Humboldt Full Fashioned Hosiery Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 955 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 955
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following:
CoNcLusIoNs or LAW
1. The operations of the Respondent, The Black-Clawson Company, at its
plant located in Hamilton, Ohio, occur in commerce, within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, U. A. W.-C. I. 0., Amalgamated Local 176, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The unit described above is a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, and the Union at all
times material has been the exclusive bargaining representative for all the
employees in the unit.
4. The Respondent, The Black-Clawson Company, has not engaged in unfair
labor practices as alleged in the complaint, within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) and (5) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC. and AMERICAN
FEDERATION of HOSIERY WORKERS . Cases Nos. 32-CA-144 and
32-RC-211. March 24, 1953
Decision and Order
On October 13, 1952, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent, Humboldt Full Fashioned Hosiery Mills, Inc., Humboldt,
Tennessee, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Labor
Management Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act and recommended dismissal of those por-
tions of the complaint herein which allege the discriminatory dis-
charges of Warren C. Boothe and Bessie K. Beasley. Thereafter, the
Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermedi-
ate Report, and the Respondent filed a supporting brief. The Re-
spondent's motion for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record,
including the exceptions and brief, adequately presents the issues and
the positions of the parties.
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 Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
103 NLRB No. 98.
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed? The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, with the following additions, modifications, and
corrections:
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent unlaw-
fully refused to recognize the charging Union as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the unit herein found
appropriate.'
2. The Trial Examiner found that the discharge of Bessie K.
Beasley was not violative of the Act. We do not agree.3
Notwithstanding his findings that the Respondent had engaged in
an unlawful campaign to defeat the Union and that the Respondent
knew that Beasley was an active union adherent, the Trial Examiner
concluded, in the light of certain testimony by the Respondent as
to Beasley's alleged inefficiency as a greige inspector, that the Re-
spondent had not discriminatorily discharged her.
We believe, however, that in giving full credence to the Respond-
ent's reason for having discharged Beasley, the Trial Examiner failed
to give due consideration to certain of the Respondent's personnel
records which are not mentioned in the Intermediate Report. These
1 W. hereby deny the Respondent 's motion to strike the testimony of Mary Tatum and
the record exhibits related thereto. In its motion , the Respondent contends that the
Trial Examiner ' s failure to order counsel for the General Counsel to produce a written
statement of Mary Tatum ( a document in his possession at the hearing ) deprived the
Respondent of an opportunity to impeach Mary Tatum's oral testimony and constitutes
a denial of due process to the Respondent . We find, however, that the Trial Examiner
acted properly and that the counsel for the General Counsel, in refusing to surrender
the statement pursuant to the Trial Examiner's subpoena duces tecum, also acted properly
in relying upon the Rules and Regulations of the Board . Section 102.90 of the Rules and
Regulations (now renumbered 102.97 ), in effect at the time of the hearing herein, pro-
hibited said counsel ( a Board agent ) from surrendering the statement ( a Board document)
without the prior consent of the Chairman or General Counsel of the Board . The record
fails to disclose any attempt by the Respondent to obtain such consent , nor is there any
indication that the required consent would not have been given if the Respondent had duly
requested such consent . We find, therefore , that the Respondent has not been prejudiced
as alleged . General Armature & Manufacturing Co., 89 NLRB 654 (footnote 5), enfd.
19'2 F. 2d 316 ( C. A. 3), cert. denied 343 U. S. 957.
2 The record discloses that the Respondent and the charging Union disagree with respect
to the unit placement of knitting instructors in the Board 's Decision and Direction of
Election herein issued on June 26, 1950 (90 NLRB No. 99, not reported in printed volumes
of Board decisions ). In contending that the instructors should be included in the unit
here involved , the Respondent relies primarily upon certain wording in the aforesaid
Decision. Perusal of the entire Decision and Direction of Election shows clearly that the
language upon which the Respondent relies was the result of a clerical error and that the
Board decided , in fact, that knitting instructors are to be excluded as supervisors from a
production and maintenance unit of the Respondent 's employees . We hereby affirm our
prior determination and remove any ambiguity by specifically excluding the knitting in-
structors from the unit here involved . The refusal to bargain in this case involved no
dispute as to the exclusion or inclusion of these employees.
3 In reaching our determination , we accept all of the Trial Examiner 's credibility findings,
particularly with respect to the record testimony relating to Beasley 's discharge.
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 957
records consist particularly of the "Greige Reinspector's Reports"
of 23 of the Respondent's greige inspectors (including 1 on Beasley).
The reports show, on an individual basis, the percentage of defective
stockings discovered in spot rechecking stockings which the greige
inspectors had passed as perfect. The General Counsel's purpose in
presenting these reports was to provide a basis for comparing Beas-
ley's efficiency with that of the other inspectors. Analysis of the
reports for the periods here material establishes that Beasley's effi-
ciency compared favorably, at the least, with those other greige inspec-
tors who were not discharged .4
The record establishes the significance of these reports to the Re-
spondent and the emphasis placed upon them for determining the
efficiency of the individual greige inspector. At the hearing of the
representation case herein, the Respondent's plant manager, Lewis,
stated that the reports were the sole basis for determining the quality
of a greige inspector's work, and that they were the basis for deter-
mining any disciplinary action, raises, demotions, or other personnel
actions which the Respondent would take with respect to the indi-
vidual inspector 5 Of the 22 greige inspectors whose records are in-
volved (excluding Beasley), the record herein discloses that at the
time Beasley was fired, 1 was no longer working for the Respondent
(reason undisclosed), 1 left the Respondent's employ voluntarily, and
the remaining 20 were still employed. Thus, on the basis of the Re-
spondent's records and standards, we are satisfied that the quality of
Beasley's work was within tolerable limits and, contrary to the claim
of the Respondent, was not the real reason for her discharge.
In the light of the Respondent's animosity towards the Union, fully
set forth in the Intermediate Report, its knowledge of Beasley's promi-
4In comparing the records of the inspectors ' efficiency, the Board has reviewed a period
of 18 workweeks-from March 10, 1951 ( the date Beasley's alleged inefficiency started) to
July 20 , 1951 (the date Beasley was fired ). We compared the employees ' efficiency for the
total 18-week period and also for the last 4 weeks of Beasley 's employment. Furthermore,
because the record does not show whether the Respondent considered the percentage
figures on a weighted basis ( taking into consideration the number of stockings actually
reinspected ) or on an unweighted basis ( without considering the number of stockings
reinspected ), we made comparisons on each of these bases for the 2 periods of time
considered . For the purposes of more accurate statistical analysis , for the 18-week
period, we considered only those employees who had worked at least 14 weeks within the
period ; in this category , there were 19 employees including Beasley. On the weighted
figure basis, Beasley had a higher efficiency rating than 13 inspectors ; on the unweighted
basis, she rated better than 10 of the others. For the 4 -week period, we considered only
the employees who worked at least 2 of the weeks ; in this category, there were 24 em-
ployees including Beasley. On the weighted figure basis for this period , Beasley was
more efficient than 8 other inspectors ; on the unweighted basis , Beasley rated better
than 6 of them.
,A review of Beasley's record by itself failed to disclose any significant rise in the
number of defective stockings which she passed as perfect in the final weeks of her em-
ployment as compared to prior weeks.
5 The record in the complaint case herein does not reveal any change in the Respondent's
interpretation of, or reliance upon , these reports.
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nent union activity, and the Respondent's failure to present a valid,
nondiscriminatory reason for her discharge, we conclude that Beasley
was discharged because of her union activity in violation of Section
8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. Accordingly, we hereby reverse the
Trial Examiner in this respect, and we shall order the Respondent
to reinstate Bessie K. Beasley and to make her whole for any loss of
pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against her in the same
manner and under the same terms as prescribed by the Trial Examiner
in the case of Kathryn Clark.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Humboldt Full Fashioned
Hosiery Mills, Inc., Humboldt, Tennessee, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with American Federation
of Hosiery Workers, as the exclusive representative of the following
appropriate unit of its employees :
All production and maintenance employees at its plant in Hum-
boldt, Tennessee, excluding knitting instructors, office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, technical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
(b) Discouraging membership in American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily dis-
charging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by discrimi-
nating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment.
(c) Interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliations,
activities, or sympathies; threatening its employees with reprisal or
economic loss because of their union affiliations, activities, or sym-
pathies; engaging in, or collaborating with others in, espionage and
surveillance of the union activities of its employees.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities,
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS , INC. 959
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with American Federation
of Hosiery Workers, as the exclusive representative of its employees
in the above-described appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and
embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Offer to Kathryn Clark and Bessie K. Beasley immediate and
full reinstatment to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights and privileges,
and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them, in the manner
provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The
Remedy" as modified herein.
(c) Post at its plant in Humboldt, Tennessee, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 6 Copies of the notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region
(New Orleans, Louisiana), shall, after being duly signed by the Re-
spondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New
Orleans, Louisiana), in writing, within ten (10) days from the date
of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election in Case No. 32-RC-211 be,
and it hereby is, set aside; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Warren C. Boothe;
and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed, without prejudice, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent
discriminated with regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Lena Carter and John C. Allen.
6In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
affiliations, activities, or sympathies, or threaten them with re-
prisal or economic loss because of their union affiliations, activi-
ties, or sympathies, or engage in espionage and surveillance of
the union activities of our employees, or collaborate with others
in such action.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF HOSIERY WORKERS, or in any other labor organization, by dis-
criminatorily discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our em-
ployees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-or-
ganization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as author-
ized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the appropriate unit described herein with
respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The ap-
propriate bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees at our plant in
Humboldt, Tennessee, excluding knitting instructors, office
clerical employees, professional employees, technical em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL offer to Kathryn Clark and Bessie K. Beasley immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 961
lent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights
and privileges previously enjoyed by them and make them whole
for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coming members in the above-named union, or any other labor organi-
zation, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agree-
ment in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. We will not
discriminate against any employee because of membership in or ac-
tivity on behalf of any labor organization.
HuMnor m' FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated-------------------- By --------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to Section 9 (a) and ( c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , 61 Stat . 136, herein called the Act, the American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, herein called the Union, on February 16, 1950 , filed a petition with the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, for certification as
exclusive representative of all production and maintenance employees of Hum-
boldt Full Fashioned Hosiery Mills , Inc., Humboldt , Tennessee, herein called
the Respondent or Company.
By Decision and Direction of Election (90 NLRB No . 99) dated June 26, 1950,
the Board directed that an election be conducted within the appropriate unit,
and the date was set for July 26, 1950 . On July 25 , 1950, the Union filed a
charge against the Respondent , alleging unfair labor practices , and the election
was postponed pending an investigation and until "at such time as the Board shall
in the future direct upon advice from the Regional Director that an election may
appropriately be held ." Thereafter on February 16, 1951 , the Union Indicated Its
willingness to proceed with an election by filing a waiver of the alleged unfair
labor practices of the Respondent.
On February 20, 1951, the Board issued its Second Direction of Election and the
election was held on March 12, 1951 . The tally of ballots disclosed that from an
eligible list of 594 voters, 559 cast ballots , of which 238 were for the Union, 313
against the Union , 6 were challenged , and 2 were declared void.
On March 15, 1951, the Union filed objections to the election alleging in sub-
stance that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices , acts , and conduct
tending to influence the results of the election , and thereby prevented a free and
untrammeled ballot . The Regional Director made an investigation pursuant to
Section 102 .61 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations , reported that material
issues of fact had been raised therein , and recommended that a hearing be con-
ducted thereon . The Board adopted the recommendations of the Regional
Director.
