were evicted on June 25, 1937 1
Employee 2 Average Weekly Wages Date of Reinstatement
George A. Hood ---- ----------- $20 ------------------------- July 9, 1937.
Charles T. Mitchell----------- $25.-$26 -------------------- ( Not reinstated.)
Reuben Moody---------------- $16 ------------------------- July 8, 1937.
Stella M. Parker_____________ ( Did not lose any time.)
C. C. Finley ------------------ ---------------------------- ( Not reinstated.)
L. W. Griffith ----------------. $17.-$18 -------------------- ( Not reinstated.)
Jack Culver__________________ (Did not lose any time.)
T. W. Allums----------------- $10.-$12 -------------------- ( Not reinstated.)
L. W. Busby----------------- $18-$20 -------------------- July 9, 1937.
James E. Horton------------- $25.-$30 -------------------- July 23, 1937.
Robert L. Sanders , Jr--------- $20------------------------. July 9, 1937.
Louvenia Mitchell ------------ $1550-$16------------------ ( Not reinstated.)
Ruby Moss------------------- $12 ------------------------- (Not reinstated.)
Opal Baker__________________ $12 ------------------------- July 23, 1937.
Betty Jo Pickens___ __________ $12 ------------------------- June 28, 1937.
Doris Young------------------ $11.-$13 ---------- ---------- June 28, 1937.
J. B. Durden----------------- $20.-$22.50 ------------------ July 9, 1937.
Thomas W. Bobo------------- $15 ------------------------- (Not reinstated.)
L. M. Mitchell---------------- ( Did not lose any time.)
'Albert Wilson , John H. Pickens , Bedell Steadman , 13. H. Livingston , and Frances Gary
are also alleged in the complaint to have been ousted on June 25. No testimony with
respect to these employees appears in the record
2 In some instances there is a variation in the spelling of names in the complaint and
in the record. In this decision . the names are spelled as they appear in the record.
3 Worked part of the day on June 28.