Ideal Laundry and Dry Cleaners

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 845 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of H. B . HARWELL, DOING BUSINESS AS IDEAL LAUNDRY
AND DRY CLEANERS and UNITED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, AFFILIATED
WITH UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. 9-C-1885.-Decided March 30, 1944
Mr. James A. Shaw, for the Board.
Mr. Randolph Bias, of Williamson, W. Va., for the respondent.
Mr. Milton, E. Harris, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on August 2, 1943, by United
Construction Workers, affiliated with United Mine Workers of Amer-
ica, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region
(Cincinnati, Ohio), issued its complaint dated August 9, 1943, against
H. B. Harwell, doing business as Ideal Laundry and Dry Cleaners,
Williamson, West Virginia, herein called the respondent,' alleging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied
by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent
and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance: (1) that from about May 1, 1943, the respondent questioned
his employees as to their union affiliation ; threatened them with dis-
charge or other disciplinary action if they became or remained mem-
bers of the Union; urged, persuaded, and warned them to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of the Union; vilified and maligned
the Union's leaders and organizers; and spied upon his employees in
their activities on behalf of the Union; (2) that on or about May 6,
I The respondent 's business was also designated in the Intermediate Report and other
parts of the record as Ideal Laundry Co.
55 N. L. R. B., No. 151.
845
846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1943, the respondent discharged five named employees,2 and thereafter
refused to reinstate them, because they joined and assisted the Union;
and (3) that by the foregoing acts, the respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced his employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act. On August 20, 1943, the respondent
filed his answer, in which he admitted certain allegations of the com-
plaint with respect to his business and denied all material averments
relating to the unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from August 26 to September
1, 1943, at Williamson, West Virginia, before W. P. Webb, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board
and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in
the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues,
was afforded all parties. At the commencement of the hearing, coun-
sel for the respondent moved to exclude all witnesses from the hearing
room until they were called to testify. The motion, with certain modi-
fications, was granted by the Trial Examiner without objection. The
respondent renewed its motion, previously dismissed by the Acting
Regional Director, to dismiss the complauit for lack of jurisdiction.
This motion was denied. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel
for the Board moved to conform the pleadings to the proof in respect
to minor inaccuracies as to dates and the spelling of names and other
matters not related to the fundamental issues. The motion was
granted by the Trial Examiner without objection. The opportunity
to present oral argument before the Trial Examiner at the close of the
hearing was waived by the parties. On September 20, counsel for the
respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. Pursuant to an
"Order Reopening Hearing" issued by the Chief Trial Examiner on
October 9, 1943, the hearing before the Trial Examiner was reopened
on October 21, 1943, for the purpose of adducing further testimony
and evidence concerning the employment efforts of, and the employ-
ment possibilities for, Lena Underwood, Myrtle Scott, and Juanita
Scott, subsequent to their alleged discriminatory discharge by the
respondent on May 6, 1943. The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel and participated in the reopened hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues, was afforded all parties.
At the conclusion of the reopened hearing on October 21, 1943, counsel
for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint in respect to the
five employees alleged to have been unlawfully discharged by the re-
spondent, and further moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Ruling on these motions was reserved, and was subsequently denied by
Myrtle Scott, Juanita Scott, Lena Under« ood, Jesse Chatmon, and Early Mickins
IDEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS 847
the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report. During the course of
both the original and the reopened hearings , the Trial Examiner made
rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
On October 28, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and the
Union. In the Intermediate Report , the Trial Examiner found that
the respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting
commerce , and recommended that he cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action. Thereafter , the respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. No re-
quest for oral argument before the Board at Washington , D. C., was
made by any of the parties.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's
exceptions and brief , and the entire record in the case, and finds that
the exceptions are without merit insofar as they are inconsistent with
the findings , conclusions , and order hereinafter set forth.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESFONDFNT
The respondent , H. B. Harwell , doing business as Ideal Laundry
and Dry Cleaners , is the owner and operator of a combined laundry
and dry cleaning establishment in Williamson, West Virginia.3 This
establishment has been in continuous operation in Williamson for a
number of years . The respondent leased it in September 1940,
purchased it 6 months later , and has continued to operate it since
that time . The respondent 's gross annual income from this business
exceeds $60,000. Approximately 10 percent of the raw materials
and supplies used at the plant, such as soap, tags , boxes , and bleaching
agents , is purchased and shipped to the plant from points outside
West Virginia . In addition to local West Virginia business, the
respondent transports garments in his motor trucks to and from
customers in Kentucky. Approximately 20 percent of the respond-
ent's gross income since January 1 , 1943, has been derived from the
servicing of garments which were collected from, and delivered to,
customers in Kentucky . The respondent normally employs from 30
to 35 employees in the plant.