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
By reason of the original charge filed and served on July 25, 1950, a first
amended charge filed on March 2 , 1951, a second amended charge filed on May
14, 1951, a third amended charge filed on July 24, 1951, and a fourth amended
charge filed on February 25, 1952, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein separately designated as the General Counsel, by the
Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region issued a complaint dated April 2, 1951.
alleging that the Respondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint alleges in
substance that on and after January 25, 1950, the Respondent (1) committed,
permitted, authorized, instigated, and acquiesced in acts and conduct which inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, (2) discriminatorily discharged and refused
to reinstate three certain employees (hereinafter named) because of their mem-
bership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and (3) refused to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as exclusive representative of its employees with respect
to wages, hours, and conditions of employment.
The Respondent filed an answer admitting the jurisdictional allegations of the
complaint with respect to commerce, but denied all allegations of unfair labor
practices.
The Respondent also specifically pleaded the statutory limitations set forth in
Section 10 (b) of the Act as a bar to any acts or conduct occurring more than
6 months prior to the filing of the fourth amended charge on February 25, 1952.'
Pursuant to Sections 102.33 (b) and 102.64 (b) of the Board's Rules and Reg-
ulations (Series 6), Cases Nos. 32-RC-211 and 32-CA-144 herein were consoli-
dated and assigned to the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. Copies of all processes were duly served upon the Re-
spondent and the Union.
Pursuant to notice served upon all parties, a hearing was conducted by the
undersigned Trial Examiner at Humboldt, Tennessee, on April 21, 22, 23, 24, 29,
and 30 and May 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, 1952. The General Counsel, the Union, and the
Respondent were represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the
issues was afforded to all parties. Motion by the Respondent to strike all testi-
mony of Bessie K. Beasley for failure of the Union to produce certain documents
was deferred until June 1, 1952, and thereafter denied when the documents were
forwarded to the Trial Examiner and made a part of the record. Motion by the
General Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof, as to formal matters, was
allowed without objection. Oral argument was presented by counsel for the
General Counsel and the Respondent and included in the record. Counsel for the
Union waived oral argument. All parties were informed concerning their right
to submit written briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Only the Respondent filed a written brief, which has been given due consideration.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from observations of the witnesses, I
make the following:
i It appears that the original charge was filed and copy served upon the Respondent on
July 25, 1950. The complaint was therefore legally issued based upon unfair labor prac-
tices alleged to have occurred on or after January 25, 1950.
HUMBOLDT PULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 963
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Humboldt Pull Fashioned Hosiery Mills, Inc., is a Tennessee corporation hav-
ing its principal office and place of business at Humboldt , Tennessee. In the
representative year 1951, the Respondent purchased raw materials consisting
primarily of nylon thread valued in excess of $200,000, approximately 50 percent
of which was shipped in interstate commerce to the Humboldt plant from sources
outside the State of Tennessee. During the same period, the Respondent man-
ufactured and sold finished hosiery products valued in excess of $300,000, more
than 50 percent of which was shipped to customers outside the State . I therefore
find, and the Respondent admits, that it is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act 2
The Respondent is one of a group of affiliated corporations generally known as
the Wayne Knitting Mills of Fort Wayne, Indiana, operated by common corporate
officials and a board of directors with headquarters at Fort Wayne . Thomas
Robson is president and William D. White is executive vice president in charge of
manufacturing. They control and operate hosiery mill plants at Fort Wayne,
Indiana ; Athens , Georgia ; Columbus , Georgia ; Riverside , New Jersey ; and
Humboldt , Tennessee.$
Edwin S . Lewis is plant manager at Humboldt , where approximately 585
workers are employed. Joseph P. McCormick is personnel manager ; James D.
Senter, Jr., a practicing attorney-at-law, is regularly retained as counsel. The
plant is organized into 7 departments : ( 1) knitting , (2) looping, ( 3) seaming,
(4) greige inspection, ( 5) mending , ( 6) preboarding, and (7 ) boarding and finish-
ing. At times material to these proceedings, the Respondent employed the fol-
lowing supervisory personnel : (1) Emerson Griffin, superintendent of the knit-
ting department,' Foreman-Fixer Charles E. Bristow; (2) Walter Arthur Weeks,
Jr. (familiarly known as J. R. Weeks ), foreman of looping and seaming depart-
ment; (3) Mary H. Adcock, supervisor of greige inspection, mending, and stock-
room; and (4) Ed Collinsworth, general supervisor of the preboarding depart-
ment .` Employed as shift foremen were Whitney Stillman Thompson ( first shift),
James Etheridge Black ( second shift), and Wesley Elvis Jones ( third shift),
familiarly known as Ebb Jones.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act admitting to membership employees of the
Respondent.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate unit
The Board has previously found in Case No. 32-RC-211, 90 NLRB No. 99, and
I now find that the appropriate unit for collective bargaining herein consists of
"All production and maintenance employees of the Employer' s plant in Humboldt,
Tennessee, excluding all office and clerical employees, professional employees,
' Stanilaus Implement A Hdw. Co., Ltd., 91 NLRB 618.
8 Operations at Riverside, New Jersey, have been discontinued.
4 At the time of the hearing, Superintendent Griffin was absent on account of illness and
did not appear as a witness.
Collinsworth was discharged by the Respondent in the latter part of 1951 and is now
employed at Milan , Tennessee . He did not appear as a witness at the hearing.
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
technical employees, guards, and all supervisory employees as defined in the Act,
as amended."
B. The refusal to bargain,
On February 16, 1950, the Union filed its petition for representation in the
Subregional Office of the Board at Memphis, Tennessee, and submitted therewith
approximately 300 membership cards signed by a substantial majority of the
production and maintenance employees of the Respondent. The cards were never
submitted to the Respondent, but by stipulation at the hearing it appears that
more than 300 of Respondent's employees had joined the Union prior to February
20, 1950.6 On the latter date the Union directed the following letter to the
Respondent:
ATTENTION : MR. THOMAS ROBSON, c/o Wayne Knitting Mills, Fort Wayne,
Indiana:
This letter is to advise you that a majority of the employees of the Hum-
boldt Full Fashion Hosiery Mills, Inc., located on Gibson Highway, Humboldt,
Tennessee, have designated American Federation of Hosiery Workers as
their bargaining agent on wages, hours, and conditions of employment.
I am requesting a conference with you for the purpose of negotiating a
Union contract covering wages, hours, and conditions of employment. I am
suggesting that we meet in Humboldt at your earliest convenience not later
than Wednesday, March 15th, at 10: 00 A. M.
Awaiting your reply in this matter, I am
Very truly yours,
ANDREW J. JANASKIE,
District Manager.
AJJ ; jh
cc : Mr. McKeown
Mr. Hoffman
NLRB, Memphis
The foregoing letter was received by the Respondent on February 23, 1950,
and never replied to in writing. On the same day that the letter was prepared
and mailed, District Manager Janaskie called President Thomas Robson by
telephone at Fort Wayne, Indiana, verbally informed him concerning the letter,
notified him that a majority of his employees at the Humboldt plant were mem-
bers of the Union, and requested a conference for the purpose of negotiating a
contract. Robson said "he didn't think that it was advisable for them to nego-
tiate a contract," and would not agree to a conference for that purpose. Janas-
kie then asked would he agree to a consent election under the auspices of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board. Robson replied that he was not familiar enough
with the procedures set up by the Board, and that he would check to determine
whether he would or would not agree to a consent election ; but would not denote
when he would make his decision. Janaskie then furnished Robson with a
schedule of times and places at which he could be contacted. Robson did not
at any time question whether or not the Union represented a majority of the
employees or whether the designated unit was appropriate.
On February 23, 1950, District Manager Janaskie talked to Executive Vice-
President William D. White at the Respondent's plant in Humboldt, Tennessee,
and requested a conference with him there for the purpose of negotiating a con-
tract. White said he was not then available because he was preparing to go to
Memphis, Tennessee, to pick up President Thomas Robson at the airport; and that
° See G . C. Exhibit No. 4 and stipulation of counsel ( R. 2177).
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 965
he would return to Humboldt about 2 or 2: 30 that afternoon. At approximately
3 p. in. that day Janaskie again called the plant in Humboldt, and was told by a
girl answering the phone that neither White nor Robson was there and would not
be there that day. From Knoxville, Tennessee, on February 27, 1950, Janaskie
talked to Robson by telephone at the Humboldt plant and requested a conference
with him in Humboldt, Tennessee, on the following day (February 28, 1950) for
the purpose of negotiating a contract. Robson declined to meet Janaskie at that
time because he was planning to return to Fort Wayne, Indiana. Janaskie then
insisted that Robson fix a date for the conference, but Robson declined to do so
because of other pressing business matters.
In the meantime the Respondent called a meeting of its supervisors in the office
of Plant Manager Edwin S. Lewis at Humboldt. Executive Vice-President
William D. White, Manager Edwin S. Lewis, and Attorney James D. Senter, Jr.,
appeared before the assembled supervisors, discussed the legal position of the
Respondent, and informed them concerning their rights, privileges, and duties
as supervisors with respect to the organizational campaign. The supervisors
were instructed not to directly approach the employees concerning their union
activities but to answer all questions whenever the employees came to them.
When in doubt, the supervisors were instructed to get the answers from Manager
Lewis and furnish them to the employees.
On March 10, 1950, President Robson called District Manager Janaskie and
told him that the Respondent would not agree to a consent election. Thereupon,
the Respondent, approximately 3 months before the Board issued its first direc-
tion of election dated June 26, 1950, launched an electioneering campaign to
destroy the Union's majority and to win the anticipated election.
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The conduct of the Respondent alleged in the complaint to constitute inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion of employees occurred within two distinct periods
of time, viz: (1) From February through July 1950, inclusive, prior to the
scheduled election of July 26, 1950, and (2) in February and March 1951, im-
mediately preceding the election of March 12, 1951. It is clear that the Respon-
dent with the advice of counsel endeavored to promote discussion and debate of
the union issue with its employees within the ambit of free speech permitted by
Section 8 (c) of the Act. How successful it was in following such a bifurcated
policy is demonstrated by later developments.
1. The period prior to July 26, 1950
On March 27, 1950, the Respondent addressed the following letter "To All
Employees of Humboldt Hosiery Mills :"
As you have probably heard, the Hosiery Workers Union is claiming that
it is your agent and that it represents you. In all likelihood an election
will be held here sometime before long to determine whether this claim
of the Union is true or not true and to give you the opportunity of voting
by secret ballot as to whether you do or do not want to bring this Union in
here.
This is an important question for you to decide-important to you and
to those who are dependent on you-important to your future here and the
future of your family. That is the reason we are writing you this letter,
in order that you may have before you the facts on both sides as you make
up your mind about this matter.
257965-54-vol. 103-62
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We hope you will understand in the first place, that we do not expect
you, and we do not ask you, to do any favor for the Company on this sub-
ject. You should decide whether to vote for this Union, or against it, purely
on the basis of whether or not it will be to your own best interest and to the
best interest of your community. If this Union were to come in here, would
it benefit you or harm you? Would it be good for you or bad for you?
Those are the only questions for you to decide.
