La Fayette Cotton Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1941

31 N.L.R.B. 1166 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of LA FAYETTE COTTON MILLS and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA
Case No. C-18 3.Decided May,1?1, 1941
Jurisdiction : textile manufacturing. industry.
Unfair Labor Practices -
Interference , Restraint , and Coercion : anti-union statements
Company-Dominated Union : participation by representatives of management
in initiation, formation and administration : instigating formation of; solic-
iting members , at times, on Company time and property ; serving as officers of.
Remedial Orders : disestablishment of dominated organization.
Mr. John C. MeRee, for the Board.
Shaw cC Shaw, by Mr. Walter B. Shaw, of La Fayette, Ga., for the
respondent.
Mr. R. H. Brazzell, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
Mr. G. W. Langford, of La Fayette, Ga., for the Association
Mr. Sidney L. Davis, of counsel'to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges I duly filed by Textile Workers
Union of America, herein called the Union, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) issued its complaint, dated October
25, 1940, against La Fayette Cotton Mills,2 La Fayette, Georgia herein
called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce. within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) 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 notices of hearing were duly
served upon the respondent, the Union, and the Independent Employees
The original ch.uge was filed on^July 5, 1940 and the amended charge on October 22,
1940
2 The i espondent was incorrectly deal ;nated in the fm mal papers At the beginning of
the-hearing , these documents were amended to de-ignate the respondent acc it appears
herein The amendment deleted the word "Inc "
31 N. L.R.B, No 178
1166
LA FAYETTE COTTON MILLS 1167
Association, herein called the Association, a labor organization alleged
in-the-complaint to be dominated by the respondent.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance (1) that on or about April 6, 1940, the respondent inter-
fered with the formation of the Association, and thereafter interfered
with the administration of the Association and contributed financial
and other support to it; (2) that the respondent has at various times
since May 1, 1940, encouraged membership in the Association and dis-
couraged membership in the Union in that it urged employees to with-
draw from the Union, threatened employees with discharge or other
discipline if they continued their activities in behalf of the Union.
promised employees better jobs and other rewards if they withdrew
from the TJnion; and advised, employees that the-Union would not bene-
fit them; and (3) that the respondent, by.the foregoing and other acts,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in* the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On November 5, 1940, the respondent filed its answer to the com-
plaint in-which it admitted some of the facts alleged in the complaint..
but denied that it had engaged in' or was engaging in the alleged
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at La Fayette, Georgia, on
November 25 and 26, 1940, before W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the re-
spondent, the Union, and the Association were represented by coun-
sel, and all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity, to be- 11 Z_
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing upon the issues was afforded all the parties. At the
beginning of the hearing, a written motion to intervene was submitted
by counsel for the Association and was received in evidence. The
motion of the Association to intervene was granted, the intervention,
however, being restricted to matters pertaining to the Association. At
the conclusion of the Board's case and again at the conclusion of the
hearing, counsel for the Board moved to amend the pleadings to con-
form to the proof in respect to names,'dates, and other minor matters.
These motions were granted by the Trial Examiner. During the course
of the hearing the Trial Examiner made various rulings on other mo-
tions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On December 9, 1940, the Association submitted a brief to the Trial
Examiner. The Board has also considered this brief. Thereafter,
the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report dated February 12,
1941, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties. He
found' therein that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair, labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS-BOARD
Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section -2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and
recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain specified affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act. No exceptions to the Intermediate Report Have
been filed by any of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Georgia corporation having its plant, principal
office, and place of business in La Fayette, Georgia, where it is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cotton cloth. The prin-
cipal raw materials used by the respondent are raw cotton, starch.
sizing, and coal. During the fiscal year ending August 31, 1940, the
respondent used at its plant approximately 5100 standard bales of
cotton, about 50 per cent of which were obtained and shipped to the
plant from Alabama. The remaining 50 per cent were purchased
in Georgia. During this period the respondent used starch valued
at,approximately $10,400 all of which 'was obtained from points out;
side Georgia; coal valued at appr6ximately $4,600, of which 95 per
cent was obtained outside Georgia; sizing valued at approximately
$3,400, all of which was obtained within Georgia; and miscellaneous
supplies valued at approximately $30,000, of which 80 per cent were
obtained outside Georgia. During the same fiscal period the respond-
ent produced approximately 2,600,000 pounds or 7,500,000 yards of
cloth, -Valued at about $600,000, of which about 98 per cent were sold
and delivered to customers outside Georgia. The respondent also
produced and shipped outside Georgia some 200,000 pounds of waste.
The respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
i
Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the respondent.
Independent Employees Association is an unaffiliated labor organi-
zation, admitting to, membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background of labor relations
Sometime in late 1936 or early 1937, a consent election under the
direction of the Board was held in the plant. The Textile Workers
Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Committee for.Industrial
LA FAYETTE COTTON MILLS 1169
Organizations, herein called the T. W. O. C., won this election and
thereafter, in 1937 or early 1938, the respondent and the T. W. O. C.
entered into a written collective agreement in which the T. W. O. C.
was recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative of the re-
spondent's non-supervisory employees. This contract was renewed
on October 17, 1939, with the'Union, the successor of the T. W. O. C.
It did not expire until April 1, 1941.
Under the 'last contract in effect, the Union was recognized as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the respondent's employees
for purposes of collective bargaining, with the exception of executives,
office employees, second hands, section men, and foremen who have
authority to hire or discharge. Among other things the contract pro-
vided for a schedule of wage rates; for a maximum work week of 40
hours, with time -and one half for overtime with certain exceptions
for emergencies; for "departmental seniority in lay-offs and reem-
ployment . . . provided the worker retained or returned is competent
and efficient to fill the position due him or her under seniority"; and
for a procedure for handling grievances, including arbitration. The
respondent's counsel, Walter B. Shaw, has participated directly in
most matters-concerning collective bargaining and handling of griev-
ances. , When questioned concerning the respondent's experience under
the contract, he testified :
There have been some complaints as would inevitably arise. We
have had only one arbitration during that period which was
decided against,the'union as a matter of fact, and all the others
we have settled without arbitration.
The record is devoid of any evidence that prior to May 1940, the
respondent engaged in any unfair labor practices.
B. The formation of the Association
The record shows that during the period of contractual relations
between the respondent and the Union, a number of non-union em-
ployees were disgruntled by continued solicitation of union mem-
bership by union members, by union talk generally, and by the
handling of grievances by the Union, particularly matters concerning
seniority. This caused antagonism between some of the union and
non-union members. This matter was brought to a head in May 1940.
In the early part of May 1940, Lillie Bell Brock, a union member
was given a certain job in the .plant as the result of the Union's pre-
sentation of the case as a.grievance. This job had formerly been
done by a non-union employee, Minnie Lee Freeman, as a spare hand.
Shortly thereafter, a group of about 20 employees, including Freeman
and Albert Bowman, went into the main office of the plant at the end
a
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the first shift and complained to W. E. McKown, the respondent's
treasurer, -concerning the displacement iof Freeman by Brock. Bow-
man, the main spokesman of the employees, was one of two section
men on the first shift in the spinning room, and the respondent admits
that he was a supervisory employee. The employees told McKown that
they wanted to do something to protect themselves from the Union,
asked McKown what they could do, and specifically- asked McKowp
if they could employ Shaw, the respondent's counsel, as their attorney.
McKown told them that he could not advise them one way or another
concerning organizational matters and that they could not employ
Shaw as their attorney since he was the respondent's counsel. Al-
though McKown knew that Bowman was a supervisory employee, he
did not warn Bowman about engaging in any activity for or against
the Union, nor did he say anything to him concerning the union
contract which provided for the handling of grievances.
Following this meeting with McKown, and on the same day, Bow-
man- and two other employees went to the office of G. W. Langford,
a local attorney and discussed with him the forming of the Associa-
tion. Langford agreed to assist in forming the Association and drew
up a petition, dated May 11, 1940, which stated :
We, the undersigned employees of the LaFayette Cotton Mill
decide that a meeting be called of all employees of said mill for the
purpose of organizing an independent employees association.
The object of said association being to better living and working
conditions as applied to said employees. We further agree to
attend a meeting called for organizing purposes whenever the
meeting is called.
