Henry I. Siegel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 810 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of HENRY I. SIEGEL, DOING BUSINESS AS HENRY I. SIEGEL
COMPANY ctnd AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. ' C -682.Decided September 204, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On July 28, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed. There-
after the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a
brief in support of the exceptions; the respondent, upon leave
granted by the Board, filed an answering brief. Oral argument, in
which the respondent and the Union participated, was had before
the Board at Washinngton, D. C., on September 14, 1943. The Board
has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and
finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby affirms and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the complaint against Henry I. Siegel,
doing business as Henry I. Siegel Company, Dickson, Tennessee, be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. T. Lowry Whittaker , for the Board.
Mr. Frank S. Hall, of Dickson , Tenn ., and Mr. George H. Arinistead , Jr., of
Nashville , Tenn ., for the respondent.
52 N. L . R. B., No 143.
810 1
HENRY I . SIEGEL COMPANY 811
Mr. Carl F. Albrecht, of Atlanta, Ga., and Mr. Harold S. Marthenke, of Chicago,
Ill., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CAGE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on February 27, 1943, by Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, herein known as the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein known as the Board, by Its Regional Director for the
Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), duly issued its complaint dated February
27, 1943, against Henry I. Siegel, doing business as Henry I. Siegel Company,
herein sometimes known as the respondent, alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein known as the Act. Copies
of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged: (1) that on
or about January 6, 1943, the respondent locked out his employees, and closed
his plant, at Dickson, Tennessee, because said employees were exercising their
rights of self-organization and collective bargaining and were engaging in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection; (2) that subsequent to January 6, 1943, and until January 18 or
19, 1943, the respondent refused to reinstate said employees and continued
said lock-out because said employees joined and assisted the Union and auth-
orized the Union to represent them and engaged in concerted activity for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; (3) that
from December 1, 1942, to the date of said complaint, the respondent by certain
of his agents and supervisory employees (a) threatened his employees with
arrest if they engaged in concerted activities, (b) threatened to close his
plant if his employees persisted in certain efforts to secure a wage increase, (c)
changed the working conditions of his employees because of their union mem-
bership and sympathies, (d) incited the business men and other inhabitants of
Dickson to oppose the Union and the efforts of the employees to secure collective
bargaining, (e) urged, persuaded and threatened employees to refrain from
assisting the Union or designating the Union as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
The respondent thereafter filed his answer admitting the jurisdictional allega-
tions of the complaint but denying that he had engaged in the unfair labor prac-
tices alleged'
Pursuant to amended notice of hearing duly served upon the respondent and
the Union, a hearing was held on sundry dates between April 15 and May 20,
1943, both inclusive, at Dickson, Tennessee, before the undersigned, the Trial
Examiner duly designated. All parties were represented and participated in
the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded all parties.
At the close of the Board's case in chief, counsel for the respondent moved to
strike "all of the testimony concerning the conversations between Mr. Williams,
1 At the opening of the hearing the undersigned granted a motion of counsel for the
Board, with the consent of counsel for the respondent, to amend the complaint by further
alleging as sub-section (f) of paragraph VII thereof that the respondent "especially from
on or about January 18, 1943, to the present time failed to provide protection to his em-
ployees who were union members, and condoned violence and hostility of his employees
who were non-union members toward his employees who were union emmmbers." Upon
leave granted, the answer of the respondent was amended to include the denial of the,
foregoing allegation.
812 DE.OISION'S ' OF - NATIONtAL IdABQR _REZATIONS BOARD
.Mr. Beck, and Mr. Brooks, between Miss Eubank, and any of the witnesses who
has appeared in this case, on-the ground that it is hearsay testimony and is not
binding on Respondent." The motion was denied as being too general, but with
leave to renew as to specific testimony. 'The motion was renewed at the close of
the hearing, without citation to specific testimony. The undersigned reserved
.ruling for disposition in the Intermediate Report. The motion is hereby denied. ,
At, the close of the rebuttal testimony offered by the Board, counsel for the
.Board moved that the complaint be amended to conform to the proof as to
"dates, names and typographical errors." At the close of the hearing, counsel
.for the respondent moved to conform the answer to the proof. Both motions
,were granted without objection. Counsel for the respondent also moved that the
emplaint be dismissed as to each of paragraphs V and VI, subsection (a) of
paragraph VII, and, as a whole, on the ground that there was no proof to sus-
tain the same. The undersigned reserved ruling for disposition in the Inter-
mediate Report.
Opportunity for oral argument was afforded the parties at the close of the
,bearing. Arguments were presented by counsel for the Board and for the re-
..spondent respectively. The parties were given opportunity to file briefs with
the undersigned. No briefs have been received.
Under date July 28, 1943, the undersigned issued an order directing that the
Official Report of Proceedings be corrected in the particulars therein set forth.
Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
2undersigned makes the following :
' FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT.
The respondent is an individual, doing business since the year 1933 under
the name and style of Henry I. Siegel Company, having his principal office in
the city,of New York, in the State of, New York, and operating manufacturing
-plants at Fulton, Kentucky, Bruceton, Tennessee, and Dickson, Tennessee, re-
spectively. The plant at Dickson is and has been engaged in the manufacture,
-sale and distribution of men's and boys' trousers and other clothing. During
the calendar year 1942, the respondent used at his Dickson plant raw materials
• and supplies consisting principally of cotton coverts and other cotton cloth,
thread, and buttons, amounting in value to not less than $250,000 inclusive of
purchases of • machinery, of which- 90 percent in value represented shipments
-received from points outside the State of Tennessee 2 Sales of finished products
during the year 1942 amounted in value to not less than $350,000, 90 percent
of which in value represented out-of-State shipments. The respondent admits
,that he is subject to the jurisdiction of-the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
- Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the respondent at the Dickson plant.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Genesis Of the Dickson. plant; terms of the respondent's tenure - - -
Some time prior to the year 1933, Daniel Beasley, the mayor of Dickson,
Tennessee, communicated with the respondent, a resident of New York City,
l Like purchases for the first 3 months of 1943 amounted to not less than $75,000, 90
percent of which in value were shipped to the Dickson plant from outside the State. Sales
,for the same period amounted to not less than $65,000, 90 percent of which in value
represented out-of-State shipments.
HENRY I. SIEGEL COMPANY 813
in answer to an advertisement stating that the respondent was interested in
finding a suitable location in the South for a manufacturing industry. Dickson,
a town of approximately 3400 population, located in an agricultural area of
the State, was then suffering severely under depression conditions. As the
result of ensuing negotiations, Beasley agreed on behalf of the community to
provide the respondent with a building adapted to his requirements free of rent
for 5 years. Title to property agreed upon was subsequently acquired in the
name of a public trusteeship known as the Dickson Industrial Trust, constituted
of the Mayor of Dickson, the President of the First National Bank, and the
President of the Chamber of Commerce, ex officio. Some 1500 persons pledged
themselves to pay 6 percent of their weekly earnings into a sinking fund for
the amortization of the underlying mortgage.
After more than $20,000 had been thus collected and applied, many of the
pledgers ceased payment on their pledges. Among these were some of the
employees of the respondent. The respondent was requested to assist in the
collection of such pledges by making the payment thereof a condition of con-
tinued employment at his plant but refused to do so. Legal proceedings were
then instituted against the respondent involving the right to continued occupancy
of the building. The controversy was finally settled by the respondent's pur-
chasing the underlying mortgage and leasing the property from the trustees
on terms which equalized the carrying- charges and amortization payments on
the mortgage indebtedness as long as the respondent continued to-occupy the
property. This lease was terminable by the respondent at any time on 1
month's notice. The above arrangement was still in effect at the time of
the hearing.