3 Williamson is situated on both sides of a liver , which forms the boundary line between
west Vuginia and Kentucky . A United States Post Office, which is located on the West
Virginia side of the iivei, serves the entire community
848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find the respondent to be engaged in commerce, within the
meaning of the Act 4
II. TIIE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Construction Workers, affiliated with United Mine Workers
of America , is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Prior to the leasing of the plant by the respondent early in
September 1940, there had been a labor organization in the plant
known as United Laundry Workers Local Union No. 540, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. However, several
months before the respondent assumed control of the plant, this
organization had virtually passed out of existence and ceased to
function.
In about March 1943, the Union begun to organize the respondent's
employees. Bill Eams, one of the respondent's employees, contacted
Hobart Calloway, a representative of the Union, and discussed the
situation with him. About the latter part of April, Arthur Kilgore,
another field representative of the Union, came to Williamson and
assisted in the organizational campaign. The campaign islet with a
certain amount of success and a number of the respondent's employees
joined the Union. Among those who joined at that time were
Myrtle Scott, Juanita Scott, Lena Underwood, Jesse Chatmon, and
Early Mickins, whose discharges are hereinafter discussed.
On or about May 4, 1943, Calloway and Kilgore called on the
respondent, Harwell, for the purpose of bargaining for the em-
ployees, claiming that a majority of them had joined the Union.
They introduced themselves to Harwell as representatives of the
Union, and told him that they wished to discuss the Union's status
in the plant. They also told him that they wished to discuss a
report that he had cursed and abused some of the employees who
had joined the Union. According to the testimony of Calloway,
which we credit, as did the Trial Examiner, Harwell replied that
"this son-of-a-bitch Eams" was the cause of the Union's organizing.5
Calloway then informed Harwell that Eams was not employed by
the Union, and that the organizational campaign was being con-
4 See Matter of White Swan Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
Cleaners, Dyers and Laundry 1Voriers, Local 308, 19 N L R B 1079, mod'd and enf'd, 118
F (2d) 1002 (C C A 4), Pert den , 314 U S 648.
6 Eams had left the respondent ' s employ about 3 weeks before this meeting.
IDEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS 849
ducted by Kilgore and himself. Harwell responded that the em-
ployees could not have a union in the plant without his approval;
that if they decided to organize they should have first informed him;
and that they should form a union of their owns Calloway also
testified that Harwell further stated that he "had several older
employees there who .. . had brains or knew what it was all about
and that they were the people who should be in the Union and should
be organized and that the rest of them were just a bunch of trash
and that he [Harwell] was going to get rid of them anyway."
In connection with this sleeting, Mabel Anderson, the respondent's
office manager; admitted that Harwell told Calloway and Kilgore
that he had no objection to their talknig to the employees who had
been working there a long time "but that there was a lot of people
that he [Harwell] was hiring and firing continuously and that he
was going to let some of them go that afternoon, and that he did
not feel they had a right to come in there and to be there only for
a few days and to rule the older employees." She further admitted
that some of the older employees in point of service had told her that
they did not want a union in the plant and that if it did come in
they would quit. Harwell admitted that he told Calloway and
Kilgore that he was going to discharge some employees. He also
admitted that he cursed in referring to Eams. Harwell testified that
he "used cuss words good . . . sometimes extensively."
On the following clay, according to employee Early Mickins'
unclenied testimony, which we credit, as did the Trial Examiner,
Harwell asked some of the employees working on flat work, "Did
any of you sign any of them damn Union cards? . . . If you have
signed them Union cards, before I'll have them [the Union] in here
I'll close down my plant."
Employee Letia Allred and her sister Ann Allred 7 joined the
Union in April or May 1943. A few days thereafter Harwell asked
Letia if she had joined the I7nion and how she liked it. She replied
that her brother was a union man and she thought the Union was all
right. After hesitating for a while, she admitted to Harwell that
she had joined the Union. Harwell then became angry, began curs-
ing her and shaking his fist at her, and told her to get out of the
plant. As she was preparing to leave, however, he told her that if
she would withdraw from the Union she could continue to work
R
Ha, well denied having said to Calloway and Kilgore that the employees could not have
a union aithout his appiova] However, the Trial Examiner ens not favorably an-
pressed with the testimony of Ilarwwoil, and did not find him to be a credible witness.
we find, as did the Ti.al Examiner, that he made the statements substantially as testified
to by Callow ay and Kilgore
7 Letia Allred was employed as a checker in the plant fi om August 1942 until June 1943.
Ann Allied was employed tioin September 1942 to June 1943.
548129-44-vol 55-55
850 DECISIONS OF N 4TIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the plant. She told Harwell that she resented being cursed by
him. Harwell then said that he was sorry and that he had "let his
temper run away with biro" and had probably said more than he had
intended to say.8 In respect to this incident, employee Early Mickins
testified that he heard Harwell say to Letia Allred, "Did you sign one
of them damn Union cards? . . . If I flowed you'd sign one of them
God damn Union cards I'd run you out of here . . . You can run out
now . . . No, not now, finish your work."
