Movie Star, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 319 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

MOVIE STAR, INC., ETC. 319
Movie Star , Inc.; Movie Star of Poplarville, Inc.; Movie Star of
Magnolia , Inc.; Movie Star of Purvis , Inc.; Movie Star of
Ellisville, Inc .; Movie Star of Collins , Inc.; Movie Star of
Sumrall , Inc. and International Ladies Garment Workers
Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 15-CA-2154. December 10, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 1, 1963, Trial Examiner Rosanna A. Blake issued her
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermedi-
ate Report. The Trial Examiner further found that the Respondents
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case,2 and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications stated
below.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that the Respond-
ents engaged in a course of conduct which interfered with, coerced,
and restrained the employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act. In addition, we find merit in the General Counsel's exception
to the Trial Examiner's failure to find that Respondents also violated
8(a) (1) by assisting employees to withdraw from the Union. The
record establishes that employees were not only provided with office
facilities, including paper, pens, and pencils, but they were also ad-
vised as to the manner in which to reject their membership in the
Union. The record further reveals that, at one plant, prepared type-
written forms were handed to employees and one employee, who
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[Members Leedom , Fanning , and Brown],
2 We have made an independent review and analysis of the record herein and are satis-
fied that the findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner which we have adopted, in-
cluding her credibility resolutions, are fully supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we
reject as wholly unwarranted the Respondents ' assertion that the Trial Examiner was
biased and prejudiced We also deny the Respondents ' request to argue this matter orally
before the Board.
145 NLRB No. 37.
320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
merely requested termination of dues deductions from her paycheck,
was instead given a form to sign which also included a statement that
she no longer wished to belong to the Union. Under all the circum-
stances herein, when viewed in conjunction with Respondents' ap-
peals to employees to withdraw from the Union, we are convinced
that Respondents' conduct constituted more than mere ministerial aid.
Accordingly, we find that Respondents' assistance in effectuating the
withdrawals was violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.3
2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Respondents' let-
ter of August 13, 1963, the so-called Herman letter, which was dis-
tributed and read to employees on the following day, was an attempt
to bargain directly with employees and undermine the Union's status
as collective-bargaining representative in violation of Section 8 (a) (5)
and (1) of the Act. As Respondents' unlawful acts of interference,
restraint, and coercion, as set forth in detail in the Intermediate Re-
port, occurred prior and subsequent to the publication of this letter,
we find that the letter, in the context of these contemporaneous un-
fair labor practices, manifested Respondents' clear intent to thwart
the purposes of the Act by avoidance of their statutory duty to bar-
gain in good faith.
We also find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Respondents
violated Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act, by failing to furnish the
Union with records in support of the Respondents' claim that to grant
the Union's wage demands would adversely affect its competitive posi-
tion. While the Trial Examiner found that the Respondents agreed
to furnish such records on August 7, 1962, she concluded that their
failure to do so was due to a breakdown in negotiations and, there-
fore, did not constitute bad-faith bargaining. We do not agree. It
is obvious that the Respondents were not expected to comply with
the Union's request by the following day when the parties met during
a bargaining session. However, it was the Respondents' unlawful
conduct, described above, which dissipated the Union's majority
status. Thereafter, at the scheduled bargaining meeting of Au-
gust 28, the Respondents refused to negotiate further with the Union
because of its lack of majority status. Accordingly, as the breakdown
in negotiations was caused by the Respondents' unlawful acts, they
were not relieved of the duty to supply the Union with the wage data
in compliance with their earlier agreement.4 Finally, for the reasons
given by the Trial Examiner, we also find that Respondents violated
Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) on and after August 28.
3 Winn-Dune Stores , Inc and Winn -Dixie Greenville , Inc., 128 NLRB 574, 580, 588
4 N L R.B. v. Trutt Mfg Co , 351 U S. 149.
MOVIE STAR, INC., ETC.
ORDER
321
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner 5 with the following modifications :
Substitute the following for paragraphs 1(b), 1(f), and 2(a), and
the corresponding language contained in the notices to be posted :
1. (b) Urging and assisting employees to withdraw from the
Union and requesting employees to assist the Respondents in caus-
ing other employees to withdraw from the Union.
1. (f) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all production and maintenance em-
ployees employed at Respondents' Poplarville, Purvis, Ellisville,
Magnolia, Collins, and Sumrall, Mississippi, plants, excluding
all clerical, office, and professional employees, guards, foreladies,
foremen, and assistants who perform no production work, and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act, with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment.
2. (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid ap-
propriate unit and embody any understanding reached in a signed
agreement; and, upon request, furnish the Union with such
records and other relevant material in support of the Respondents'
claim of their inability to pay the wage increases requested by
the Union, in order to enable the Union to discharge its func-
tions as the statutory representative of Respondents' employees.
5 The Recommended Order Is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein, the following paragraph:
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the Respondents, Movie Star, Inc ; Movie Star of Poplarville, Inc ; Movie Star
of Magnolia, Inc. ; Movie Star of Purvis, Inc. ; Movie Star of Ellisville, Inc ; Movie
Star of Collins, Inc.; Movie Star of Sumrall, Inc, their officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO,
on August 31 and October 24, 1962, the General Counsel, acting through the Acting
Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, issued a complaint on December 21,
1962, alleging that the Respondents had engaged in conduct which violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. In their answer, Respondents admitted certain
allegations of the complaint, such as the commerce allegations , but denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
Thereafter, pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner
Rosanna A. Blake at Hattiesburg, Mississippi, on February 19, 20, 21, and 22 and
March 4 and 5, 1963. All parties appeared and were represented by counsel and
734-070-64-vol. 145-22
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were given full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to present oral argument. All parties filed briefs.'
Having considered the entire record in the case, the briefs filed by the parties, and
from my observation of the witnesses while testifying, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTIONAL FACTS; THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
During the 12-month period prior to the issuance of the complaint , a representative
period, Respondents , in the course and conduct of their business at Poplarville,
Mississippi , purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
which were shipped directly to Respondents in the State of Mississippi from points
outside the State of Mississippi ; in the course and conduct of their operation at
Purvis, Mississippi , performed services for and sold finished products valued in
excess of $ 50,000 to customers located outside the State of Mississippi ; in the course
and conduct of their business at Ellisville , Mississippi , performed services for and
sold finished products valued in excess of $50,000 to customers located outside the
State of Mississippi ; in the course and conduct of their business at Magnolia,
Mississippi , performed services for and shipped finished products valued in excess
of $50,000 to customers located outside the State of Mississippi ; in the course and
conduct of their operations at Sumrall, Mississippi , performed services for and sold
finished products valued in excess of $ 50,000 to customers located outside the State
of Mississippi ; during the period from June 1 to August 30, 1962, Respondents in
the course and conduct of their business at Collins, Mississippi , purchased and
received goods and materials valued in excess of $17,570, which were shipped directly
to Respondents in Mississippi from points outside that State.
Upon the foregoing facts, Respondents admit and I find that they are engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The International Ladies Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, referred to herein
as the Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
H. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
The Respondents, which are usually referred to herein collectively as the Company
or the Respondent, are a parent corporation and six wholly owned subsidiaries.
They are engaged in the production and distribution of ladies' and children's lingerie
and operate plants in Poplarville, Ellisville, Purvis, Magnolia, Collins, and Sumrall,
all in Mississippi.2
Milton Herman, who is president of the parent company and chairman of the
board of each of the subsidiaries involved herein, determines the labor policies of
each. He has his office in New York. James Hale, who has his office at Poplarville,
is the general manager of the six Mississippi plants and manager of the Poplarville
plant which is by far the largest of the group. Each of the other plants has a
resident plant manager.
The cutting, packaging, and shipping for all of the plants are performed at
Poplarville which also operates a sewing room. The other five plants are engaged
primarily in sewing.
It was stipulated at the hearing that all production and maintenance employees at
the six plants , as a group , constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining.
It was also stipulated that James Hale, Warren Baker, Josie Henderson, Veda
Carlisle, Thelma Myrick, Clarette Monk, Sidney Ryals, Katherine Smith, Lexie
Miller, Georgia Morris, Virgie Garrett, Wilma Smith, and Addie Lumpkin are
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
B. The collective-bargaining negotiations through August 8, 1962
The Company and the Union had been parties to a series of collective-bargaining
contracts since about 1950. The last contract, which was executed on July 1, 1959,
and expired on September 1, 1962,3 was applicable to the employees at Poplarville,
i Respondents' motion to correct the transcript is granted as is also its motion to admit
into evidence Its exhibit No 55.
2 Unless otherwise stated, all plants referred to in this report are located in Mississippi.
3 Although this contract expired by its terms on July 1, 1962, it was extended for
60 days by oral agreement Unless stated otherwise, all the events described in this
report occurred in 1962.
MOVIE STAR, INC., ETC. 323
Purvis, Magnolia, and Ellisville. It was never put into effect at the Sumrall and
Colins plants which began operations after July 1, 1959.
Negotiations toward a new agreement began in the spring of 1962. The Union's
chief spokesman throughout was its southeastern regional director, Elmer T. Kehrer.
It was also represented at the formal meetings by Russell McMahan, business agent
for the four locals to which the employees at Poplarville, Purvis, Ellisville, and
Magnolia belong, and an employee committee from each local.4 Melvin Salberg
was the chief negotiator for the Company. Board Chairman Herman, General
Manager Hale, and Mrs. Betty Krayosky, president of each subsidiary, were present
for the Company at some of the meetings.
The parties met for the first time on March 9. It was a short meeting and no
proposals were presented although Kehrer suggested that since the Company now
had six plants in Mississippi and two in Puerto Rico, any agreement reached should
follow the form of the Union's national agreement. Salberg replied for the Com-
pany that he was not familiar with the national agreement and Kehrer offered to
send Salberg a copy and did so in late March.5
The Union's demands covered a wide range of subjects such as higher wages,
shorter hours, seniority, additional paid holidays and vacations, and employer con-
tributions to various funds such as retirement and severance pay. Also included
were requests that the new contract (if any) apply to the Sumrall and Collins plant
and recognition of the Union as the bargaining representative of the two shops
recently acquired by the Company in Puerto Rico. As negotiations progressed, the
Company made numerous counterproposals and the Union reduced its demands in
a number of areas. Agreement was reached on at least some matters, including
coverage of the employees at the Sumrall and Collins plants.
It is clear that if the Company had granted the Union's demands, its costs would
have been increased although the parties differed on how great the increase would
:bee From the outset, the Company expressed concern about the effect on its com-
petitive position if it granted the Union's demands which it contended were excessive
and out of line. Salberg reminded the Union that the Company produced low-price
line products and stated that it had recently lost a number of accounts-such as
Penney's and Newberry's-to competitors. The new contract, Salberg insisted, "must
be one that would not damage the Company any more in competition than it had
already sustained." When Kehrer asked if it were not true that the Company
was "doing very well," Salberg conceded that the Company had expanded but
asserted that "comparing 1962 with prior years, the Company's profit picture . . .
had depreciated."
The parties met twice on both August 7 and 8. The Union presented what it
characterized as new or additional proposals but the Company claimed that they
were not materially different from those the Union had made at earlier meetings.