As of December 1942, the plant had a pay roll of approximately 700 employees,
almost all of whom were women. It constitutes a major source of employment
for the residents of Dickson and the surrounding area.
B. Events in December 1942
The main business of the Dickson plant is the manufacture of men's trousers.
So far as practicable, the respondent has used the principle of the assembly line
in the process of manufacture. After the various parts that make up the com-
plete garment have been prepared by the cutters, they are brought to the sewing
room, and distributed among the workers. The workers are divided into units,
each worker within the unit performing a specific operation, and each unit
collectively producing a complete garment. Some of the production employees
are paid on a straight time basis. Workers in the units are paid by piece-rate,
subject to a minimum wage of 40 cents per hour. In general, production records
relate to the number of garments completed by the several units and not to the
specific work done by individuals. What a given worker is able to earn above
the minimum rate depends therefore upon collective as well as individual
efficiency.
Prior to July 1942, production was on a normal basis and the record shows no
evidence of employee dissatisfaction. The plant manufactured, in the main,
standardized lines from standard material . Variances in these factors were
provided for by piece-rate differentials. The basic production standard was
set at 4800 garments per unit in a 40-hour work week. Excess production was
paid for at 35 cents per garment per unit. Quota production was rewarded by
an incentive bonus of $1 per week per worker.
In July, the respondent started for the first time to manufacture under gov-
ernment contract. The girls were unfamiliar with the material used, standard
specifications were changed, and the units engaged on government work were
reorganized. Production fell off with a corresponding decline. in earnings.
814 DE•C1SIO'NS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD
Labor turnover increased accordingly with further deleterious effects on pro-
duction as inexperienced workers were taken into the units. The practical
consequence was that, in a period of rising costs , the workers were in fact
receiving less wages.
In the latter part of December the growing discontent found overt expres-
sion . For a number of years prior to 1941, the _ respondent had sponsored an
annual Christmas party for the employees and had paid the incidental ex-
penses involved. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Aaron Tenen, the
general manager of the plant, promoted a campaign among the employees for
the purchase of War Savings Stamps. A supply of stamps was kept in the
office for the employees' convenience. As a stimulus to the interest of the
employees, and at the suggestion of the foreladies, Tenen decided that, in lieu
of paying for the usual social gathering, lie would spend a little more money for
the purchase of War Savings Stamps for the employees' account. Each em-
ployee was therefore presented with an album containing stamps to the value
of 50 cents, with the explanation that the costs incident to the Christmas party
had been diverted to this purpose. On Christmas Eve, 1942, the same procedure
as to the distribution of stamps wasp followed without further explanation to
the employees. The plant resumed operations after the Christmas holidays
on December 28. In group discussions, some of the employees characterized the
stamps as a "Christmas present," and their intrinsic value was unfavorably
compared with a Christmas bonus of $5 reported to have been paid to its em-
ployees by another local industry.
On December 30, the employees in the sewing room,' the largest single depart-
ment in the plant, decided to ask the management for a wage increase. Mrs.
Dollie Eubank and Mrs. Cornelia Jobe volunteered to act as spokesmen for the
group. The employees remained in the plant after the close of work and, at
their request, Abraham Feuerstein, the foreman of the sewing room, sent for
Tenen to meet with them.
When Tenen arrived, the employees told him that, while the cost of living
had increased, their earnings had decreased and they wanted more pay. Tenen
told them that he recognized their difficulties but that it was no longer possible
for the respondent to change the rate of pay at his own will and that he did
not himself know what procedure would have to be followed. In order to
enable them to earn more immediately he offered to put the plant on a 50-hour
a week basis, beginning the following Monday, and stated that in the meantime
he would try to get some information as to how the rate could be raised and
would communicate with the respondent and try to straighten the matter out.
The general consensus of opinion among the employees was that a longer work
day would interfere too much with their home duties. Tenen repeated that
that was the only way he knew of to provide immediate relief. After further
desultory discussion, the group dispersed.
C. Events of January 1, 1943
On the morning of January 1, Mrs. Eubank's daughter, Hybernia Eubank,
one of the employees in the sewing room, brought to the plant a newspaper
clipping from the Nashville "Tennessean" in which the procedure for effectuat-
8 Until January 11, when the Union organized the plant, there is no way of determining
the identity, except in isolated instances, or the proportion of the employees actively par-
ticipating in the concerted activities hereinafter described The term the employees" as
used heren is employed for convenient reference to' unidentified and numerically inde-
terminable groups of employees and is not intended to connote unanimous or majority
employee participation
HENRY I. SIEGEL COMPANY 815
ing wage increases was discussed. The clipping was circulated among the
employees before work hours. At 7 o'clock the employees in the sewing room
clocked in as usual , but an indeterminable number refused to work until they
had first talked to Tenen. When some of the operators attempted to work,
other employees pulled the master switches that controlled the flow of current
to the individual machines. Feuerstein attempted to persuade them to start
work but, upon their insistance that they wanted to talk to Tenen, Feuerstein
sent a message to Tenen, who was then at home, to come to the plant.
When Tenen arrived, the employees gathered around and Hybernia Eubank
showed him the clipping from the "Tennessean." Tenen told her that he had
seen the article but that it did not alter the situation as he had described it.
Eubank interpreted the article as stating that the employer could raise wages
where they were sub-standard. Tenen insisted that where individual salaries
in excess of $5,000 were involved, the approval of the Treasury must be
secured, and that increases in pay below this limit must be approved by the
National War Labor Board.4 After a desultory argument, someone in the
group suggested that Henry I. Siegel should come to Dickson personally to
discuss the matter. Tenen told them he would get in touch with Siegel at
once. He left the sewing room and talked with Siegel, who was in New York
City, over the telephone. Siegel told him to let the employees know that he
would apply for an increase in their pay and would be in Dickson the following
Monday, and asked him to get all the information as to procedure that he
could in the meanwhile. Tenen then talked with the Regional Office of the
Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions of the U. S. Department of
Labor' at Nashville and was advised as to the procedure to be followed.
After talking to Nashville, Tenen sent a message to the employees in the sewing
room stating that he could not talk to so many people at one time and asking
that they appoint a committee of about 8 girls with whom he could confer.
The employees selected by acclamation a committee of 18,° including Hybernia
Eubank and her mother. The committee at once held a preliminary meeting
at which it was agreed that they would ask for an increase in base wages
from 40 to 50 cents an hour. When Tenen returned to the sewing room to
confer with the committee they told him the amount the employees were demand-
ing. Tenen informed them that he had talked with Siegel and that Siegel had
stated he was willing to grant an increase in wages and would be in Dickson
on Monday but that they would have to talk to Siegel himself as to the amount.
Tenen further told them that he had talked to the Nashville office of the Wage and
Hour Divisions and had been advised that any wage increase granted had
to receive NWLB approval and that applications for individual pay increases
should be sent to Nashville and applications for general increases should be
sent to the Regional Office of NWLB at Atlanta and that if they did, not believe
him they could use the office phone to call Nashville and verify his statements.7
* Hereinafter referred to as NWLB . The article from the "Tennessean" was not intro-
duced in evidence and no finding can be made as to its contents.
