Jac Feinberg Hosiery Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1940

19 N.L.R.B. 667 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of JAC FEINBERG HOSIERY MILLS, INC. and AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS NORTH CAROLINA DISTRICT'
Cases Nos. C-774 and R-770.Decided January 19, 1940
Hosiery lIia'n'ufacluring Industry-Intetq'ereuee, Restraint, wed Coercion:
hostility to organizational activity of and employee membership in "outside"
union expressed by general manager of respondent in four speeches to em-
ployees and in conversation with individual employees ; shut-down of mill fol-
lowed by removal of legging stock for purpose of intimidating employees-
Company-Dominated Union: formation of, result of respondent's unfair labor
practice of creating fear in the minds of employees and townspeople that
respondent would move mill unless "outside" union was eliminated from plant;
respondent, who by such practice diverts his employees from adherence to one
union to formation of another, interferes with formation of latter-Dtscrimt-
nation: as to tenure of employment ; charges of sustained as to two employees
discharged, one demoted in rank and discharged and one not recalled after
mill reopened because of their union membership and activity ; charges of,
dismissed as to two employees ;Reinstatement Ordered: employees found to
have been discriminated against-Back Pay: awarded-Collective Bargain-
ing: charges of refusal to, dismissed-Investigation of Representatives: con-
troversy concerning representation of employees: refusal to recognize petition-
ing union-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: production and
maintenance employees excluding office and supervisory employees-Election
Ordered: company-dominated union excluded from ballot ; election to be con-
ducted at such time as the Board shall in the future direct. .
Mr. John T. Mahoney and Mr. Marion A. Prowell, for the Board.
Mr. David R. Baer, Carothers and Dickert, by Mr. Edwin
Carothers, of Rock Hill, S. C., and Wilson and Wilson, by Mr. W. B.
Wilson, of Rock Hill, S. C., for the respondent.
Mr. Henry I. Adams, of High Point, N. C., for the Federation.
M , .J. ' M. Blackmon, of Rock Hill, S. C., for Rock Hill Union.
Miss Margaret M. Farmer, of counsel to the Board.
' Incorrectly designated in some of the pleadings as American Federation of Hosiery
Workers. A motion to conform the pleadings to the proof was granted at the close of
the hearing.
19 N. L. It. B., No. 72.
667
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELA'I TONS BOARD
DECISION
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 23, 1937, American Federation of Hosiery Workers,
North Carolina District, herein called the Federation, filed with the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) a petition
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Jac Feinberg Hosiery Mills, Inc.,
Rock Hill, South Carolina, herein called the respondent, and request-
ing an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to
Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. Upon charges and amended charges duly filed
by the Federation, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by the said Regional Director, issued its complaint, dated
December 29, 1937, against the respondent, alleging that the respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
On December 31, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c)
of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an in-
vestigation of the question concerning representation, and authorized
the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for" an appropriate
hearing upon due notice, and, acting pursuant to Article III, Section
10 (c) (2), and Article II, Section 37 (b), of said Rules and Regula-
tions, further ordered that the representation proceeding and the pro-
ceeding in respect to the alleged unfair labor practices be. consolidated
for the purpose of hearing and that one record of the hearing be made.
The complaint and notice of hearing in the consolidated cases was duly
served upon the respondent, upon the Federation, and upon United
Rock Hill Hosiery Employees Union, herein called the Rock Hill
Union.
The complaint alleged in substance (1) that the respondent encour-
aged, fostered, dominated, and interfered with the formation of the
Rock Hill Union, and contributed support to it; (2) that the respond-
ent discouraged membership in the Federation by discharging and
refusing to reinstate 10 named employees 2 for the reason that they
2 Earl Crowe, Helen Ferrell , Basil Funk, D. W. Gilmer, Richard Holyfield, Bernice
Humphries , Clem Montieth, Ella Montleth, Mary Morton, and J. L. Stover. As to Crowe.
the complaint alleges that he was discharged on or about June 17, 1337, was reinstated
on July 1, 1937, and was finally discharged on July 13, 1937.
JAC FEINBERG HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED. 669
joined and assisted the Federation; (3) that the respondent refused to
bargain collectively with the Federation although a majority of the
respondent's employees in an appropriate unit had designated the
Federation as their bargaining representative; and (4) that by tho,
foregoing acts, by addresses to its employees, by closing its plant in
an effort to destroy the self-organization of its employees, and in
other ways, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
On January 10, 1938, the respondent filed a notice that it would
move at the hearing to strike paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint 8 on
the ground that said paragraphs were not based upon a charge in
writing as is required in Article II, Section 3 of the Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 1, as amended.
On January 11, 1938, the respondent filed its answer, in which it
denied that it had caused its manufactured products to be sold and
transported in interstate commerce , denied that it had engaged in and
was engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged, and averred by.
way of affirmative defense that it discharged, refused to reemploy,
or failed to reemploy the employees named in the complaint for cer-
tain specified reasons not connected with their alleged union member-
ship or activity.
On January 13, 1938, the Rock Hill Union filed a motion to inter-
vene in the case involving unfair labor practices. The Regional
Director granted the motion in respect to the issues raised by the alle-
gations of the complaint that the respondent dominated the Rock Hill
Union, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. On January
14, 1938, the Rock Hill . Union filed its answer denying those
allegations.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in the consolidated cases 4
at. Rock Hill , South Carolina, from January 17 to 22, 1938, before
Earl S. Bellmali, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The : Board, the respondent, and the Rock Hill Union were repre-
sented by counsel, the Federation by its representative, and all par-
ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties.
s Paragraph 5 of the complaint alleges that the respondent , by its general manager,
called the employees together on certain occasions and advised , warned, and threatened
them against joining the Federation . Paragraph 6 of the complaint alleges that the
respondent, for the purpose of discouraging and preventing its employees from joining
and assisting the Federation , shut down the leggers on June 16 , 1937, and posted notices
on June 17 , 1937 , that the entire plant would close and be closed indefinitely.