The Company, in turn, made what it claimed was a better offer-from the Union's
point of view-than it had previously made and stated that it was as much as it
could offer under all of the circumstances and stay competitive. The Union, how-
,ever, rejected the Company's offer. By this stage in negotiations, it was apparent that
the chief points of disagreement were the Union's position that at some point dur-
ing the 3-year term of the contract, the workweek would be reduced to 35 hours
and the minimum wage rate would be raised to $1.40 an hour.?
'The employees at Purvis are members of Local 448, those at Poplarville belong to
'Local 507, those at Ellisville belong to Local 578, and those at Magnolia belong to
Local 594
5In its brief, Respondent attacks Kehrer's credibility because be did not mention the
March 9 and other meetings testified to by Salberg It is clear from the record that
Kehrer confined his testimony on direct examination to what may be termed the formal
negotiating sessions while Salberg included a number of informal meetings and con-
ferences at which he, Kehrer, and sometimes others were present Salberg's own notes
made during negotiations do not refer to the March 9 meeting or to some of the others,
such as the one in New York in late June and one at the Atlanta airport in early May
Although Salberg's testimony supplies more details, there are few material differences
between has testimony and that of Kehrer. All credibility resolutions are based in part
upon my observation of the demeanor of the witness while testifying
6
At one point, the Union estimated that the increase would be 7 or 8 percent. Accord-
ing to the Company , the increase would be nearer 15 percent
7 Earlier in negotiations, the Union appeared to list as a "must" recognition by the
Company as the bargaining representative of the employees at the Company's two plants
in Puerto Rico I am convinced, however, that a contract would have been signed if
.agreement had been reached on all of the provisions applicable to the Mississippi plants
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is clear that the prospects of early agreement were not bright when the parties
parted at the close of the second session on August 8. It is equally clear, however,
that it was understood that they would meet again. Although no date was set,
Kehrer said he would be "in touch" with the company representatives concerning
the date for the next meeting.
C. The Company's August 13 letter to the employees
It was stipulated at the hearing that the following letter from Board Chairman
Herman was read and copies distributed to the employees at Poplarville, Ellisville,
Magnolia, and Purvis on August 14:
AUGUST, 13, 1962.
To James Hale, General Manager, Poplarville, Mississippi:
Please convey the following information to the employees at our Poplarville,
Ellisville, Purvis, and Magnolia Plants as promptly as possible. This informa-
tion concerns our recent negotiation meetings in New Orleans with the ILGWU
and is something that I feel our employees should know about immediately.
As you know, our temporary agreement with the ILGWU expires at the end
of this month. We have been negotiating for some months in an effort to
reach a new agreement. Competition in the lingerie business is very keen.
Because we have been able to meet competition up to this time, we have been
able to provide, generally, steady work. If we are unable to meet competition,
then the amount of work that we will get and that we can provide you in-
evitably becomes less. In making our proposals to the union, we have home
in mind at all times that it is as important to you as it is to this Company that
we be able to provide steady work to each of you. If our labor costs are so
high that they are not competitive, or if we increase our fringe or other work-
ing conditions so that it costs us more to produce our garments than it costs
our competitiors to produce the same garment, we cannot sell it and we
cannot give you work. We recognize, and it has always been our policy that
our employees are entitled to the same sort of progress in wages and fringes
as is made by the employees in competitive plants. I have always taken the
position that I want to see the employees of our plants treated as well as the
employees in any of the Southern plants of our competitors.
In the course of the negotiations with the union this year, we have had
many proposals made to us by the union, most of which were pretty unrealistic
and would not have left us in a position that we could stay competitive. If we
accepted them, it not only would make us non-competitive, but would also
put us in a position of being able to provide you with less work and, in some
instances, with no work.
I sat in on the meetings with the committee of the union in New Orleans
last week. At that time I had given very careful consideration to all of the
union's proposals, to our own situation, and to the future of our plants, and, as
a result of that, I came up with a final proposal on behalf of the Company which
is more expensive than what the present competitive market would warrant,
but is still one which we could live with. If we can maintain a peaceful and
progressive relationship in our plants, as we have in the past, we can probably
be able to put into effect the increases that I have offered and still stay com-
petitive. I want you to know in detail exactly what I have offered because
I know it is a good offer and because I know that it is the best offer that we
can make from the Company's standpoint without lessening our ability to pro-
vide you with steady work and without weakening our ability to compete with
other Southern lingerie plants.
We have made a proposal for a three-year Agreement which will provide as
follows:
The foregoing is our proposal. We know it is a fair proposal and we know
it is equal to or better than those Contracts that the ILGWU has made in the
past year with our competitors in the South. It provides a basis which I
believe will enable us to continue to operate our plants and compete with other
lingerie plants in the South, and it does not, in any sense, lessen the policy that
we have followed of enabling you to make steady advancement in wages and
working conditions.
MOVIE STAR , INC., ETC. 325
The biggest item in dispute between us and the Union is the one that involves
the Union demand that we cut our straight time work week from 40 hours to
371/2 hours, and ultimately cut our straight time work week to 35 hours. I
know that this has been done in some dress plants in New York and in other
places where there is a surplus of labor and where there are a great many em-
ployees who have to be laid off for lack of work . This sort of setup does not
apply to the Lingerie Industry and has not generally applied in the South, even
in the Dress Industry . So long as we have to compete with these other plants,
we cannot honestly afford to attempt to run on a 371/2 hour or 35 hour straight
time week and sell our goods at a price our customers will buy in preference to
buying the goods of a plant which produces them on a 40 hour straight time
week. So , while this Union proposal may sound good on paper , it can only
hurt us and , by hurting us, hurt you . We are sympathetic to the idea in those
plants where there is a shortage of work and an excess of workers , but cer-
tainly that situation does not apply in our plants , and unless we let ourselves
get non-competitive it is not likely to apply in our plants.
I have set out the details of the Company's proposal because I want you to
know how far -reaching it is. It is an expensive proposal from the standpoint of
the Company and it involves a gamble on our part of being willing to commit
ourselves to this increased cost in the hope that by so doing we can avoid inter-
ruption and interference with our production , which would work to the dis-
advantage of you , as well as the Company.
This is a good, fair , and reasonable proposal by the Company . I believe you
will approve of it and I hope that you will, after considering it carefully, urge
that it be approved when it is presented to you at Union meetings , which no
doubt will be called for the purpose of presenting the Company 's proposal to
you.
Sincerely,
( S) MILTON HERMAN.
D. The exchange of telegrams on or about August 22
As stated supra, at the close of the second bargaining session on August 8, Kehrer
said he would get in touch with company representatives concerning the date for
another meeting A week or so later Kehrer tried but was unable to reach Board
Chairman Herman who had participated in the August 7 and 8 sessions . There-
after , on August 22, Kehrer sent the following telegram to Herman in New York:
HAVE TRIED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO REACH YOU BY PHONE. AM
AUTHORIZED TO INFORM YOU THAT WE SHALL APPLY PRINCIPAL
"NO CONTRACT-NO WORK" UNLESS AGREEMENT REACHED BY FRI-
DAY, AUGUST 31 WE STAND READY TO MEET AT ANY TIME TO
MAKE ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE OUR DIFFERENCES. FAILURE TO
MEET WILL REST SQUARELY ON YOU.
In reply, Company Vice President and Treasurer Mollie Kaufman telegraphed
Kehrer:
YOUR TELEGRAM TODAY ADDRESSED TO MR. MILTON HERMAN
HAS BEEN RECEIVED. WHEN YOU CALLED YESTERDAY YOU
WERE ADVISED THAT MISTER HERMAN WOULD BE BACK ON
THURSDAY. THIS IS TO CONFIRM TO YOU THAT MR. HERMAN
WILL BE AVAILABLE BY TELEPHONE ON THURSDAY TO ARRANGE
A MUTUALLY CONVENIENT DATE AND PLACE FOR MEETING
EVEN THOUGH HE HAS PREVIOUSLY MADE THE COMPANY'S FINAL
OFFER WHICH [IN] ALL RESPECTS WAS FAIR AND REASONABLE
AND THE BEST THE COMPANY COULD MAKE UNDER ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED AT PRIOR MEETING. A WORK STOP-
PAGE OR STRIKE IF ANY IS CALLED SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPON-
SIBILITY OF YOUR UNION.
Both telegrams were read to the employees at Poplarville , Ellisville, Magnolia,
and Purvis on or about August 22.
Thereafter, Kehrer talked with Herman and Salberg and a meeting was arranged
for August 28 in New Orleans.
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
E Employer conversations with individual employees during August 8
1. The conversations at the Poplarville plant
As stated supra, James Hale is the general manager of all the Mississippi plants and
has his office at Poplarville. About the first of August, Hale asked employee Joyce
Dedeaux why the employees "didn't form a local union . . so [they] would have
representation at all times." Dedeaux, an officer of the local union and a member
of its bargaining committee, replied that the employees already had a union.
On August 23, Hale called Dedeaux aside and told her, "I want you on my side."
When Dedeaux asked what Hale meant, he said, "I want you out of the union."
Dedeaux's answer was that she had signed a union card when she was first employed
by the Company and had never had any complaints about the Union. Dedeaux
also told Hale that she did not "like the way [the Company] went about scaring
the ladies out of the Union." Hale wanted to know what Dedeaux meant and she
explained that "The floorladies nearly scared the girls to death." Hale's answer
was, "Well, I still want you on my side." Dedeaux assured Hale that she was not
going over to his "side" to which Hale replied, "Well, let the chips fall where they
may." Dedeaux countered with, "Well, they're falling all over the place now.
The next day (August 24), Dedeaux's supervisor, Wilma Smith, asked Dedeaux
why she did not get out of the Union. Dedeaux explained that she did not want
to and Smith reminded Dedeaux, "You know you have to work." Dedeaux agreed
but said she could work in the union as well as out of it 9
Veda Carlisle is the head supervisor of the sewing department at Poplarville.
About 9:30 a.m. on August 23, Carlisle went to employee Dorothy Archer and said,
"Dorothy, I need your help and I need it bad. You have got to talk and talk
fast and help us get these girls out of the union." 10 After talking to Archer,
Carlisle "went on down the line talking to other girls."
About a week later, Supervisor Georgia Morris told Archer that she had to help
Morris get Archer's sister-in-law, Laura Ann Rester, out of the Union." "I want
8 All conversations set forth in this section occurred in the plants, usually during work-
ing hours
'The above findings are based on Dedeaux's testimony which I credit Hale's denial
that the conversations testified to by Dedeaux occurred is not credited. Hale sought to
make it appear that he was completely uninterested in the fact that employees were with-
drawing from the Union and assertedly told Purvis Plant Manager Josie Henderson that
employee withdrawals from the Union were none of the Company's concern. Such in-
difference with respect to a subject in which the Company had a legitimate interest and
on which management representatives were clearly free to comment among themselves is
so Improbable that I am unable to credit any of Hale's testimony concerning his con-
versations with the employees about the Union Although Smith denied Dedeaux's version
of their conversation, she admittedly asked Dedeaux whether she thought the Union would
call a strike to which Dedeaux allegedly replied that the Union had promised that there
would be no strike and that she would not strike if one was called I do not credit Smith's
testimony in this respect or generally, in part because of her assertion that Hale told "us
[the supervisors] time after time" not to talk to any employee about the Union It Is
clear from Hale 's testimony that he gave no such instructions to the supervisors. More-
over, I do not believe that Dedeaux, an official in the local, would tell a supervisor that
she would not participate in a strike if one was called. On the other hand, if Respondent
could cause Union Officer Dedeaux and other leading union adherents to defect from the
Union, it could seriously damage the Union's prestige. I also note in this connection that
If the Company sought to cause employee defections, its efforts would necessarily be di-
rected at union members
10 The above findings are based on the credited testimony of Archer Carlisle testified'
that she went to Archer about 9:20 a.m on August 14 and asked her to read Herman's
letter which was read to the employees later that day. She denied having said anything
else to Archer about the Union. She explained her conduct on the ground that Archer had'
been a supervisor at one time and she "felt" Archer would be interested in knowing the
Company's offer There are approximately 450 rank-and-file employees in the Poplarville-
plant and I do not believe that Carlisle would single Archer out for an advance reading
of the Herman letter, particularly since Carlisle knew the employees could get copies of
it a few hours later.