Ann Allred testified. and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
soon after she had joined the Union Harwell inked her is she had
signed a membership application card, and that she replied in the
affirmative. On another occasion Harwell asked her if any of the
other employees had joined the Union. She further testified that
she heard Harwell say to her sister and another employee, "You
fellows got me into this by signing into this Union . . . I don't know
how I'm gonna get out of it, but yon fellows can work on it, and
have no more to do with it."
Employee Lena, Underwood testified that on May 5 Harwell ap-
proached several shirt pressers, asked them if any of them had signed
union cards, and swore at them and the Union. Harwell did not
specifically deny the aforesaid testimony, although shirt pressers
Eululia Conley, Alice Smith, and Ola Coleman denied that they ever
heard Harwell abuse or curse the Union. The remarks attributed to
Harwell by Lena Underwood are in keeping with the respondent's
general conduct and attitude toward the Union. Accordingly, we
credit the testimony of Lena Underwood, as slid the Trial Examiner.
Glennes Cochran testified that she was employed in the plant from
June 1942 to June 1943; that soon after she joined the Union in May,
Harwell asked her if she had signed a union card; that she looked
down at the floor and replied, "No," because she was afraid to tell
Harwell the truth; and that Harwell then said, "God damn you, you
look me right in the eye, you know you're telling me a God damn lie."
Harwell made a general denial of Cochran's testimony . However, as
stated above, the Trial Examiner was not impressed with the reliability
of Harwell's testimony. We therefore credit the testimony of Glennes
Cochran, as did the Trial Examiner, and find that Harwell made the
statements substantially as testified to by Cochran.
According to the undemed testimony of Mattie Cochran, which we
credit, as did the Trial Examiner, she worked in the plant from May
1942 to July 1943; soon after she joined the Union in May, Harwell
swore at her, disparaged the Union, and asked her if she had signed a
union card; she replied in the negative; and on another occasion,
somewhat later, Harwell said to a group of employees that if all of
8 These findings are based on the credible testimony of Letia Allred.
MEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS 851
them joined the Union he would close down the plant , but if they did
not join the Union they could work on.
According to the undefiled and credible testimony of employee Don
Hatfield, lie joined the Union in May; soon thereafter , Harwell asked
him if lie had signed a union card; and he replied in the negative,
because it had been rumored around the plant that a number of em-
ployees had been discharged for joining the Union and lie was afraid
that he would also be discharged if he told Harwell the truth. Hat-
field was still employed in the plant at the time of the hearing before
the Trial Examiner.
Thomas Easterling , Jr., testified that at the time he was hired by
Harwell on May 17 , Harwell told him that they were starting a union
in the plant and for him not to sign any cards ; and that notwithstand-
ing Harw-ell's warning , he joined the Union that clay. He was dis-
charged 2 days later. Harwell admitted that Easterling worked for a
day or two in the plant and that lie discharged him, but he denied that
the said anything to him about a union card. The Trial Examiner did
not credit Harwell's denial, nor do we . Like the Trial Examiner, we
find that he made the statement substantially as testified to by
Easterling.
Further evidence of the respondent 's hostility and opposition to the
Union is found in the testimony of his own witness , employee Robert
Alexander , whose testimony in this respect we credit, as did the Trial
Examiner . Alexander stated on direct examination :
He [Harwell] said if the employees wanted a union , they could
have one; he said lie didn 't care if they did have one; he said he
didn't want Bill Earns to have nothin ' to do with it; Bill was a
person working there, worked there, not at that time, but had
been, but lie said lie didn 't want him, I mean he said he didn't want
Earns to have anything to do with it. ... I understood him to
say if any of them wanted a union they could have it, but they
didn 't have to go out to a union out of the plant , that they could
form, it right in the plant; I had an understanding they could
form, one right in the plant there if they wanted one., [Italics
supplied.]
On May 6, Harwell discharged Myrtle Scott , Juanita Scott, Lena
Underwood , and Jesse Chatmon because of their membership in and
activities on behalf of the Union, as hereinafter found. On the next
day, May 7, Charles Kiser, another representative of United Mine
Workers of America, told Harwell over the telephone that a majority
of the employees had joined the Union , and asked Harwell to bargain
with the Union. He also requested Harwell to reinstate the union
8 Don Hatfield testified that Harwell made similar remarks to hum Harwell admitted
having offered the use of the plant to the employees for organizational purposes
852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
members who had been discharged the day before. Harwell ques-
tioned the Union's majority, stated that he had discharged the em-
ployees for cause, and refused to reinstate them.
Immediately after this conversation with Kiser, Harwell instructed
Office Manager Mabel Anderson to prepare a list of all the employees
in the plant-33 in number-herein called the "voting list." The
caption thereon stated: "Do you want a union?" Harwell then took
the voting list around the plant, personally canvassed the employees,
and had them sign "yes" or "no" opposite their nalnes. All the em-
ployees signed "no" except Elsie Thomas, who signed "yes." 10 When
Harwell presented the voting list to Letia Allred, he told her that most
of the employees were signing "no." Allred replied, "I'll be with the
majority; if the majority want to drop it and sign it `no' I'll do it that
way." In reference to this incident, Letia Allred credibly testified as
follows :
No, he [Harwell] didn't directly curse me, but he did curse the
Union. . . . Well, he said something about that we had
"signed these God damn Union cards and might cause him to lose
the plant." But he did say we was gonna have to do something
about it and to get together and do something about it .. .