Bowman was the first to sign one of the petitions and the same
petition was signed by Charley Reynolds, the other section man on
the first shift in the spinning room, who the respondent also adnuts
was a supervisory employee. Bowman participated actively in circu-
hitina the petition. Reynolds admitted that he presented the
petition to at least two employees; that he talked to Loney Veal,
an employee worKmg under him, concerning the petition during
working hours; and that he told Veal at her home that the Union
"had been there for two years and had done nothing and that they
should give us a chance." Veal testified that in the conversation at
her home she asked Reynolds who the leaders of the movement for
the` Association were, and that Reynolds mentioned Bowman, Ira
Johnson, and others; '.that when 'she 'asked Reynolds who was
backing the Association he replied that it was "the company union"
and that its purpose was to "break up" the Union; that Reynolds
further said "It hadn't been anything but hell since it [the Union]
LA FAYETTE COTTON MILLS 1171
had been in there and they were going to get shut of it" and that
10 percent of the union dues went to John L. Lewis. Harold Brock
and Dwight Smith, employees of the respondent, who overheard
the conversation between Veal and Reynolds, confirmed Veal's testi-
mony, and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, her testimony to be
substantially correct. We also agree with the Trial Examiner who
did not credit Reynolds' denial or his testimony that he told Veal
that the respondent b ,,,d nothing to do with the Association.
Ira Johnson, a section man in the carding and weaving room on
the second shift, also helped to circulate the petition. Johnson was
accompanied by Russell Parker, a second hand, during part of the
time when Johnson circulated the petition.' The respondent admits
that Parker was a supervisory employee, but denies that Johnson
had any supervisory authority until October 1940. However, John-
son's title and his compensation was the same in May as it was in
October, and in May, Johnson did relay orders to employees upon
direction from' his overseer. We find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that Johnson was a supervisory employee from May to October 1940,
as well as thereafter.
Within a short time the petition was signed by about 150 of an
approximate total of 300 employees in the plant. `
In late May 1940, R. H. Brazzell, a representative of the Union,
complained to Shaw, the respondent's attorney, that certain of the
respondent's employees were actively engaged in organizing the
Association, and that some of them, including five named employees,
were representing to employees that the Association was sponsored
by the respondent in order to secure them as members. Shaw there-
after prepared a statement of policy.3 Pursuant to Shaw's advice,
McKown called the following employees, whom Brazzell had specifi-
cally named, into the main office: Bridges, Byrd, and Hise, loom fixers,
and Edna Cross and Ruth Peppers, weavers, none of whom had
supervisory authority. McKown read the above statement to them
and all were told that they had no authority to represent to employees
that the respondent was sponsoring the Association. The respondent
' The statement read as follows :
It is being claimed that certain of our employees particularly non-union are at
this time actively engaged in the formation of Company Union.
We have never approved nor disapproved the organization of any union; however,
it is our duty to ask that you refrain from organizing as a Company Union. We
do not think you are doing this, but under the law it is our duty to ask that you please
in no way involve the company as having a part in any organization you might see fit
to form. -
It might be well that we state to you that until an independent, or any other union,
is certified to by the National Labor Relations Board as exclusive bargaining agents
of our employees, it is our duty to continue to bargain with the T. W. U. A. until
contract expires, or is terminated otherwise.
Dated May 30, 1940.
441843-42-vol. 31-75
1172 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
did not post a copy of the above statement anywhere in its plant,
and the statement was not given or sent to any of the other employees.
At a meeting of the Association in the office of Attorney Langford
in the first part of June, the constitution and by-laws of the Associ-
ation which had been drawn up by Langford were adopted. They
provided in part that the governing body should consist of nine
directors , elected annually , and that the officers of the Association
should consist of a president , vice president , and a secretary -treasurer,
to, be elected by the directors from their own number . All the
respondent 's employees were eligible for membership . The Associ-
ation had no initiation fee or monthly dues, and whatever money
it collected was by voluntary contributions of the members. No
minutes of any meetings were kept . All meetings of both the
Association members and also the directors were held in Attorney
Langford 's office, and the record shows that approximately 20 mem-
bers of a total membership of 160 was the largest number ever
attending one of the Association meetings. The Association had no
grievance committee in the plant , and it has never had any
contractual relations with the respondent. %
The first officers and directors of the Association, elected in June
1940, were Joe use, president ; Edna Cross, vice president; Ira
Johnson, secretary ; and Albert Bowman, B. L. Wright, Tom Hol-
comb, Arthur Canada, Roy Ste`vart, and Mrs. Freeman, directors.
The respondent admits that Bowman was a supervisory employee,
and we have found that Johnson was also a supervisory employee.
On June 8, 1940 , the Association wrote to the respondent advising
that it represented a majority of the employees in the plant for -
the purposes of collective bargaining, and requesting an immediate
conference to discuss a contract . The letter was signed by Bow-
man, Johnson , and seven other employees.