For some time now the Union organizers have been around here visiting
you in your homes, holding meetings, etc. Why is the Union sending its
organizers here? Why are they after you? Your common sense tells you the
answer. What they are after is money-YOUR MONEY. They are here
for what they hope to get from you in the form of Union dues. This Com-
pany will not pay those dues. But they do expect to collect from you. And
they hope to get from you people here as much as $30,000.00 per year.
Wherever the Union is voted in, one of the first things it demands is a
"check-off". This, as you may know, is an arrangement by which the Union
takes a slice out of every member's pay check every week before he ever
gets it or even sees it. You should be considering whether you would like
that or not. This is definitely what the Union is after.
And what do the organizers claim they can do for you? What do they
say they will get for you? As for earnings, the Union has not obtained any
better for other hosiery workers anywhere in the Southern area than what
you already get. And that is where we intend to keep your pay-up with
the highest level of our competitors in this entire area.
There are plenty of plants where this Union is in which have rates no
higher than yours and where the earnings are far less than yours. Com-
pare your position with some of those plants where the people have the
Union. You work with the finest machinery and equipment ; theirs is not
so modern or efficient and they cannot get the production from it that you
do. And their average take-home pay, therefore, is not as large as yours.
They pay dues to the Union ; you pay none. They have the Union yet you
take home far more money than they do. Would you rather work in those
plants with a Union or at Humboldt Hosiery Mills without a Union?
As for things such as vacations and vacation pay ; holidays ; insurance,
including accident, sickness, hospital and medical coverage ; second and
third shift bonuses or premiums, and the like-you have all these benefits
as good or better than the Union plants; and without paying any Union
dues to get them.
When it comes to working conditions-you are "sitting on top of the
world". That is the real and actual truth. There are no hosiery workers
anywhere in the world who work with any finer, more up-to-date equipment
nor under any better conditions of air-conditioning, lighting and cleanliness
than you have right here in this Plant.
IT DIDN'T REQUIRE ANY UNION TO OBTAIN THESE THINGS FOR
YOU ! IT WON'T REQUIRE ANY UNION TO KEEP THEM FOR YOU !
We do not mean to claim that everything is completely perfect here.
We still hope to keep on improving. And we want to say that if there is
anything that you would like to call to our attention at any time, there
is no reason why you should not do so and we will sincerely welcome your
doing so.
The Union, however, has no magic power to make things go the way
it wants them to go . Of course, it can promise anything but carrying
out its promises is an entirely different matter. When the organizers tell
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC . 967
you that they are going to come in here and make us do this or that or
the other, they are seriously misleading you. If the Union were in here,
there would still be only one way it could try to force us to do anything
that we were not willing to do and that would be by pulling you out on
strike. And we hope you will realize and understand in advance that this
Company has no intention of yielding to any such pressure as that.
We are not saying that if the Union were to come in here, that such
would necessarily happen. We certainly hope that it would not and we
would certainly do our utmost to prevent it from occurring. We do know,
however, that WHERE UNIONS ARE IS WHERE STRIKES GENERALLY
OCCUR. Everybody knows that. And everybody knows that strikes mean
trouble and dissension, strife and misery, lost work and lost pay. A Union
often costs people more than just the dues it collects from them ; it often
costs them their whole earnings !
You may have been told that those who join and vote for the Union
are going to get some advantages over other employees. We want you
to know that this is absolutely untrue. Those who join or belong to the
Union are never going to receive any preferred treatment over those who
do not belong.
And you can bear this in mind also :-It is not necessary, and it is not
ever going to be necessary, for anybody to join this Union, or any other
Union , in order to hold a job with this Company . Anybody who tells you
anything contrary to this is not telling you the truth.
Now, if the Union were to come in here, who would be the people who
would run it anyhow? A Union often furnishes an easy opportunity to
persons who have a hankering for small-time politics. A few such people
usually stir around in the Union, pull strings and get themselves set up
as shop-stewards and committeemen so that they can handle everybody's
affairs and "lord it" over all their fellow employees. Look around you
and see who are the persons who are active in pushing this Union. Are
they persons whom you consider to be capable of handling your problems
and into whose hands you are ready to entrust your business and your
affairs?
In this connection, here is one thing you might bear in mind: Up to now,
you have been completely free to handle any problems you might have with
us. If the Union were to come in here, then that personal relationship
would disappear and that individual right on your part would be gone.
You would then no longer have the right of coming and settling things
directly with us but only through the Union and its Shop-Committee.
We came here to Humboldt and started this plant because we liked what
we saw of this community and of you people who live here. Although we had
to bring in some experienced personnel to begin with, we made it known
that as rapidly as training could be carried forward it was our intention
to draw our employees from Humboldt and the surrounding territory.
We believe no one can deny that we have been carrying out that promise
in good faith. But what might be the Union's policy on this point if it came
in here? Would it he chiefly interested in local people or would it probably
try to work things so as to bring in more and more of its older members
who are out of work elsewhere so that they might get jobs instead of people
who already live here?
We hope that you will realize the importance of taking an interest in this
matter. You may have been told, or you may have the idea, that if you
don't want the Union, then you should just keep hands off and let those who
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
do want the Union vote for it and bring it in here if they wish. Now that
is a very misleading and mistaken idea. For if the Union should come in
here, then it will represent everybody in the Plant and not just those who
want it.
So, if and when an election is held here on this question, you can see the
absolute importance of everybody voting. Don't stand aside on the idea
that the outcome won't affect you. It will affect you. Take a hand in the
matter. Help make it go the way you want it to go.
In any election that is held you will be free to vote entirely according
to your own conscience and your own judgment on the election day. You can
vote against the Union even though at some time or other you may have
signed a Union card. And the voting in any such election will be by secret
ballot. You will simply mark a ballot either for the Union or against the
Union and you will not sign your name in any way. Nobody will be entitled
to know and nobody will know how you vote.
Think about these things carefully. As matters now stand you have a
steady job and high earnings, an up-to-date Plant to work in and a good
community to live in. We all hope to make things even better. There is
certainly no good reason to bring this outside Union in here and pay dues
to it and at the same time run the risk of tearing apart everything that
you now have.
In view of all these considerations, we believe you will surely come to the
conclusion : That you stand to lose if this Union were to come in here-
and that you stand to gain by keeping it out!
In April 1950 Executive Vice-President William D. White visited the plant at
Humboldt and, in collaboration with Manager Edwin S. Lewis, conducted a
series of group meetings with the employees. The employees on all occasions
were invited to ask questions concerning the advantages and disadvantages of
organizing a union in the plant.
At a meeting with the knitters, White said, "You fellows want to know some-
thing about the Union and don't want any curves and want the true facts about
it-that is what I am here for, to tell you about what you are getting in and
what it is all about." He picked up a copy of the "Hosiery Worker," a union
periodical, and said, "Here is something about a union organizer in New Jersey-
that is a joke-they don't even have another union mill in New Jersey-our mill
was the last, and we are moving it-we are closing it down, and that was the last
union mill they had in New Jersey" ° One of the knitters asked, "If this Union
comes in, will I have my job?" White replied, "You can vote for the Union if
you want to, but I tell you this, if this Union comes in, you are going to have
to toe the mark or come up to certain specifications. If you don't, out you go-
I have 120 knitters that I can bring in here and put on these machines and
nobody can stop me." ° When asked what would be the Respondent's reaction
to pressure being exerted by union members upon employees opposed to the
Union, White asserted that he could or would fire anybody for agitating or
putting pressure on anyone who was opposed to the Union, that he was going to
run the mill, and that the Union or nobody else could tell him how to do it'
4 Testimony of Charles R. Sisson.
8 James Maupin (knitter) testified to a similar statement by White at a meeting of the
knitters in March 1951. It is not entirely clear whether the statement was made on two
separate occasions.
8 Vice-President White's version of his statements to the knitters was slightly different
from the testimony of Charles R. Sisson , but did not in the opinion of the Trial Examiner
constitute a substantial denial thereof.
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 969
In March or April 1950, at the suggestion of one or more employees, Super-
visor Mary Adcock conducted the girls of the greige inspection department to the
office of Manager Lewis to ask questions about whether the greige inspectors
would get more money if the Union came in. Manager Lewis said NOS-the
Union could not make the Company pay more-if they decided to give a raise,
they would do it without consulting the Union. In reply to another question, he
said that timeworkers would not get any more unless living expenses increased,
and the Company saw fit to give everyone a raise in pay. When questioned about
the defect categories used in inspecting stockings, Lewis said the Union would not
have anything to do with categories-that the number of categories might pos-
sibly be increased if the Union came in. There was some talk about strikes, and
he said that false statements were being made by the union organizers 10 At
another meeting with the greige inspectors on July 25, 1950, Manager Lewis
challenged a statement contained in a union leaflet to the effect that the Com-
pany would be required to maintain privileges and benefits already in force.
At that time he became irked when Bessie K. Beasley made certain statements
as to provisions of the Taft-Hartley Law, and told her he didn't need a lawyer
in the greige inspection department-that he had called the meeting, and that
she could sit down, if she didn't want to listen to him. At a meeting with em-
ployees of the boarding and finishing department, Manager Lewis explained to
the employees that they were not required to vote for the Union simply because
they had signed a membership card. He discussed wages and working condi-
tions in the plant and compared them with those at other plants.' He told the
girls of the finishing department that the Union could not give them anything
more than they already had." He told the girls that he was not telling them how
to vote, but that the Union was not coming in there and tell them what to do-
they did not have to pay higher wages-or to maintain present wagesll He said
that if the Union came in the girls might not get as much as they were already
getting-that he would drive a hard bargain with the Union .14
President Robson visited the Humboldt plant during the week preceding the
scheduled election of July 26, 1950. A meeting was called in the office of Manager
Lewis at 3: 30 p. in. (shift change time) at which employees of the preboarding
department from 2 shifts were present. The Respondent presented a compari-
son of wages at Humboldt with other plants-and said that it would require about
2 months to get the plant organized if the Union came in-the employees would
be off about 2 months trying to get organized in the plant's
In addition to group meetings the Respondent promoted and encouraged dis-
cussions concerning the Union between its supervisors and individual employees.
In May 1950, Manager Lewis sat down beside Wallace Burns (an employee in the
boxing section) in the hallway of the plant. In reply to a question from Burns,
Lewis replied, "Well, I don't know-what do you think about the Union." Sev-
eral months later Burns observed Manager Lewis talking to other individual
employees in the plant, and suspected that he was discussing the Union with
them. When Burns inquired into the subject of these conversations, he was
reprimanded by Lewis. Lewis told Burns that he did not appreciate his going
around to other employees to check on his conversations with them-that he
had a job to do-to leave the running of the mill to him. Lewis threatened to
discharge Burns if he continued this practice."
;° Testimony of Bessie K. Beasley.
'u Testimony of Elizabeth Wilson.
a Testimony of Marian J. Taylor.
u Testimony of Frieda Bridges.
u Testimony of Fauna K lzer.
u Testimony of Frances Jones.
26 Testimony of Wallace Burns . Burns is not presently employed by the Respondent.
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About 1 month prior to the election scheduled for July 26, 1950, Manager Lewis
approached Frieda Bridges, an employee in the boxing section, and asked what
she thought the Union could get for her that she did not have already. In reply
she mentioned such things as better working conditions, better pay, and job
security for employees. Lewis said, "Well, you have got all that-you have got
the best mill in the country to work in and you have got the best equipment, the
best lighting fixtures-as long as you do your job right, you will have a job."