Dropping this Union, or going ahead with it and he said if we
wanted to go ahead with it, and get the Union organized and
going he'd close the plant down here, if we organized here, that
he'd shut down the plant, and I needed the work so badly at that
time and all, that we signed "no."
According to Glennes Cochran's testimony, which we, like the Trial
Examiner, credit, Harwell told her that she could sign the voting list
"yes" or "no," but that if all of them signed "yes," he would shut the
plant down.
Harwell admitted that he instructed Anderson to prepare the voting
list and that he personally presented it to each employee. He denied
making any remarks which would influence the employees in their
vote, and stated, "I told them that I had been Informed by parties that
the people there wanted a union and the most of them, I don't know as
I explained all of that to them, that a majority of them wanted a union,
but anyway I told them I just wanted them to signify whether they did
or did not." Inasmuch as the Trial Examiner found that Harwell
was not a credible witness, he did not credit Harwell's denials, nor
do we.
Upon the entire record, we conclude and find that the respondent
engaged in a course of conduct designed to coerce, and which in fact
did coerce, his employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
10 Elsie Thomas ' employment in the plant was terminated about 2 weeks later.
IDEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS 853
B. The discriminatory discharges
1. Introduction
The complaint alleged and the answer denied that employees Myrtle
Scott, Juanita Scott, Lena Underwood, Jesse Chatmon, and Early
Mickins were discharged by the respondent on May 6, 1943, because they
joined and assisted the Union. The answer avers that the two Scott
girls 11 were discharged for inefficiency, incompetency, and lack of in-
terest in their work; that Chatmon was discharged for insubordination,
bad con duct, and the use of profanity; and that Underwood and Mick-
ins voluntarily quit their jobs.
At the time their work terminated, Myrtle Scott had worked in the
plant for only 21/2 days; Juanita Scott, 6 days; Underwood, about 21/2
weeks; Chatmon, about 21/2 weeks; and Miclcins, about 2i// weeks.
Myrtle Scott did hand ironing. Juanita Scott did hand washing and
ironing and also other odd jobs. Both had done washing and ironing
at home prior to working for the respondent. They are each about 19
years of age. Underwood, about 18 years of age, was assigned to
mending work. Chatmon and Mickins, both young men, operated
extracting machines and were paid by the week. The girls were paid
by the hour.
It was the practice in the plant for applicants for employment to be
interviewed in regard to their qualifications by Mabel Anderson, the
respondent's office manager. After they were hired, Harwell assigned
them to their jobs. There was no foreman or forelady in the plant;
the only supervisory employees were Harwell, the owner, and Mabel
Anderson, the office manager.
Chatmon and Mlckins joined the Union on May 3, 1943.12 On May
5, just after working hours, the three girls met Union Representatives
Calloway and Kilgore on a street corner near the plant and all three
signed application cards for membership in the Union. The employ-
ment relationship of all five was terminated on May 6.
2. Jesse Chatmon
According to Chatmon 's testimony, which we credit , as did the Trial
Examiner , he was on the street talking to Union Representative Kil-
gore on the evening of May 5, about 2 days after he had joined the
Union. Harwell came by in his automobile and, after passing them,
stopped his car. About that time , employee Drewery Murphy, one
of the respondent 's truck drivers, came along in his truck. Harwell
called Murphy over to his car and Murphy got into the front seat with
11 These girls are not related to each other.
"The application cards of both Mickms and Chatmon are so dated. There is some incon-
sistent evidence iri the record as to when these cards were actually signed.
854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Harwell. In a very short time, Murphy got out of Harwell's car, went
over to Chatmon, and told him that Harwell wanted to see him. Both
Murphy and Chatmon then went to Harwell's car; Murphy got into
the front seat with Harwell; Chatmon, at the request of Harwell, got
into the rear set; and the car doors were closed. Harwell then said to
Chatmon, "You are talking to that God damn union man; they are no
good. . . . If you are going to talk to these God damn union
men I don't need you in my place." Harwell then asked Chatmon if
he had signed a union card. When Chatmon replied in the negative,
Harwell said to him :
If you sign one of those cards, God damn you, you are not going
to work at my place; I don't want anyone in the place belonging
to the union; those damn fellows are no damn good. You fellows
all think you are smart. There are a whole lot of things I notice
going on. . . . Ycu God damn fellows, you sign those union
cards and are lying to me about it. . . . If I want a union in my
place I will start one of my own.