U Archer testified that the above conversation occurred on August 30 Morris testified'
that she had a conversation with Archer in the "latter part of August" In which Rester's
union membership was discussed . Although Archer may have been mistaken about the
date, it is clear that Rester's membership was mentioned during a conversation between,
Archer and Morris.
MOVIE STAR, INC., ETC. 327
you to talk to her," Morris went on, "and see what you can do about it." Archer
agreed to talk to Rester but said she did not think it would do any good. Later that
day, Morris asked if Archer had talked to Rester and what Rester had to say.
Archer told Morris that she had told Rester at noon that she was supposed to talk
to Rester and get her out of the Union. Archer also reported to Morris that her
(Archer's) husband was present and spoke up to say, "Like hell you're supposed
to talk to [Rester] and get her out of the Union . I'm a teamster and . . . Rester
is not coming out of the union." Finally, Archer informed Morris that Rester said
she was not withdrawing from the Union. Archer herself joined the Union the
following day.12
On August 23, Morris whispered to employee Ellaree Palmer, "If you want to
work, you better get out of the damn union." Palmer first thought Morris, who was
her supervisor, was joking but when she decided that Morris was serious, she asked
Morris what she had to do to get out of the Union. Morris told her, "Go in the
office and tell them you want to withdraw . . You have got until the 31st."
Morris added that she "was going to talk [employee] Hazel [Odom] out of [the
Union] because she knew [Odom] had to work " Odom withdrew from the Union
that same day. The next day, Morris asked Palmer why she was staying with the
Union. Palmer replied that she "felt like" she should and that her husband had'
told her to "stay in." Morris said, "Okay."
Sometime during the last week of August (probably on August 27), Morris told'
employee Beulah Dedeaux that she "wasn't doing it to hurt" Dedeaux but her "best
bet was to withdraw from the union." Dedeaux said she "didn't know what to do."
The next afternoon, Dedeaux went to the office and told Shirley Long, the payroll
supervisor, that she wanted to withdraw from the Union. Miss Long told Dedeaux
"the paragraph to write," that is, "I want to withdraw from the Union and I don't
want to pay any more union dues." 13 Dedeaux rejoined the Union on August 28
and a few days later Morris asked her if she had done so. When Dedeaux said'
yes, Morris told her, "Well, you'd better get out for your own good" and Dedeaux
admitted she was "undecided again." 14
On August 23, Supervisor Wilma Smith told employee Emily Ladner that she had
"better get out of the Union," that the plant would work right on (presumably in
case of a strike), that the Union would be "out," and that Ladner would be "sorry"
if she "didn't get out of the Union." Smith then asked what Ladner was going to
do and Ladner said she was staying in the Union. Approximately 2 weeks later,
Smith asked Ladner if she had made up her mind and Ladner repeated that she
would continue to be a union member. Smith then said she was going to replace
Ladner and a new employee, Lowell Spears, was assigned to Ladner's job shortly
thereafter. Ladner was transferred to another job but was returned to her former
job about 6 weeks later.15
12 Archer had been a union member at one timebut had resigned during an earlier period,
when she was a supervisor.
13 Dedeaux's withdrawal slip is dated August 28 and reads, "I wish to withdraw from
the Union and I don't want to pay any more dues."
14 The findings concerning Supervisor Morris' conversations with employees Archer,
Palmer, and Beulah Dedeaux are based on the testimony of Archer, Palmer, and Dedeaux
which I credit. I do not credit Morris' testimony concerning her conversations with
Archer and Palmer nor her denial that she had a conversation with Beulah Dedeaux
about the Union. According to Morris, Archer stopped her and asked if she knew how
many girls in Morris' line were still in the Union and whether Rester was still a member
and she answered no to both questions. Palmer, Morris testified, also stopped her and
asked what the union telegram "no contract-no work" meant and whether Morris thought
they would all be out of work. Morris said that she, in turn, asked Palmer if she thought
it "fair" for the Union to "put us all out of work" to which Palmer replied, "If that's
what it takes, well, yes." Morris assertedly told Palmer to stick with the Union in that
case I think it most unlikely that either Archer or Palmer would question Morris in the
manner claimed Since Rester Is Archer's sister-in-law, Archer would be in a better
position to know Rester's attitude toward the Union than would Morris Although
Morris allegedly asked Palmer if she thought it fair for the Union to put "us all out of
work," Morris testified on cross-examination that she had been told that the plant would
operate during a strike.
is The above findings are based on the credited testimony of Ladner I do not credit
Smith's testimony that she merely asked Ladner if there would be a strike and Ladner
answered in the negative In addition to the reasons previously set forth for discrediting
Smith, I note also that Respondent made no attempt to establish by its records the date
on which Spears was hired. Its failure to do so suggests, at the very least, that its records
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shortly before Ladner was transferred to another job, Smith asked employee
Vernon Malley what he thought about the Union and he said he was "union" and
would stay union.16
Addie Lumpkin is the personnel manager at Poplarville. On August 24, Lumpkin
showed employees Mattie Gaudet and Artie Saucier a copy of a local newspaper
with a headline concerning a strike threat at Movie Star . Lumpkin then com-
mented to Gaudet , "You see, you still have time to get out of the Union if you
don't want to walk a picket line." On September 4, Lumpkin asked employee Rella
Harrell to withdraw from the Union saying that , otherwise , Harrell would not have
a job. When Harrell asked who was going to fire her, Lumpkin laughed and walked
away.17
On August 27 or 28, Supervisor Virgie Garrett asked employee Gloria Johnson
if she belonged to the Union . When Johnson answered yes, Garrett asked if she
was going to "get out " of it. Johnson said, "No, why?" Garrett did not reply to
Johnson's question but asked if Johnson wanted her to get Head Supervisor Carlisle
to come and talk to her . Johnson again answered no and Garrett said she would
be unable to work at the plant as long as she worked for the Union and if she did
not withdraw she would not be able to draw unemployment insurance . 18 Dollie
Anne Miller , who was present during the conversation , withdrew from the Union
on August 28.19
2. The conversations at the Purvis plant
One morning about the first of August , Plant Manager Henderson asked employee
Bettie Jo Lowe to do her a favor . The favor she asked of Lowe was for Lowe to
talk to Lowe's sister -in-law, Bettie Ann Lowe, about the Union . The Union would
not help Bettie Ann Lowe, Henderson said, because she treats all of the girls alike.
Lowe agreed to talk to her sister -in-law and Henderson asked Lowe not to tell
anyone about the conversation between Henderson and Lowe because it would get
Henderson into trouble.
Mary Elizabeth Fillingame was a member of the Union 's bargaining committee at
Purvis and a delegate to the Union's convention in the spring of 1962. In the summer
of 1962, Fillingame was active in urging employees to join the Union and employee
Bettie Ann Lowe had indicated she would like to sign a card.
One day in early August , when Fillingame returned from lunch, she talked to
Bettie Ann Lowe and Sarah Cameron , another employee . Cameron said she
wanted more time "to think " but Lowe said she was ready to sign a card. About
the time Fillingame handed Lowe a card , Plant Manager Josie Henderson walked
would have not corroborated Smith ' s testimony that Spears was hired the "latter part
of September or October" and have disproved the testimony of Ladner and Malley that
Spears was employed about September 10 or 11. I also note that Respondent did not call
Spears as a witness as it surely would have done if his testimony concerning his job
assignment would have corroborated Smith's testimony and refuted Ladner 's. Of Inter-
state Circuit v. United States, 306 U.S 208 , 225-226; N.L . R.B v. Ohio Calcium Company,
133 F 2d 721 , 727 (CA. 6)
16 Although I credit Malley's testimony concerning the above incident , I do not credit
his testimony that he overheard Smith tell Ladner on September 10 that she would prob-
ably lose her job if she did not get out of the Union I think lie heard Smith tell Ladner
on August 23 that she would be "sorry . . . If she didn ' t get out of the Union" and that
he was confused as to the date and that lie was testifying to his own interpretation of
Smith's statement rather than quoting what Smith actually said
17 Lumpkin admitted that she displayed the paper to a group of employees and asked if
they had seen it and I think it unlikely that she would have showed it to employees with-
out some comment . I therefore credit Gaudet 's testimony . In crediting Harrell's testi-
mony rather than that of Lumpkin I am aware that the Company announced on August 28
that it was no longer bargaining with the Union . It does not follow, however , as Respond-
ent argues , that the Company had no reason to discuss the Union with Harrell or other
employees thereafter for the Company 's action had , if anything , increased the possibility
of a strike Under these circumstances , the employees ' attitude toward the Union con-
tinued to be a subject of concern to the Company.
18 The above findings are based on the testimony of Johnson which I credit. I do not
credit Garrett's testimony that Johnson asked her if the plant would operate during a
strike and she said yes . Since Garrett admitted that the source of her information was
a speech by General 'Manager Hale, Johnson had no reason to ask Garrett what the Com-,
pany would do if there was a strike.
19 Although Miller's withdrawal slip is undated , it was introduced into evidence by
Respondent as one of those received on August 28
MOVIE STAR, INC., ETC. 329
by and told Fillingame that she could not sign up new employees. Fillingame replied
that the Union would "hold" the cards of new girls until they had completed their
training period. Henderson answered that Fillingame could not sign up employees
who had not been employed 6 weeks and "besides that they had to have their chance
in the office." The warning bell for return to work had rung before the conversation
between Henderson and Fillingame began and the final bell rang while Fillingame
and Henderson were talking.20
3. The conversations at the Ellisville plant
At the time of the events here in issue, Warren Baker was the manager of the
Ellisville plant. About the middle of August, Baker asked employee Della Crown-
over what she thought would happen if there was a strike. Crownover, who was
an officer of the Ellisville local, expressed the opinion that some of the employees
would strike and that some would not and added that she opposed a strike. Baker
replied that if there was a strike, Herman would move the plant back to Pennsylvania
where it had come from. During the same period, Baker asked Crownover if she
knew that some of the girls were coming out of the Union and told Crownover that
105 had "come out" at Poplarville and 35 at Purvis. When Crownover asked how
many had come out at Ellisville, Baker replied, "None yet, but all they are waiting
for is a leader." In the same or another conversation about the same time, Baker
asked Crownover how she thought "things were going" and she said "it looked pretty
slim to her." Baker said "it looked bad to him, too, that he could see that the
plant was in its death throes."
In mid-September, Assistant Manager Clarette Monk asked Crownover which ema
ployees had voted against a strike at the union meeting the previous Wednesday.