Upon receipt of this letter, the respondent did not say anything
to Bowman or Johnson with respect to their membership in or
activity on behalf of the Association , although both were super-
visory employees. The respondent turned this letter over to Shaw,
its attorney for reply, and thereafter, on June 12, 1940, the respondent
wrote the following letter to the Association :
We acknowledge receipt of request of Independent Em-
ployees' Association of June 8th . for an immediate conference for
the purpose of discussing a contract with your Association as
representative of our employees.
We will gladly, at any time, receive any employee individu-
ally, or any group of employees, for the purpose of hearing
any complaints or discussing working conditions, but we can
not at this time consent to any conference with the Independ-
LA FAYETTE COTTON MILLS 1173
ent Employees' Association, or any committee from this
Association, for the purpose of discussing any contract with
our employees. ' '
After an election among' our employees to determine their
bargaining representative, the Textile Workers' Union of Amer-
ica was certified to us as the bargaining representative of a
majority of our employees. We are now operating under a
contract entered into with the Textile Workers' Union of Amer-
ica, as the chosen bargaining representative of a majority of our
employees, and this contract does not expire until 1941. We
cannot, either now, or in the future, discuss with the Inde-
pendent Employees' Association the terms of any agreement
binding our employees, until and unless the Association has
been certified to us by the National Labor Relations Board as
the bargaining representative of 'a majority of our employees.
On June 12, the same day that the respondent wrote the Associa-
tion, representatives of the Union, including Brazzell, held a con-
ference with Shaw in the latter's office. Brazzell stated at the meet-
ing that the movement to organize the Association should be stopped.
Shaw stated that the respondent could not interfere with its em-
ployees in this respect. It was then brought out that Albert Bow-
man, a supervisory employee, had signed the Association's letter
of June 8, addressed to the respondent. Shaw stated that he would
request his client, the respondent, to call all the supervisory em-
ployees into the plant office and to give each of them a written state-
ment that he must disassociate himself from the Association move-
ment. Brazzell stated that if the respondent did not disband the-
Association the Union would file charges with the Board. -Shaw
testified that he replied as follows :
I told him that might be a very satisfactory thing for
us because we were having demands made on us from two,
sources, and we were ready to do what the National Labor Re-
lations Board said, and if he filed charges and the National
Labor Relations Board ordered the Independent disestablished,
we would gladly continue to bargain with the Union.
Plant Superintendent J. O. Cobb, on June 13; instructed the over-
seers to call into the main office all employees whom he considered to
be supervisory. Among those called in were Bowman, Parker, and
Reynolds. All the supervisory employees present were handed the-
following statement which had been prepared for the respondent
on the day before by Shaw :
Under the National Labor Relations Act and the decisions 'of
the National Labor Relations Board thereunder, all employees
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
having, supervisory authority represent the employer, and the
employer is held responsible for the acts of supervisory employees.
Itthas been reported to us that some of our employees exercising
supervisory authority have been active in promoting the organi-
zation of employees, termed the Independent Employees' Associa-
tion, or have encouraged the formation of this organization. We
have no desire to interfere with the freedom of action of any of
our employees, so long as this freedom of action does not interfere
with your duties to the company, but since the acts of our super-
visory employees, in connection with the organization of any
independent union of our employees, are chargeable to us, we
have no recourse other than to notify you that if you have had any
part in the promotion or organization of any independent union
or organization of our employees, you must immediately withdraw
from this movement and entirely disassociate yourself therefrom.`
Any further action or association on your part with this movement
will subject you to discharge.
Thereupon, Bowman and Reynolds resigned as members of the As-
sociation .4 Ira Johnson, a supervisory employee, and then secretary-
treasurer, of the Association, was not among the supervisory employees
called in or handed a copy of this notice 5 The respondent neither
posted a copy of the above statement anywhere in the plant, nor did'
it bring it to the attention of any of the non-supervisory employees.
On June 20, 1940, the Association filed with the Regional Director
of the Tenth Region of the Board, a petition for investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act,
and an amended petition on July 17, 1940. The Union filed the
original charges in this case on July 5, 1940, and on August 2, 1940,
the Regional Director for the Tenth Region informed the Association
that no action could be taken on its petition until the charge filed by_
the Union against the respondent, alleging that the Association was
company dominated, had been disposed of.