About 2 weeks later Manager Lewis called her to the office and reprimanded her
for making certain statements, which she denied. At that time Lewis said, "You
can't say things like this out here, Frieda. Don't you know you will lose your job
if you do." "
About 1 week prior to July 26, 1950, Foreman James E. Black approached Mrs.
Judith Mullins, an employee in the boarding and finishing department, saying that
he had heard that they were going to have an election. Mullins replied, "Well, if
we do, you won't know what is going on." Black replied, "We will know something
about what is going on-I don't have to beat around the bush to know who is for
the Union and who is not." Black further stated that he could line up the girls
against the wall and pick out those who were for and against the Union. He then
mentioned by name some of those he considered to be in favor of the Union and
others as to whom he was in doubt. He further stated that the employees didn't
know what a good thing they had in their jobs there-that the hosiery mills at
Humboldt and Fort Wayne had enough money to close the plant down 18
On July 21, 1950, Foreman-Fixer Charles E. Bristow asked William Walter
Rainey (a knitter) why he was for the Union. Bristow told Rainey that he
ought to be satisfied with his job, because he was making more money than ever
before in his life. Rainey complained that other knitters had been shown an
unfair preference in the assignment of knitting machines, and expressed his opin-
[on that a union would be helpful. A few minutes later Rainey was called to the
office of Manager Lewis to discuss his complaint in the presence of President
Robson 1°
On July 25, 1950, Milton L. Barnett (a knitter) joined in a conversation in the
restroom between Foreman-Fixer Charles E. Bristow and Leslie Holder. After
Holder departed, Bristow asked Barnett what he thought about the Union, and
pointed out that it would cost him 2 percent of his wages in dues.
On July 25, 1950, Foreman Whitney Thompson asked Elizabeth Wilson (a
boarder) what she thought about the Union and whether she thought it would
come in the plant. In expressing his opinion, Thompson said, "Well, if the ones
that have told me they are against it vote against it, I know that it won't." A few
days prior thereto Foreman Thompson discussed the Union with Mrs. Judith
Mullins and asked what she thought about it.
Shortly before the scheduled election in July 1950, Foreman Ed Collinsworth
approached Frances Jones (a supply girl in the preboarding department). He
inquired whether she favored the Union, and whether the Union had promised
her anything.20 At a later date Collinsworth again inquired if she was still in
favor of the Union, and said there was nothing it could do for her. He said,
"Frances, I don't see why you are for the Union as much as the Company has done
for you."
11 Testimony of Frieda Bridges.
.8 Testimony of Mrs. Judith Mullins, a former employee.
"Testimony of William Walter Rainey.
20 At the request of Foreman Collinsworth, Foreman Ebb Jones (her half brother), inter-
viewed Frances Jones on the outside of the plant concerning her union activities. He
warned her that everything she said about the Union went straight to Manager Lewis,
and that she would probably lose her job if the Union came into the plant.
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC . 971
Foreman Ed Collinsworth also asked Clifton Pillow (employee) how he felt
about the Union, and then requested him to go around and talk to other employees
about it because he did not think the Union would be the right thing for them.
On July 21, 1950, the Respondent addressed to all employees of Humboldt
Hosiery Mills the following letter concerning the election scheduled for July 26,
1950:
You will recall that back in March of this year we wrote you concerning
the Union which was claiming to be your agent and representative. In that
letter we called your attention to the fact that in all probability an election
would be held, sooner or later, so that you could vote as to whether you do
or do not want this Union to come in here.
As you have undoubtedly heard, the voting on this question has now been
set for Wednesday, July 26. The voting place will be in the gatehouse at the
main entrance gate. The hours for the voting will be 6: 00 to 8: 00 in the
morning and 12: 00 to 5: 30 in the afternoon. You may vote during your
working hours and on Company time if you wish and there will be no loss of
pay for any time which you thus spend in voting.
The voting arrangements will be simple. You merely go to the gatehouse
and there you will be handed a ballot. Then privately and by yourself you
mark an "x" on the ballot-either under "Yes", for the Union, or under
"No", against the Union. Then you fold the ballot and drop it in the ballot
box. You do not sign your name in any way. Nobody is entitled to know
and nobody will know how you vote.
Remember that you are perfectly at liberty to vote against the Union even
though at some time or other you may have signed a Union card.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that you can stand aside and take no
part in the election and that then it won't affect you. It will affect you.
To illustrate this:
There are approximately 525 employees who will be eligible to vote
in this election. If only 300 actually go and vote on next Wednesday,
then a majority of these 300, that is 151, would control the entire result.
Thus if these 151 voted in favor of the Union, then the Union would
represent not only the 151, and not only the 300 who voted, but the
entire 525 employees in the Plant.
So you can see the absolute importance of everybody voting. Take a hand
in this election. Help make it go the way you want it to go. Otherwise
you may find yourself saddled with a Union that you do not want. Make
your wishes count. Vote on Wednesday!
Now which way shall you vote? That is, of course, for you to decide.
You have had opportunity to study the matter carefully. Now is the time to
choose!
You know what you now have here. You know that you have a good job
at high wages in one of the finest and most up-to-date plants in the whole
country. You are far better off than most of the employees in the unionized
plants.
Do you see any reason to bring an outside agency in and gamble with it
on everything that you now have? There can be no doubt but that it would
be a gamble. Everybody knows that where Unions are is where strikes
generally occur and strikes mean long and bitter trouble for everybody.
What would you stand to gain by running such a risk? The Union organ-
izers tell you-job security. What truth is there to that? This same Union
represents many hosiery workers in the North, especially in Pennsylvania and
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New Jersey. But awhile back you may have noticed statements in which
officers of this same Union admitted that hundreds of hosiery workers were
out of work in that area. The Union certainly did not furnish job security
to those hosiery workers.
Awhile ago this Union was circulating a pamphlet around at some places
bragging about how the workers at the Feinberg Hosiery Company at Rock
Hill, South Carolina, "had tried unionism and found it paid" and "in return
they voted union". Yet shortly after they voted for the Union, they were
all out on strike-earning nothing. And very soon they had no Union and no
jobs either for the Feinberg Plant was out of business-the building empty,
the doors shut and the machinery sold and gone.
These organizers talk to you as if wages here were about to go down and
they tell you that they will keep wages up. We are glad to say to you that
we have no plan or intention of reducing wages and we see nothing in
prospect that would in any way cause wages to go down. But under some
Union contracts wages have gone down. Not so many weeks ago in Northern
unionized plants the employees' wages were drastically cut, some of them as
much as twenty-five and thirty dollars a week. That was done under a
Union contract-a contract with this same Union --and by the very proce-
dures prescribed in the Union contract. Those employees have a Union and
they have a Union contract. They pay part of their hard-earned money to
the Union. Yet their wages are today lower than yours and they got that
way while they had a Union and a Union contract "to protect them."
The organizers are out to feather their own nests. You can see that they
have been spending a good deal of money around here lately on hotel expenses
and fine automobiles and the like. Who is paying for all that? You are
going to pay for it-they hope. What they ask is that you first vote for them
and then start paying them !
If this Union were such a good thing for you it would not have to send
these organizers here for the purpose of trying to sell the Union to you. If
it were a good thing for you they would not have to spend months here
arguing and nagging and begging you to go for the Union.
These are the facts of the matter, and these facts the Union cannot deny :
No unionized employees get any better pay or other benefits than you
and most of them get far less than you do.
When unionized employees get through paying dues to the Union, they
have still less.
There is no way this Union could try to force this Company to do
anything, which the Company is unwilling to do, except by pulling you
out on strike.
Strikes mean trouble and dissension-strife-picket lines-no work
and no pay.
The people who would run this Union are the persons who are now
active in pushing it. Look around you and see who they are. Are they
persons whom you consider to be capable of handling your problems?
Are you ready to place your affairs in their hands?
These matters are of vital importance to you-important to your future
and the future of those who are dependent on you. Consider your own inter-
ests-not those of the Union. Think carefully and vote on Wednesday!
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 973
2. The period prior to election of March 12, 1951
As heretofore shown, the election scheduled for July 26, 1950, was postponed
until "at such time as the Board shall in the future direct upon advice from the
Regional Director that an election may appropriately be held." The election
was finally scheduled for March 12, 1951. Thereupon, the Respondent renewed
the campaign to persuade its employees to vote against the Union.
On March 8, 1951, the Respondent addressed the following letter to all em-
ployees of the Humboldt Hosiery Mills :
All of you except the most recent employees will recall that last year the
Union asked that an election be held for you to vote as to whether you did
or did not want this Union to come into this Plant and represent you. The
election was set for July 26, 1950. We wrote you a letter a few days before
the date set for the election bringing certain matters to your attention that
we thought you should think about, and we hope you still have that letter.
You will recall further that on the eve of the election the Union decided
that it did not want to go through with it, and filed unfair labor charges
against the Company, which had the effect of putting the election off.
We had nothing to do with calling that election off, for we realize, first,
that you had the right to express by your vote how you felt about a Union
in your Plant ; and secondly, we felt that you were about "fed up" with all
of the confusion and unrest that resulted from the intensive campaign of the
organizers to get you into their Union, and that you wanted to have the
question disposed of once and for all by an election. But the Union didn't
let it work out that way and they have kept someone here on constant duty
since that time busily trying to stir up dissatisfaction among you.
Now, as you know, another election has been called for Monday, March 12,
1951. That is next Monday. We know you don't enjoy the strife and
confusion of these pre-election campaigns any more than we do. However,
we don't think the Union can afford to pull out again, and If they do go
through with it this time, you will have the opportunity to decide this matter
finally by your vote.
We shall not attempt to make up your minds for you or tell you how to
vote. Your right to vote the way you feel, in secret, no one can or should
try to take from you. However, we know that you have been given only
one side of the Union picture by the organizers, and we think it is our duty
to try to give you the whole picture and to answer some of the questions that
may be on your mind, so that you can then have the proper basis for making
up your mind which way you want to vote.
You may have wondered why this Union and so many well-paid organizers
are so concerned about your welfare. After all, they are strangers to you
with no interest in you or the community. They are here today and gone
tomorrow. In asking yourself this question you may want to remember
about Union dues. Part of your earnings, it you join a Union, will go as
dues. The only way they can acquire money to employ all these organizers
and pay their expenses while they are working on you is from dues. They
hope that you will eventually pay these salaries and expenses and if they
do come into this Plant the money they have spent, and it amounts to a lot,
will have been a good investment because they expect to get a lot more than
that out of you.
The organizers probably have not had very much to say about wages,
for they know that you are in the highest wage earning bracket in the entire
South, and they know further that if any one questions this it can be
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proved. They don't talk to you much about working conditions, because they
know you have the finest working conditions here of any hosiery mill in
the entire country. They don't talk to you about slack working hours,
because they know that while many plants over the country are now working
on a part-time basis you have full time plus overtime.
Therefore, since they know there is no real basis for dissatisfaction and
that they can promise you nothing that will benefit you, they talk to you
about job security. You know from your experience with this Company,
when back over the period when there was no Union on the scene, that you
have nothing to fear as long as you do your job properly. You may want to
ask the organizers how many times, generally, under a Union contract an
employee is given warnings prior to dismissal. Many of you know that the
Company here has gone far to help an employee keep his or her job.
They talk to you about job security. Let's see what you may stand to
gain or lose with a Union. Have they told you about the strike at the
Auburn Hosiery Mills at Auburn, Kentucky, called by the Union leaders
that has been running now about seven months? Have they told you about
the strike at Vanette in Dallas, Texas, called by the Union leaders, that
has also been running about seven months?