Crownover said she was sure she knew but refused to name the employees because it
was a secret ballot and she "couldn't prove it "
The future of the plant was also the subject of a conversation between Baker and
Union Chairlady Juanita Knuckles on August 14. Knuckles initiated the conversa-
tion when she told Baker she believed there were discrepancies between the Com-
pany's actual offer to the Union and the offer as stated in Herman's letter. In the
course of the conversation, Baker told Knuckles that the employees would accept
the Company's contract proposals if the union officers would use their influence.
The officers, Baker added, would be doing the employees a favor if they accepted
the offer because it was the last one the Company would make and it "would close
the Ellisville plant and [the employees] would be without jobs." According to
Baker, the work could be sent to other plants including the two new ones in Puerto
Rico where the employees would work for lower wages. All he would have to
do, Baker explained, was to pick up the telephone and make one call and this plant
ro The above findings are based on the credited testimony of Fillingame and Lowe. Al-
though Fillingame testified that the incident in which she was involved occurred on
August 10, her prehearing affidavit gave August 16 as the date The exact date is not
critical and she explained that after giving her affidavit she deteimined the correct date
by checking the date on which the Union filed a grievance based on the incident. More-
over, Henderson admitted that she spoke to Fillingame in early August after noticing that
Lowe had a "white card" in her hand. According to Henderson, the 1 p in. bell had rung
and she told Fillingame that she was not supposed to solicit for the Union during working
hours and that Fillingame should give a new girl a chance to make production before she
started "bothering" her She also told Fillingame, Henderson said, that after Lowe
completed her training "we would . . . ask her if she wanted to belong to the Union or
not and she would have a chance to sign a card in the office." Although Henderson testi-
fied that Supervisor Nada Rutland was present during the conversation, Respondent did
not call Rutland as a witness It called instead employee Mavis Anderson who testified
to having seen Henderson stop momentarily at or near a group of employees which in-
cluded Fillingame and Lowe. According to Anderson, the incident occurred after the
second bell had rang However, Anderson admittedly did not hear anything that was said
and was not even certain that anything was said. Under these circumstances it is clear
that it was impossible for Anderson to know whether the incident she saw was the one
described by Fillingame and Henderson. Moreover, it is clear from other portions of
Anderson's testimony that she was a wholly unreliable witness. Finally, the prompt filing
of a grievance with respect to the incident tends to corroborate Fillingame's testimony
that Henderson's remarks were not based on the fact that Fillingame was engaging in
union activity on working time. Henderson's open opposition to efforts by the Union to
sign up new members also causes me to credit Lowe's testimony that Henderson asked her
to talk to Bettie Ann Lowe about the Union and to discredit Henderson 's testimony that
no such conversation occurred.
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
will close and never "open again." Baker added that he would have no trouble
getting another job.21
In late June, lust before the original expiration date of the old contract, Assistant
Manager Clarette Monk and employee Knuckles discussed, in the presence of a
number of employees, whether there would be a strike. During the discussion,
Monk stated that before the Company would "let" the employees strike and picket
the plant, it would close the plant. And shortly after Herman's letter was read to
the employees (August 14), Monk asked Knuckles why the employees did not accept
the Company's offer, saying, "Don't you know that if you don't take this final
proposal . . . you will all be without jobs . . . this plant will close . . . they can
give this work to other plants and we will all be without work " 22
On or about August 23, Supervisor Thelma Myrick asked employee Ida Rushton,
"What do you think about coming out of the union" and suggested that Rushton
"Join an independent union." Rushton said she did not think an independent union
was any good, to which Myrick replied, "Neither is the one that you have now."
Myrick also asked Rushton if she had read Herman's letter and informed Rushton
that if there was a strike "the plant will never be opened again. You cannot get a
job anywhere You can't draw unemployment benefits" and no other "plant will
... be allowed to come to Ellisville."
Rushton indicated that she doubted the accuracy of Myrick's statements but
Myrick asked her to "think of the other girls that have to have [the plant] for their
living " Myrick also asked Rushton if she had heard Manager Hale talk about the
work done at the Ellisville plant and observed that it could be closed permanently
and never missed. At the close of the conversation, Myrick placed a copy of a
letter on Rushton's machine and said she wanted Rushton to read it carefully. The
letter contained a copy of Union Representative Kehrer's telegram to the Company
on August 22 and the Company's reply
About August 27, Myrick asked employee Lillie Ruth Boyette if she "would come
out of the Union" and stated that if the plant was closed by a strike, it would
never open again. There would be a different union, Myrick said, and the dues
would be "about fifty cents" instead of the current $3.50 per month 23 After lunch
that same day, Assistant Manager Monk asked Boyette what she thought of "what
Thelma Myrick just talked to you about9" Boyette said she wanted time to think
it over. The next morning, Monk asked Boyette what she had decided and Boyette
said she was staying with the Union.
During the same period, employee Ruby Livingston was also approached first by
Supervisor Myrick and then by Supervisor Monk. Myrick wanted to know whether
21 In crediting Knuckles' and Crownover's testimony on which the above findings are
based, I have taken into account that they were union officers As previously pointed out,
if the Company sought to cause defections from the Union at all, its efforts would neces-
sarily be directed at union members Furthermore, Crownover's statement that she was
opposed to a strike suggested that she might-with encouragement--lead an antiunion
movement My discrediting of Baker's denials that he made most of the statements
attributed to him is due in part to his purported lack of knowledge of and interest in
employee withdrawals I find such an attitude incredible, particularly in view of Baker's
admission that lie spoke by telephone with General Manager Hale "almost daily," and
that during these conversations he asked about contract negotiations and Hale would
bring him "up to date in a general sort of way " I also find incredible Baker's testimony
that the Union was not mentioned at a 3 to 4 hour meeting of management representatives,
including Board Chairman Herman, at Poplarville in July I note also that the conversa-
tions occurred on or about August 14, the date on which Herman's letter was read to the
employees and that the chief difference between the statements attributed to Baker and
those in the Herman letter is that Baker's were more direct. Thus, according to Herman,
acceptance of the Union's proposals would leave the Company noncompetitive and "in a
position of being unable to provide [the employees] with less work and, in some instances,
with no work at all." Herman also expressed the hope that the employees would "urge"
acceptance of the Company's "final" offer when it was presented at union meetings.
Finally, the Herman letter and Baker's statements are additional reasons why I credit the
testimony of the employees at the Ellisville plant concerning similar statements by various
supervisors at that plant. Cf. N L R.B v. Pittsburgh SS Company, 337 U.S. 656, 659.
22 My crediting of the testimony of Crownover and others concerning their conversations
with Monk, is based in part on the fact that Monk's demeanor and her testimony con-
vinced me that she has decided views which she does not hesitate to express
23I do not credit Boyette's testimony that Myrick stated that there would be no strike
if 50 percent of the girls withdrew from the Union since Boyette in her prehearing affidavit
quoted Myrick as having said that there would be no strike if 50 percent of the employees
would continue to work.
MOVIE STAR, INC., ETC. 331
Livingston had thought about coming out of the Union and stated that the Company
wanted to form "an independent or company union," that more than half of the
"girls" had pulled out of the Union, and gave the number who had withdrawn at
the Magnolia plant. According to Myrick, only the girls who pulled out would
get work and she reminded Livingston that some of the employees "had children
who would go hungry if they didn't work." Myrick also remarked, "I guess you
know that if you strike they are going to move the plant and there won't be another
factory that will come in here in Ellisville." As Myrick walked away, Assistant
Manager Monk came by and asked Livingston what she thought about what Myrick
had said. Livingston said she did not know and gave the same answer when Monk
asked if there would be a strike.24
During the last week in August, Supervisor Sidney Ryals commented to employee
Etta Baygents that "just about all of the girls were withdrawing from the Union,"
-that the Company (or at least the one at Ellisville) was not recognizing the Union
any more, and that the employees who were withdrawing from the Union would
have jobs while those who did not withdraw would not have jobs.25
During the last week of August, Supervisor Katherine Smith went to employee
Janice Clark to instruct Clark about her work. According to Clark's credited
-testimony, during her stay Smith asked Clark if Clark had heard about the "trouble"
between the Company and the Union. Clark said she had not and Smith told her
that "the Company didn't recognize the Union any more," that there was a rumor
that the employees might strike and if they did it would "just be like quitting" their
jobs and they could "never work [at the plant] any more" and "their names would
be put on a list and they couldn't work anywhere else." Smith also told Clark that
Herman would move all the machines out of the plant, that there would be no plant,
and that it would be hard on the girls who really needed to work.26 Smith added
that the girls who wanted to could continue to work in case of a strike and those who
went out with the Union would be called agitators or something like that."
During the same period , Smith had occasion to instruct employee Royce Eason
about her work. Smith, according to Eason's credited testimony, asked if Eason
had heard what had happened . When Eason said , "No," Smith stated that "over
half of the girls had pulled out of the union and that anyone that went out [on
strike] would be discharged . Eason commented that it had been "pretty
bad" with the Union and that without one the employees "couldn't hardly work." 27
24 Myrick denied having any conversation with Boyette about the Union but admitted
having started a conversation with Rushton by asking her what she thought of the Com-
pany's offer because she was "carious" to know what Rushton thought. Livingston,
Myrick said, asked her whether the plant would be moved if these was a strike and she
replied that she had no idea but that Manager Hale had said 6 or 8 months before that
the plant was not showing a profit and Myrick added that "if it closed it would probably
not open because of that" Myrick also testified that she heard nothing about with-
drawals from the Union until sometime "during September ." i e , at least several days
after August 28 when the Company's statement on the subject was read to the employees.
In finding that Myrick made the statements attributed to her , I have considered , inter alia,
that the outspoken Monk was Myrick's immediate superior, that in two cases Myrick's
conversations were followed by a visit from Monk, and Myrick's denial that she heard
anything about withdraials from the Union until September.
25 The above findings are based on Baygents ' testimony which I credit . According to
Ryals, the subject of their conversation was the Company 's offer as set forth in the Herman
letter of August 13 . I do not credit Ryals' testimony concerning any part of her conversa-
tion with Baygents, in part because I do not believe that Baygents and Ryals would have
discussed the Company 's offer in the detail described by Ryals as late as August 30 or 31,
-I e., after the Company had announced that it was no longer bargaining with the Union.
It is more likely that the subjects of any conversation on or after August 28 would be the
ones indicated by Baygents.
-re Cf. the following passages in the Company's statement to the employees on August 28:
The Union has threatened to strike and to close our plant down. This would result
in everyone of our people being thrown out of work at least temporarily and would
endanger the security of all of your jobs for the future.
27 According to Smith , she asked Eason what she thought of the Company ' s offer and told
.Eason about the August 28 statement that a large number of employees had withdrawn
from the Union and that the Company was no longer negotiating with it She had no
conversation with Clark about the Union, Smith said. I do not credit Smith's testimony
in part because of her insistence that she had not even heard rumors about withdrawals
,from the Union prior to Baker 's statement.
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 27, Supervisor Lexie Miller asked employee Ann Ruth Pearson if she
was "pulling out of the Union." Pearson said, "No," she "hadn't thought anything
about it." Miller replied that employees were "pulling out" at the other plants, that
there had been 35 withdrawals at one plant and 54 at another. "What they were
trying to do," Miller told Pearson, "was to form an independent union ." Miller
also commented that it looked as if there would be a strike and Pearson agreed.