* The Trial Examiner closed the hearing in the case involving unfair labor practices,
and immediately thereafter held a hearing in the case based upon the Union's petition for
certification of representatives . we shall, however , consider the pleadings , exhibits, and
transcripts in both cases as constituting a single record in the consolidated cases, in
accordance with the provisions of the Order of Consolidation.
0
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner denied a mo-
tion of the respondent to strike paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint.5
At the close of the Board's case, upon motion of counsel for the
Board, the Trial Examiner dismissed without prejudice the allega-
tions of the complaint that the respondent had discharged and refused
to reemploy Helen Ferrell, Clem Montieth, Ella Montieth, and Ber-
nice Humphreys. The Trial Examiner also granted a motion of
counsel for the Board to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof
and a motion by counsel for the respondent to conform the answer
to the proof.
On July 2, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which he found
that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
-commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the re-
spondent cease and desist from engaging in said unfair labor practices,
that it reinstate to their former positions with back pay Earl Crowe,
Richard Holyfield, D. W. Gilmer, Basil Funk, and L. J. Stover; and
that it withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish the
Rock Hill Union as a representative of any of the respondent's em-
ployees. The Trial Examiner further found the evidence insufficient
to support the allegations of the complaint relative to the first dis-
charge of Earl Crowe on June 13, 1937, the discharge of Mary Mor-
ton, and the respondent's refusal to bargain with the Federation, and
recommended that the allegations in respect to said discharges and
refusal to bargain be dismissed. On July 28, 1938, the Rock:..Hill
Union and the respondent, respectively, filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and requested the opportunity for oral argument
before the Board.
On October 19, 1938, the Board ordered that the Federation be
permitted to file with the Board in Washington amended charges of
unfair labor parctices; that the record be opened for further pro-
ceedings; and that the Regional Director be authorized to issue an
amended complaint and to serve notice of further hearing thereon.
Upon amended charges thereafter duly filed by the Federation, the
Board, by the Regional Director, issued an amended complaintdated
March 7, 1939, against the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The newly filed amended charges
and paragraphs 5 and 6 of the amended complaint alleged that the
actions of the respondent described in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the
See footnote 3, supra.
JAC FEINBERG HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED 671
original complaint 6 constituted. unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. The amended complaint and
accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respond-
ent, the Federation, and the Rock Hill Union.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Rock Hill, South Carolina
on March 16, 1939, before Edward G. Smith, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel, and the Federation by its representative.
Counsel for the Board introduced into the record a stipulation entered
into by and between the, attorney for the Board, the respondent,
the Federation, and the Rock Hill Union, which provided in sub-
stance (1) that no testimony or exhibits other than the stipulation,
the amended complaint, the third amended charge and the above-
mentioned order of the Board of October 19, 1938, should be intro-
duced at the hearing; that the entire record should consist of all the
testimony and the exhibits filed at the hearing of January 12 to 22,
1938, the instant stipulation and the documents filed pursuant thereto;
that the Intermediate Report filed on July 2, 1938, and the exceptions
thereto filed by the respondent on July 28, 1938, should be deemed the
Intermediate Report of the entire proceedings and exceptions thereto;
that the third amended charge and the amended complaint should be
substituted for all prior charges and the complaint; and that the
respondent withdraw its motion to strike paragraphs 5 and 6 of the
complaint and those portions of its answer which refer to said motion.
Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, the third amended charge
and the amended complaint were introduced into evidence. The Trial
Examiner granted the motion of counsel for the Board that the
stipulation be copied into the record, and also granted a motion made
by the respondent that it be permitted to withdraw its motion, made
at the first hearing, to strike paragraphs 5 and 6 of the original com-
plaint,? that the portions of paragraphs 5 and 6 of its answer which
referred to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the original complaint be stricken
from the record, and that its answer as so amended be considered as
its answer to the amended complaint.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiners at both
hearings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
On June 6, 1939, pursuant to notice served on the respondent, the
Federation, and the Rock Hill Union, a hearing was held before the
Board in Washington for the. purpose of oral argument. The
respondent appeared by counsel and presented argument.
6 See footnote 3, supra.
+ See footnote 3, Supra.
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has considered the exceptions of the respondent and of
the Rock Hill Union and, save as they are consistent with the findings,
conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
.I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Jac Feinberg Hosiery Mills, Inc., a South Carolina corporation
with its only mill at Rock Hill, South Carolina," is engaged in the
manufacture of full-fashioned silk hosiery on contract for Jac Fein-
berg & Sons, Inc., of New York City. This latter concern purchases
and causes to be delivered to the respondent's mill from outside the
State of South Carolina all the raw material, consisting of cotton and
thrown silk, used by the respondent in the manufacture of its product.
The New York concern also purchases the entire output of the re-
spondent in the "gray" stage of manufacture, causes it to be delivered
from the respondent's mill to its own place of business in New York
City and sends it thence to mills other than the mill of the respondent
to be finished. The respondent uses annually in the manufacture of
its product approximately 80,000 pounds of thrown silk, of the esti-
mated value of $225,000, and approximately 10,000 pounds of cotton
of the estimated value of $10,000. It manufactures annually between
130,000 and 135,000 dozen pairs of hose. The value of the labor and
overhead supplied by the respondent in the manufacture of these hose
is approximately $275,000.
The respondent employs about 200 employees.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
American Federation of Hosiery Workers, North Carolina District,
is a labor organization formerly affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor and affiliated since March 1937, with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, herein called the C. I. O. It admits to
membership production and maintenance employees in the hosiery
industry.
United Rock Hill Hosiery Employees Union is an unaffiliated labor
organization admitting to membership production and maintenance
employees of the respondent.
8 The officers of the respondent , with the exception of David R . Baer , the general man-
ager, live and maintain an office in New York City . However , Baer testified that the
corporation was domiciled only in South Carolina.