Hereinafter referred to as WH-PC Divisionu.
° The committee so appointed thereafter continued to function, with a few incidental
changes in personnel, throughout the period covered by this report.
7 The record indicates a continuing disagreement between Siegel and Tenen on the one
hand, and Eubank and the members of the committee on the other hand, as to whether
NWLB maintained a Regional Office at Nashville, and where an application by the
respondent for approval of a voluntary wage increase at the Dickson plant should be filed.
The undersigned takes judicial notice of the following: In accordance with the provisions
of Executive Order 9250, NWLB, with the cooperation of the U. S. Department of Labor,
has established certain procedures for the consideration of applications for voluntary wage
and salary adjustments . The offices of the WH-PC divisions of the Department of Labor
have been authorized as agents of NLRB to issue rulings as to whether a proposed adjust-
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD
The committee then requested that any work done on that day (January 1)
be-paid for at time-and-a-half. Tenen replied that he had no authority
to grant this request, and that they could either work on a straight time basis
or they could go home for the day and talk to Siegel on Monday. Eubank re-
quested permission, which was granted, for herself and three other members
of the committee to leave the plant so that they could call Nashville on an out-
side phone Upon their return they reported to the other employees in the
sewing room that they had talked to Nashville and had been advised that there
was a way to get an increase and that Nashville was sending the necessary forms
which they-would receive on Monday. The employees decided to go home rather
than work that day on a straight time basis. Tenen instructed them not to
clock out as he did not intend to pay them for the time they had been at the
plant but had refrained from working and he did not want to confuse the
pay roll records 8 In the course of the afternoon Tenen, in order to make sure
that he understood the instructions he had received by telephone, went to Nash-
ville for a personal conference with a representative of the WH-P. C. Divisions
as to how to proceed with the proposed application to increase wages.
D. Events of January 4, 1943
When the employees reported on January 4, the next-working day, they found
three special police furnished by the city stationed in the sewing room. Feuer-
stein instructed the operators to clock in if they intended to work but otherwise
to wait until they had talked to Siegel. Some of .the employees clocked in and
started working. Others, including Eubank, decided to wait.
Shortly after work hours had commenced, the committee went downstairs
to meet with Siegel. They presented their demand for a basic wage increase
from 40 to 50 cents an hour. Siegal told them • that "the moon would turn
green" before they could get that amount as it would be the equivalent of a
25 percent raise and the Government would not permit it. He agreed, however,
to file a voluntary application with the NWLB for approval of a higher wage
scale. He also offered to increase the workweek to 50 hours but some of the
committee said this would be too long. Siegel then proposed a 45-hour week,
but no agreement was reached on the proposal. In the course of the interview
Siegel told the committee that he had a Government contract to 'make 6100
dozen pairs of khaki trousers for Lend-Lease commitments, and appealed to
them at least to get that order through, whether they worked on anything else
ment requires NWLB approval and, where such approval is required, to furnish the
applicant with application forms and instructions for their preparation and to lend
assistance if needed Upon completion the application is preferably filed with the appro-
priate office of the WH-PC Divisions, which checks it for completeness, obtains additional
information when required, and forwards it to the appropriate Regional Office of NWLB
for approval, or disapproval or in certain cases for referral to NWLB in Washington
There is no Regional Office of NWLB in Nashville, Tennessee. There is a Regional Office
of the WH-PC Divisions of the U. S. Depaitment of Labor at Nashville, which acts. as
an office of first contact and information office for employers seeking rulings as to the
permissibility of proposed wage and salary adjustments, or desiring to obtain forms of
application and assistance in completing them. There is a Regional Office of NWLB in
Atlanta, Georgia. Formal instructions attached to and issued with NWLB's Form 10 con-
template that the application when completed be submitted to the nearest office of the
WH-PC Divisions.
8 Some of the employees who could work independently of the units had done some
incidental work that morning. Tenen instructed these to hand in to the office their own
estimates of work-time claimed. Since the employees who had not worked had clocked in,
Tenen subsequently requested them for accounting purposes to sign typewritten no
on their work cards that they had voluntarily refrained fiom work. The employees
complied with this request. ,
C ' ' - HENRY I. SIEG IEL COMPANY 817'
or not. The committee agreed that the employees would work on the Govern-
ment order . They then returned to the sewing room and normal operations were
resumed by approximately 8: 30 o'clock.'
E. Events of January 5, 1943
About noon on the following day the respondent posted a bulletin in the plant
reading as follows : -
TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Please be advised that we are requesting the War Labor Board for permis-
sion to raise your wages, especially those who work on piece rates and who
have been effected ( sic) by reduction in production due to replacements-
Just as soon as permission is received, action will be taken immediately.
HENRY I. SIEGEL COMPANY
Just before the end of the workday Siegel requested Mrs. Eubank, Hybernia
Eubank, and Thera Carter, another member of the employees' committee, to
come to his office. When they arrived , Siegel told them that he wanted to
show them that what h'e had told them was in good faith . He thereupon
exhibited to them a blank copy of NWLB's Form 10, captioned "Application
for Approval of a Voluntary or Agreed-Upon Wage or Salary Adjustment," to
which he had affixed his signature . Paragraph 14.a. of this application reads
as follows : "Do you intend to make the proposed wage or salary adjustment
the'basis of a request for an increase in the price ceiling of any commodity
or service? Yes-No-." The respondent called their attention to this question-
and to the fact that he had answered it "No," and told them that if he had
answered it, "Yes," the application would have to be approved by two Govern-
ment agencies and that the war would be over before they would be able to get
the application approved. He further told them that he was sending the appli-
cation to the NWLB's office in Atlanta and, if nothing was heard from it in a
reasonable time, for them to follow the matter up. He told them they could
use the office phone for any long distance calls in this connection.
After leaving Siegel's office the sub-committee met the other members of the
committee outside the plant and reported what Siegel had said. Construing
the words "we are applying" as set forth in the bulletin posted in the plant
that day as equivalent to a statement that the respondent had already applied,
to NWLB, the committee took Siegel's subsequent exhibition of the application
to the sub-committee as proof of bad faith rather than as confirmation of hiaw
assurances.'*
° In this interview , Siegel committed himself to raise wages but not in any specific
amount . The record Indicates that he was expecting to use the "Little Steel" formula as
a standard , in which case individual raises and piece-rate raises since January ' 1, 1941,
would have to be considered . Siegel did not, however, discuss these complicating factors
with the committee and the interview ended on a basis that left the matter of adjustment
entirely in Siegel 's hands and gave the committee no definite idea of what they- could expect
except that they would not get what they had requested . This element of uncertainty later
proved an explosive factor when combined with the new mood of self-assertiveness which
the employees were evidencing. '
10 Even when exhibited to the sub -committee , the application was not In completed form
as the supporting information required of the respondent involved the compilation' of data
from pay rolls covering the period from January 1, 1941. Siegel was not often available at
Dickson and by showing the application to the sub-committee he intended only to give them
tangible evidence that he was in fact going forward with the application and not proposing
to delay action by seeking a change in his ceiling prices. The committee, taking a more
simplified view of the procedural requirements involved , regarded any delay as intentional.