The same day, Miller asked employee Glenda Herndon if she still belonged to the
"little club." Herndon replied that she did and that she respected both the Union
and the Company. "If it hadn't been for the union," Herndon commented, Assistant
Manager Monk "wouldn't have her job today." A few minutes later Monk asked
what "tales" Herndon had been telling Miller. Herndon asked Monk to leave but
Monk said Herndon owed her an apology. Herndon also commented that Miller
should not have come to her machine in the first place.
Likewise during the last week in August, Miller asked employee Mary Blackwell
what she thought about a strike and about some of the girls "pulling out of the
union." Miller added that even if the girls left the Union, they could still have
union representation Miller also asked Blackwell not to mention to anyone what
Miller had said. Blackwell's replies clearly indicated that she was strongly in favor
of the incumbent union.28
F. The Company's statements on August 28
As set forth supra, the old contract was applicable to the employees at Poplarville,
Ellisville, Magnolia, and Purvis and the Company agreed during the 1962 negotia-
tions that any new contract would be applicable to the employees at Sumrall and
Collins. It is undisputed that the Union represented a majority of the employees
at the six plants, taken as a unit, at least through mid-August 1962, although it
apparently had no members at Sumrall or Collins.
The Union's representative status was demonstrated by the fact that a majority
of the employees had signed dues checkoff authorizations. However, as set forth
more fully infra, by the close of business on August 27, numerous employees had
signed and submitted to the Company slips stating that they no longer wished to
belong to the Union and directing the Company not to deduct any more dues on its
behalf.
When the parties met on August 28 at New Orleans, Salberg announced he had
a statement to read. He thereupon read the following statement:
As you know, the Company met with the union in numerous bargaining
sessions and informal meetings in New York, Atlanta and New Orleans for
the past five months, in an attempt to reach a fair settlement. The Company
dealt with, and seriously considered the union's demands, and made a fair
and reasonable offer of settlement, one which the Company could live with.
This offer was turned down by the union. The union's demands at the beginning
and all the way through to the last meeting have been unreasonable and op-
pressive. The demands have been such that if the Company were to try to
meet them, we sincerely believe that it would place the Company in a dangerous
position competitively; that the business of the Company would be jeopardized;
and, the jobs of all Company personnel would be in danger. These same con-
clusions apparently were reached by a substantial number of employees at
the Company, and in the past several days large numbers of our employees
have indicated their dissatisfaction with the union by advising the Company
that they have withdrawn from the union and by instructing the Company to
stop deducting union dues. As a result of the large-scale withdrawals from the
union, it is the Company's belief that the union no longer represents a majority
of the Company's employees. The Company's attorneys have advised that in
view of these recent developments, it would be improper and risky under the
law for the Company to continue its negotiations with the union and, therefore,
we cannot continue to negotiate. Furthermore, on the advice of the Company's
attorneys, and in order that the present situation can be cleared up, the Com-
pany has filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board requesting
that the Labor Board conduct an election so that the Company's employees can
as In crediting the testimony of Pearson , Blackwell, Herndon , and other employees at
Ellisville and in discrediting that of miller and other supervisors, I am influenced in part
by the fact that the testimony discloses that few if any of the supervisors were told that
they were not permitted to question or threaten the employees Since the record discloses
that the supervisors were apprehensive about the future of the plant in case of a strike,
I think it probable that they made the statements attributed to them
MOVIE STAR, INC., ETC. 333
vote on the question of whether or not they want to be represented by the union.
The circumstances make it necessary for the Company to tell its employees
that the Company believes that the union has not represented their best interests,
and that the employees would be better off without the union.
The Company decided on this course of action only this morning, and the
petition was filed with the Labor Board just before we came here to this meet-
ing. Had we reached this decision earlier, we would have advised you promptly
so as to have avoided any inconvenience that may have been caused you by
attending this meeting. This statement will be read to all the employees at
the various plants involved so that each of them will know the Company's
reasons for not continuing negotiations with the union.
As indicated by the last sentence of the above statement, it was read the same
day to the employees at Poplarville, Ellisville, Magnolia, and Purvis. It was pref-
aced by the following statement:
We have asked you together here to talk to you about the union situation.
As many of you know, when Movie Star first came to Mississippi, many years
ago, the International Ladies Garment Workers Union practically came with
it. Very shortly after the company's first plant opened, the company gave
recognition to that union and entered into a contract with them. None of our
employees ever had a chance to vote on whether or not they wanted to be
represented by that union. Furthermore, as the years have passed and as
Movie Star has expanded and built new plants in Mississippi, the contracts
with this union have been extended to cover these new plants so that the plants
at Poplarville, Purvis, Ellisville and Magnolia have all been covered by the latest
contract with this union since 1959. The new plants at Sumrall and Collins
were not built at the time and, therefore, they have not been covered by that
contract. All of you know the story of the recent negotiations which the
company has had with the union in an attempt to work out a new contract.
The company has done its utmost to make an offer for improvement of wages,
holidays, vacations and other benefits which was more than fair and which
was the very best that the company could offer in the face of the tough competi-
tion that we have today. The union turned that offer down cold. The union
has threatened to strike and to close our plants down. This would result in
everyone of our people being thrown out of work at least temporarily and would
endanger the security of all of your jobs for the future.
In the past few days large numbers of you have voluntarily come to us and
advised us that you have withdrawn from the union and have asked us to stop de-
ducting union dues from your pay. This has happened not only in this plant,
but also in other company plants as well. This action by you makes it clear that
this union does not actually represent a majority of our employees today. This
morning, at a meeting in New Orleans, company representatives informed the
union of this fact and told the union that under these circumstances the com-
pany could not continue negotiations with the union. I want to read to you
the statement which was read to the union by our representatives at the meeting
in New Orleans this morning. Here is the statement. (Read the statement in
full.)
That is the complete statement which was given by the company to the union
this morning. In addition, the company went to the Regional Office of the
National Labor Relations Board and filed a petition for an election. This elec-
tion will be held by the Labor Board, which is an agency of the Federal Govern-
ment, to let our employees vote-for the first time-on whether or not they
really want this union to represent them.
We are not proud of the fact that we helped to force this union upon you
from the beginning and that we did not provide you with an opportunity to
vote on this serious question. That was a mistake and we readily admit it.
Our only excuse is that before we came to Mississippi, the company's entire
business experience was in the northeast where these unions exercise life and
death control over plants and the jobs of the workers.
The fact that many of you folks have made your decision to withdraw from
the union and cancel your dues payments is evidence of the fact that you fully
understand that the union's position in these negotiations would hurt our com-
pany and consequently hurt you. You know as well as I do that we are all
in the same boat together and if our company or our company 's business is
hurt by the union the jobs of all of us will be hurt.
I do want to assure you that if the union strikes this plant the company in-
tends to continue operating. We will see to it that there are jobs for all of you
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who want to work. If necessary we will hire new employees to replace the
strikers. We certainly hope that this is not necessary but we are ready to do,
our utmost to be certain that our business and the jobs of all those who want
them here are protected.
We want to thank you for standing up to support what you believe is right.
We are going to see to it that you have an opportunity to vote on this union
issue. We do not believe that further interference will help any of us. What
we will have will be only what we get by working together.
The decision in this election will be up to you. We have confidence in your
good judgment. As soon as we have further information about the election
we will let you know. We appreciate your good attitude and your support of
your company.
Thank you.
Also as indicated, the Company filed with the Board's Regional Office on Au-
gust 28 a petition for an election. None was ever held, however, due to the filing
of the unfair labor practice charges which set the instant proceeding in motion.
Finally, on September 17, 1962, Company Negotiator Salberg wrote Union Nego-
tiator Kehrer as follows:
It has been reported to us that you and other representatives of the ILGWU
are inferring to employees of Movie Star at the several plants in Mississippi
that we are welching on our offers with respect to increases and other benefits
which were made to the Union during negotiations. Specifically we are told
that you are asking these employees-where are the wage increases, etc., which
the Company promised?
As you well know, the Union has kept the Company from putting these
increased benefits into effect by filing with the National Labor Relations Board
the unwarranted and baseless charges of alleged unfair labor practices, by-
refusing to allow the employees to vote in a Labor Board election, and by
holding over the Company's head the threat that if we were to put the in-
creases and other benefits into effect you would file additional unfair labor
practices charges against the Company and thereby further delay the election.
The purpose of this letter is to give you an opportunity to state your position
openly and clearly with respect to whether or not you have any objection to
the Company putting into effect the increases and other benefits which were
offered during the negotiations.
If we do not hear from you by next Thursday, September 20, 1962, we
shall assume that the Union will not object to our putting these increased bene-
fits immediately into effect, retroactive to September 1, 1962, and that your
organization will not complain to the Labor Board about this action in any
proceedings now or in the future.
Kehrer apparently did not reply to Salberg 's letter.
G. Analysis and conclusions
1. The Company's conduct which violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 29
The facts set forth in section II, E, supra, disclose that Respondent engaged in the
following conduct which, it is well-established and I find, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act:
1. Supervisor Morris' statement to employee Palmer , "If you want to work, you
better get out of the damn union," her instructions to Palmer about how to withdraw,
her statement to Palmer that she (Morris) was going to talk employee Odom out
of the Union because Odom had to work, and her subsequent questioning of Palmer
about why she was staying in the Union; Morris' statement to employee Beulah
Dedeaux that she "wasn't doing it to hurt" Dedeaux but that her "best bet was to
withdraw from the Union," her later questioning of Dedeaux about her union mem-
bership and comment that Dedeaux had better get out of the Union for her own good.
2. Supervisor Wilma Smith's questioning of employee Joyce Dedeaux about why
Dedeaux did not get out of the Union and her immediately following reminder that
Dedeaux knew she had to work; Smith's statement to employee Ladner that she had
better get out of the Union and that Ladner would be "sorry" if she "didn't get out
of the Union"; Smith's later questioning of Ladner concerning Ladner 's decision.
Although some of the incidents included below were not set forth in the complaint,
they are closely related to incidents which were set forth and were fully litigated at the,
hearing Cf. Monroe Feed ,Store, 112 NLRB 1336, 1337-1338.
MOVIE STAR, INC., ETC. 335
3. Supervisor Lumpkin's request that employee Harrell withdraw from the Union
which was followed by the statement that if Harrell did not withdraw she would
not have a job.
4. Supervisor Garrett's questioning of employee Johnson about her union mem-
bership, whether she was going to get out of the Union, and Garrett's statements
that Johnson would not be able to work if she "worked for the Union" and that if
she did not withdraw she would not be able to draw unemployment insurance.
5. Plant Manager Baker's statement to employee Crownover that Board Chair-
man Herman would move the plant if there was a strike; his questioning of Crown-
over about whether she knew that employees were withdrawing from the Union
and his comment immediately thereafter that the employees at Ellisville were "waiting
for a leader"; Baker's statements to employee Knuckles that the Union's officers
would be doing the employees a favor if they accepted the Company's offer because
it was the last one the Company would make and if it was not accepted the
Company would close the plant, transfer the work to other plants, and employees
would be without jobs.
6. Supervisor Myrick's questioning of employee Rushton about her opinion of
withdrawing from the Union, her suggestion that Rushton join an independent union,
her statements to Rushton that if there was a strike the plant would never open
again, that Rushton could not get a job anywhere and could not draw unemploy-
ment insurance, that no other plant would be allowed to come to Ellisville, and
her request that Rushton consider the other employees who had to work; Myrick's
similar questions and statements to employee Boyette; Myrick's questioning of em-
ployee Livingston about coning out of the Union, her statements to Livingston that
the Company wanted to form an independent or company union, that employees
were withdrawing from the Union, that only the girls who withdrew from the Union
would get work, and that the plant would be moved if there was a strike and no
other plant would come in.