JAC FEINBERG HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED 673
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Late in April 1937, the Federation renewed an attempt, begun and
abandoned in 1934,9 to organize the employees of the respondent. On
the evening of April 28, 1937, a meeting was held at which a number.
of employees joined the. organization. On the morning of April 29
David R. Baer, the general manager of the respondent, invited two
employees with whom he was on friendly terms to ride with him in
his car and questioned them closely concerning the recent arrival in
town of a Federation organizer, and the details of the Federation meet-
ing of the preceding evening. One of the employees thus questioned,
D. R. Hamilton, had been a leader of employee opposition to the Fed-
eration in 1934; the second, Earl Crowe, had joined the Federation,
the preceding evening and was shortly to become a leader of the Fed-
eration's membership drive within the mill. According to Crowe,
Baer's attitude toward the Federation was at this time friendly.
Several days later, however, Baer's attitude had changed to one of
hostility and he sharply rebuked Crowe for representing him as being
unopposed to mill employees joining the Federation, warning Crowe
that if he did not stop "misquoting" Baer, he would find it necessary
to call Crowe a liar.
The unionization of the respondent's employees by the Federation
progressed rapidly during the six weeks between the first of May and
the middle of June. It was strongly opposed, however, by the
respondent and by a group of employees, herein called the anti-
Federation group, who were hostile to the introduction of an "out-
side" union into the mill. The feeling between the Federation and
anti-Federation groups became so intense that certain employees ob-
jected to working on machines with members of the opposing group,
and production, especially on the footing machines, declined. Some-
time early in May, probably about May 6, and again a few days later,
Baer entered the controversy by calling all the employees of the mill
together between shifts and addressing them on the subject of union
activity. In his two addresses Baer called attention to the drive then
being conducted in that territory by "a certain: organization," re-
minded them that a controversy was going on between "two organi-
zations," the names of which he stated his hearers would know from
9 During the year 1934 the Federation , at that time affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor , attempted , with some measure of success to organize the employees of the
respondent . This attempt was terminated , however, at the time of the United Textile
workers' strike in September 1934. Although the Federation thereafter maintained its
contact with a few individual employees , organizational work was not renewed until April
1937.
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reading the newspapers, and expressed the opinion that it would not
benefit them to ally themselves with either of the opposing groups
because each sent the money collected by it out of the State. He
quoted an unidentified individual as having stated that during a pre-
ceding strike at the mill "the employees had nothing to eat but
pinto beans" and cautioned his hearers to see to it that they "did not
have to eat pinto beans again." He advised them that "anyone
could get out of the C. I. 0. by tearing up his membership card."
After the delivery of these two addresses, the Federation organizer
called upon Baer, demanded that he cease such activity, threatened
to file with the Board charges that the respondent was engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, and insisted
that the respondent post upon the bulletin board at the mill a copy
of Section 7 of the Act. Baer admitted at-the hearing that he was
antagonistic in his attitude toward the Federation organizer during
the conference , and that he had "overstepped himself a little" in his
remarks to his employees. He eventually agreed to post a copy of
the Act upon the bulletin board. Several.weeks after this episode,
probably the first week in June, Baer again called his employees
together. He announced that he had decided to increase their wages
and that no employee would be required or permitted thereafter to
work more than 8 hours per day. He advised his hearers that these
benefits were in no way attributable to the presence of the Federation
in the mill. At the hearing Baer explained that these innovations
were designed "to give all of the employees a little more encourage-
ment and show them that we were trying to cooperate at least, and
that we would appreciate a little more cooperation on their part."
About the middle of June Baer again called his employees together
and addressed them, this time on the subject of the Act. Witnesses
testified that he announced that he was "tired of putting up with
what he had been in the past" and that "there was going to be a few
changes made around here"; that he asserted that he did not care
what union his employees joined and that he would "abide by the
Act although some of you (the employees) will starve." They also
testified that his remarks were made in evident anger and that at
their termination he forcefully threw down upon the silk V cabinet
beside him a copy of the Act which lie had taken from the bulletin
board and which he held in his hand. Baer did not deny the truth
of this testimony in regard to either the content or the manner of
delivery of his address.
We find that Baer, by his four addresses, impressed upon the minds
of the employees the respondent's active opposition and hostility to
the presence and activity of the Federation within the mill.
JAC FEINBERG HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED 675
Baer did not confine himself wholly to public expressions of anti-
Federation sentiment during this period. In May Beatrice Watter-
son, an employee, asked Baer for a loan. Baer inquired whether she
was a member of the Federation, and upon hearing that she was a.
member, advised her to attempt to borrow money from that organiza-
tion. When Watterson asked if "there was any way to get the money
out of the Company," Baer replied that it was a simple matter; all
she had to do was to tear up her Federation membership card. That
Watterson later received the requested loan without destroying her
card does not alter the fact that Baer's remarks further indicated the
respondent's hostility to the Federation and served to discourage
membership in that organization.
At least one incident during this period shows a fear among cer-
tain employees that the mill.would close. About June 13 Pearl-Wall,
an employee, who was a sister of the only office employee at the mill
and who was described as being "very, influential" among the. em-
ployees, initiated an angry altercation with Earl Crowe in which
she asserted that if Crowe did not stop his union activity,. the re-
spondent would close the mill and move it elsewhere. This, incident,
which resulted in the dismissal upon the following day of both Crowe
and Wall, caused much comment among the employees.
On June 16, several days after the delivery of the fourth of Baer's
addresses, detailed above, Baer shut down the legging machines and
on June 17 posted a notice to the effect that the mill would be closed
indefinitely.