C. Conclusions
From the foregoing findings it is plain that the respondent, through
its supervisory employees, instigated the formation of the Association,
and interfered with and dominated the administration thereof.
Bowman, admitted by the respondent to be a supervisory employee,
was one of the prime leaders in the formation of the Association and
4 Although we have found that Parker, a supervisory employee , assisted in- the initial
solicitation for members of the Association , there is no evidence that Parker was ever a
member of the Association.
6 Johnson did not resign his position as an officer and member of the Association until
October 14, 1940.
LA FAYETTE COTTON MILLS 1175
served as one of its directors. Reynolds, Johnson, and Parker, all
.supervisory employees, also solicited employees to become members of
the Association, such solicitation occurring at times on company time
and property. As noted above, Johnson served as an officer of the
Association until October 14, 1940.
The respondent contends that it maintained a neutral attitude to-
ward the Association and that it advised its supervisory employees
to sever all relations with the Association under penalty of discharge.
While it may be true that the supervisory employees, with the, excep-
tion of Johnson, ceased their activities in behalf of the Association,
after being instructed to do so by the respondent on June 13, 1940, the
Association had already been organized and the respondent's prestige
had already been enlisted in behalf of the Association.- Moreover,
despite the notice to its supervisory employees, the ordinary employees
were never advised of the respondent's neutrality, nor did the re=
spondent take appropriate steps to dissipate the effects of the activities
of its supervisory employees.' Under the circumstances, we find that
the respondent is not relieved of its responsibility for the activities
of its supervisory employees who participated in the formation and
administration of the Association.
- We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of the Asso-
ciation and contributed support to it, and thereby interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.7
D. Other interference, restraint, and coercion
Annie Persal, a weaver on the second shift in the plant, testified
that on October 21, 1940, Tom Patterson, a second hand on the first
shift in the cloth room and admittedly a supervisory employee, said
to her while she was at work that the "Union wasn't worth a damn,"
and that the leaders were gangsters. Catherine Cross, who worked
under Patterson, testified that on October 23 or 25, Patterson said
to her while she was at work, "Organized labor was just a bunch
of gangsters and communists trying to overthrow the Government."
Patterson also told her that they would be better off without a union.
Alice Robinson and Mary Lee, two other employees, were present
° See Consumers Power Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 113 P. (2d) 38
(C. C. A. 6), enforcing Matter of Consumers' Power Company , a corporation and Local
No. 7110, United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America , 9 N. L. R. B. 701
' Neither the respondent nor the Association took exception to this finding of the Trial
Examiner.
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
when this conversation occurred. Patterson did not testify at the
hearing.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the above statements were
made substantially as stated by the witnesses Persal and Cross, and
that by the aforesaid statements and other acts. as hereinbefore
described, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find 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 tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce. O
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, in violation of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist from
engaging in such practices and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having further found that since May 1940, the respondent has
dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of
the Association and contributed, support to it, we are of the opinion
that the As is incapable of serving the respondent's em-
ployees as their genuine representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining, and that the effects and consequences of the respondent's
domination of, interference with, and support of the Association
constitute a continuing obstacle to the free exercise by its employees
of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining through
representatives of their own choosing. We shall order the respond-
ent to refuse to give recognition to and completely disestablish the
Association as the representative of any of its employees for the
purposes of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other condi-
tions of employment.8
s See National Labor Relations Board v . Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U. S 261;
National Labor Relations Board v Newport News Shipbuilding d Dry Dock Co ., 308 U. S.
241, 250.
LA FAYETTE COTTON MILLS 1177
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. Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, and 'Independent Employees Association,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of Independent Employees Association and by contributing
support to this organization, the respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8
(2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its 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.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
ORDER
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,
La Fayette Cotton Mills, La Fayette, Georgia, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating and interfering with the formation and administra-
tion of Independent Employees Association or with the formation or
administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and
from contributing support to Independent Employees Association or
to any other organization of its employees;
(b) 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 repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes, of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection 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 Independent Employees Association as the
representative of any of its employees for the purposes of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay,
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions, of employment, and
completely disestablish Independent Employees Association as such
representative;
(b) Immediately post in conspicuous places throughout its plant at
La Fayette, Georgia, and maintain for a period of not less than sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of
this Order; and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action
set forth in paragraph 2 Td) of this Order;
(c) 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.
i