7. Supervisor Monk's statement to employee Knuckles that the Company would
close the plant before it would permit the employees to strike and picket; her ques-
tioning of Knickles as to why the employees did not accept the Company's offer
and her statement that otherwise the plant would close and the employees would be
without jobs.
8. Supervisor Ryals' statement to employee Baygents that just about all of the
girls were withdrawing from the Union and the immediately following statement
that the employees who withdrew would have jobs and those who did not withdraw
would have no jobs.
9. Supervisor Katherine Smith's questioning of employee Clark about whether she
had heard about the "trouble" between the Company and the Union, her comments
to Clark that if the employees struck it would be just like quitting their jobs, they
could never work at the plant again, their names would be put on a list and they
could not work anywhere, and that the plant would be closed; Smith's statement to
employee Eason that more than half of the girls had withdrawn from the Union
and that anyone who struck would be discharged.
I also find that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by engaging in
the conduct set forth below. Although an employer is permitted to express his
views and opinions concerning the Union and to advance arguments in support
thereof, this does not mean that he can question employees about their views or
solicit them individually to withdraw from the Union or to assist the employer in
causing other employees to withdraw. The reason, of course, is that such questions,
comments, and requests do not constitute the expression of views, opinions, or argu-
ments by the employer but rather cause, directly or indirectly, individual employees
to reveal their positions. Cf. New French Benzol Cleaners and Laundry, Inc.,
139 NLRB 1176.
In some of the incidents set forth below, the employees were questioned directly
concerning their union membership and attitudes toward its purported policies or
plans. In others, the management representative made comments which could be
expected to and in fact did cause the employee to disclose her position. In still
others, the employee was requested to assist management in its campaign against the
Union including its efforts to cause the employees to withdraw from it.
Included also is the Henderson-Fillingame incident described supra. Although
I have found that the incident did not occur during working time, I would reach the
same conclusion even if the final bell had already rung.30 Thus Henderson's own
10 It was stipulated at the hearing that there was no "no-solicitation " rule in effect at
the Purvis plant and it is undisputed that soliciting for other purposes is carried on during
working hours.
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testimony discloses that she did not limit her comments to the fact that the work
bell had rung for she admittedly also told Fillingame, in the presence of other
employees, that "she should give a new girl a chance to make production before
[Fillingame] started bothering her" and that "after [Lowe] had completed her
training period that we would . . . ask [her] if she wanted to sign a union card
or not and that [the employee] would have a chance to sign a card in the office."
It is therefore apparent that Henderson was criticizing Fillingame's efforts to sign
up new girls generally and was seeking to limit solicitations on behalf of the Union
to inquiries in the office by company representatives. Such a limitation on union
activity, which amounts to the broadest no-solicitation rule, clearly interferes with,
restrains, and coerces employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
the Act. That it did so in this case is revealed by the fact that Lowe did not sign
a card although it is undisputed that she had told Fillingame a few minutes earlier
that she was ready to sign.31
Having considered the questions, statements, and requests set forth below "in
connection with the position of the parties, with the background and circumstances
under which they [were] made and with the general conduct of the parties," I find
them to be "a part of a general pattern or course of conduct" which coerced the
employees and deprived them of the free choice guaranteed them by the Act.
N.L.R.B. v. Kropp Forge Co., 178 F. 2d 822, 829 (C.A. 7), cert. denied 340 U.S.
810. As the court said in N.L.R.B. v. Wilbur H. Ford, d/b/a Ford Brothers, 170
F. 2d 735, 738 (C.A. 6), "It is impossible to estimate the effect of such anti-union
activities on employees generally" and the test in such cases is not whether there is
proof of actual coercion but whether it may reasonably be said that the conduct
tends to interfere with employee rights.
1. General Manager Hale's questioning of employee Joyce Dedeaux about why
the employees did not form a "local" union, his statements to Dedeaux that he
wanted her on his side, meaning that he wanted her out of the Union, and his
comment "let the chips fall where they may" when Dedeaux said she was not going
over to Hale's side.
2. Head Supervisor Veda Carlisle's statements to employee Dorothy Archer that
she needed Archer's help and needed it badly and that Archer had to talk fast and
help the Company get the employees out of the Union.
3. Supervisor Morris' request of employee Archer that she help get another
employee out of the Union and her asking Archer if she had talked to the employee
and what the latter said.
4. Plant Manager Henderson's request that employee Lowe talk to another em-
ployee about the Union and her request that Lowe not tell anyone about Henderson's
request; Henderson's criticism of employee Fillingame for soliciting another employee
to sign a union card and her ban upon all solicitation by employees.
5. Supervisor Monk's questioning of employee Crownover about which employees
had voted against a strike; Monk's questioning of employees Boyette and Livingston
about what they thought of Supervisor Myrick's statements to them.
6. Supervisor Lexie Miller's questioning of employee Pearson about pulling out of
the Union, her statement to Pearson that employees were withdrawing at other
plants and were trying to form an independent union; Miller's questioning of em-
ployee Herndon about her membership in the "little club"; Miller's questioning of
employee Blackwell about her opinion about a strike and employee withdrawals from
the Union and her comment that the employees could withdraw and still have union
representation.
7. Supervisor Wilma Smith's questioning of employee Malley about his union
views.
2. The Company's refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and
(1) of the Act
a. The negotiations through August 8
It is well settled that the Act does not impose any duty upon the employer to
make concessions to the union or reach agreement with it. It is equally true,
however, that good-faith bargaining requires the employer to approach the bargain-
ing table willing to listen to the union and open to being persuaded by its arguments.
This, according to the General Counsel and the Union, the Respondent did not do
because, they say, it was determined to agree to no contract except on its own terms
and the Union, at least, argues that the Company had determined what those terms
would be before the parties had even met.
31 The cards signed during this period are in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit No 31
MOVIE STAR, INC., ETC. 337
I do not doubt that an employer is not bargaining in good faith if his prenegotiation
decisions are final in the sense that the union can do or say nothing which will
persuade him to vary his position materially on any substantial issue. However,
I assume that employers, when preparing for contract negotiations, may properly
decide generally what their position will be on various subjects, such as wages, which
are likely to arise. And although I have no doubt that the Company here made
such preliminary decisions, I am unable to find that a preponderance of the evidence
establishes that Respondent entered into negotiations with its position on every issue
so firmly fixed that it was merely going through the motions of bargaining. As
bargaining progressed, the Company made new counteroffers to the Union on most,
if not all, major issues. And it is impossible for me to say that they were not more
substantial than they would have been if the Company had not listened to the Union's
arguments and counteragreements.
Nor can I agree with the contention of the General Counsel and the Union that
Respondent failed to bargain in good faith by failing to furnish the Union, upon
request, with data to substantiate its claim that it could not grant the Union's
demands and remain competitive.
The duty of an employer, who pleads "inability to pay" the increases sought
by the union, to furnish substantiating data, upon request, is well established.
N L R B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co , 351 U.S. 149, 152-153. But as the Court was careful
to point out, its holding does not mean that "in every case in which economic hard-
ship is raised as an argument against increased wages, it automatically follows that
the employees are entitled to substantiating evidence. Each case must turn upon
its particular facts. The inquiry must always be whether or not under the circum-
stances of the particular case the statutory obligation to bargain in good faith has
been met" (Ibid.) The Respondent's duty, therefore, must be determined on the
basis of the facts in this particular case.
As set forth supra, the parties failed to reach agreement primarily because of the
Union's insistence on a 35-hour week and a $1.40 an hour minimum wage and
the Company's equally firm position that to agree to such terms would so increase its
costs that its competitive position would be destroyed or at least seriously damaged.
Although the Company did not claim that it was impossible for it to grant the
Union's demands, the gist of its position was that the increase in costs would require
an increase in prices which in turn would affect its ability to retain and obtain
customers and hence to remain in business 32 Although Truitt deals with a claim
of "inability to pay," I do not read the decision as being limited to such a claim.
Thus, the Court observed that "good faith bargaining necessarily requires that claims
made . should be honest claims" and imposes a duty upon the bargainer, if
requested, to do more than repeat his claim "mechanically." In my opinion, these
statements apply not only to a claim of "inability to pay" but also to any position
taken which materially affects the course of bargaining. It follows, therefore, and
I find that the Company's duty to bargain in good faith required it to comply with a
request by the Union for evidence which would substantiate its claim that to grant
the Union's demands would seriously affect its competitive position 33
It is therefore necessary to determine whether the Union requested substantiating
evidence and the Company refused-or failed-to furnish it. Both Union Negotia-
tor Kehrer and Company Negotiator Salberg testified that the Company offered to
show the Union "records from its auditors." Although Salberg testified that the
Union did not accept the offer, I credit Kehrer's testimony that he asked for the
records 34 Although it is clear that the records were never furnished the Union,
32 Cf. the testimony of Company Negotiator Salberg that he told the Union that the
Company could not meet the Union's demands because it would not be able to compete and
"it would be out of business in effect "
33 Although I credit Kehrer's testimony that Board Chairman Herman stated on August 7
that the Company "would be unable to pay [the Union'sl demands," I am convinced and
find that Herman's statement was but an elliptical repetition of the Company's claim that
it was unable to increase its costs and stay competitive.
34I consider it unlikely that Kehrer would refuse the Company's offer and his testimony
that he renewed his request during a recess conversation with Board Chairman Herman is
undenied Apparently Salberg was either not present during this conversation or not near
enough to hear it. Although I am sure that Salberg testified in good faith when he
asserted the offer was not accepted, I am convinced that he was mistaken, probably because
he did not hear or understand Kehrer's reply to the Company's offer during the morning
meeting. This could easily happen since there were at least a dozen and probably more
persons present and I do not doubt that, at times, more than one person was talking.
734-070-64-vol. 145-23
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it does not follow that the Company thereby violated its duty to bargain in good
faith with the Union.
Thus, the offer was made and accepted on August 7 at a meeting in New Orleans
and there is no evidence that the Company's chief negotiators, who have their offices
in New York, had the records with them. Although it might have been possible
for the Company to make the records available the next day when the parties met
again, nothing in the record suggests that the Union asked or expected the Company
to comply with its request within 24 hours. Finally, I note that August 8 was the
last date on which contract negotiations in fact occurred for when the parties met
again on August 28, the Company announced that it would not engage in further
negotiations because it doubted the Union's majority. I am convinced, therefore,
that the Company's failure to furnish the substantiating data requested by the Union
was due to the breakdown of negotiations shortly after the August 8 meeting. Under
these circumstances, I cannot find that the Company's failure to furnish the records
was either evidence of or, without more, constituted bad-faith bargaining.35
b. The Herman letter of August 13
As stated supra, the parties met twice on August 7 and twice on August 8.
Although the Company told the Union on August 8 that it had offered all it could
"under all of the circumstances," the Company did not inform the Union that it
had made its "final" offer.36 On the contrary, it is clear that it was understood that
the parties would meet again. On August 14, however, the Company read and dis-
tributed to the employees at Poplarville, Magnolia, Ellisville, and Purvis, the Herman
letter which referred to the August 8 offer as the Company's "final" offer.