On June 18, immediately after the mill had closed, the respondent
gave impetus to the rumors that the mill would be moved elsewhere
by removing by truck its entire surplus stock of stocking legs with
the extra silk necessary to foot them. The respondent's action alarmed
(lie anti-Federation employees and also the citizens of Rock Hill, many
of whom, by reason of their ownership of bonds issued against the
mill building and property, had a direct financial interest in the con-
tinued operation of the respondent's business at Rock Hill, in addition
to the usual interest which residents of communities of this kind have
in the maintenance of the "pay roll" of industries located there. Both
groups moved at once to persuade the respondent to resume opera-
tions. On the following day, Saturday, June 19, the respondent re-
ceived from leaders of the anti-Federation group of employees a
back-to-work petition containing many signatures of employees, and
from the president of the Chamber of Commerce of Rock Hill a letter
stating that certain of its members wished to know of ways in which
they could help in reopening the mill. Upon receipt of these two
communications the respondent immediately decided to reopen the
mill on Monday, June 21, and published a notice of its decision in a
676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
newspaper. However, on the following day the respondent was per-
suaded by a Labor Conciliator from the Department of Labor, whose
services had been requested by the Federation, to postpone the resump-
tion of the mill operations until certain grievances of the Federation
could be presented to and considered by the respondent. Operations
were finally resumed on June 23 pursuant to an agreement between
the respondent and the Federation by which the respondent granted
certain demands made by the Federation regarding the reinstatement
of an employee, the wages of learners and other matters.
Baer contended at the hearing that the shut-down of the leggers
on June 16 was caused by a lag in production in the footing depart-
ment and was ordered so that the footers might have a chance to reduce
the surplus leg stock. He explained that the shut-down of June 17
was "in order to find some solution to my problem, get the inventory
down, and start with a clean slate after that." Baer admitted that the
disparity in production between the legging and footing departments
arose solely from "labor trouble" incident to the Federation activity
within the mill.
We are convinced by the respondent's hostility toward the Federa-
tion, as evidenced by Baer, by the circumstances surrounding the
shut-down of the mill, and by the alacrity with which the respondent
agreed to resume operations at the request of avowed opponents of
the Federation among the employees and at the request of the local
Chamber of Commerce, that the respondent never intended to remove
or permanently to discontinue its operations; we believe that it shut
its mill in order to intimidate its employees, both directly, through
fear of job loss, and indirectly, through pressure from townspeople
who believed their financial interest to be at stake, to abandon the
Federation.
We find that the respondent (1) by Baer's four speeches to the
employees and his remarks to Watterson, and (2) by closing its mills,
shipping its surplus leg stock from the mill and thereby pretending
to discontinue local production, interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
B. Domination o l the Rook Hill Union
On Saturday, June 19, as we have stated, certain citizens of Rock
Hill, through the Chamber of Commerce; inquired of the respondent
whether they could do anything to aid the reopening of the mill. Baer
testified, regarding the inquiry, "we agreed to this against our better
judgment." The only reasonable interpretation of which Baer's tes-
timony is susceptible in the light of subsequent events is that the
citizens offered their assistance in combatting the Federation, and that
the respondent. accepted the offer. On the following day, in any
JAC FEINBERG HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED 677
event, L. W. Johnson, a prominent citizen of Rock Hill, spoke to
Josephine Steele, a mill employee of his acquaintance, concerning the
"C. I. 0." Johnson was opposed to the "C. I. 0.," believed that an
"outside" union could not understand the needs of mill employees in
Rock Hill, and knew that Steele shared his views. Johnson expressed
the opinion to Steele that the anti-Federation group within the mill
had as much right to their opinions as had the Federation group and
stated that he did not see why the anti-Federation group did not
"stand up" for their rights. Steele testified that she did not interpret
Johnson's remarks as a suggestion that the anti-Federation group form
an organization, but that she nevertheless pondered the problem of
the growing strength of the Federation for several days and on Thurs-
clay, June 24, questioned Johnson concerning the legal possibility of
organizing an independent union among the mill employees. Johnson
referred her to J. M. Blackmon, a Rock Hill attorney of their ac-
quaintance, whom Steele consulted. Blackmon evinced much interest
in the formation of an "inside" union within the mill. He considered
the project desirable for both the employees and the town of Rock
Hill, and offered to contribute his services to such a project as a
"civic enterprise" in the event the proposed organization should not
be able to reimburse him. He assumed the role of prime mover and
organizer of the new group, and under his active guidance it achieved
a mushroom growth. Steele enlisted the aid of Gertrude Chastain,
it leader of the anti-Federation group of employees who, during the
shut-down, had initiated and circulated the back-to-work petition
mentioned above. The organization of the new group went rapidly
forward. On Jude 26, 2 days after Steele's first conference with
Blackmon, a meeting for mill employees was held in the Chamber of
Commerce Hall, a meeting place secured by Blackmon. The meeting
was presided over by Blackmon and Chastain. After Chastain had
explained that the purpose of the meeting was the formation of a
union of hosiery employees, Blackmon stated that any group of
employees had the legal right to form a union and presented for the
consideration of those present a set of bylaws drafted by himself.
The group decided to form a labor organization to be called the
United Rock Hill Hosiery Employees Union, and elected temporary
officers, including as president, D. R. Hamilton,10 who had expressed
vigorous and open opposition to the Federation since its first appear-
ance in the mill in 1934; as secretary, Chastain; and as treasurer,
Steele. At i meeting held one week later, the proposed bylaws were
adopted and the temporary officers were made permanent officers.
10 Hamilton had been the organizer and chairman of the Helping Hand Club , a beneficial
organization formed with the aid and approval of the respondent during or immediately
following the organizational activity of the Federation at the mill in 1934.
253030-41-vol. 19--44
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Blackmon took an active part in the solicitation of members for
the organization. He wrote individual letters to at least two em-
ployees on his office stationery requesting interviews with them in
order that he might persuade them to join the Rock Hill Union.
Various petitions which were circulated by the members of the organ-
ization were prepared by him or with his aid, and after circulation
were handed to him for his disposition. The testimony of Chastain,
as well as other evidence, shows that the primary object of the Rock
Hill Union was the termination of the unrest in the mill, incident to
the Federation organizational activity, by the elimination of the
Federation from the mill. The back-to-work petition, circulated dur-
ing the shut-down, was based upon the belief that this "unrest" had
caused the shut-down, the fear that the mill would not reopen, and
the feeling that it was necessary that the respondent be advised that
a large number of employees were satisfied with their working condi-
tions. The problem of "labor difficulties" at the mill remained un-
solved after the resumption of operations on June 23. That it was
to the elimination of this problem that Blackmon and the anti-Fed-
eration leaders primarily addressed themselves in the formation, of
the Rock Hill Union is shown by the testimony of Chastain that "so
far as the management was concerned, we were satisfied, but we were
not satisfied with the unrest the C. I. 0. had created over in our
plant."