You know that strikes usually occur where there are Unions and that
they frequently mean long and unpleasant trouble for everybody concerned.
They talk about job security-and yet they know that there are hundreds
of unemployed hosiery workers scattered throughout the Nation. You are
employed at top wages in a completely modern Plant, most of you in the
Town and community where you live, with the assurance that you will retain
your job as long as you do your work properly. They can point out nothing
to lead you to believe to the contrary. What about job security? Do you
think you have it here without a Union-or do you think it is these other
people, unemployed or on a strike line that have job security?
They told you before and we suppose they are still telling you that you
need them to keep your wages up. Back in July we wrote you as follows:
"We are glad to say that we have no plan or intention of reducing
wages and we see nothing in prospect that would in any way cause wages
to go down".
Were we sincere in that? Since that time not only have wages not gone down,
but you have received a substantial wage increase. Since that time, and
for quite some time, you have had the opportunity to have overtime
employment.
From the time this Plant started you have received spendid wages and
the Company has faithfully carried out every promise made to you and to
the people of Humboldt and the surrounding communities. No Union was
needed to get this for you, and none will be needed to keep it.
The organizers try to stir up a feeling of anger and fear among you.
They want you to "hate the Company". They come into a peaceful Plant
and their first job is to create discord. Nor do they seem to care if this
causes broken friendships or strained family relations. This propaganda
is foreign to everything you believe in. Why should you "hate" or "fear"
a Company that has voluntarily chosen your community to build a beautiful
modern Plant and furnish you a good job at high wages.
You may also want to think about who would be running the Union in
the Plant if it was voted in. This is important because they will be handling
your affairs for you. With a Union here, they would be deciding what
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC . 975
should and should not be done ; possibly deciding whether or not a strike
should be called . Are you sure that the ones who are most active in push-
ing this Union are the ones that you want to look after your affairs in this
Plant. You may also want to consider whether or not you want to give
up the right you now have to take your problems directly and personally
to the management . Think carefully about the people who are trying to
lead you into the Union and who will be your leaders if you get a Union.
Remember that you have a perfect right to vote against the Union even
though you may have at some time signed a Union card.
The voting place on next Monday will be the gatehouse at the main gate.
The hours for voting will be from 6: 00 to 12: 00 in the morning and from
1: 00 to 5: 00 in the afternoon . You will have an opportunity to vote dur-
ing your working hours on Company time if you wish and there will be
no loss of pay for the time you spend in voting . The arrangements will be
simple. You just go to the gatehouse and you will be handed a ballot. You
then go into the booth privately and there you mark an "X" on the ballot,
either "Yes", for the Union , or "No", against the Union. You fold the bal-
lot and drop it into the ballot box. You do not sign your name . Nobody
has the right to know and nobody will know how you vote.
Everyone should vote . The election will be decided by a majority of those
voting . Everyone will be affected by the result . To illustrate this :
There are approximately 550 employees who will be eligible to vote
in this election . If only 300 vote on next Monday , then a majority of
those 300, that is 151, would control the entire result . Thus if these
151 voted in favor of the Union , then the Union would represent not
only the 151, and not only the 300 who voted , but the entire 550 em-
ployees in the Plant.
You can, therefore see the importance of everyone voting. It is your
future at stake, so you should take a hand in this election and make it go
like you want it to go. Otherwise , you may find yourself saddled with a
Union that you do not want. Make your wishes count. Vote on Monday!
As you cast your vote-Think . Think of your wages-think of the splen-
did working conditions you have-think of the money you will pay as dues
if a Union comes in-think of the people who will run the Union-think of
possible strike and dissension-think of the assurance you now have of a
good job at home. These matters are of vital importance to you because
they can determine your future and the future of those who are dependent
on you . When you vote , consider your own interests-not those of the Union.
Make up your mind, then vote on Monday!
Again Vice-President William D . White visited the Humboldt plant , and col-
laborated with Manager Edwin S. Lewis in conducting a series of group meet-
ings in which the employees were urged to ask questions concerning the Union.
On Thursday or Friday before the election , the knitters were assembled and
Mr. White spoke at length concerning strikes, rates of pay , and conditions of
employment . He told the knitters that Manager Lewis had been easy on them
and let them get by with stuff that he would not-that the Union could not make
the Company do anything they did not want to do-that he could fire them at
will."
At a meeting with the greige inspectors, the girls were invited to ask ques-
tions. When none responded , Vice-President White said he guessed they were
" Testimony of William Walter Rainey.
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all so smart they knew all the answers, and didn't have to ask questions. Them
he discussed the subject of strikes-said where there was a union there were
strife and strikes, and people were out of work. On the subject of smoking,
Manager Lewis said, "Well, you know that you have all been allowed to smoke
out here. You know it is against the rule." He said that he would see that
rules and regulations were carried out if the Union came in.2'
Immediately prior to a meeting with the loopers and seamers, Foreman Weeks,
exhorted Mary Tatum (a looper) to start asking questions-to get the girls
interested in asking questions-to get the ball rolling-and if they slowed down,
to get it started again. At this meeting, Vice-President White said that if the
Union won the election it could not get anything for the employees-that the
Union would have to bargain with him-and he was a hard man to bargain
with.2a
At a meeting with employees from the boxing section, Vice-President White
stated that they had heard the union side of the story and that he wanted them
to hear the company side. At the conclusion of his speech he said, "Well, since
you girls all seem to have your minds made up, there is no need of our wasting
our time and your time-I sure hope you girls won't do anything you will be
sorry of.,, 24
On Friday night before the election, both Vice-President White and Manager
Lewis talked to a group of girls in the finishing department. Lewis invited
them to ask questions, but there was little or no response. Then Vice-President
White related incidents about strikes and violence up north-told them that
in most union shops the finishing inspectors were required to work their own
pull threads, whereas special service girls were employed to do that work at the
Humboldt plant-that the service girls were a convenience that the Company
was not required to furnish. He did not think wages would be any higher if
the Union came in, and said that the Union had agreed to a cut in wages in some
of the northern mills25
About 2 weeks before the March election, Foreman Ed Collinsworth engaged
in conversation with Evelyn Sumler (a preboarder) concerning the Union.
Sumler expressed a desire to talk to Manager Lewis and tell him why she favored
the Union. She complained because of her extended work assignment , running
length tests for a period of 3 years, and desired a change. Collinsworth inquired
whether she would change her mind about the Union and vote against it, if
relieved of the length test assignment. She readily agreed that she would. On
the i llowing day the length test assignment was given to Estelle Warren (an-
other preboarder). In accordance with the agreement, Evelyn Sumler voted
against the Union and was not required to run length tests so long as Collinsworth
was her supervisor.'B
D. Promotion of antiunion activities; surveillance and espionage
1. Collaboration of Foreman Weeks and Mary Tatum 24
During the early part of 1950, Mary Tatum (a looper) and her husband,
Johnie Tatum (also an employee of the Respondent), frequently visited in the
home of her supervisor, Walter Arthur Weeks, Jr. (familiarly knqwn as J. R.
Weeks). They freely discussed the union organizational campaign with Fore-
22 Testimony of Bessie K. Beasley.
rs Testimony of Mary Tatum.
24 Testimony of Frieda Bridges.
25 Testimony of Marian J. Taylor and Fauna Balzer.
se Testimony of Evelyn Sumler.
ar Credited testimony of Mary Tatum.
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 977
man Weeks and his wife (Jean ), and professed antagonism to the Union. Mrs.
Weeks and Mary Tatum worked alongside each other as loopers in the plant.
In the course of these visits , the Tatums proposed that they attend union meet-
dngs in the guise of interested employees and furnish information to Foreman
Weeks concerning the activities . Weeks was somewhat skeptical of the success
of such an undertaking , but consented and authorized them to do so. On or
about March 1, 1950, Mary Tatum attended a union meeting of the inspectors
and loopers at the W . O. W. Hall in Humboldt , Tennessee . Inasmuch as Mary
Tatum had not signed a union card , some of the girls became suspicious and
suggested that she be put out of the meeting . Albert L. Hackworth , national
representative of the Union , intervened and she was permitted to remain on
the ground that it was an open meeting . That night she called Foreman Weeks
over the telephone and reported to him information concerning the meeting.
Three or four weeks later Foreman Weeks notified Mary Tatum that a meeting
would be held on the following Saturday afternoon at the Couch Auto Agency
in Humboldt. Purportedly Weeks was delivering a message from John Baker
(knitter ) requesting her attendance . The meeting was held in the office of
Nathan Couch, owner and operator of the automobile agency. In addition to
Mary Tatum the meeting was attended by Geneva Sowell , Margaret Northcutt,
Johnie Tatum, Audrice Antwine, Cowen Williams, Billy Meals, John Baker,
and others . Nathan Couch presided , and made a statement to the effect that
"We are going to have to keep the Union out of the mill-if we don't, it is going
to hurt the business places and the employees that work in the hosiery mill."
He distributed lists of the employees in each department of the mill, and
requested those present to solicit opposition to the Union among other employees.
Mary Tatum was given a list containing the names , addresses , and telephone
numbers of employees of the looping department ( G. C. Exhibit 7), and
also a rate schedule ( G. C. Exhibit 8) showing the comparative wage rates at
the various affiliated plants of the Respondent and unionized plants elsewhere.
Thereafter , Mary Tatum interviewed the people on her list with respect to their
sentiments , and kept Foreman Weeks informed concerning the results thereof.
Other meetings were held at Couch's Auto Agency to report and check the results
of the antiunion campaign . At a final meeting , members of the Humboldt police
force were present outside to protect the meeting place because of rumored
violence by adherents of the Union. At that time, Nathan Couch announced
that they would go ahead with the meeting . He said , "This is my place of busi-
ness. I will do whatever I want to in it. It is nobody 's business. I dare
any of the union people to do anything to my property." Other businessmen of
Humboldt were present, including Clovis Richardson (a Ford salesman) and
Harold McCleary ( an employee of the Merchants State Bank ). Richardson
exhorted Mary Tatum and others present to fight the Union, because it would
hurt the business people of the community and also the hosiery workers 28
Foreman J. R. Weeks told Mary Tatum that Manager Lewis wanted her to
encourage the girls to come to his office to ask questions because they had heard
the union side and he wanted them to hear the company side. Weeks conferred
with her a great deal and assured her that the union supporters would be grad-
ually discharged when the campaign was all over. Mary Tatum encouraged the
girls to ask Foreman Weeks questions about the Union. She and Weeks com-
pared notes as to which employees favored the Union and which ones were
opposed to it. Foreman Weeks furnished her in his own handwriting a list of
the girls in his department (G. C. Exhibit 9) denoting his conception of those
"With respect to meetings at Couch Auto Agency , the testimony of Mary Tatum was
corroborated by Evelyn Sumler (a preboarder).
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that would vote for or against the Union, those that were doubtful, and those
ineligible to vote. He also procured for her from Manager Lewis' office a list
of wage rates for timeworkers at the Humboldt and Athens plants (G. C.
Exhibit 10).
Shortly before the final election date of March 12, 1951, Mary Tatum attended
another union meeting at the W. O. W. Hall in Humboldt, pretending that she
and her husband were union sympathizers. Following the meeting Mary Tatum
and Johnie Tatum drove out the Gibson Highway and met Mr. and Mrs. J. R.
