Gordon Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 883 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

GORDON MILLS, INC. 883
3. Except for general allegations that the Employer's purchases
and gross sales and operations, individually or as a member of the
Association, affect commerce, which we assume arguendo, the Peti-
tioners have not submitted any specific commerce data to establish
that the Employer's or the Association's annual gross volume of busi-
ness meets the test for invoking the Board's discretionary standard
for the assertion of jurisdiction over retail enterprises. In these cir-
cumstances, the Board is unable to make a meaningful jurisdictional
determination herein.
Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that on the
allegations here present, the Board is unable to conclude whether or
not it would assert jurisdiction herein, with respect to labor disputes
cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.
Gordon Mills, Inc. and Textile Workers Union of America , C.I.O.-
A.F.L., C.L.C. Case No. 10-CA-5294. January 9, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 26, 1963, Trial Examiner James F. Foley issued his
Intermediate 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 attached Intermedi-
ate Report. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner.'
1 The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein, the following paragraph.
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that Respondent , Gordon Mills, Inc., its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
145 NLRB No. 92.
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case , Case No. 10-CA-5294, was brought under Section 10(b) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519 ), herein called
the Act, on a charge filed on April 5, 1963 , by Textile Workers Union of America,
C.I O.-A F.L., C.L.C., herein called the Union, against Respondent , Gordon Mills,
Inc., herein called Respondent . On May 16, 1963, General Counsel issued a com-
plaint premised on the charge against Respondent alleging that Respondent engaged
in conduct constituting interference with , restraint, and coercion in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein called
the Act, during the period dating from on or about December 1, 1962, to on or
about December 27, 1962. Respondent filed an answer on May 1 , 1963, denying
the allegation of illegal conduct.
A hearing on complaint and answer was held before Trial Examiner James J.
Foley on July 9, 1963, in Calhoun, Georgia. General Counsel , Respondent, and
Charging Party were represented at the hearing. The parties were afforded an
opportunity to be heard, make oral argument , and file briefs . General Counsel
and Respondent filed briefs after the close of the hearing.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Georgia corporation, with its principal office and place of busi-
ness in Calhoun, Georgia, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
various textile goods. During the calendar year of 1962, Respondent sold and
shipped goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers
located outside the State of Georgia. I find that Respondent is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that assertion of
jurisdiction will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background evidence
The Respondent has two plants in Calhoun, Georgia. Prior to a change in owner-
ship, these plants were known as Forrest Mills and Velvetone Mills, respectively.
They were owned by the family of J. H. Boston, the present president of Respondent
Gordon Mills. While the two mills are now the plants of Gordon Mills, they
are sometimes still referred to as Forrest Mills and Velvetone Mills, particularly by
the people of Calhoun, Georgia. The Union began organizational activity at Re-
spondent's plants in June or July 1962. In December 1962, it filed a petition for
certification with the Board. A hearing on the petition was held in Calhoun in
January 1963. The Board has not handed down its decision.
The case of the General Counsel against Respondent is premised on statements
hostile to the Union allegedly made to Respondent's employees by Jack Willard
Stanfield during November and December 1962. During the last 6 months of 1962,
Stanfield was supervisor in charge of the machine department of Respondent, as
well as one other department. He directly supervised approximately 30 employees,
and his duties required him to visit all areas of the plant. In performance of his
duties, he came in contact with a large number of employees. During the last 6
months of 1962, Respondent employed approximately 225 rank-and-file employees
and 19 supervisors.
Stanfield testified that throughout the organizational activity of the Union, he
was asked many times by rank-and-file employees what he thought about the Union.
He testified that he replied by stating to the employees directing the questions to
him to look at what happened at Anchor Rome Mills, Rome, Georgia, and at Peer-
less Woolen Mills, Rossville, Georgia. He further testified that it was common
knowledge in Calhoun, Georgia, that Anchor Rome Mills closed down and went
out of business after the Union began organizational activity there, and went on
strike. He also testified that it was common knowledge in Calhoun, Georgia, that
Peerless Woolen Mills closed down after the Union began organizational activity
GORDON MILLS, INC. 885
there. There was no strike . Counsel for Respondent in connection with Respond-
ent's position that what happened at Peerless Woolen Mills was part of the general
knowledge of the community, stated that an unfair labor practice charge was filed
against Peerless Woolen Mills, and that it settled the charge by an informal settle-
ment agreement . Part of the remedy was a payment of approximately $100 to
each of 1,500 employees . From the testimony regarding Peerless, I draw the in-
ference that this plant was reopened.
Supervisor Stanfield also testified that in talking to employees he referred to
what he considered to be the situations at Anchor Rome Mills and Peerless Woolen
Mills because he was interested in the welfare of the people, their jobs, and their
living, and that he discouraged them with respect to union activity because from what
he could see, even in regard to his family, a union caused people to be out of work,
did not help anyone, and caused confusion.