818 DE CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. Events of January 6, 1943
The next morning the sewing room employees clocked in as usual. Word was
passed around as to what had happened at the conference between Siegel and
the sub-committee the evening before, and the bad faith, attributed to Siegel
by the committee on account of their misinterpretation of the bulletin, was
generally accepted as an established fact. In the course of the morning
Feuerstein distributed "bundles" of the Lend-Lease material to the girls in
three units." The rumor spread that if the employees started work on a
Government order they would thereafter be frozen to their jobs. Enough of
the operators refused to work to make production impossible. Feuerstein
attempted to persuade them to resume work but he was unsuccessful and
sent for Tenen. Tenen came to the sewing room and assembled the com-
mittee and asked them what was the trouble. The committee told him they
were afraid they would be frozen to their jobs if they worked on a Govern-
ment order. Tenen told them that he knew of no such law, but the com-
mittee were unconvinced and Tenen suggested that they go downstairs and call
Nashville. The committee decided they would rather go to Nashville them-
selves. Tenen gave his consent and six members of ,the committee, including
Hybernia Eubank, clocked out and started for Nashville by car. Upon arrival,
they called at the office of the W. H.-P. G. Divisions and saw Regional
Director Eaves. All the members of the sub-committee started to talk at
once, and Eaves suggested that they select one spokesman for the group.
Hybernia Eubank was thereupon made "chairlady."'Z Upon inquiry, Eaves
assured them that they would not be frozen to their jobs by working on a
Government order. The situation at the Dickson plant was discussed gen-
erally and Eaves advised them that N W. L. B. had direct jurisdiction only
in cases of voluntary wage agreements but that cases involving wage dis-
putes could be taken up upon through the Bureau of Conciliation of the U. S.
Department of Labor.
Meanwhile, on the instructions of the sub-committee, the employees in the
sewing room had refused to work either on the Government order or on anything
else. Finally, at 11:30 o'clock, Tenen told them to clock out and take their
lunch hour then instead of at 12 o'clock and to come back at 1 o'clock, and that
in the meanwhile the committee would probably be back from Nashville. When
the employees came back at 1 o'clock, the sub-committee had not returned. One
of the employees located them by telephone at Eaves' office and told them that
the employees had clocked out under Tenen's instructions until the sub-committee
returned. The sub-committee at once left Nashville and drove back to Dickson.
They first assembled the committee and repored on their conference with Eaves.
The committee then went downstairs to talk to Siegel "
The conference with Siegel was of brief duration. The testimony of Hybernia
Eubank, Mrs. Mildred Deal, Sara Garton, and Mrs. Dollie Eubank, as witnesses
for the Board, is in direct conflict with that of Siegel and Tenen as to what
occurred. Since the determination of what in fact occurred is of crucial signifi-
u The' respondent was under contract with the Government to complete this order by
January 20 and Siegel had instructed Tenen to put the material in production at once.
Tenen had made out the cutting tickets and instructed the cutters to give the work priority.
By the morning of January 6, the first "bundles" of material from the cutting room were
ready for the sewing room.
"Eubank thereafter continued to function as chairlady throughout the period covered
by this report.
" Siegel had left Dickson that morning to visit his plant at Bruceton, Tennessee. After
the sub-committee left for Nashville, Tenen telephoned to Siegel at Bruceton and asked him
to return to Dickson. He thereupon caught the next train to Dickson, arriving about 1
o'clock and was at the plant when the sub-committee returned from Nashville.
HENRY I. SIEGEL COMPANY 819
ance in the reconstruction of later events , the testimony of each of the witnesses
is hereinbelow reviewed in detail :
Hybernia Eubank testified :
Mr. Siegel came in and he stumbled against the desk and he took hold of
the corner and fell into his chair and said, "What is the matter ? I thought
all of this was settled yesterday " . . . he was very angry . . . His face
was white , and he was trembling, because he started to light a cigarette,
and his hand was trembling . He had very much difficulty in getting his
cigarette lighted . . . He asked me what the trouble was ; that he thought
all that had been settled the day before , and I said, "I know you did, but it
has not", and he said, "Well , what did you find out?" I said, "We have
been to the regional office of the War Labor Board in Nashville ", and at
this moment he interrupted me and said , "There is no regional office in Nash-
ville, Tennessee ", and I said, "I repeat, Mr. Siegel , we have been to the
regional office of the War Labor Board at 509 Medical Arts Building, Nash-
ville, Tennessee , and we discovered that no wage increase had been applied
for, but you can apply for a voluntary wage increase , but, if you refuse to
do this, we will refer you to the Conciliation Service Department of the De-
partment of Labor, because the Nashville office does not handle disputes."
So, he became enraged , jumped to his feet , and he said, "All right, all
right, I am not giving any increase of any kind . I am closing down the shop.
Get out. Get out all of you." So, we turned to go, and as we went out the
door, he said , "I am phoning Washington , telling them that you walked
out on a Government contract ", and I said, "Mr. Siegel , I don't think you
will phone Washington ." The reason I said this , I did not think it was true,
I did not believe we were working on a Government order."
Q. Was it true that you were walking out?
A. We were not walking out . We had been ordered out of the plant,'and
after all , we could not stay very well, if someone told you to get out.
Q. Well, will you describe Mr. Siegel ' s demeanor , Henry I. Siegel's de-
meanor, when you refer to his becoming enraged. That is, what he did,
what his actions were?
A. Well, he threw his hands around and shouted for us to get out He
was in a rage , or he seemed to be
Q. What was the tone of his voice?
A It was very harsh and loud.
(Cross-examination) :
Mr. Siegel told us on January 6 after the committee got back from Nash-
ville, Tennessee , that he was not making an application for a wage increase
of any kind, and he was closing down the plant , and for all of us to get out,
and he said , "Get out or I will have you arrested."
Q. He said, "If you don't get out of the plant I will have you all arrested?"
A. That is right.
Mrs. Mildred Deal testified:
.. . Mr. Siegel came in . . . Very weak, stumbling, very pale, and
Hybernia said, "Mr. Siegel, we have been to Nashville to the War Labor
Board", and he interrupted her-she said, "We have been to Nashville to the
War Labor Board, to the Regional Office", and he interrupted her by saying.
14 Eubank subsequently testified that she told Siegel that they had been informed at
Nashville that they would not be frozen to their jobs by working on a Government order-
549875-44-vol. 52-53
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"There is no Regional Office in Nashville , Tennessee" ... and Hybernia
said, "I repeat, we have been to the Regional Office, 509 Medical Arts Build-
ing, Nashville , Tennessee", and by him filling out form 10 that he could
grant an increase , and he said , "I am not giving you no increase The shop
is closing down , so get out." And, as we -walked out the door, he said he
was phoning Washington and telling them that we walked out on a Govern-
ment order.
Q. Do you recall whether or not Miss Hybernia said anything to Mr.
Siegel about his telephoning Washington?
A. She said, "You are not calling Washington and telling them that we
walked out." She said, "You are not calling Washington." That is all
I remember.
* * * * * * *
(Cross-examination)
Q. Did Mr. Siegel explain to you why he was calling Washington? You
remember you testified about that?
A. He said he was calling Washington to tell them we walked out ,on a
Government order.
Q What did you say when he made that statement?
A. I did not say anything. Hybernia Eubank said, "Mr. Siegel, you are
not calling Washington, because we are not walking out on a Government
order. We have been ordered out of the plant."
Q. And who ordered you out of the plant?
A. Mr. Siegel . . . That was when he told us that he was not going to give
any increase and the shop was closing down, and to get out.