Weeks near the hosiery mill. At a signal from the Tatums, J. R. Weeks turned
around and followed their automobile several miles into a side road near Gibson,
Tennessee. There both cars stopped, and Mary Tatum gave Foreman Weeks a
full account of the union meeting.29
2. Surveillance by the personnel manager
On Saturday, June 15, 1950, the Union conducted a widely advertised meeting
of Respondent's employees at the W. O. W. Hall at the corner of Fourteenth and
Main Streets in the town of Humboldt. The meeting place was located on the
second floor above Baum's Drygoods Store. The stairway entrance to the hall
opened on Fourteenth Street, and open windows overlooked both streets. The
meeting began about 10 a. in. and adjourned about 1 p. in. Continually after
the meeting began, William Walter Rainey and Warren C. Boothe observed
Joseph P. McCormick, personnel manager of the Respondent, standing and
loitering on and around the corner of Fourteenth and Main Streets diagonally
across the street from the meeting place in plain view of the entrance and from
the windows of the hall. His car was parked in front of a nearby cafe on Main
Street. At the conclusion of the meeting William Walter Rainey and Warren
C. Boothe (knitters) crossed the street to where McCormick was standing, and
engaged him in conversation. The three men entered a billiard hall and shot
pool for awhile. Then they went for a ride in Rainey's new Oldsmobile car.
Before leaving the car Boothe intimated to McCormick that he was stooging
for the Company, and if so, he thought he was a no good S. O. B. McCormick
denied the accusation, and mentioned that he had taken a civil-service exam-
ination and might accept another job within a short while. McCormick testified
that it was not unusual for him to loiter and stand around on the streets of
Humboldt on Saturday mornings when he was not on the job ; that he knew
about the union meeting, and observed that it was going on, but that he had no
intention of spying upon employees.
3. Antiunion meetings at office of Attorney Senter
James D. Senter, Jr., a practicing attorney-at-law of Humboldt, Tennessee,
has been regularly retained as counsel by the Respondent since 1948 or 1949.
Throughout the union organizational campaign he acted as counsel for the
Respondent with respect to its labor relations with employees and the Union.
In late June or the early part of July 1950, John Baker (a knitter) visited the
office of Attorney Senter and informed him that a group of antiunion employees
desired a conference with him and President Robson-to ascertain the attitude
of the Respondent and what it intended to do about the organizational activ-
19 At the time of the hearing, Mary Tatum's opposition to the Union had changed to an
attitude of hostility to the Respondent by whom she is still employed. Much of her testi-
mony was not contradicted, and is credited to the extent indicated herein. She admitted
that in a prior written statement to a field examiner of the Board she tried to shield the
Employer by assuming full responsibility for her conduct.
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC . 979
ities and the coming election. Attorney Senter arranged to hold the meeting
on the next night in his office and notified both President Robson and Plant
Manager Lewis to be there. John Baker did not attend the meeting. Included
among those present were Attorney Senter, President Robson, Manager Lewis,
City Alderman Houston Herndon (a businessman of Humboldt), Mary Tatum,
Johnie Tatum, Geneva Sowell, Margaret Northcutt, Johnny Abson, Audrice
Antwine, Cowen Williams, Wilson Owens, Clarence Manasco, and probably 5
or 6 other employees. Attorney Senter explained to the group that the Respond-
ent was not permitted to interrogate employees about their union activities or
go out and talk to them about the election, but that employees opposed to the
Union could take whatever steps they wanted to take and had a right to do the
same things that employees in favor of the Union were doing, such as holding
meetings and interviewing the employees in their homes, etc. Employees attend-
ing this meeting carried with them the lists of employees in each department
of the mill, which had been previously furnished to them by Nathan Couch at
the first meeting held at his auto agency at an earlier date. Attorney Senter
furnished pencils for the purpose of making notes. He had in his possession a
list of employees similar to that held by the others present. The attorney
called out the names for group discussion of their union and antiunion sym-
pathies. Whenever the name of an employee known to be in favor of the Union
was called, some member of the group would agree to interview that person.
City Alderman Houston Herndon agreed to interview some of the employees with
whom he was acquainted. By the foregoing procedure it was determined in a
general way which employees on the lists were for the Union and which were
opposed to it, as well as those who had not made a decision as to how they
would vote in the election. During the course of the meeting, Manager Lewis
inquired whether the girls present thought it would be a good idea for him to
call the employees of each department together and talk to them in groups.
Some of those present expressed an opinion that it was a good idea.'
Shortly before the election of March 12, 1951, a second meeting of antiunion
employees was held in the office of Attorney James D. Senter, Jr. Again it
was John Baker who arranged with Senter to hold the meeting. The lists
of employees were again reviewed to determine the union sentiments of each
employee, and to facilitate the work of the antiunion organization. At the
conclusion of the meeting, Attorney Senter announced "Well, it is going to
be a tight race, but if you girls have got it right, we will win." Attorney
Senter reported the results of this meeting to Manager Lewis, who did not
attend.'
E. The discharge of Kathryn Clark
Prior to her discharge on March 30, 1951, Kathryn Clark had been employed
in the preboarding department at the Humboldt plant for approximately 3
years. In this department stockings are given the proper shape by setting
them on flat metal forms in a steam oven. The forms are silhouettes of a
woman's leg. To facilitate the steaming process, the operator uses 2 banks
of forms : 24 forms in each bank. The stockings come to the operator in cloth
bags each containing 48 stockings. She fills 1 bank (24 forms) by fitting the
80 Condensed from the credited testimony of James D. Senter , Jr., and Mary Tatum.
81 On the day after the election , Manager Lewis called William Walter Rainey (one of
the leaders of the union movement ) to his office, and said : "Rainey, I heard you have been
cussing the people who voted against the Union . Rainey this is a warning to you. We are
going to get to working back to normal again. I am not going to have you bothering the
people here in the plant."
as Operators in this department are called preboarders.
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stockings on the individual forms, and moves the bank into the oven, where
the stocking are subjected to a bath of hot steam which shapes and sets the
stocking to the form. They emerge hot and sticky, but are quickly dried by
a blowing process. In the meantime, the operator has filled the second bank
and moves it into the oven. Stockings on the first bank are then removed
one at a time and dropped back into the cloth bag. Simultaneously with re-
moval, another stocking is fitted on each empty form. In this manner the first
bank has been emptied and refilled by the time the second bank comes from
the oven. Thus the operation continues." The position of the forms in the
bank is adjustable to facilitate pulling off the stockings and dropping them
into the bag. In removing the stockings from the form, the operator loosens
the stocking with her right hand, and pulls it off the form by the toe with her
left hand. The bag is conveniently placed to receive the stockings. To a
trained operator it becomes a rhythmic operation. At the close of each shift
the forms are stripped bare so that the succeeding operator starts the entire
process anew. In stripping the forms at the end of a shift, it was possible
for the operator (a preboarder) to quickly loosen all stockings on the form,
grasp the toes of a large number of stockings with her left hand, and pull several
or all of them from the forms at one time. No replacements on the forms at
that time were required. Despite the precautionary instructions about remov-
ing 1 stocking at a time to prevent sticking, preboarders were prone to hasten
the stripping operation at the end of a shift by removing more than 1 stocking
at a time from the forms. Respondent's supervisors did not enforce the rule
when stripping the forms at the end of a shift"
Kathryn Clark joined the Union during the early days of the organizational
campaign and actively assisted union organizers in the organizational work.
She attended union meetings and shortly prior to the election of March 12, 1951,
held a union meeting in her own home. She also signed her name to a mimeo-
graphed letter distributed to all employees urging them to vote for the Union at
the election (G. C. Exhibit 5). She continued to engage in union activities after
the election in which the Union was defeated. There had never been any com-
plaint with respect to the quality of her work by the Respondent.
Evelyn Sumler (a preboarder) credibly testified that on the morning of March
30, 1951, Foreman Ed Collinsworth warned her that the dye house manager (Her-
man Stigler) would be in the preboarding department that afternoon at the
close of the shift to watch the operators strip their forms, and told her to be
sure to take the stockings off one at a time. She observed Foreman Collins-
worth approaching other operators, as if giving them the same warning.
At shift closing time that afternoon Foreman Ed Collinsworth and Herman
Stigler stood in the back of the room and watched operations in the preboarding
department. Brodie Sumler (husband of Evelyn Sumler) warned Estelle War-
ren (another preboarder) of their presence and told her to warn Kathryn Clark.
When the warning reached Kathryn Clark, she had practically finished stripping
the forms. It was too late to heed the warning. A few minutes later Foreman
Collinsworth approached Kathryn Clark, told her she had violated instructions
by removing stockings from the forms more than one at a time, and conducted
her to the office of Manager Lewis.
33 The importance of removing, replacing, and dropping each stocking into the cloth bag
separately is emphasized to prevent the hot stockings from sticking together. The stock-
ings are later dyed in the cloth bag and if stuck together do not take the dye properly.
94 Preboarders Kathryn Clark , Evelyn Sumler , Estelle Warren, Cecil Burrow , and James
Maupin (a former preboarder) credibly testified that the rule had never been enforced
when forms were stripped at the close of a shift , and consequently all preboarders
ignored it.
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 981
In the presence of Manager Lewis, Kathryn Clark protested that a trap had
been set for her , and that she had stripped the forms that day in the same man-
ner that she and all the other preboarders customarily performed the opera-
tion . She protested that although she stripped the forms more than one at a
time, she had dropped the stockings into the bag separately, and invited Manager
Lewis to inspect the bag and ascertain whether any of the stockings were stuck
together. Manager Lewis said, "That is not the point. You have been doing
something you were told not to. All I know is, we don't need anyone like that in
the mill. You can just find a job elsewhere." In reply to Kathryn Clark's con-
tention that all the other preboarders stripped their forms in the same manner,
Manager Lewis said, "If everybody else ran and jumped in the river, would I run
and jump in the river, too." Kathryn Clark further protested that she was being
fired because of her union activities . Manager Lewis said, "The union is out,
and that is that. I don't want to hear a word about it " Foreman Collinsworth
also spoke up and said, "No, we don 't want to hear anything about the union,
Kathryn." "" Kathryn Clark mentioned the fact that she had arranged for a
union meeting that night at the home of her mother, and that Collinsworth
knew about it. Collinsworth said that was not news to him-that they knew
that union meetings were being held every night. Thereupon , Kathryn Clark
was discharged.
F. The discharge of Warren C. Boothe
Prior to his discharge on April 3, 1951, Warren C. Boothe had been employed
by the Respondent as a knitter. He had worked at this trade for a period of 12
or 13 years in various parts of the country. At one time he was a knitting
instructor for the Respondent and taught new employees how to operate the
knitting machines.
Boothe joined the Union and became an active worker in the organizational
campaign soon after the organizers arrived at Humboldt in the latter part of
1948. He attended union meetings, passed out literature at the plant gate,
attended a conference with company officials concerning arrangements for the
election, held union meetings at his home before and after the election, conferred
with the mayor of Humboldt about a public place to hold union meetings, signed
a mimeographed letter distributed to other employees urging them to vote for
the Union, and solicited other employees to join the Union. It was well known
that he was an active supporter of the Union.
In the course of his duties as a fixer on April 3, 1951, Foreman-Fixer Charles
E. Bristow discovered a broken welt hook in the knitting machine being operated
by Warren C. Boothe. The machine was idle at the time and Boothe was hooking
it up to run another set of stockings. Foreman Bristow told him to replace the
broken welt hook with a new one before starting the machine to run another set.