B. The illegal conduct
On or about November 15, 1962, employees William C. Thomas and Willie J.
Holland were talking to other employees in the smoking area of one of Respond-
ent's plants during a break . They were engaged in organizing activity for the Union,
and were talking to the other employees about the Union. Stanfield approached
the employees and listened to the conversation . He was asked what he thought about
the Union by one of the employees. Stanfield answered that if the Union came in
to either one of the mills, it would have to shut down like Anchor Rome Mills did.'
Between November 1 and 15, 1963, Thomas and Holland were talking to other
employees in the smoking area of one of Respondent 's plants. They were talk-
ing about the advantages of being represented by the Union. The conversation was
taking place about noon . Stanfield approached the group of employees who were
conversing and listened to what was being said. He made the statement to Hol-
land and Thomas and the other employees participating in the conversation that he
knew all the men in the plant who were for the Union. In this same conversation,
Stanfield also said that he knew everybody that had signed union cards.2
In December 1962, employees Ernest Gee, Jr., Roy Fowler, and Larry Stanfield
were at their work stations about noon . Supervisor Jack Stanfield was also present.
They were discussing the Union . Gee said that Boston , the president , had said to
stay behind their machines unless they were authorized to come in front of them.
Larry Stanfield, Supervisor Stanfield 's son , said they were getting very strict . Fowler
said that every move they made they were hurting themselves. Then Supervisor
Stanfield said , "We know everybody that signed a union card." 3
I I have credited the testimony of Thomas as to what Stanfield said on this occasion.
This testimony Is corroborated by the testimony of Holland . Stanfield denied that he
said that Respondent would close down like Anchor Rome Mills did if the Union succeeded
in organizing the Respondent . He admitted , however, that when he was asked a question
as to what he thought about the Union, that he always replied by stating that the ques-
tioner should look at what happened at Anchor Rome Mills or Peerless Woolen ;hill
Assuming, arguendo, that Stanfield was credited , he, In effect , was saying that Respondent
would close down If the Union organized it.
i Stanfield's statement that he knew everyone who was for the Union is premised on
Holland's testimony. This testimony is corroborated by the statement of Thomas which
lie gave to Field Examiner Resin of the Board's Regional Office in February 1963 In his
direct testimony, Thomas did not testify that Stanfield made this statement However, 1
am persuaded that Stanfield made it It is unrebutted by Stanfield Stanfield denied he
said to any employee that he knew who signed union cards. He testified that he said to
Ernest Gee, Jr., that he understood that 90 percent of the employees had signed union
cards Stanfield said that he had made this statement to other employees as well as Gee,
but then stated that he did not recall making the statement to any employee other than
Gee. Neither Thomas nor Holland included in their statements to Resin the testimony that
Stanfield said that he knew everyone who had signed a union card However, they were
firm in their testimony on the witness stand that Stanfield made this statement to the
employees in the conversation stated above . From an evaluation of their demeanor testi-
mony, as well as their testimony as to the statements made by Stanfield , and also Stanfield's
testimony , including his demeanor testimony , I credit both Holland and Thomas that
Stanfield made this statement.
3 Supervisor Stanfield admitted making a statement about cards to employee Gee How-
ever, his testimony was that he said that he or the Company understood that 90 percent
of the employees had signed union cards . I credit Gee and not Supervisor Stanfield I
make this finding after considering the demeanor testimony of Gee and Supervisor Stanfield.
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shortly before Christmas 1962, employee Fowler, a machine operator, was work-
ing behind his machine. He and other employees in that machine room were dis-
cussing the Union. Supervisor Stanfield came to Fowler's machine and talked to
him personally. He said that the Company knew every man who had signed a
union card .4
A week or 10 days later, Supervisor Stanfield and employee Fowler had another
conversation. This conversation was also about the Union. In the course of this
conversation, Supervisor Stanfield said that if the Union came in the plants, the
'employees would be out of a job like the boys at Peerless Woolen Mills 5
C. Findings and conclusions
I make the following findings and conclusions.