Sara Garton testified :
Mr Siegel come (sic) in first, and he came in very pale and very nervous
like, and staggered against his desk, and fell down in his chair . . . Mr.
Siegel said, "What is it now?" "I thought this was all settled yesterday?"
Hybernia Eubank said, "I know you did, but it is not." She said, "We
just been to the Regional Office in Nashville," and he interrupted her by
saying, "There is no Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee " She said,
"I repeat, Mr. Siegel, we have just been to the Regional Office of the War
Labor Board in Nashville, Tennessee", and she said, "We have found out
that there is a way that you can raise our wages by filling out form 10,
a volunteer blank for a wage increase" ; and if he refused to do this to call
back in that night, that is Mr. Eaves I am speaking of, and he would refer
us to the Conciliation Department, and he said, "I am giving no raise, the
shop is closing down, so get out, all of you get out."
Q. What was the tone of his voice when he said that?
A. Well, it was very, very angry like ; very, very loud.
* * * * * *
Q. What did the committee do then?
A. Well, Mr. Siegel said, as we were going out of the door, he said, "I
am calling Washington and telling them that you walked out on a Govern-
ment order", and Hybernia turned and said, "You won't do that, Mr. Siegel."
Siegel testified as follows :
Q Now, Mr. Siegel, I will ask you if at any time you came in to any part
of that building and stumbled against a desk and took hold of one corner
HENRY I. SIEGEL COMPANY - 821
and fell into a chair and said, "What is the matter? I thought all of this was
settled yesterday?"
A. I did not stumble and I did not fall. I don't know what the implication
is. I am not a drinking man, Mr. Armistead, and that implication, if it is
so meant. is wrong. I probably did not'feel well, but I did not stumble.
Q Now, I will ask you if you became enraged, and jumped to your feet
and said, "All right, all right, I am not giving any increase of any kind.
I am closing down the shop. Get out. Get out all of you"?
A. No, sir, I did not. Here is what actually did happen. I got back
at 1 o'clock that day, and I waited . . . for the committee to return from
Nashville, and they did not return until about 3 o'clock, possibly, maybe
a little after . . . They all piled into that little office right next to the
payroll department, and the one I spoke to was Miss Eubank, I said, "I
thought we had this all straightened out. What is it now?" She said,
"Well, they decided not to go to work until they get a conciliator." I said,
"A conciliator? What do you need a conciliator for? . . . When we get a
conciliator, we can no longer put that application through. It is supposed
to be a voluntary application.. . . If we don't nut it through. I doubt
whether you will get anything." She said, "That's all I want to know",
and got out of the office. It did not take any more than about 'two minutes,
maybe not that long."
• s a s r * s
(Cross-examination)
Q. Was there any discussion to the effect that there had been no applica•
tions filed?
A. No, sir, she did not mention a word about that; not a word. She didn't
say anything. I understand that she told the girls upstairs that we had
not filed the application, but she did not say a word to me about it. It only
lasted about two minutes. All she said was that she wanted a Conciliator.
Q There was no discussion as to whether there was a Regional Office
in Nashville or Atlanta, or wherever the office was?
A. There was no discussion as to the Regional Office . . . That was not
discussed at that time. That was discussed at the beginning.' They said
they were going to the office of the War Labor Board in Nashville and I
tried to tell them there wasn't any there, but the old lady [Mrs. Eubank]
insisted there was, and I said all right . . . That was the first confer-
ence . . . There was a discussion.
Q. A discussion as to what office they would apply to?
A. No, that they would go to the office there, or had gone to the office. I
am vague about that, because I don't remember. I know there was a dis-
cussion as to the Regional Office in Nashville, and I tried to' explain to the
old lady there wasn't any such thing in Nashville, but there was a Wage
and Hour office, and she said no, there was a War Labor Board office in
Nashville, and we let it go at that.
Aaron Tenen testified : " . . . all I know is they came in and spoke to Mr.
Siegel in the office . . . They told him they decided to get a conciliator and
they would not work until the conciliator will come to straighten the thing
out.f 16
is The meeting between the respondent and the committee on January 4.
11 Tenen further testified that he recalled Siegel's making some reference to notifying
Washington.
822 DECTSION'S I OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mrs. Eubank, called as a witness for the Board on rebuttal, testified under
cross-examination as follows :
Q. You got back from Nashville, and when you got back from Nashville,
you saw Mr. Siegel, and he told you he thought it had all been settled the
day before, didn't he?
A. Yes, that is what he said when he came in.
Q. And you gave him to understand, good and plenty, it was not, settled
the day before, didn't you?
A. I don't know whether anybody said anything like that, but I don't
remember any statement like that.
* s * * * * *
Q. Didn't you hear it said to him there in your presence, that he could
give them a raise?
A. Yes, I heard Hybernia tell him that.
* * * * * * *
Q. And . . . he said there was no Regional Office in Nashville and Hy-
bernia told him there was, and said, "I repeat, Mr. Siegel, there is a
Regional Office in Nashville?"
A. Yes, and then is when he flew off the handle very much. . . . he said,
"I am granting no raise of any kind. I am closing the shop down, and
get out, get out" .. .
On the basis of the testimony hereinabove reviewed, and of the whole record
herein, the undersigned is unable to credit in essential particulars the account
given by the Board's witnesses of their interview with Siegel, for the controlling
reason that this account is inherently incredible. Eubank had learned from
the Nashville office of the Wage and Hour Administrator on January 1 that
there was a way for the respondent to grant a voluntary increase, and had so
advised the employees. On January 2, she had received from Nashville a copy
of NWLB's Form 10. On January 4, Siegel had met with the committee and
agreed to apply to NWLB for permission to raise wages within the limits of
the Little Steel formula. On the afternoon of January 5, he had exhibited to
Eubank, her mother, and Mrs. ' Thera Carter, a copy of NWLB's Form 10, to
which he had affixed his signature, had told them he was sending the applica-
tion to NWLB's Regional Office at Atlanta, and had given them permission to
use the office phone to keep behind the Atlanta office if action had not been
taken on. his application within a reasonable time.17 It is in this context of
precedent events that Eubank states that on January 6 she told the respondent
that the committee had just been to Nashville and "discovered" that no wage
increase had been applied for, and that she further told the respondent that he
could apply for a voluntary increase. Mrs. Deal testified in corroboration that
Eubank told the respondent that "by him filling out form 10 that he could grant
an increase." The testimony of both Eubank and Deal implies that this in-
formation had just been received from Nashville but Garton's testimony is
explicit on this point. According to Garton, Eubank told the respondent : "We
have just been to the Regional Office of the War Labor Board in Nashville,
Tennessee . . . we have found out that there is a way that you can raise [our]
wages by filling out form 10, a volunteer blank for a wage increase." In short,
17 The question was raised at this time as to whether the application should not be sent
to Nashville and Siegel explained why he was sending it to Atlanta. Whether, or not
they accepted his explanation, they knew that the respondent intended to file the application
in Atlanta.
HENRY T. SIEGEL COMPANY 823
the committee claims to have gone to Siegel's office to advise him that he could
make an application to increase wages, knowing that he had already signed such
an application, and to advise him that he had not filed his application in Nash-
ville, knowing that he had intended to file it in Atlanta.