Both Harwell and Murphy corroborated the testimony of Chatnion
up to il,e point where Chatmon and Murphy got into the car. Har-
well to : ified that he simply iisked Chatmon if he were coming to work
early the next morning, and denied having said anything about the
Union. Harwell claimed that at the time he talked to Chatmon in
the car he had already made up his mind to discharge Chatmon. Mur-
phy testified that he could not recollect what transpired in the car ex-
cept that Harwell asked Chatmon if he -,-ere coming to work early the
next morning; and that he and Chatinon got out of the car and left.
Like the Trial Examiner, we are of the opinion and find that the testi-
mony of both Harwell and Murphy in regard to what was said in the
car is wholly unreliable. If Harwell only wanted to know whether
or not Chatmon was coming to work early the next morning he could
have secured that information without having Chatmon come over and
sit down in the car. Harwell gave no reasonable explanation as to
why he wanted this information, if he had already decided to discharge
Chatmon. Obviously, Murphy's testimony has no probative value,
since he admittedly did not remember what had occurred. The trial
Examiner did not credit the testimony of either Harwell or Murphy
in respect to this incident, nor do we. Like the Trial Examiner, we
find that Harwell made the statements substantially as testified to by
Chatmon.
The next morning Chatmon went to the plant as usual. Just as
he started to work, Harwell said to him, "Go out front and get your
money." Chatmon's pay envelope had already been made up,'and he
received it immediately 13
'3 These findings are based upon the credible and undenied testimony of Chatmon.
IDEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS 855
Harwell testified that Chatmon was discharged "because I had got
another man to take his place. . . . Well, he was too hard to
handle ; you couldn't get much work out of him and I knew I'd have
to get rid of him or lose my other girls and they were good girls,
good workers, and naturally ..." 14 In respect to Chatmon's alleged
conduct in the plant, Harwell testified that some of the girls "com-
plained a bit" about him, as did Office Manager Anderson, and that
as a result he told Chatmon to stay in the extractor room where his
work was and if be wanted a rest to go outside the plant, where he
would not bother the girls. Mabel Anderson testified that Chatmon
would come into the office between pay days to draw money, would
stand around after she gave it to him, and would "nose into the con-
versation and lean over the counter"; and that when she asked him
what he wanted, he would reply, "Nothing." Laura Preston testified
that about 2 days after Chatmon went to work in the plant, she
noticed that lie was "frisking around" and talking "brigetty" in the
sorting room, and using "cuss words"; and that she reported it to
Harwell on two occasions. She further testified that Chatmon had
never laid his hands on her or on any of the other girls, nor had he
ever attempted to do so. Athlene Stallings testified that the very
first day that Chatmon came to work in the plant she noticed that
"he just walked up, started butting in, talking when you were busy,
and trying to interfere"; that she told Harwell about it after about
3 days; and that Chatmon's conduct continued to be the same all
the time he worked in the plant. Stallings further testified, "If he
was the only person there when I'd report for work of a morning,
I would refuse to go ill there and work with only just him in there."
She did not testify that this had ever occurred 15
It is clear from the record, and we find, that Harwell was not
much perturbed by any complaints he may have received concerning
Chatron's conduct until after he had observed Chatmon talking to
the Union's representative . According to Harwell , he then merely
told Chatmon not to bother the other employees when Chatmon
wanted to rest, and said nothing to Chatmon about any specific com-
plaints. Chatmon denied that Harwell said anything to him at all
about his conduct. Like the Trial Examiner, we credit Chatmon's
testimony. The reasons assigned by Harwell for the discharge of
Chatmon are vague, uncertain, and incredible. Accordingly, we find,
as (lid the Trial Examiner , that Chatmon was not discharged for
such reasons.
1' Counsel for the respondent inters upted the witness at this point and the witness did
not complete his answer
"Harwell testified that he was usually the first one at the plant in the morning, that
Athlene Stallings and other employees went to work at 7 00 to 7 30 a in , and that Chat-
'Mon was not required to be at the plant before 8 00 a in
856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Early Mickins
According to Mickins, prior to his joining the Union on May 3
Harwell asked him if he had signed a union card, and he replied in
the negative; Harwell then said to him, "If you ain't signed it, don't
sign it . . . 'cause if you do sign it, you won't work here any more" ;
on the morning of May 6, Harwell again asked him if he had joined
the Union, and he replied, "Yes"; Harwell then walked away, but
returned in a few minutes and in his presence discharged Chatmon;
he asked Harwell why Harwell had done so; and Harwell replied
that there was no work for employees who joined the Union. Mickins
further testified that he thereupon thought that he, too, was discharged
because he, too, had joined the Union. He therefore asked for his
money, and Harwell at once agreed to pay him off.
The Trial Examiner found that under the circumstances, although
the respondent did not "actually" discharge Mickins, the respondent
by his discriminatory conduct did induce Mickins to resign, and that
the resignation was "tantamount to a discharge." We do'not agree.
Upon the entire record, we are of the opinion that Harwell's conduct
did not justify Mickins in believing, without further inquiry, that he
was discharged. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint with
respect to Mickins.