After the organization of the Rock Hill Union, Blackmon and a
duly elected committee twice demanded of the respondent, and were
twice refused, recognition as a bargaining agent for the mill em-
ployees. . Although the respondent did not finally refuse . recogni-
tion, no attempt to bargain took place after August 11, 1937, and the
minutes of the organization, submitted in evidence, show that no
meeting was held after August 28, 1937,
A consideration of the events preceding the formation of the Rock
Hill Union convinces us that the organization arose, not as a result
of the free expression of the desires of the employees, but as a result
of the fear, created by the respondent in both townspeople and em-
ployees before and during the shut-down of the mill, that the respond-
ent would remove its business from Rock Hill unless some way could
be found to terminate the organizational activity of the Federation
among its employees. We have elsewhere held that an employer
whose unfair labor practices divert his employees from adherence
to one union to the formation of another has interfered with the
formation of the latter.' In the instant case, the respondent's unfair
1 Matter of Texas Mining and Smelting Company and International Union of Mine, Mill
and Smelter Workers, Local No. 412, 13 N. L. R. B. 1163: see also Matter of Crawford
Manafacturing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 8 N. L. R. B. 1237;
Matter of Coldwell Lawnmower Company and International Association of Machinists,
Lodge No. 757, afliated with the American Federation of Labor, 1 4 N. L. R. B. 38.
JAC FEINBERG HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED 679
labor practices directed against the Federation provided the impetus
for the formation of the Rock Hill Union.
Upon the entire record, we find that the respondent dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of the Rock
Hill Union and contributed support to it; that it thereby interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The discharges
Earl Crowe was first employed by the respondent for a few months
in 1934. He was a skillful knitter and in 1935 reentered the re-
spondent's employment at the request of a supervisory employee.
Crowe joined the Federation at its first meeting for mill employees
held on April 28, 1937, and immediately began the active solicitation
of other employees for membership in the organization. There is
no evidence that Crowe pursued his union activity during working
hours at the mill. There is evidence, however, that his activity,
wherever pursued, caused an abrupt change in Baer's attitude toward
him which until that time had been friendly. We have related that
after Crowe joined the Federation, Baer rebuked him sharply for
misrepresenting Baer's attitude concerning Federation organizational
activities among the employees. On that occasion Baer accused
Crowe of being "a snake."
Crowe became a leader of the Federation's organizing drive and
personally persuaded 50 or 60 mill employees to join. He served
on the grievance committee of the Federation and prior to his
discharge in July 1937, twice interviewed Baer in this capacity.
It will be recalled that about the middle of June, during a period
of intense opposition between the Federation and anti-Federation
groups in the mill, Crowe and Pearl Wall, of the anti-Federation
group, engaged in a heated altercation in the mill yard after work-
ing hours concerning the merits of the Federation and Crowe's part
in its activity. The following morning Scott, assistant manager at
the mill, discharged both Crowe and Wall. We find that upon this
occasion, the respondent dismissed both disputants for purely dis-
ciplinary reasons and that in so doing it did not discriminate against
Crowe because of his union membership and activity.
Crowe was reemployed by the respondent on July 1, after pro-
tracted negotations with a Federation representative. During his
several weeks of unemployment between his first discharge and his
reemployment, he continued unabated his union activities. On June
18, during the shut-down of the plant, he and Richard Holyfield,
an employee named in the complaint, led a group of Federation
sympathizers, who had gathered in the mill yard, in an attempt to
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dissuade a truck driver from hauling goods away from the mill by
informing him that there' was labor trouble at the mill and that
the employees had been locked out. Baer called upon the. sheriff,
who disbanded the group.
Crowe and Holyfield were also leaders of a group of Federation
members who attempted to prevent the formation of the Rock Hill
Union by creating a disturbance at its meetings and in other ways.
As a result of this activity, Blackmon, attorney who aided the for-
mation of the Rock Hill Union, caused their arrest on Monday
morning, July 12. They were retained in the county jail all day
Monday and until Tuesday morning.
Upon their return to work, immediately upon their release from
jail, Crowe and Holyfield were summarily discharged by the re-
spondent. Crowe was handed his final check by Scott, the assistant
manager, and informed that the "mill was not a kindergarten."
Scott testified that the immediate cause of Crowe's discharge was
his arrest by officers of the law, that the respondent was concerned
not, with a loss of production due to Crowe's . absence during his
incarceration, 12 but with the effect of his arrest upon other mill em-
ployees. Scott testified further that his recommendation to Baer
that Crowe be discharged and Baer's acceptance of the recommenda-
tion were based upon the belief that Crowe was "a disturbing
influence in the mill." Except in so far as his union activities might
so be characterized, Crowe is not shown to have exercised a disturbing
influence in the mill. We do not believe that his arrest, alone,
caused the respondent to dispense with his services. We find that
the respondent discharged Crowe because of his membership and
activity in the Federation.
At the time of the hearing Crowe had not found other permanent
employment. He desires reinstatement.
Richard Holy fiield was employed by the respondent in May 1937.
He was a member of the Federation and became, soon after his
arrival at the plant, a leader in the active solicitation of members
for the organization. He kept a. supply of application cards for
membership in the Federation in plain view on the end of his tool
box during working hours and distributed them whenever possible
until he was ordered by Baer to remove them from mill property.
Holyfield was the friend and constant companion of Crowe. He
testified that he devoted most of his time outside his working hours
to union activity. During the shut-down of the mill, he shared
with Crowe the leadership of the group which tried to dissuade a
truck driver from removing material from the mill; he accompanied
Crowe to the meetings of the Rock Hill Union mentioned above;
' Crowe' s machine was not idle during his absence.