The testimony of Siegel and Tenen, on the other hand, is completely congruous
with the attendant circumstances. While Siegel was willing to grant a volun-
tary increase in wages, he had refused the 25 percent increase that the em-
ployees were demanding. The sewing room employees were, to all practical
intent, on strike. The committee had gone to Nashville for the ostensible pur-
pose of finding out if the employees would be frozen to their jobs if they worked
on a Government order. The ensuing interview with Eaves went further and
explored the procedure to be followed where the employer refused to grant the
wage demands of the employees, and the committee thus learned of the func-
tions of the Bureau of Conciliation.'$ On the basis of the original purpose of
the committee's trip to Nashville, all they had to do on their return was to
communicate to the employees the assurances received from Eaves that they
would not prejudice their rights by working on a Government order. But the
committee made no immediate report to the employees. They sought instead
an interview with Siegel.
Both Siegel and Tenen testified that, at this interview, Eubank announced
that they had decided not to work until they had brought in a conciliator"
Such an announcement is in accord with their tacit abandonment of the job-
freezing issue, with their continuing dissatisfaction over Siegel' s disposition of
their original demand, and with their inquiries of Eaves as to the procedure for
adjusting wage disputes. The undersigned finds and concludes that the purport
of Eubank's statement to Siegel was that the employees would not resume
work until the wage issue had been settled by a conciliator ; that Siegel pro-
tested that to call in a conciliator would make it impossible to proceed on the
basis of a voluntary application, in which event it was doubtful if the employees
would get any increase at all; and that Eubank replied, "That's all I want
to know," whereupon the committee terminated the interview and left the
office. The undersigned further finds that the respondent did not tell the com-
mittee to get out or that he was closing the plant.
Upon leaving the respondent's office, the committee returned to the sewing
department. The department occupies the entire second floor of the plant, in
an unpartitioned space approximately 50 feet in width by 300 feet in length.
Stairways at either end connect with the floor below. Most of the work
space is filled with sewing machines arranged in double rows parallel to the
end walls with narrow service aisles around the four walls and between
each two double rows of machines. Each double row of machines is flanked
on both sides by wooden counters running continuously the length of the
row. Approximately 500 employees work in the department, and approxi-
mately 400 of these work at machines.20
When the employees observed that the committee had returned , a large
number crowded into the aisles at that end of the building. Others stood on
11 That the committee had a further purpose in mind is indicated by the fact that they
made an automobile trip to Nashville instead of settling the matter by telephone call as
Tenen had suggested
11 Eubank's testimony included a reference to the "Conciliation Service," though in a
different context.
21 The above findings as to the physical details of the sewing room are based upon un-
disputed testimony in the record and on the undersigned's personal observation of the
premises, made at the request of respondent' s counsel and with the consent of, and in the
presence of, representatives of all parties.
824 DE,DISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
top of the tables that supported the machines. Eubank made her way as far
as the second double row of machines and climbed up on one of the tables
to make an announcement . The testimony as to the purport of Eubank's an-
nouncement exhibits the same pattern of conflict as found with respect to the
conference with Siegel. The testimony is voluminous and impracticable of
detailed review. The opposed versions are clearly set forth in the testimony
of Hybernia Eubank, as a witness for the Board, and of Eunice Hooper, as
a witness for the respondent.
Eubank testified : ". . . I got up on the table to tell the girls what Mr.
Siegel had just told us . . . I just started to speak when Mr. Siegel
came up the steps and he said something that I did not understand, and
I got off the table, because I thought, maybe, he was reconsidering and
wished to talk to the committee about applying for the increase. So, when
I got off the table, he said, "Get out," and I says, "I have not finished yet."
So, I got up on the table again, and I finished telling the girls what Mr.
Siegel said, and also what I had found out at the War Labor Board office
I told the girls that the committee had found out in Nashville that
a voluntary wage increase could be applied for, and it had not been
applied for, and when I told Mr. Siegel about that, he had gotten very
angry and had ordered us out of the plant, and he said he was closing
the plant down."
Eunice Hooper testified :
Well, she got up on the table and said for everyone to come up there and
be right quiet and she would give the verdict, and she said she had just
been to Nashville to the War Labor Board, and they said that we could
get 50 cents an hour, but Mr. Siegel was not willing to give 50 cents an
hour, . . . and if Henry I, Siegel did not give it, there is others that
will, or another one that will . . . Then her mother said, "Everybody come
back at 9 o'clock, meet down here at the factory at 9 o'clock Friday morn-
ing," and she repeated it, got up on the table and repeated what-her mother
said.
On the basis of the testimony hereinabove reviewed, and of the whole record
herein, the undersigned finds it impossible to credit Eubank's version of her
announcement to the employees. The inherent improbability of such an an-
nouncement is implicit in the improbability of Eubank's version of the preceding
interview. There is a further element of improbability in the supposition that,
if the respondent had really proposed to close the plant, he would have de-
pended on Eubank to convey the information, or that Eubank would have
volunteered her services in anticipation of a statement to the employees from
the respondent himself. Hooper's testimony is, on the other hand, entirely con-
sistent with Eubank's statement to the respondent, as above found, that they
had decided not to work until the matter had been settled by a conciliator.
The undersigned finds that the statement made by Eubank to the employees on
the afternoon of January 6 was substantially as testified to by Hooper.
Shortly after the committee left the office, Siegel heard that there was a
commotion on the second floor. He went upstairs and saw Eubank standing on
top of one sewing machine table, and other employees crowding the aisles
and standing on other tables. At the conclusion of Eubank's announcement,
which Siegel was not close enough to hear, the department was in an uproar,
and many of the employees started to leave. It was then near the end of the
work-day and any effort to resume work was obviously impossible. Siegel
thereupon spoke to some of the employees who were still milling around in
HENRY I. SIE GEL COMPANY 825
his immediate vicinity and urged them to leave the plant and go home. At
this time the respondent assumed that the' whole department was on strike.
Many of the employees, however, had been unable to hear Eubank's announcement
and were confused as to what was happening. As some of these were leaving
the plant they met Siegel in the hall downstairs and asked for separation papers.
Siegel told them that there was no occasion for separation papers, that the
employees were the ones who were stopping operations. He then discovered
that a number of the employees were not in sympathy with the strike and
wanted to continue at work. He therefore announced to all employees who
made inquiry of him that the department would operate the next day if enough
employees reported to make it possible to operate, and asked them to pass the
word around to this effect. In the course of the evening the office staff tele-
phoned a number of individual employees to learn if they wanted to work and
those who stated that they did were told that the plant would be open, and
requested to circulate this information. News that the plant would attempt to
operate reached some of the employees on strike and word was passed around
for the strikers to assemble at the plant on the following morning before the
opening hour.
G. Events of January 7 and 8
On January 7, the plant opened as usual. About 100 strikers gathered in front
of the plant but made no effort to interfere with those employees who wanted
to go to work. All employees reporting for work were admitted. The strikers
remained in the vicinity of the plant. At the beginning and end of the lunch
hour and at the close of work the non-strikers were greeted with cries of "yellow"
but were not physically molested.
After leaving the plant on January 6, Eubank had telephoned to Eaves at
Nashville to report developments. Eaves told her he would get in touch with
the Conciliation Service. The next day she received a telephone call, from
Chattanooga, Tennessee, from Conciliator Williams, advising that he could not
come to Dickson personally, but that Fred Beck, from the Columbia, South
`Carolina, office, would arrive the following day. Eubank also received a tele-
phone call from Nashville, from Paul Christopher, the Regional Director of the
C. I. 0., and agreed to meet him at Nashville, with the members of the com-
mittee, at 2 o'clock on the afternoon of Saturday, January 9.