It is therefore apparent that the Herman letter was not merely a factual report
of what had gone on at the bargaining sessions but set forth a highly important
"fact" which had not been communicated to the Union. It is impossible to say,
of course, what the Union's position would have been on August 8 had it been told
that its choice lay between a contract incorporating the Company's proposals or no
contract. But it is possible that the Union would have preferred what it regarded
as a poor contract to none at all. Furthermore, by at least implying that the Union
had rejected what it knew to be the Company's final offer, the Company created the
impression that the Union had abandoned its efforts to obtain a contract. Such a
suggestion could not fail to raise a question in the minds of the employees concern-
ing the benefits to be obtained from union representation and it is significant that
31 employees at the Magnolia plant canceled their dues deduction authorizations on
August 14, 15, 16, and 17.
In addition, the letter expressed both the opinion that the employees would ap-
prove the Company's offer and the "hope" that they would "urge that it be approved
when it is presented to you at union meetings, which no doubt will be called for
the purpose of presenting the Company's proposal to you." In my opinion, the
purpose of these statements and the letter generally was to secure acceptance by
the employees of an offer which had already been rejected by their bargaining
representative, albeit without knowledge that it was the Company's final offer.
Although the letter paid lipservice to the Union's status as the bargaining agent by
referring to meetings at which the offer would be voted upon, it clearly sought to
force the Union to hold such meetings promptly and to submit the offer to a vote.
Moreover, it was designed to create dissatisfaction among the employees if the
Union did not conduct its affairs in the manner suggested by the Company. And
this was precisely its effect for a number of the employee witnesses called by Re-
spondent testified that their dissatisfaction with the Union was based in large part
on the fact that they were not permitted to vote on the Company's offer at meetings
held on he evening of August 14, the date on which the letter was read in the
four plants.
The letter also reminded the employees that the Company had been able-gener-
ally-to provide steady work and then stated that acceptance of the Union's pro-
posals, which it characterized as "pretty unrealistic," would not permit the Company
to stay competitive and "would put [it] in a position of being able to Provide [the
employees] with less work and, in some instances with no work " On the other
ss It is arguable that the Company was under a duty to deliver the records to the Union
as soon as possible after August 8 or, at least, to inquire when and where the Union wished
to examine them In view of all of the circumstances, however, its duty to do so is not
so clear that I can conclude that its failure to take the initiative means that it was not
bargaining in good faith.
36 I do not understand Respondent to be contending otherwise. In any event, I credit
Union Negotiator Kehrer's testimony that no such statement was made
MOVIE STAR, INC., ETC. 339
hand, the Company assured the employees that it believed they were "entitled to the
same sort of progress in wages and fringes" enjoyed by employees in competitive
plants and also stated that if a "peaceful and progressive relationship" were main-
tained, the Company could "probably . . . put into effect the increases" proposed
by the Company and "still stay competitive." The Company's offer was also said
to provide a basis on which the Company could "continue to operate our plants and
compete" but did not mean that the Company was abandoning its policy of "en-
abling [the employees] to make steady advancement in wages and working
conditions."
The employees to whom this communication was addressed-chiefly women-
lived in small towns in which job opportunities cannot be great, particularly for
women 37 Under these circumstances, the question of whether the Company would
continue to operate its plants was a serious one to the employees and when state-
ments such as those set forth above "are made by one who is a part of management,
and who has the power to change prophecies into realities, such statements, whether
couched in language of probability or certainty, tend to impede and coerce employees
in their right to self-organization . . N.L.R.B. v. W. C. Nabors, d/b/a W. C.
Nabors Company, 196 F. 2d 272, 276 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 344 U.S. 865.38
Moreover, by referring to the Company's policy of granting employees "steady
advancement in wages and working conditions" and by implying that the Company
would put its proposals into effect whether a contract were signed or not, the letter
suggested to the employees that they would receive the same benefits without the
Union that they would receive with it.
In sum, I am convinced and find that the Herman letter, by stating a highly
important fact not communicated to the Union during negotiations, went beyond a
mere factual report of what had occurred at the bargaining sessions. I am also
convinced and find that the purpose and/or effect of the letter was to undermine
the Union's position as the bargaining representative of the employees by seeking to
bargain with the employees directly. Cf. Fitzgerald Mills Corporation, 133 NLRB
877, 882-884, enfd. 313 F. 2d 260, 268 (C.A. 2). It follows, therefore, and I find
that the Respondent failed to bargain in good faith with the Union in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, by reading and distributing copies of the
Herman letter to the employees for the Act makes it the duty of the employer to
bargain with the representative of the employees and "exacts the negative duty to
treat with no other." Medo Photo Supply Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 321 U.S. 678,
683-684. As the Court said in May Department Stores d/b/a Famous-Barr Com-
pany v. N.L.R.B., 326 U.S. 376, 385, direct dealing with employees "interferes with
the right to self-organization by emphasizing to the employees that there is no
necessity for a collective bargaining agent."
That the Herman letter revealed a company decision to ignore the Union thereafter
and to undermine its position as the bargaining representative of the employees is
borne out by the Company's subsequent conduct39
On August 16, i.e., 2 days after the Herman letter, Union Business Agent Mc-
Mahan visited the Magnolia plant. Having apparently heard that employees there
were withdrawing from the Union, he asked to see the withdrawal slips and asked
the names of the employees who had signed them. Plant Manager Long replied
that there were only a few and that the slips had been sent to Poplarville. McMahan
asked General Manager Hale, who was also present, if he could see the slips if
he went to Poplarville and Hale replied that he saw no reason why not.
s' Hammond's Universal World Atlas, 1962 edition, reports the population of Poplar-
ville, at which the Company employs approximately 450 employees, as 2,136: Ellisville
has a population of 4,592, and the plant employs 171 ; Magnolia: population 2,083, plant
160; Purvis: population 1,614, plant 231.
11 The statements referred to by the court were made by Nabors in a speech "in which
he outlined [the employees'] privilege of either joining or not joining the union, their
right to vote for or against the union, and advised them of the possibility of their work
week being reduced from 45 to 40 hours, because of overtime requirements, should respond-
ent's plant be unionized, which would result in a reduction of their `take home' pay. He
also made it clear that he did not wish union matters pursued on company time, and that
if the plant were unionized he could shut it down . . . Respondent made it abundantly
clear that he was opposed to his employees joining a union." Ibid. at 274.
89I find no merit in the contention of the General Counsel and the Union that the
Company's distribution of the telegrams of August 22 is further evidence of its bad faith.
There is no evidence that in this instance the Company did anything more than make a
correct factual report to the employees.
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On his return to Poplarville, Hale called Company Negotiator Salberg in New
York and asked what he should do about McMahan's request. Salberg advised
Hale not to turn the slips over to McMahan and instructed Hale to tell McMahan
that the matter would be discussed at the next bargaining session. As a result, Hale
refused to show McMahan the slips when the latter went to Poplarville on August 17.
Hale added, contrary to fact, that the slips had been sent to New York.40
Needless to say, the Union, as the recognized representative of the employees,
had a legitimate interest in the matter of withdrawals from the Union. If the number
was substantial, a question could be raised concerning the Union's majority as it in
fact was less than 2 weeks later. In addition, Long misrepresented the facts when he
told McMahan that there had been only a "few" withdrawals when in fact there had
been 38 in the last 4 days and Hale misrepresented the facts when he asserted that
the slips had been sent to New York.
Furthermore, the facts set forth supra establish that, beginning on August 14,
numerous supervisors sought to undermine the Union's position by engaging in such
conduct as urging employees to withdraw from it, suggesting that they form an
independent union, and threatening them with reprisals if they remained members
of the Union and/or exercised the right to strike guaranteed them by the Act.
Finally, it is significant that Respondent never bargained with the Union after
August 14 for when the parties met again, the Company refused to continue to
negotiate on the grounds that it doubted that the Union represented a majority of
the employees.
c. The Company's refusal to bargain on August 28
The final issue to be determined is whether the Company violated its duty to
bargain by refusing to negotiate with the Union on and after August 28 on the
ground that it believed that the Union no longer represented a majority of the em-
ployees. In contending that it did, the General Counsel and Union assert: (1) the
Union in fact represented a majority of the employees at all times; (2) the Com-
pany's doubt was not asserted in good faith; and (3) assuming arguendo that the
Union had in fact lost its majority, the loss was due to the Company's prior unfair
labor practices and therefore is no defense to its refusal to bargain.
In July, the Company deducted union dues from the checks of well over half of
the employees on the bargaining unit (626 out of 1,172) pursuant to checkoff au-
thorizations. It is also probable that the Company held checkoff authorizations
from other employees but did not deduct dues from their checks for one reason or
another.41 Furthermore, a number of employees signed union cards and/or check-
off authorizations for the first time in July and August with the understanding that
no dues would be deducted unless and until a contract was signed.
On the other hand, a number of employees notified the Company in writing in
July that they no longer wanted to belong to the Union and directed it to discontinue
the deduction of union dues from their checks. The number increased markedly in
August so that dues were deducted that month from the checks of only 467 employees
out of a total of 1,132.42 Furthermore, an additional number of employees sub-
mitted similar statements to the Company after August 11 at Ellisville and Purvis
and after August 18 at Poplarville and Magnolia. It is therefore clear and I find
that by the close of business on August 27, the Company had on file uncanceled
checkoff authorizations for substantially fewer than half the employees.
In contending that the Union nonetheless continued to represent a majority of the
employees, the General Counsel and Union point out that the checkoff authoriza-
40 The above findings concerning McMahan's conversations with Long and Hale are based
upon the testimony of McMahan which I credit
41 For example, dues are not deducted from the checks of employees who have worked
fewer than a specified number of days during the pay period.
sz Dues were deducted at Poplarville and Magnolia on the basis of the payroll of Au-
gust 18; at Ellisville and Purvis on the basis of the August 11 payroll. The Union had
no members at Sumrall or Collins. The August payrolls and deductions were as follows
Employ- Deduc- Employ- Deduc-
ees tions ees Lions
Poplarville--------------- 449 133 Sumrall-------- ---------- 91 0
Magnolia-----------------
Purvis
160
231
64
141
Collms------------------- 30 0
-------- ---------- --
Ellisville----------------- 171 129 Total --------------- 1.132 467
MOVIE STAR, INC., ETC. 341
tions signed by the employees provide on their face that they are irrevocable unless
written notice is served on the Union as well as the Company and that none of the
employees notified the Union, either in writing or orally, that he was revoking his
checkoff authorization. They argue, therefore, that the revocations were ineffective
and, this being so, the cancellations in no way affected the Union's majority status.
The short answer to this contention is that, as noted above, the slips signed and
presented to the Company did not state merely that the employees wished no dues
to be checked off thereafter. All, or virtually all, also contained statements such as
"I want to withdraw from the Union," and "I do not want to be a member of the
Union." It follows, therefore, and I find that if the statements submitted to the
Company by the employees were voluntary-i.e., if they reflected the uncoerced
wishes of the employees-the Union did not represent a majority on or after
August 28.
It is therefore necessary to determine whether it can reasonably be concluded that
the defections from the Union were attributable in whole or part to the Company's
prior unfair labor practices. If so, the Union's majority before the unfair labor
practices will be assumed to have continued as a matter of law. Or, to state it an-
other way, a loss of majority caused in whole or in part by the Employer's unfair
labor practices does not justify his refusal to bargain. See Superior Engraving Com-
pany, 83 NLRB 215, 218, enfd. 183 F. 2d 783, 792-793 (C.A. 7), cert. denied
340 U.S. 930. To hold otherwise would permit an employer to profit by his own
misconduct and would encourage employers to engage in such conduct in order to
avoid their statutory duty to bargain with the majority representative of their
employees.