JAC FEINBERG HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED 681
he was arrested with Crowe on the morning of July 12 for allegedly
spying upon a Rock Hill Union meeting, was released from jail
when Crowe was released, and returned with him to the mill. He,
together with Crowe, was discharged on July 13, 1937, by Scott
without explanation.
The respondent contends that Holyfield's discharge was due to the
fact that his rate of production was below the average attained by
other knitters. Holyfield admitted at the hearing that his rate of
production was low and ascribed it to the fact that he had inexpe-
rienced toppers 1,1 and an old machine. Statistical data, submitted by
the respondent, showing the rate of production of various knitters
and toppers on several machines show that Holyfield's production
on more than one machine during the period between May 29 and
July 9 with both experienced and inexperienced toppers was below
that obtained by other knitters.
We cannot believe, however, that Holyfield's low rate of production
was the cause of his discharge on July 13. Although the respond-
ent had originally employed him as a spare knitter,'4 he had been
regularly assigned to a machine and had been working continuously
thereon for a, period of 6 weeks prior to his discharge. The respond-
ent had never criticized his work and had not warned him that it
was considered unsatisfactory. On the other hand, Holyfield's dis-
charge was accomplished at the same time and apparently under the
same circumstances as that of Crowe, his close friend and co-leader
in the Federation activity among the mill employees. We find that
the respondent discharged Holyfield on July 13 because of his mem-
bership in and activity on behalf of the Federation.
Between the date of his discharge and the date of the hearing,
Holyfield had earned approximately $120.30. He desires reinstate-
ment.
Basil Funk was employed by the respondent in November 1936, as
a machine cleaner. He joined the Federation early in May and
was openly active in its behalf. He kept application cards for
membership in the organization in his pocket in plain view during
working hours and persuaded 20 or 25 employees to join the or-
ganization. He freely talked to the Federation organizer on the
mill property. We are satisfied and we find that the respondent
knew of Funk's union activity.
Funk began learning to operate a legging machine in his spare
time soon after his arrival at the mill and in April 1937 was placed
.upon a legging machine as an operator. During April he operated
' The crew of a footing machine, such as that upon which EIolyfield was employed, con-
sists of a footer and three toppers. The machine cannot be operated without a full crew.
14A spare knitter works irregularly on various machines when the knitters regularly
assigned to those machines are absent.
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the machine of a legger who was ill. In May and the early part of
June he "split production" 15 on a machine with another operator.
During the shut-down of the mill in June, Funk's machine was dis-
mantled. When hee returned to work on Juhe 23, he was demoted
to the role of learner and assigned to the task of helping knitters
throughout the mill. The respondent had agreed with the Fed-
eration during the conference preceding the reopening of the mill
that it would raise the wages of learners from one dollar per week
to eight dollars per week and had anounced that it would be neces-
sary to discharge many ]earners in order that its total pay roll might
not be increased by this provision of its agreement. On June 26,
in accordance with this announcement, it discharged seven learners.
Funk was chosen as a member of this group and discharged with
them although he was senior to many learners in the mill in point of
service and although he had been promoted from the class of learners
and had been working as a knitter for several months prior to the
shut-down. The Federation contends that the respondent discharged
Funk solely because of his union membership and activity, and that
his demotion to the class of learner on June 23 was accomplished
in order that it might discharge him as a member of a group of
learners, to the discharge of which the Federation had agreed,
rather than as an individual knitter.
The respondent contends that Funk was not considered a knitter
at any time during his employment. Scott stated that Funk was
given an old machine to operate in April, and, when his production
proved to be below the standard required, was placed on a machine
as a learner with another operator. This contention is not sup-
ported by the record. That he was considered a knitter and not a
learner during the period from April until the middle of June is
evidenced by the fact that he was given full responsibility for a
machine during part of this period and by the fact that during the
entire period he was paid on a piece-work basis at the rate accorded
knitters. Learners were paid on a. time basis during this period.
The respondent has presented no data which would enable us to com-
pare Funk's production with others in his class. However, Funk
was not warned that his production was so low that it endangered
his status as a knitter and there is no evidence that the respondent
so considered it prior to the shut-down of the mill. The respondent
also maintained that Funk's conduct was unsatisfactory in that he
did not stay at his machine. However, since the respondent ad-
mitted that no employee had ever been discharged for leaving his
machine, we do not believe that his conduct in this respect con-
tributed to Funk's demotion and discharge. The operator with whom
1a Each operator was paid for half the production of the machine.
J AC FEIN BERG HOSIERY -MILLS, INCORPORATED 683
Funk was "splitting production" prior to the shut-down of the mill
was neither demoted nor discharged. Under these circumstances
we believe that reasons other than those advanced by the respondent
motivated the demotion of Funk to the position of learner and his
discharge, and that the respondent demoted Funk to the position of
learner in order that it might subsequently discharge him, not as
an individual knitter, but as one of a group of seven learners.
In the light of all the evidence we find that the true reason under-
lying the demotion and discharge of Funk lay in his activity in
behalf of the Federation.
At the time of the hearing, Funk had not obtained employment.
He desires reinstatement.
D. W. Gibne?' was employed by the respondent as it spare knitter
in May 1937. He joined the Federation sometime in June. He
was active in the solicitation of members for the organization and
during the shut-down of the mill shared with Crowe and Holyfield
the leadership of the group which tried to dissuade a truck driver
from removing material from the mill.
When Gilmer returned to the mill after the shut-down, he was
informed that there was a lack of toppers, due to the fact that
certain toppers had not reported for work, and that therefore he
could not be assigned to a machine."' Gilmer secured two toppers
in the town but the respondent stated that they were not acceptable
and refused to employ them. Between June 23 and July 9 Gilmer
reported to the mill twice daily in the hope that he would be as-
signed to a machine, and upon two occasions during this period was
given a clay's employment as substitute for an absent knitter. On
July 9 Gilmer, on the advice of Scott, the assistant general manager
of the respondent, drew his final pay check and prepared to return
to his home. Scott promised that he would notify Gilmer if it
became possible to assign him to a machine and Gilmer left his
address with Scott.