On January 8, about 150 strikers assembled in front of the plant. Employees
reporting for work were unmolested, except for verbal epithets, either on
entering or leaving the plant. During the day Eubank received long distance
telephone calls from Beck and from Brooks, a representative of the A. F. of L.,
and made appointments for the following day, for herself and the committee, to
meet Beck at 10 o'clock in the morning, and Brooks at 6 o'clock in the after-
noon, at Nashville.
H. Events of January 9 n
On January 9, the plant was closed , as Saturday was not a working day.
That morning Beck called Siegel by long distance telephone , explaining that
he was trying to get the situation straightened out, and asked him if he would
come to Nashville for a conference. Siegel agreed and an appointment was
arranged for 4 o 'clock that afternoon . At 10 o'clock the committee called on
n Findings in the following and in other sections of this report as to statements attrib-
uted to Conciliator Beck, are based on testimony of witnesses in whose presence such
statements were allegedly made. Beck did not testify.
826 DE fSION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Beck, pursuant to appointment. They told Beck that they were demanding
an increase in the base wage rate to 50 cents an hour. Beck told them he had
arranged to have a talk -with Siegel that day and made an appointment with
the committee to come back at 4: 30 o'clock that afternoon.
Siegel, accompanied by Tenen, called on Beck as agreed. Beek explained that
it was part of his job to see that the employees went back to work. Siegel
replied that that would be all right with him. They discussed general wage
rates in Dickson and in competitive manufacturing areas. Siegel told Beck
that he was proposing to apply to NWLB for permission to raise his straight
time rates to the 15 percent limit fixed by the Little Steel formula and to raise
his piece rates 10 percent which he thought was the maximum for which he
could expect NWLB approval in view of previous increases of approximately
7 percent. Beck told him that he had an appointment with the employee's com-
mittee that afternoon and asked that he and Tenen come back later.
In the meanwhile the committee had met with Christopher, Carl Albrecht,
the Southern director of the Union, and two Union organizers. In the course
of the conference, the members of the committee signed applications for mem-
bership in the Union. It was decided to hold a meeting the following afternoon
at the Halbrook Hotel, in Dickson. At 4: 30 o'clock, the committee, accompanied
by Christopher, Albrecht, and the two organizers, met with Beck, the committee
explaining to Beek that they had joined the Union and wanted the Union
representatives present. Beck told them of Siegel's proposal and asked if
they were -willing to return to work on this basis subject to further action by
NWLB, but the committee would not consent. When the respondent and Tenen
came back to see Beck later in the afternoon, Beck told them that the employees
were unwilling to return to work on the basis of the proposal submitted.
1. Events of January 10-11
On Sunday, the Union opened organization headquarters at the Halbrook
Hotel, in Dickson, as planned. Thirty to 35 more of the employees signed
applications for membership in the Union. Plans were made to hold a mass
meeting of the strikers the following day.
On Monday, January 11, the plant opened as usual. The strikers were
assembled in force in front of the plant, but, except for epithets directed against
employees who reported for work, made no effort to interfere with ingrets to
the plant. At about 8 o'clock that morning the committee announced to the
strikers that they had decided to organize and requested them to adjourn
to the War Memorial Building which had been made available to the Union
for organizational purposes. The strikers then left the plant and assembled
at the War Memorial Building. Approximately 350 employees signed appli-
cations for membership in the Union.
After the meeting, Albrecht, together with Eubank and two other employees,
went to Nashville and reported developments to Beck. Beck called the respond-
ent over long distance telephone and made an appointment to see him at Dickson
that afternoon at 4 o'clock with Albrecht and a committee of employees.
At the time appointed, Beck, Albrecht and Eubank, together with Mrs. Cornelia
Jobe and C. R. Pate, two of the employees of the respondent, called at the plant
and were received by Siegel and Tenen. Albrecht stated that 85 percent of the
employees had signed up with the Union and asked the respondent if he would
agree to a card check. The respondent did not understand the term and asked
what it meant. Beck explained that the question of the Union's right to repre-
sent the employees could be settled either by the respondent's accepting the cards
as valid or by an election held by the Board. The respondent stated that he
HENRY I. SIEGEL COMPANY 827
would not consent to the card check without getting legal advice but knew that
under the law he would be bound by the result of an election. Beck told the re-
spondent that he was anxious to get "these people" back to work. The re-
spondent replied, "Fine, the doors are open."
In the course of the discussion the respondent stated that he was returning to
New York that night and that Frank Hall, a local attorney, could act for him in
the representation matter, but that Hall was then ill23 Beck requested the re-
spondent to employ some other attorney but the respondent refused. With the
respondent's permission, Beck telephoned to Hall at his home and Hall agreed to
see them. Beck, Albrecht, Tenen and the respondent then went to Hall's house.
On Hall's advice, the respondent decided not to consent to the card check but to
abide by the result of an election. Beck and Albrecht returned to the plant and
reported the result of the interview to the employees' committee. They all then
went to the War Memorial Building and reported the status of affairs to the em-
ployees. The same afternoon Albrecht called the Board's Regional Office at At-
lanta over long distance telephone and advised Howard S. LeBaron, the Regional
Director, that he wished to file a petition for investigation and certification of
representatives of the employees at the Dickson plant and that a work stoppage
was involved. The Regional Director at once assigned the case to Ralph S. Clif-
ford, a Field Examiner' then attached to the staff of the Regional Office, for ap-
propriate action. Clifford left Atlanta that evening by car, arriving at Dickson
the following morning.
J. Events of January 12-16
On the morning of January 12, the striking employees massed.in front of the
entrance to the plant and no production or maintenance employees were permitted
to enter. Clifford met Albrecht at the War Memorial Building where a petition
for investigation and certification of representatives under Section 9 (c) of the
Act was prepared, which Albrecht signed and turned over to Clifford, and
Clifford, in turn, sent to Atlanta 2S On January 13, the original charge in this
proceeding was received.24
The Union's blockade of the plant continued effective through January 15.
On that day the respondent filed a complaint for equitable relief, against the
Union and certain named individuals, in the Chancery Court for Dickson County,
22 Hall had just returned from the hospital after an attack of pneumonia and was still
confined to his bed.
23 The petition was received and filed in the Regional Office at 3: 30 p. in. on January 14.
The Board held a hearing thereon on January 16 . Pursuant to the Board 's Decision and
Order of Election , issued on January 28 , an election was held on February 10, at which
the Union received a majority vote of the employees in the appropriate unit. On February
18, the Board issued its Certification of Representatives accordingly . The respondent and
the Union thereafter entered into bargaining negotiations It is stipulated of record that
these negotiations present no issue of refusal to bargain . The parties were, however, un-
able to agree on all terms of the proposed contract and these unresolved issues have been
certified to the War Labor Board for settlement.
24 The charge was sworn to by Albrecht before Clifford on January 13 and filed in the
Regional Office on January 15. It alleges that respondent had engaged and was engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act:
In that on or about January 6, 1943, it, by its officers, agents and employees, locked
out its employees and thereby interfered with and discouraged its employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities , for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or portection ( sic). The company, by Its
officers, agents , and employees , has interfered with , restrained, and coereced (sic) its
employees in th exercise of their rights to join, assist, or otherwise be active in behalf
of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.