4. Juanita Scott and Myrtle Scott
According to the credible and uncleniecl testimony of Juanita Scott,
Harwell asked her on May 5 if she had signed a union card. She
replied in the negative. Harwell then told her that she had better
not sign one. That evening, after work, the two Scott girls met two
union representatives on a street corner near the plant and signed
membership application cards. On the next morning, when the Scott
girls arrived at the plant to go to work, Harwell called them into his
office and said to them, "You two girls were with two men on the
corner. Did you-all sign Union cards?" They replied in the affirm-
ative. Harwell then told them to get their hats and go home, and
to come back at noon for their pay. Myrtle Scott said to Harwell,
"We are not the only two who signed." Harwell replied, "Well, we'll
see about that later; go get your hats and go home." 16 Harwell de-
nied having said anything to the Scott girls except that he could not
use them any longer as he had no work for them, and that they could
go to the office and get their pay. As stated above, the Trial Exam-
iner did not consider Harwell a reliable witness, nor did he accept this
denial as true. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Harwell
made the statements substantially as testified to by the Scott girls.
10 These findings are based upon the credible testimony of both Myrtle Scott and Juanita
Scott.
IDEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS 857
Harwell testified that late in the afternoon on the day before the
Scott girls were discharged there was some unsatisfactory work for
which he considered them responsible, and he then decided that they
were "absolutely impossible" and would never do any passable work
"to speak of," and that he would "just have to let them go." How-
ever, neither Athlene Stallings nor Laura Preston, who inspected and
checked the work, testified that she recommended to Harwell that
the Scott girls be discharged.
Mabel Anderson, the respondent's office manager, testified that she
had complained to the respondent and tried to get him to discontinue
the entire department 17 because of the complaints that were coming
in before the Scott girls had started to work, and that after they had
left "it was the same thing."
Harwell further testified that Mabel Anderson, the office manager,
interviewed virtually all the applicants for employment in the plant
in regard to their suitability for the work, and if she thought they
could handle the job they were employed. The record shows that both
of the Scott girls had done hand washing and ironing at home and
were not inexperienced in that work. Presumably Anderson and
Harwell were satisfied at the time that the Scott girls could do the
work; otherwise, they would not have been engaged. Harwell further
testified that after applicants had been interviewed and hired, he
showed them what work to do, and instructed the older employees
working near them to show them how to do the work; and that it was
his policy and practice to give new employees a fair opportunity to
learn the work because if he discharged every employee who did not
make good within a few days or a week lie would not have any organ-
ization at all. He admitted that all the workers, including himself,
made some mistakes in the work.
Employee Laura Preston, a checker in the sorting room, called as a
witness by the respondent, testified on cross-examination that she had
worked in the plant for 6 or 7 years; that she had never known any
new, inexperienced employees to do perfect work for the first few
days; and that they all made mistakes when they first started to work.
Employee Sophie Phillips, called as a witness by the respondent,
testified that she had worked in the plant for 18 or 20 years; that she
had made many mistakes in her work and still made them at the time
of the hearing; that the respondent's other employees also made mis-
takes; that new employees could not be expected to do good work at
first; and that it would take more than 12 months to learn laundering.
Phillips further testified that it was the practice in the plant for the
older employees to help the new employees as much as they could, and
"The depautwent ieferied to handles children's clothes, shirt waists, etc. Tte record
shoos that this department was discontinued about 2 weeks after the Scott girls were
discharged.
858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for new employees to be given more than a week's trial to show what
they could do.
In regard to complaints by customers, the record shows that com-
plaints were not confined to the period during which the Scott girls
were employed. Alabel Anderson, the respondent's office manager,
testified that sometimes complaints "pile up mighty quick and fast,"
and that anybody running a laundry and dry cleaning plant receives
such complaints, and that complaints occurred especially around the
time when the Scott girls were discharged. She further testified that
the respondent had plenty of complaints before the Scott girls were
employed, and continued to receive plenty after they were discharged.
Employee Clyde Cliue, called as a witness by the respondent, testified
that he drove one of the respondent's laundry trucks; that in the course
of his duties he received many complaints from customers; and that
these complaints began to increase about May 15.18 He further testi-
fied, in respect to customers receiving the wrong garments, that it
was the duty of the checkers, Laura Preston and Athlene Stallings, to
see that all work except flat work, such as sheets, towels, pillow cases,
etc., went out properly marked and bundled?
Harwell admitted that Gleniies Cochran, who had worked in the
plant for a year or more, was constantly making mistakes which
caused the respondent considerable expense. However, she was not
discharged. On cross-ei;amination, Harwell was asked why he had
permitted Glennes Cochran to continue working in the plant for a
year, although she was constantly making mistakes, whereas he so
promptly discharged the Scott girls. one oC whom had worked in the
plant only 21/, days and the other 6 days. Harwell replied, "If I'd had
any other job I thought they [the Scott girls] could have done I would
have given it to them, and I'll put them back to work again if I can
find something they can do. I might work those girls a half a dozen
times if I live here long enough."