On the evening of July 9 Gilmer accompanied Crowe and Holy-
field in their attempt to prevent the formation of the Rock Hill
Union. Immediately after this incident he left Rock Hill. He has
at all times . since that time been available for reemployment.
Although the respondent has known how to reach Gilmer it has not
recalled him. Gilmer desires reinstatement.
In its answer the respondent stated that it did not discharge
Gilmer, and that it would recall him when work for him becomes
available. Scott stated at the hearing that the respondent had not
recalled Gilmer because of a, lack of toppers. He admitted, how-
16 A footing machine, such as Gilmer was operating prior to tb e shut-down , requires the
attention of a crew of a knitter and three toppers.
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ever, that the respondent had employed new footers between July 9
and the time of the hearing and, that one or two of these footers
had not brought their own toppers. Since a footer cannot work
without toppers, it is apparent that toppers were available in the
plant or were employed by the respondent upon at least one or two
occasions during this period. The respondent did not explain why
it did not recall Gilmer rather than employ a new footer upon one
of these occasions. Under these circumstances we are unable to
accept the respondent's contention that lack of toppers prevented
it from recalling Gilmer prior to the hearing or to credit its protes-
tations of its intentions to employ Gilmer when work becomes
available.
We find that between July 9, 1937, and the time of the hearing
the respondent failed to recall Gilmer to employment because of his
membership in and activity on behalf of the Federation.
L. J. Stover was employed by the respondent in July 1936 as an
electrician and general handy man. He was engaged in the installa-
tion of new electrical equipment from November 1936 until its com-
pletion immediately prior to his discharge on August 14, 1937. He
was told at the time of his discharge that he would be recalled if his
services were again required by the respondent. The record shows
that since Stover's discharge the electrical work necessary to the
maintenance of the machines, and other work also done by him, such
as the care of the silk and the boxing of the stock for the purpose
of shipping, has been assumed by shift foremen. No employee has
been hired to replace Stover.
Stover joined the Federation in June 1937 and solicited members
for the organization. It does not appear that he was unusually
active in union affairs. We find that Stover was discharged because
of the termination of the work upon which he was principally en-
gaged, and not because of his union membership and activity.
Mary Morton was employed by the respondent in June 1933 and
at the time of her discharge on August 13, 1937, was an inspector.
The evidence shows that her production was low and that her inspec-
tions had been carelessly made. The Trial Examiner recommended
that the complaint as to Morton be dismissed and the Federation
did not except to the recommendation. We find that Mary Morton
was discharged on August 13, 1937, because of unsatisfactory work
and not because of her union membership and activity, and we shall
dismiss the complaint as to her.
We find that the respondent, by demoting Basil Funk on June 23,
1937, and discharging him on June 26, 1937; by discharging Earle
Crowe, and Richard Holyfield on July 13, 1937; and by failing to
recall D. W. Gilmer to employment between July 9, 1937, and the
JAC FEINBERG HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED 685
time of the hearing, discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment, discouraged membership in the Federation, and
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. The alleged refusal to bargain collectively
In his Intermediate Report, Trial Examiner Bellman - found that.
the respondent had not refused to bargain collectively, and recom-
mended dismissal of the allegation of the complaint that it had done
so. His conclusion was based upon a finding that a majority of the
respondent's employees in an appropriate unit were not shown to
have designated the Federation as their bargaining agent. We agree
with the finding of the Trial Examiner both as to runt 17 and as to
majority designation. No exceptions were filed to the findings and
recommendation in question. We shall dismiss the complaint in so
far as it alleges that the respondent refused to bargain collectively
within the meaning of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We And that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent. described in' Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and with foreign countries, 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 it to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act by restoring as nearly as possible the situation that existed
prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices.
We have found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged
Earl Crowe and Richard Holyfield on July 13, 1937, and discrimina-
torily demoted Basil Funk to the position of learner on June 23,
1937, and discharged him on June 26, 1937.
We shall order the respondent to offer each of said employees im-
mediate and full reinstatement to his former position, without loss
of his seniority or other rights and privileges and to make him
whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the respond-
ent's discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum equal
17 Our determination as to the appropriate unit in Section VIII, below, corresponds with
that of the Trial Examiner.
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the amount he would normally have earned as wages from the
date of such discrimination to the date of such offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings 18 during said period.
The net earnings of Basil Funk shall be computed to include the
difference between the compensation received by him as learner dur-
ing the period from June 23, 1937, to his discharge on June 26, 1937,
and the compensation he would normally have received during that
period had he been reinstated on June 23 to the position of knitter
held by him on June 17, 1937.
We have also found that the respondent discriminatorily failed to
recall D. W. Ginner to employment between July 9, 1937, and the
time of the hearing. We shall order the respondent to offer Ginner
immediate and full reinstatenieut to the position held by him prior
to the shut-down of June 17 to 23, 1937, or to a substantially equiva-
lent position, without loss of his seniority and other rights and privi-
leges and to make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by payment
to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally
have earned as wages from the date on which the respondent first,
after July 9, 1937, employed a footer who did not furnish. his own
toppers to the date of such offer of reinstatement, less his net earn-
ings during such period.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and 'interfered
with the formation and administration of the Rock Hill Union. Rec-
ognition by the respondent of the Rock Hill Union will render im-
possible the free choice by the employees of a representative for
collective bargaining. Accordingly, in order to effectuate the policies
of the Act, we will order the respondent to refuse to recognize the
Rock Hill Union as the representative of any of the respondent's
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining.