828 DEC'ISION'S OF - NATIONAL LABOR RELATION81 BOARD
and secured a temporary writ of injunction against further mass picketing of
the plant and physical interference with employees who desired to work, and
limiting the number of pickets to six. A copy of the writ of injunction was posted
at the entrance to the plant the following day, together with a notice reading as
follows :
The Henry I. Siegel Company asks all employees to report for work at
7: 00 A. M. Monday, January 18, 19'43.
[s] HENRY I. SIEGEL COMPANY,
By A TENEN, Superintendent.
Posted :
12:00 Noon,
January 16, 1943
K. Events of January 18 and thereafter
On Monday, January 18, most of the employees reported to work. All em-
ployees reporting were admitted without discrimination.
On January 21, the respondent sent post card notices to such of its employees
as had not returned, reading as follows :
We are working now and are expecting you to return to work Either
report for work at once or advise, or we shall have to replace you.
Very truly yours,
HS HENRY I. SIEGE L COMPANY.
No contention is made by the Board that any employee has been discriminated
against with respect to reinstatement by reason of having participated in the
strike or because of affiliation with the Union.
After the events of January 1, 1943, as hereinabove reviewed, the respondent's
production at the Dickson plant radically declined, with a corresponding reduc-
tion in community income. A mass meeting of the citizens was called for the
evening of April 12 at the High School Auditorium for the stated purpose that
"citizens in every walk of life . . . may fairly and without passion express
their individual views in the truly American way and thus reach a decision" to
promote the spirit of cooperation that had formerly prevailed in the community.
The meeting was attended by Hybernia Eubank who, in the course of the meet-
ing, made some statements that were construed as a personal reflection on Mrs.
Rachel Vineyard, an employee of the respondent in the sewing department. The
next day Vineyard challenged Eubank in the women's washroom and in the alter-
cation that ensued Vineyard scratched Eubank's face. Eubank left the plant
and swore out a warrant for Vineyard's arrest. Tenen heard of the altercation
soon after it occurred. Vineyard was then still in the wash-room and Eubank
had left the plant. The department was in confusion and demand was made on
Tenen to put Vineyard out of the plant. Tenen said he did not know any of the
facts and was not going to take any action until he had found out what the
trouble was.
Shortly after leaving the sewing department, Tenen learned that the rumor was
going around upsairs that Vineyard was to be mobbed when she left the plant.
Tenen called Hall and asked him to arrange police protection for her. Hall then
called Lowry Whittaker, attorney for the Board, and asked him to let Albrecht
know about the situation, and to tell him that, if any of the girls were hurt at
Albrecht's instigation, Albrecht would be held personally responsible. Whitta-
ker told Hall that Albrecht was not there. After work hours, Tenen called
Vineyard and the committee into his office where they were joined by Whittaker.
HENRY I. SIEGEL COMPANY 829
Whittaker demanded that Tenen take immediate action . Tenen refused on the
ground that he knew nothing about the facts. When Whittaker again urged
that disciplinary action be taken against Vineyard at once, Tenen first said that
he would suspend both Vineyard and Eubank until he could hear Eubank's com-
plaint, but upon being advised by Whittaker of the risk of this procedure, Tenen
then listened to the statements of witnesses other than Eubank, and asked
Vineyard for her version of the incident. Tenen then told Vineyard that she
had no right to take up in the plant a personal grievance arising outside and that
he had no choice but to suspend her from work for a few days. At about this
time two deputies came to the plant to execute the warrant of arrest. Tenen
at first thought they were there to preserve order. On learning their purpose
he again phoned Hall and Hall arranged for Vineyard to file an Appearance Bond,
Mayor Beasley and himself signing as sureties, in order to obviate her incarcera-
tion pending trial.
Up to the close of the hearing on May 20, Vineyard had not been reinstated
because of the opposition of the Union. Tenen testified that Vineyard's hus-
band was in the Army , that she was in need of employment , and that he
thought she had been disciplined sufficiently , but that he had not reinstated
her in view of the Union's protest.
L. Summary and Conclusions
On the basis of the foregoing findings, and of the whole record herein, the
undersigned finds by way of summary as follows :
On January 1, 1943, a long latent dissatisfaction among the sewing room
employees of the Dickson plant over wages culminated in a voluntary work
stoppage, pending Siegel 's arrival at Dickson . A conference held on January
4, between Siegel and a committee of employees , led to resumption of work
through January 5. On January 6, operations in the sewing room were again
disrupted by a voluntary work stoppage due to: (1) dissatisfaction on the
part of the employees with respondent 's proposed settlement of the wage
dispute; ( 2) distrust of the respondent ' s representations as to the limits within
which he could raise wages voluntarily; (3) refusal to accord good faith to
the respondent's representations that he was making application for a volun-
tary wage increase ; (4) the assumption that an involuntary increase in the
base wage rate from 40 to 50 cents an hour could be obtained through invoking
the aid of the Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor. The plant
continued operations with a minority of employees until January 12, when it
was effectively blockaded by mass picketing under direction of the Union. On
January 15 , the respondent obtained a temporary injunction against the Union,
restraining it from mass picketing and from physical interference with em-
ployees reporting for work . On January 18, the plant resumed operations
and all employees reporting for work then and subsequently were reinstated
without discrimination . On February 18, after hearing and an election, the
Board certified, the Union as the statutory representative of the respondent's
production and maintenance employees . The respondent thereupon recognized
and bargained with the Union as the representative of its employees. The
undersigned further finds that the respondent at no time between January
1 to 11, inclusive, locked out its employees, or any of them , and that, on all
working days between January 12 to 17, inclusive, it was unable to operate
by reason of the effectiveness of the Union 's picket line.
The undersigned further finds that there is no substantial evidence to
support ' the allegations of the complaint that (a) the respondent threatened
his employees with arrest if they engaged in concerted activities ; (b) threat-
830 DECISION'S OF NATTONIAL LABOR RELATIONSI -BOARD
ened to close his plant if his employees persisted in efforts to secure a wage
increase ; (c) changed the working conditions of his employees because of their
Union membership and sympathies; (d) incited the business men and other
inhabitants of Dickson to oppose the Union and the efforts of the employees
to secure collective bargaining; (e) urged, persuaded, and threatened employees
to refrain from assisting the Union or designating the Union as their repre-
sentative for purposes of collective bargaining.
The only evidence in support of the allegation of the complaint added by
amendment, that the respondent "failed to provide protection to his employees
who were union members, and condoned violence and hostility of his employees
who were non-union members toward his employees who were union members,"
relates to the altercation between Vineyard and Eubank on April 13, resulting
in the lay-off of Mrs. Vineyard and the respondent's subsequent failure and
refusal to reinstate her in the face of the protest of the Union against her
reinstatement. The fact that Hall, a local attorney of Dickinson, assisted Mrs
Vineyard to avoid incarceration in the county jail pending a trial of the charges
against her, has no significance from the standpoint of the Act, especially
since the only publicity given Hall's action was, so far as the record shows,
attributable to the evidence presented by counsel for the Board in this con-
nection.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case , the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced his employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
3. The respondent has not discriminated against his employees in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment, or any terms or condition of employment, thereby
discouraging membership in a labor organization within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the complaint herein be dismissed
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Wash-
ington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any part of the record or
proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As fur-
ther provided in said Section 33, 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 the order transferring the case to the
Board.
WALTER WILBUR
Trial Examiner
Dated July 28, 1943.