In view of the conflicting evidence cited above and the failure of
Harwell to substantiate with specific and credible evidence his broad
claim of incompetence, inefficiency, unsatisfactory work, and lack
of interest, we, like the Trial Examiner, find no merit in his contention
that the Scott girls were discharged for such reasons.
5. Lena Underwood
Underwood was with the Scott girls on the evening of May 5 when
they met the two union representatives, and she also signed a mem-
The Scott gals were discharged on May G
There was some testimony that one of the Scott gu is had misplaced the tag on some
socks which she had ironed and that the socks wee delis ci ed to the wrong customer
L-Towevei , the testimony is vague and unconvincing in this respect , as the Trial Examiner
found.
IDEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS 879
bership application card at that time. When Underwood reported
for work on the following morning, May 6, Harwell met her at the
door, told her that he had discharged the Scott girls, and asked her
if she had signed a union card. She answered in the affirmative.
Harwell then told her that he did not have any more work for her,
that she could go home, and that if he should ever need her he would
send for her.20 She has never been offered reinstatement.• At noon
that day Underwood, accompanied by the two Scott girls, returned
to the plant for their pay. They were informed by Mabel Anderson
that their checks were not ready and that they should come back later.
Anderson asked Underwood why she wanted her money. Underwood
replied that Harwell had told her that he had no more work for her
and that she should go home. Anderson admitted that Underwood
was with the Scott girls when they came for their pay at noon, that
she made up the pay of all three of the girls, and that she gave it to
them when they returned to the plant about 2: 00 p. in. that day.
Harwell contended that Underwood was not discharged, but that
she voluntarily quit her job. The record shows that Underwood was
with the Scott girls when they went into the office at noon on May 6 to
get their money, and that she was also with them when they returned
to the plant at 2: 00 p. m. and got their pay. The record further shows
that Mabel Anderson, the office manager, did not question Under-
wood's statement that Harwell had told her that he had no more work
for her and that she could get her money; and that Anderson made up
Underwood's pay envelope at the same time that she made up the pay
for the Scott girls. All three were paid at 2: 00 p. m. on May 6. Mabel
Anderson testified, without contradiction, that it was the practice in
the plant to pay discharged employees just as soon as possible, that
those who were paid by the week were usually paid immediately,
and that it took a little longer time to figure up the pay of those who
were paid by the hour. On the other hand, according to Anderson's
further uncontradicted testimony, employees who voluntarily quit
their jobs were usually paid on the next pay day. Although May 10
was the first pay day after Underwood's termination of employment,
she was paid at once on May 6.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the evidence does not sup-
port Harwell's contention that Underwood voluntarily quit her job.
6. Conclusions in regard to the discharges
The record is clear that Harwell was hostile toward the Union from
the very beginning of the organizational campaign. Both Harwell and
20 These findings are based upon the testimony of Underwood, which w e credit, as did
the Tual Examiner Harwell denied having seen Underwood at all on May 6 The Trial
Examiner did not accept his denial as true , nor do we.
860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mabel Anderson, his office manager, had talked to most of the older
employees in the plant in regard to whether or not they were in favor
of the Union. Harwell told them that they could form their own
organization in the plant if they wanted to organize, and that he would
give them all the assistance he could. Obviously, this was for the
purpose of discouraging membership in the Union. Similarly, Har-
well told the Union's organizers that he was opposed to having the
new employees bring a union into the plant to represent the old em-
ployees; and that if the old employees wanted a union, they could form
it themselves.
The Scott girls were not given a chance to learn the work. Myrtle
Scott was discharged after 21/, days and Juanita Scott after 6 days
in the plant. Their discharges, as well as the discharge of Under-
wood, occurred just after they admitted to Harwell that they had
joined the Union. The mistakes in the work alleged to have been
made by the Scott girls were not unusual or different from the
mistakes currently made by other more experienced employees. On
the evening that Harwell talked to Chatmon in his motor car, after
having seen him talking to a union representative, he asked Chatmon
if he had joined the Union. Although Chatmon denied that he was
a member of the Union, Harwell clearly did not believe him, since
lie told Chatmon that he knew what was going on and that the
"fellows were joining the Union and lying to him about it." Subse-
quent to the discharge of these employees the Union's representatives
unsuccessfully endeavored to have them reinstated by the respondent.
We conclude and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respond-
ent discharged and refused to reinstate Myrtle Scott, Juanita Scott,
Lena Underwood, and Jesse Chatmon, because of their union mem-
bership and activity, thereby discouraging membership in the Union
and interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. T[RE EFFECT OF 1HE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICFS UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order him to cease and desist therefrom
IDEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS 861
and to take certain affirmative action which we find will effectuate
the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent discharged Myrtle Scott,
Juanita Scott, Lena Underwood, and Jesse Chatmon, and thereafter
refused to reinstate them, for the reason that they joined and assisted
a labor organization and engaged in concerted activities for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection.
We shall order that the respondent offer Chatmon immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges.