I conclude and find that Supervisor Stanfield's statement to employees that if the
Union organized the plants of Respondent they would close down like Anchor Rome
Mills did is a threat violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I conclude and find that Supervisor Stanfield's statement to employee Fowler that
if the Union organized the plants of Respondent, the employees would be out of a
job like the boys at Peerless Woolen Mills is a threat violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
I conclude and find that Supervisor Stanfield's statements to employees that he
and Respondent knew everyone who was for the Union, and who signed union cards,
are not only a threat that they would lose their jobs because of union membership
or activity, but also conduct disclosing that Respondent engaged in surveillance of
employees' union activities, or conduct giving the impression that it engaged in such
surveillance. This conduct of Respondent is also violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section 1, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be re-
quired to cease and desist from such unfair labor practices, and take such affirmative
action as appears necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent , Gordon Mills , Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and Textile Workers Union of America, C.I.O.-
A.F.L., C.L.C., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By threatening to close its business operations, and to deprive the employees of
their jobs, if the Union succeeded in organizing the employees , and by making state-
ments to employees giving the impression that Respondent and its representatives
engaged in surveillance of employees ' union activities , Respondent engaged in con-
duct violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
' This is Fowler's testimony. Stanfield denied making any reference to union cards ex-
cept the one he admitted he made to Gee. I credit Fowler.
" This is Fowler's testimony. Stanfield denied making the statement except to the extent
that In answering questions as to what he thought about the Union he always referred the
employees to what happened at Peerless as well as Anchor Rome Mills. I credit Fowler.
Assuming, arguendo, that Stanfield was credited, in effect he said that Respondent's plants,
like Anchor Rome Mills and Peerless Woolen Mills, would close down if the Union organized
them, and the employees would lose their jobs.
GORDON MILLS, INC. 887
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Sec-
tion 10 (c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner hereby recommends that the Respondent,
Gordon Mills , Inc., its officers , agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to close its plants if the Textile Workers Union of America,
C.I.O.-A.F.L., C.L.C., or any other labor organization , organizes its employees, or
if the employees select Textile Workers Union , or any other labor organization, as
their collective-bargaining representative.
(b) Threatening to deprive employees of their jobs if the Textile Workers Union,
or any other labor organization , organizes its employees , or the employees select
the Textile Workers Union , or any other labor organization, as their collective-
bargaining representative.
(c) Threatening employees by indicating to them that it engaged in surveillance
of their union activities , by telling them that they know what employees favor the
Textile Workers Union , or any other labor organization , or know what employees
have signed union cards.
(d) Engaging in other like or related conduct that interferes with the rights of
employees voluntarily to engage in union activities , embrace union membership,
select a labor organization as their collective-bargaining representative, or to engage
in other concerted activity involving mutual aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the purposes
of the Act:
(a) Post at its plants in Calhoun , Georgia, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix ." 6 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director of
the Tenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board shall, after being signed
by a duly authorized representative of Respondent , be posted by Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the said Regional Director , in writing, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order , what steps Respondent has
taken to comply therewith?
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of the
receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order the Respondent notifies
the said Regional Director, in writing , that it will comply with the foregoing
Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring
the Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
9 In the event this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board , the words "A Decision
and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" In the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order."
IIn the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, paragraph 2(b)
thereof shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with the closing down of our operations if
they engage in union activity, become members of Textile Workers Union of
America, C.I.O.-A.F.L., C.L.C., or any other labor organization or select it as
their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of employment if they engage in
union activity, become members of Textile Workers Union, or any other labor
organization, or select it as their collective-bargaining representative.
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT engage in, or give the appearance of engaging in, the sur-
veillance of employees ' union activities or other concerted activities by telling
employees we know who are for Textile Workers Union, or any other labor
organization, or who have signed union cards, or by other means.
WE WILL NOT engage in like or related conduct that interferes with, restrains,
or coerces employees with respect to their rights voluntarily to engage in union
activity, embrace membership in Textile Workers Union, or any other labor
organization , or select it as their collective-bargaining representative , or to en-
gage in other concerted activity involving mutual aid or protection.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or re-
maining, members of Textile Workers Union of America, C.I.O.-A.F.L., C.L.C., or
any other labor organization.
GORDON MILLS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must be posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and
must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building , 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta , Georgia, Telephone
No. 876-3311 , Extension 5357, if they have any questions concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
The Lord Baltimore Press and Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, Local 17, Petitioner . Case No. 20-RC-4568. Janu-
ary 9, 1964
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to the Board's Supplemental Decision, Order, and Di-
rection of Second Election dated April 26, 1963,1 and as amended May
3, 1963, an election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional
Director for the Twentieth Region on July 2, 1963, among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit. At the conclusion of the balloting
the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that
of approximately 26 eligible voters, 25 ballots were cast, of which
8 were for the Petitioner, 10 were for the Intervenor, Printing Spe-
cialties and Paper Products Local Unions Nos. 362 and 382, Inter-
national Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union, AFL-CIO, and
7 ballots were challenged. The number of challenges was sufficient
to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed
timely objections to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the
election.
After an investigation, the Regional Director, on August 16, 1963,
issued his report on challenged ballots and objections in which he
recommended that 1 challenge be sustained, and 6 challenges be over-
ruled. He further recommended that the election of July 2, 1963, be
1 The Lord Baltimore Press, 142 NLRB 328.
145 NLRB No. 91.