Boothe refused to replace the welt hook before starting up the machine, but said
he would replace it while in operation after finishing the welt and while running
in the main leg of the stocking.30 Boothe contended that he should be paid extra
for lost time if he replaced the hook before starting the next run. Bristow said
he had no authority to allow the extra pay. Consequently, Boothe started up
"Frances Jones credibly testified that on the same afternoon , Foreman Collinsworth
had come to her worktable and said, "Frances, you better leave Estelle Warren and
Kathryn Clark alone. They are going to get you in trouble."
"" It is possible to do as Boothe insisted that he be allowed to do but a small defect is
likely to appear in the welt of the stocking. Knitters often follow that practice, but
the Respondent had forbidden the practice by posting a written notice on the bulletin
board on October 25, 1950 ( Respondent 's Exhibit 26), prescribing penalties of layoff and
discharge for first, second , and third offenses.
257965-54-vol. 103-63
I
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the machine, and Foreman Bristow conferred with Manager Lewis in his office
about the matter. He then returned to Boothe's machine, and stopped the
machine by cutting the switch. Then he cut off the electric power by throwing
the main switch. He then tried to reason with Boothe, but Boothe told him to
go away and let him alone-the delay was costing him money. Without warning
Boothe struck Foreman Bristow on his left jaw, knocking him several feet against
another machine. Bristow told Boothe to tie up his work, that he was through.
Boothe made no reply. Bristow reported the incident to Manager Lewis and
then went to the first-aid station for treatment and later that evening to a doctor
in Humboldt. Manager Lewis came out immediately from his office and dis-
charged Boothe.
It seems to be entirely clear that Warren C. Boothe refused to obey instructions
from a supervisor in the course of his employment, and committed an unjustified
assault upon him. It will therefore be recommended that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges the discriminatory discharge of Warren C. Boothe.
G. The discharge of Bessie K. Beasley
The Respondent is a national advertiser of high quality women's hosiery under
the trade name "Sharmeer." To insure the quality of the product, it operates a
greige inspection department to eliminate defective stockings from production
work. Forelady Mary H. Adcock is the supervisor in charge of this department,
where approximately 22 female operators or greige inspectors are employed.
Bessie K. Beasley was one of these greige inspectors.
Stockings completed in the greige state are brought in cloth bags to the greige
inspection department prior to dyeing. The Respondent provides standards and
the necessary equipment to make a thorough inspection of each stocking before it
is released for further processing. Each stocking is fitted upon a leg-shaped
form and expanded to render the discovery of defects easy. After inspection, the
operator returns the perfect stockings to the cloth bags in lots of 4 dozen pairs
to each bag, and classifies the defective stockings into trays or compartments to
be mended, repaired, or otherwise disposed of according to categories. There
are approximately 14 categories of defects. To identify the work of each piece-
work operator or inspector, each bag of perfect stockings is tagged according to
number and contents along with the name of the inspector (Respondent's Exhibit
No. 7). The operator retains in her possession a coupon detached from the tag
to claim pay for the piecework performed.
Each day a reinspector makes a spot check of work performed by each greige
inspector by reinspecting the contents of 1 bag released by the operator. If
the reinspector finds more than 2 defects in the bag of perfect stockings, she
attaches a yellow tag on each newly discovered defective stocking showing the
type of defect thereon, the size, and the operator's bag number (Respondent's
Exhibit No. 10). She then delivers them to the supervisor in charge, who inter-
views the greige inspector with respect to her oversight in the original inspec-
tion . The supervisor may on occasion make additional inspections of the perfect
work released by the operator.
The reinspector maintains a written daily record of the reinspections per-
formed (Respondent's Exhibit 22) and sends a consolidated report to the man-
ager's office at the end of each week (Respondent's Exhibit 23). There a defect
percentage record is computed as to each greige inspector to indicate her effi-
ciency as an inspector . This record is placed in the personnel file of the opera-
tor. As a further spot check on the greige inspectors , as a group , the Respond-
ent each month selects at random 5 bags ( 20 dozen pairs ) from the assembled
work of the department and sends them to the Fort Wayne plant at Fort Wayne,
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 983
Indiana, for reinspection. Reinspectors at that plant indicate with red crayon
marks any defects found, attach a tag showing the greige inspector's name
and nature of the defect, and return the stockings to the Humboldt plant (Re-
spondent's Exhibit 24).
Prior to her discharge on July 20, 1951, Bessie K. Beasley had been employed
in the greige inspection department since December 1948. She was a time-
worker at an hourly wage until November 27, 1950, when she became a piece-
worker. There was no complaint concerning her efficiency as a greige inspec-
tor until shortly before the election of March 12, 1951. She joined the Union
on April 26, 1949, and became an active worker in the organizational campaign.
She assisted the union organizers and made a speech over the radio. She signed
a mimeographed letter distributed to other employees shortly before the elec-
tion, and she acted as an observer for the Union at the election of March 12,
1951. On one or more occasions when Manager Lewis assembled the greige
inspectors to discuss the Union, Bessie K. Beasley stood up and replied to some
of his arguments to such an extent that Lewis requested her to sit down and
let him do the talking. He told her he did not need a lawyer in the greige
inspection department. He told her that the Union organizers had been going
around saying some unkind things about him. In May 1950, Manager Lewis
reprimanded Bessie K. Beasley because she protested being temporarily assigned
to a flat form machine and moved away from the more efficient type expansible
form. At that time the manager told her that she would have to obey the in-
structions of Forelady Mary H. Adcock, or go home. Beasley replied that
"Things like this are just exactly what is bringing in the Union." On Saturday
before the scheduled election in July 1950, she requested permission to be absent
from work. When permission was refused, she failed to report for work and
attended a union meeting in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Respondent took no
action about it.
In August 1950 she was called to the office concerning a bundle of defective
stockings found in her work. She told Manager Lewis, "The only way I can
account for it, I possibly picked up the wrong ticket and tied on the wrong
pile of defects." Her explanation was accepted, and a tray was built for her
worktable for use in separating defective stockings from the perfect ones.
Following the election of March 12, 1951, the efficiency of Bessie K. Beasley
as a greige inspector rapidly deteriorated. Her personnel file reveals that on
March 15, 1951, Forelady Adcock reported that she overlooked 9 defects in her
work and failed to check the counter according to instructions. On March 27,
1951, she was called into the office because of 17 defects discovered in her work
by reinspectors at the Fort Wayne plant. (Respondent's Exhibit 24.) She was
reprimanded by Manager Lewis and told that drastic action would be taken
unless her work improved. She accused the manager of picking on her, and said
probably the Labor Board would like to know that he was calling certain indi-
viduals into the office and picking on them 87 On the following day she was
recalled to the office, and Manager Lewis again emphasized that she would lose
her job unless there was an improvement in her work and if she stayed away
from work without permission . Report in the personnel file dated April 9, 1951,
shows that the manager denied her a leave of absence to attend a union convention
in Philadelphia on May 7, 1951.
On or about April 30,1951, Manager Lewis assembled all of the greige inspectors
and remonstrated with them as a group concerning the poor work they were
doing.
87 The record shows that on the same date 2 other operators (Lena Carter and Wyonina
Shelton ) were called to the office concerning defects .in their work.
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bessie K. Beasley credibly testified : "He told us that he had talked to us
until he was blue in the face and that he was going to have to take drastic meas-
ures if defects wasn 't cut down . He said `some of you have as high as ten and
twelve percent defects.' He also said sixty gauge girls, he told them that out
,of a lot, which was sixteen dozen to a lot, that they found as high as eight dozen
and more pulls in finishing departments and that it had to stop, yes sir."
Mary H. Adcock credibly testified that Manager Lewis told the group of greige
inspectors that their defects were entirely too high , and they were going to
have to cut down on the bad work or some measures of penalty would have to be
imposed.
On the same date (April 30 , 1951 ) the Respondent received from the Fort
Wayne plant 2 bags of Bessie K. Beasley 's work that had been reinspected. One
bag contained 11 defective stockings in a lot of 4 dozen pairs (style 286), and the
second bag contained 10 defects in a similar lot of the same style . Forelady
Mary H. Adcock showed the defective stockings to Bessie K. Beasley and talked
to her about the defects . No further action was taken at that time.
On the following Wednesday, May 2, 1951 , Grace Bledsoe ( reinspector) re-
ported to the supervisor 8 defects out of 2 dozen pairs inspected in a bag of Bessie
K. Beasley 's work. Forelady Adcock herself then reinspected the remaining
2 dozen pairs in the bag and found 9 additional defective stockings , making a
total of 17 defects in the lot . On the following day Forelady Adcock and her
reinspector ( Grace Bledsoe ) found 8 defects in another bag of Beasley 's work.
Thereupon , Bessie K. Beasley was given a layoff of 2 days ( May 7 and 8) as a
penalty for bad work . She reported back to work on Wednesday , May 9, 1951.
On May 25, 1951 , Grace Bledsoe ( reinspector ) reexamined a bag of Beasley's
work and found 13 defective stockings in the lot of 4 dozen pairs. Upon receipt
of this report Bessie K. Beasley was called into the office of Manager Lewis and
warned that this would be the last time that such poor work would be accepted.
On July 12, 1951 , Forelady Adcock and Manager Lewis watched Bessie K.
Beasley at work. Then the forelady picked up a bag of her completed work
and reinspected the stockings therein . She found 10 defective stockings , showed
them to the operator , and cautioned her to be more careful in her inspections.
Due to the fact that the greige inspectors had recently returned to work from
a vacation of 2 weeks no further action was taken.
On July 20, 1951, Grace Bledsoe (reinspector ) reexamined a bag of Bessie K.
Beasley's work containing 2 dozen pairs and 16 stockings . Before completing the
reinspection , she called the supervisor to her worktable to observe the condition
of the stockings . The reinspection was made jointly by Grace Bledsoe and
Forelady Mary H. Adcock. They found 14 defective stockings in the lot (Re-
spondent's Exhibit 7). Forelady Adcock first showed the defects to Bessie K.
Beasley, and then carried the bag to Manager Lewis ' office Upon her return
from the manager 's office, Forelady Adcock notified Bessie B. Beasley that she
was being terminated , and to report to the personnel office. She reported to
that office about noon , and received her termination papers and final paycheck.
She protested both to Forelady Adcock and the personnel officer that she was
being discharged on account of her union activities . Records of the Respondent
indicate that she was discharged for not being adapted to the job of greige
inspector.
88 The bag marked as Respondent 's Exhibit 7, and the 14 defective stockings grouped
together by defects were identified by Mary H. Adcock and marked as Respondent's
Exhibits 10, Ila, lib , Ile, 12a, 12b , 13a, 13b, 13c, 14 , 15, 16, 17a, and 17b, and were
introduced in evidence at the hearing.
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC . 985
The defective work attributed to Bessie K. Beasley on May 2 and 25 and July
20, 1951, was first discovered and reported by the reinspector, Grace Bledsoe, who
was a member of the Union and not unfriendly to her. On each occasion the
defective stockings were shown to Bessie K. Beasley before any action was
taken by the supervisor or Manager Lewis. She failed to make any satisfactory
explanation other than to contend that the Respondent was more critical of her
defects than those of other inspectors. In some instances she expressed doubt
that the defective work was passed by her. She admitted that the work itself
was seriously defective and should not have been overlooked. There is no
evidence that fraud was perpetrated, and the defective work was all clearly
tagged in the handwriting of Bessie K. Beasley. Forelady Mary H. Adcock
credibly testified as to the identity of the work, and explained her system of
identification which rendered the possibility of mistaken identity extremely un-
likely, especially as to a series of different occasions over a short period of
time. She credibly denied having engaged in any discussion with employees
concerning their union activities. Certain isolated statements attributed to
her by Bessie K. Beasley, Grace Morgan, and Sadie Hayes are discredited as a
basis for findings of unfair labor practices.