Inasmuch as Underwood, Myrtle Scott, and Juanita Scott disclaimed
any desire to be reinstated, we shall not order that they be offered
reinstatement.
We shall further order that the respondent make whole Chatmon
for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sun of money
equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages
from the date of his discharge to the (late of his offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings - during said period. The Trial Ex-
aminer recommended that the respondent make Underwood whole
for the loss of pay caused her by the respondent's discrimination.
The respondent excepts to this recommendation on the ground that
Underwood made "no real effort" to secure other employment subse-
quent to her discharge. We find this contention to be meritorious
in part. Underwood testified at the original hearing that she had
tried to "get a job" upon her discharge by the respondent. Ampli-
fying this testimony, she stated at the reopened hearing that, in
addition to trying elsewhere, she had applied for a trailing job with
the National Youth Administration around the end of May 1943, but
that, at some later date not shown in the record, she declined the
training job offered to her because she had to stay at home at that
time with her sick mother. She further testified that after several
efforts to secure other desirable employment, she finally obtained a
"good job" in Huntington, West VTlrginia, on October 18,1943. Upon
the entire record, we find that Underwood is not entitled to receive
back pay from the respondent for any period subsequent to the time
when she declined the position offered her by the National Youth
"By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, mcuried by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not h.ne been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Hatter
of Crossett Lnnnber Company and United Brothci hood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America. Lumber and Sawmill Werhe,s Union, Local 2190, 3 N L I{ B. 440 Monies re-
ceived for work performed upon Fedeial, State, county, municipal, or other work-iehef
projects shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v N L R B.,
311 U S. 7.
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL L'.BOR RELATIONS 130ARD
Administration, or subsequent to Oci ober 18, 1943, whichever date is
earlier. Accordingly, we shall order the respondent to pay Under-
wood a sum of money equal to that which she would normally have
earned as wages from the date of her discharge to the date when
she declined the position offered her by the National Youth Admin-
istration, or to October 18, 1943, whichever date is earlier, less her
net earnings during said period.
The Trial Examiner recommended that the respondent make
Juanita Scott and Myrtle Scott whole for the loss of pay caused
them by the respondent's discrimination. The respondent excepts
to this recommendation on the ground that the two employees made
"no real effort" to secure other employment subsequent to their
discharge. We find merit in this contention. Both employees ad-
mitted at the original hearing that they had not "tried to get a job"
after the respondent discharged them. The Trial Examiner,
although generally crediting their testimony at the original hearing,
found that they were "mistaken" in this respect, in spite of the fact
that they were unable to explain 2 months later at the reopened
hearing why they gave such testimony if it were incorrect. We do
not agree with this latter finding of the Trial Examiner, but on the
contrary find that their testimony at the reopened hearing is not
worthy of credit.22 As we recently held in Mattcr of Ohio Public
Service Company'23 a discriminatorily discharged employee is not
entitled to a back-pay award where he "did not make the kind of
effort to obtain other employment which, under present conditions,
a discharged employee may reasonably be expected to make."
Accordingly, we shall not adopt this recommendation of the Trial
Examiner.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Construction Workers, affiliated with United Mine
Workers of America, is a labor' organization, within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
12 \'r'e are unable to find corroboration for the later testimony of the Scott girls in the
testimony of respondent witness Julius J Johnson, manager of the local broom handle
factory of J W Wescott & Son, that he recalled seeing one of them apply for employment at
the factory on one or maybe two occasions during the summer of 1943, particularly in
view of his further testimony that in all In obability the girls would have been hired if they
had seriously applied as frequently as they claimed to have done
23 52 N. L R. B. 129.
IDEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS 863
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Myrtle Scott, Juanita Scott, Lena Underwood, and Jesse
Chatmon, thereby discouraging membership in United Construction
Workers, affiliated with United Mine Workers of America, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices with
respect to Early Mickins, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and 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,, H. B. Harwell, doing business as Ideal
Laundry and Dry Cleaners, Williamson, West Virginia, and his
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Construction Workers,
affiliated with United Mine Workers of America, or any other labor
organization of his employees, by discharging or refusing to rein-
state any of his employees, or by discriminating in any other manner
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
his employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, 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, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Jesse Chatmon immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Jesse Chatmon for any loss of pay he has suf-
fered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge
to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during such period;
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Make whole Lena Underwood for any loss of pay she has suf-
fered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against her, by
payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount which she
normally would have earned as wages from the date of her discharge
to the date when she declined the position offered her by the National
Youth Administration, or to October 18, 1943, whichever date is
earlier, less her net earnings during such period;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places in and around his
plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive
days from the date of posting, notices to his employees stating: (1)
that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which he
is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this
Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and (3) that
the respondent's employees are free to become and remain members
of United. Construction Workers, affiliated with United Mine Work-
ers of America, or any other labor organization, and that the re-
spondent will not discriminate against any employee because of his
membership or activity in any labor organization;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FIEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the comp laint, insofar as
it alleges that the respondent discriminated against Early Mickins
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.