VI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
At various times between June and December, 1937, the Federation,
claiming that it,represented a majority of the respondent's employees,
requested the respondent to negotiate a collective bargaining agree-
ment with it. In its answer, the respondent admitted that it refused
"By "net earnings" Is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for unlawful dis-
charge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter of
Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber and Sawnliil Workers Union , Local 2590, 8 N . L. R. B. 440. Monies received for work
performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work-relief projects are not
considered as earnings , but, as provided below in the Order , shall be deducted from the
sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate fiscal
agency of the Federal, State , county , municipal , or oti er government or governments which
supplied the funds for said work -relief projects.
JAC FEINBERG HOSIERY MILLS, 11 CORPORATED 687
to bargain collectively with the Federation as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of its employees.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of
employees of the respondent.
VII. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION' CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
VIII. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
At the hearing the Federation contended that the production and
maintenance employees of the respondent, exclusive of supervisory
and office employees, constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. In-
asmuch as we have found that the Rock Hill Union is employer-
dominated, we shall not consider its contentions as to the appropriate
unit. The respondent expressed the opinion that the maintenance
employees consisting of two negro workers and a night watchman
should not be included in the unit, but stated that it would not insist
upon their exclusion. There is no evidence in the record as to. the
specific duties of the maintenance employees, and the respondent pre-
sented no reason for their exclusion. We shall include them in the
unit.
We find that the production and maintenance employees of the re-
spondent, excluding office and supervisory employees, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said
unit will insure to the employees of the respondent the full benefit of
their right to self-organization and collective bargaining and otlie-r-
wise effectuate the policies of the Act.
IX. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
At the hearing the Federation claimed to represent a majority of
the respondent's employees in the appropriate unit and introduced evi-
dence in support of its claim. The nature and extent of the evidence
is such, however, that an election by secret ballot is necessary to resolve
the question concerning representation which has arisen. In the elec-
tion to be held, the name of the Rock Hill Union, which we have found
to be employer dominated, will be omitted from the ballot. Since the
respondent has, by engaging in various unfair labor practices, inter-
fered with the exercise by its employees of the right guaranteed them
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Act, we shall not now set the date for the election. We shall
hold the election, however, upon receipt of information from the Re-
gional Director that the circumstances permit a free choice of repre-
sentatives unaffected by the respondent's unlawful acts. We shall, at
the time we specify the date on which the election is to be held, also
specify the date on the basis of which eligibility to vote in the election
shall be determined.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, North Carolina Dis-
trict, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. United Rock Hill Hosiery Employees Union is a labor organiza-
tion, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of.the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of United Rock Hill Employees Union and contributing
support thereto, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Earl Crowe, Richard Holyfield, Basil Funk, and D. W. Gil-
mer, 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 (3) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by 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.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
7. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
8. The respondent has not discriminated with respect to the hire
and tenure of employment of S. L. Stover or Mary Morton, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
9. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Jac Feinberg Hosiery Mills, Inc., Rock Hill,
South Carolina, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act.
10. The production and maintenance employees of the respondent,
excluding office and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
JAC FEINBERG HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED
ORDER
689
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
Jac Feinberg Hosiery Mills , Inc., (Rock Hill, South Carolina) its
officers, agents , successors , and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra-
tion of United Rock Hill Hosiery Employees Union or the formation
or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and
from contributing support to United Rock Hill Hosiery Employees
Union, or any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Discouraging membership in American Federation of Hosiery
Workers or any other labor organization of its employees by discrimi-
nating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its 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 and 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) Refuse to recognize United Rock Hill Hosiery Employees
Union as a representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
rates of pay , wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment ;
(b) Offer to Earl Crowe and Richard Holyfield, immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges;
(c) Offer to Basil Funk and D. W. Gilmer immediate and full
reinstatement to the positions held by them, respectively, on June 17,
1937 , or to substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges;
(d) Make whole Earl Crowe, Richard Holyfield , and D . W. Gilmer,
and each of them, for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of the respondent 's discrimination against him, by payment to him a
sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as
wages from the date of such discrimination to the date of the respond-
ent's . offer of reinstatement pursuant to this Order, less his net earn-
ings. during said period; deducting , however, from the amount other-
wise . due each of soid .employees, monies . i'eceived by him during,.saicl,
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or
other work-relief projects, and pay over the amount so.ordered to the
appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or
other government or governments which supplied the funds for said
work-relief projects; -
(e) Make whole Basil Funk for any loss of pay he may have suf-
fered by reason of his demotion to the grade of learner and his subse-
quent discharge, by the payment to him of a sum of money equal to
that which he would normally have earned as wages as a knitter from
the date of his demotion to the date of the offer of reinstatement pur-
suant to this Order, less his net earnings during said period, deduct-
ing, however, from the amount otherwise due him, monies received
by him during said period for work performed upon Federal, State,
county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over the
amount so ordered to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal,
State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which
supplied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(f) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
plant, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in
the manner set forth in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) and will take
the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), and
(e) of this Order, and that the respondent's employees are free to
become or remain members of American Federation of Hosiery Work-
ers, North Carolina District, and that the respondent will not dis-
criminate against any employee because of membership or activity
in that organization;
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth 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 FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, as amended, be, and
it hereby is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5)
of the National Labor Relations Act, and in so far as it alleges that
the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Mary Morton and S. L. Stover, within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, it is hereby
JAC FEINBERG HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED 691
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain the representatives for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining with Jac Feinberg Hosiery Mills, Inc., Rock Hill, South
Carolina, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted at such time
as, the Board shall hereafter direct, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, acting in this
matter as agent of the National Labor Relations Board and subject
to Article III, Section 9,-of said Rules and Regulations, among the
production and maintenance employees of Jac Feinberg Hosiery Mills,
Inc., Rock Hill, South Carolina, employed by said respondent during
a pay-roll period which the Board shall in the future specify, including
those employees who did not work during the pay-roll period chosen,
because they were ill or on vacation, but excluding office and super-
visory employees and any employees who have after the eligibility
date quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not
they desire to be represented by American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, North Carolina District, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial : Organizations, for the purposes of collectiVe'bargaining.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision. Order, and Direction of Election.