Inasmuch as the burden of proof rests upon the General Counsel to prove
discrimination in the discharge of Bessie K. Beasley, which occurred more than
4 months after the election, I cannot find from a preponderance of the evidence
that the Respondent discharged her because of membership in or activities on
behalf of a labor organization.
Concluding Findings
From the foregoing findings of fact based upon all of the evidence in the case,
I find that during the period from January 25, 1950, through March 12, 1951,
the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. In so finding, I rely
especially upon the following coercive acts and conduct of officials and super-
visors of the Respondent, to wit :
(1) Statements by Vice-President William D. White to groups of employees
to the effect that "You can vote for the Union if you want to, but I tell you this,
if this Union comes in you are going to have to toe the mark or come up to
certain specifications, if you don't, out you go-I have 120 knitters that I can
bring in here and put on these machines and nobody can stop me"; that Man-
ager Lewis had been easy on them and let them get by with stuff that he would
not ; that the Union could not make the Company do anything they did not want
to do ; that he could fire them at will ; that if the Union won the election it
could not get anything for the employees-that the Union would have to bargain
with him, and he was a hard man to bargain with.
(2) Statements by Plant Manager Edwin S. Lewis to groups of employees to
the effect that the defect categories required in the inspection of stockings
might possibly be increased if the Union came in ; that if the Union came in the
girls might not get as much as they were already getting-that he would drive
a hard bargain with the Union; and that he would enforce the rules against
smoking if the Union came in.
(3) Interrogation of employees by Manager Lewis by asking Wallace Burns
(an employee) "what do you think about the Union," and asking Frieda Bridges
(an employee) "what she thought the Union could get for her that she did not
have already.s8°
39 Standard- Coosa-Thatcher Co., 85 NLRB 1358.
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(4) Statements by Foreman James E. Black to Mrs. Judith Mullins (em-
ployee) to the effect that he could line up the girls against the wall and pick
out those who were for and against the Union-that the employees didn't know
what a good thing they had in their jobs there-that the hosiery mills at Hum-
boldt and Fort Wayne had enough money to close the plant down.
(5) Interrogation of employees by Foreman-Fixer Charles E. Bristow by ask-
ing William Walter Rainey (knitter) why he was for the Union, and asking
Milton L. Barnett (knitter) what he thought about the Union.
(6) Interrogation of Elizabeth Wilson (a boarder) by Foreman Whitney
Thompson as to what she thought about the Union and whether she thought
it would come into the plant.
(7) Interrogation of Frances Jones (supply girl) by Foreman Ed Collins-
worth by inquiring whether she was in favor of the Union, and whether the
Union had promised her anything.
(8) Interrogation of Clifton Pillow (employee) by Foreman Ed Collinsworth
by inquiring how he felt about the Union and requesting him to go around and
talk to other employees about it, because he did not think the Union would be
the right thing for them.
(9) Granting a change in work assignment to Evelyn Sumler (a preboarder)
by Foreman Ed Collinsworth in consideration of her promise to vote against
the Union.
(10) Collaboration of Foreman J. R. Weeks with Mary Tatum and Johnie
Tatum (employees) to engage in espionage of the concerted activities of other
employees at union meetings and elsewhere ; and accepting information for the
benefit of Respondent resulting from such espionage.40
(11) Illegal surveillance of a union meeting on June 15, 1950, by Personnel
Manager Joseph P. McCormick.
(12) Participation in volunteer meetings of employees by President Robson,
Manager Lewis, and Company Attorney Senter to discuss, determine, and ob-
struct the concerted activities of other employees by furnishing legal advice,
information, and other material assistance to promote, encourage, and organize
antiunion sentiment and activities among its employees, and to discourage mem-
bership in the Union.41
Whether chargeable to the Respondent as unfair practices or not, I am con-
vinced from all the evidence and the entire record in the case that the antiunion
activities of Nathan Couch and other businessmen of the community, importunate
preelection letters, speeches, and persistent interviewing of employees in small
groups concerning the Union, as well as the foregoing acts and conduct of the
Respondent found to be a violation of the Act, created an atmosphere incom-
patible with the freedom of choice of its employees in their selection of a bar-
gaining representative, and thus interefered with the election of March 12, 1952.41
The Respondent urges, however, that by filing a waiver on February 16, 1951,
and proceeding with the election herein with knowledge of the Respondent's
interference, the Union is now estopped to assert its right to have the election
set aside. Inasmuch as the coercive conduct and unfair labor practices of the
Respondent were continued and intensified subsequent to the waiver up to the
eve of the election, I find that the waiver doctrine has no application here"
Just cause, therefore, exists for the Board in its discretion to declare the elec-
tion null and void, and set it aside.
w Stainless Ware Co. of America, 87 NLRB 138.
41 Mathews Lumber Co., Inc., 96 NLRB 322; American Bottling Company, 99 NLRB 345.
42 General Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124 (1948 ) ; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
90 NLRB 3935.
u Howell Chevrolet Company, 95 NLRB 410; Squirrel Brand Co., Inc., 96 NLRB 179.
HUMBOLDT FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 987
The question remains whether the Respondent refused to bargain with the
Union as the authorized and exclusive representative of its employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act. The Respond-
ent contends that it had no statutory duty to bargain because the Union's repre-
sentation petition was pending in Case No. 32-RC-211 when demand for recog-
nition and bargaining was made on February 20, 1950. It is well settled that
an employer cannot justify its admitted refusal to bargain with a union by
contending that the Board is required to conduct an election if it finds the
existence of a question of representation. Section 9 (c) (1) of the Act applies
only to representation cases and does not limit or qualify the duty of an
employer to bargain under Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act" The Respondent's
failure in this case to respond to the Union's unequivocal demand for recognition
and bargaining is not excused by the Union's filing a representation petition,
since it did not ask the Union to prove its majority status, and did not decline
to meet with the Union because of a professed doubt of the Union's majority.
Indeed, the Respondent evaded and ignored the Union's demand for recognition,
and promptly embarked upon a campaign of unfair labor practices to undermine
and destroy that majority status, as to which it has never expressed or professed
any bona fide doubt. Moreover, it refused to agree to a consent election, and by
its conduct induced the Board to erroneously conclude that a genuine question
of representation existed when in fact there was none. I am convinced that
the Respondent did not withhold recognition from the Union because of a good-
faith doubt of the Union's majority in an appropriate unit. Inasmuch as the
record conclusively shows that on February 20, 1950, the Union held more than
300 authorization cards signed by a substantial majority of Respondent's em-
ployees in the appropriate unit, none of whom has resigned or withdrawn, I shall
find that on that date, and at all times thereafter, the Union was the authorized
representative of said employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. The
cards were sufficient in themselves to designate the Union as bargaining repre-
sentative.' I find that no genuine question of representation existed, that the
Respondent's refusal to recognize the Union on February 20, 1950, and there-
after, was motivated by a desire to gain time in which to destroy the Union's
majority and by a rejection of the collective-bargaining principle. It therefore
refused to bargain within the meaning of the Act.47
With respect to the discharge of Kathryn Clark on March 30, 1951, I am con-
vinced that her technical violation of a company rule was merely a pretext to
rid the Respondent of a faithful adherent and worker for the Union. The fact
that similar violations had been habitually overlooked and condoned support
that conclusion. The prior conduct of Foreman Ed Collinsworth, including his
forewarning to other employees, indicates his aforethought to entrap Kathryn
Clark. The callous attitude of Manager Lewis in disregarding her protests
against the discrimination and refusing to inquire into the seriousness of her
offense is additional evidence that the real reason for discharge was union
activities and not the violation of a company rule. I, therefore, find that the
Respondent discriminated in the tenure of employment of Kathryn Clark to
discourage membership in a labor organization.
"Cullman Lumber Co., Inc., 82 NLRB 296 (1949).
45 Howard-Cooper Corp., 99 NLRB 891.
4"Long-Lewis Hardware Co., 90 NLRB 1403; New Jersey Carpet Mills, Inc., 92 NLRB
604; N. L. R. B. v. Bradford Dyeing Association, 310 U. S. 318; N. L. R. B. v. Consolidated
Machine Tool Corp., 163 F. 2d 376.
I'M. H. Davidson Co., 94 NLRB 142 ; Joy Silk Mills v. N. L. R. B., 185 F. 2d 26; Louis-
ville Container Corp., 99 NLRB 81.
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The Activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States tending to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom,
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that antiunion conduct of businessmen in the community,
importunate preelection letters, speeches, and interviews of the Respondent cre-
ated an atmosphere incompatible with the freedom of choice of a bargaining
representative, and that the Respondent also by unfair labor practices consist-
ing of interrogation, threats of economic reprisal, espionage, surveillance, and
participation in the antiunion activities of certain employees, prevented a free
and untrammeled ballot, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. It will,
therefore, be recommended that the election of March 12, 1951, be set aside, and
that the Respondent cease and desist from the conduct herein found to be a vio-
lation of the Act. The aforesaid unfair labor practices indicate a rejection
of the collective-bargaining principle by the Respondent and an attitude of hos-
tility to the general purposes of the Act. To prevent further violations, I shall,
therefore, recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner
infringing on the rights of its employees as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act i°
It has been found that on February 20, 1950, and at all times thereafter, the
Union was the authorized and exclusive representative of Respondent's em-
ployees in the appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining, and
that on and after said date the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with
said representative in violation of the Act. I shall, therefore, recommend that
the Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the author-
ized and exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit.
Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Kathryn Clark
to discourage membership in a labor organization, it will be recommended that
the Respondent offer to said employee immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent position,49 without prejudice to her seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered
by reason of the discrimination against her by the payment to her of a sum
of money equal to the amount she would have earned as wages since the date
of her discharge to the date when such offer of reinstatement is made, less net
earnings 60 to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have
no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other such period. It will also be
recommended that the Respondent make available to the Board and its agents,
upon request, its payroll and other necessary records to facilitate the computa-
tion of back pay herein awarded.
48 Central Kentucky Broadcasting Co., 93 NLRB 1298; Vaughn Bowen, 93 NLRB 1147;
McKesson & Robbins, Inc., 92 NLRB 1432 ; Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB
544; United States Gypsum Co., 90 NLRB 964; Atlanta Broadcasting Co., 90 NLRB 808.
49 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
60 See Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440.
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS , INC . 989
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the
case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All of Respondent's production and maintenance employees at its plant
in Humboldt, Tennessee, excluding office and clerical employees, professional
employees, technical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. At all times since February 20, 1950, American Federation of Hosiery
Workers has been and now is the exclusive representative of all employees in
the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on February 20, 1950, and thereafter, to bargain collectively
with American Federation of Hosiery Workers as the exclusive representative of
its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Kath-
ryn Clark, thereby discouraging membership in American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices by discharging
Warren C. Boothe and Bessie K. Beasley.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS , INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER and LOCAL 614, INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO. Case
No. 4-RC1848. March 24,1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold X. Summers,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
'At the hearing IUE-CIO moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Peti-
tioner is "fronting" for a noncomplying organization of employees known as the "Workers
Committee." The record shows that, although the committee has engaged in some
103 NLRB No. 91.