That the Union represented a majority of the employees until mid-August is un-
denied. At that time, however, the Company embarked on the course of conduct
described supra, which began in earnest with the Herman letter of August 13 which
sought to bargain with the employees directly and included statements by manage-
ment representatives such as, "If you want to work you better get out of the damn
union," and that the plant would be moved or closed if there was a strike. More-
over, as previously pointed out , employee Odom withdrew from the Union on the
very day that Supervisor Morris told employee Palmer that she was going to talk
Odom out of the Union because Odom had to work, and Dollie Miller withdrew
either the day or day after she heard the Garrett-Johnson conversation. And al-
though employee Bettie Ann Lowe had told employee Fillingame that she was
ready to sign a union card, she did not do so after Plant Manager Henderson
criticized Fillingame for "bothering" new employees. Furthermore, as Respondent
points out in its brief, the events set forth supra cannot be viewed in a vacuum
for it is clear that the employees were talking "freely" to each other and were
expressing their views and opinions . It is equally safe to assume that they also
reported and discussed the statements made by the various supervisors.4
Concededly, it is possible that enough employees might have withdrawn from the
Union voluntarily-i.e., if the Company had committed no unfair labor practices-
to have destroyed its majority.44 But the Company's conduct makes it impossible
for anyone to know how many withdrawals there would have been had the Com-
pany not engaged in the conduct described in section II, E, supra.
It is true that the Company called a number of employee witnesses who testified
that they withdrew because the Union had threatened to strike and they were op-
posed to a strike and because they were not permitted to vote on the Company's offer
at a union meeting on August 14-the day on which the Herman letter was read 45
Although their testimony was adduced as proof that they and other employees with-
drew from the Union for reasons wholly unrelated to the Company's conduct, it
falls far short of achieving its purpose. Thus, who can say that the employees'
opposition to a strike stemmed entirely from a natural reluctance to strike and was
not due in part to threats that the employees would be without work permanently
43 Cf. Plant Manager Baker's testimony that the Union was probably discussed even
during working hours for "It's a little bit hard to keep control on about 165 women and
keep them from talking."
44 It is also possible, of course, that the Union's countercampaign might have been more
successful but for the Company's course of conduct.
45 After 9 witnesses had testified concerning their reasons for withdrawing from the
Union, the Respondent stated that it expected to call 24 more , each of whom would testify
that she withdrew from the Union for the same and/or similar or related reasons The
Trial Examiner thereupon ruled that their testimony would be cumulative and would not
be permitted Of the nine witnesses called, two had withdrawn from the Union long before
the events here in issue . Another withdrew on August 31 after the Company had notified
the employees that it was no longer bargaining with the Union
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
if there was a strike? And who can say that the employees who wanted to accept
the Company's offer and criticized the Union when they were not permitted to vote
on it did so in part because they preferred employment on the Company's terms to
no jobs at all?
In short, in order to say with any degree of certainty that the Union would have
lost its majority even if the Company had committed no unfair labor practices, it
would be necessary to determine first, each of the congeries of facts and factors
which, consciously and unconsciously, influenced the decision of each employee.
It would then be necessary to determine the relative weight each employee gave
to each fact and whether one fact was given greater weight than others only because
of the existence of other facts. Needless to say, such an analysis is impossible.
Even the employees themselves cannot be certain that they were under no sense
of constraint for constraint "is a subtle thing, and the recognition of constraint may
call for a high degree of introspective perception." Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corpo-
ration, Ltd. v. N.L.R.B., 114 F. 2d 930, 937 (C.A. 1), cited with approval N.L.R.B.
v. Donnelly Garment Company, 330 U.S. 219, 231. See also N.L.R.B. v. Wilbur
H. Ford, d/b/a Ford Brothers, supra.
It is for these reasons that little weight has been given to the testimony of the
employees concerning their reasons for withdrawing from the Union. I do not
doubt that some of them were testifying truthfully in that each of the reasons stated
played a part in their decisions. But it does not follow that they stated or even
knew-consciously-all of their reasons. As a result, I find their testimony un-
persuasive and cannot conclude therefrom that they-or the others who would have
testified similarly-withdrew from the Union solely for the reasons stated and there-
fore wholly voluntarily. Cf. Donnelly Garment Company, 50 NLRB 241; N.L.R.B.
V. Donnelly Garment Company, supra.
Indeed, the testimony of several of the employees called by Respondent suggests
that they may have been influenced by other factors. For example, Mary Helen
Smith admitted that she withdrew because of "All of the confusion that was being
talked and talk of a strike." Leona Smith testified at one point that the reason she
expressed at the hearing "was the most important one." Furthermore, two of the
employees apparently felt that the Company had an interest in their decision for
Leona Smith notified her supervisor, Wilma Smith, of her intention to withdraw and
Helen Saucier told Supervisor Smith that she had withdrawn.46
In sum, the Company engaged in conduct, the reasonable and natural tendency of
which was to undermine the Union and to interfere with, restrain, and coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act. Under these
circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude and I conclude that the withdrawals from
the Union which followed closely upon such conduct were attributable at least in part
to such conduct even though other factors may also have been responsible to some
degree. In cases such as this in which an accurate determination of the employees'
attitude is impossible, doubts must be resolved against the party whose conduct has
created the situation.47 Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Birmingham Publishing Company, 262
F. 2d 2, 9-10 (C.A. 5).
Respondent's prior illegal conduct likewise causes me to conclude that it was not
acting in good faith when it questioned the Union's majority on August 28 and'
refused, allegedly for that reason alone, to continue contract negotiations. As indi-
cated supra, the Herman letter of August 13 marked a turning point in the Company's
dealings with the Union although no one questioned the Union's majority on that
49 It is clear that the Company's role in the preparation of the withdrawal slips was not
confined to permitting the employees to use scrap paper and pens or pencils which hap-
pended to be available when they went to the office and said they wanted to withdraw
from the Union. At Magnolia, for example, they were given mimeographed slips to sign.
And in most cases the wording on and the size of the slips signed at the other plants was
strikingly similar. Such uniformity on the part of scores of employees at widely separated'
plants, who allegedly went to the office either singly or with only one or two others,,
suggests employer assistance in preparing the slips
4T Respondent argues in Its brief that the fact that a large number of employees with-
drew from the Union at Magnolia, where it is not even alleged that the Company engaged
in conduct in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, proves that the withdrawals were
voluntary. As previously pointed out, however, a substantial number of the withdrawals,
at Magnolia occurred on or after August 14, the date on which the Herman letter was read„
As previously found, the letter violated Section 8( a) (5) and (1) of the Act by, inter alia,
seeking to bargain directly with the employees and to convince them that they did not need
a bargaining representative.
MOVIE STAR, INC., ETC. 343
date. I cannot say that the delay between the August 8 and 28 meetings was caused
by the Company for the purpose of gaining time in which to dissipate the Union's
majority, but it was used for that purpose. And Company Negotiator Salberg's
decision on August 16 or 17 not to disclose to Union Business Agent McMahan the
number of withdrawals from the Union at Magnolia provides further evidence that
the Company's attitude toward the Union changed well before August 27 when,
according to the Company, it decided for the first time to discontinue recognizing
and dealing with the Union as the representative of the employees. Although it
may be that Salberg in New York did not know of management's conduct in
Mississippi, his principal cannot be permitted to profit by its unfair labor practices
because of his lack of knowledge. See The Gem City Mattress Manufacturing Co.,
136 NLRB 1317.48 And finally, I note that Manager Hale did not mention to
Salberg the fact that a number of employees had recently signed union cards for
the first time.
I find therefore that neither the Union's loss of majority nor the Company's
asserted doubt of the Union's current majority justified the Company 's refusal to
continue negotiations with the Union on and after August 28 and that by refusing to
bargain on that date and thereafter, the Company violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1)
of the Act. Cf. Franks Bros. Company v. N.L.R.B., 321 U.S. 702, 704-705;
N.L.R.B. v. Idaho Egg Producers, Inc., 229 F. 2d 821, 823 (C.A. 9).
IN. THE REMEDY
My Recommended Order will contain the conventional provisions entered in cases
involving coercive conduct and a refusal to bargain collectively in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act; cease and desist from the unfair labor practices
found and from in any like or related manner infringing upon the statutory rights
of its employees; upon request, bargain with the collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the unit found appropriate. The requirement that Respondents
bargain, on request, with the Union is included because of my finding that the
withdrawals from the Union which destroyed its majority were attributable at least
in part to the Company's prior unfair labor practices. Cf. Franks Bros. Company v.
N.L.R.B., 321 U.S. 702, 704-705.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The production and maintenance employees employed at Respondents' plants at
Poplarville, Purvis, Magnolia, Ellisville, Collins, and Sumrall, all in Mississippi, as
a group, constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining.
4. The Union has been at all times the exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees in the unit set forth immediately above
5. By coercively questioning employees about union matters, by threatening them
with loss of employment if they did not withdraw from the Union, by requesting
employees to assist the Company in causing other employees to withdraw from the
Union, by threatening to close or move the plant if the employees engaged in a
strike, and by directing an employee to cease soliciting on behalf of the Union, the
Respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
6. By informing the employees of a material and important fact concerning the
Company's position at a bargaining meeting with the Union, which fact had not been
communicated to the Union, by attempting to bargain with the employees directly,
and by refusing to bargain with the Union on and after August 28, 1962, Respondents
violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
491 note In this connection that the Herman letter originated in New York and I am
sure that Salberg was at least aware of It. It Is probable that he drafted it as he did the
Company's statements on August 28. I also find It difficult to believe that Salberg and
Board Chairman Herman knew nothing about widespread withdrawals from the Union
until August 27 when General Manager Hale mentioned them In a telephone conversation.
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in
the case, I hereby recommend that the Respondents, Movie Star, Inc., Movie Star
of Poplarville, Inc., Movie Star of Ellisville, Inc., Movie Star of Magnolia, Inc.,
Movie Star of Purvis, Inc., Movie Star of Collins, Inc., Movie Star of Sumrall, Inc.,
their officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating coercively employees concerning their union membership and
related matters.
(b) Urging employees to withdraw from the Union and requesting employees to
assist the Respondents in causing other employees to withdraw from the Union.
(c) Directing employees not to attempt to sign up union members but to leave
solicitation of membership to management representatives.
(d) Threatening employees with loss of employment if they did not withdraw
from the Union and threatening that the plant would be closed or moved in case
the employees engaged in a strike.
(e) Attempting to bargain with the employees directly concerning their wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
(f) Refusing to bargain with the Union generally and specifically by informing
employees of one or more material facts concerning the Company's position at
bargaining meetings with the Union, if the fact or facts have not been communicated
to the Union.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of their right to join and remain members of any labor
organization, to assist any labor organization by engaging in protected activities on
its behalf, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Bargain, upon request, with the International Ladies Garment Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, with respect to the wages, hours and working conditions of the produc-
tion and maintenance employees at their plants at Poplarville, Ellisville, Magnolia,
Purvis, Collins, and Sumrall, all in Mississippi
(b) Post at their plants at Poplarville, Ellisville, Magnolia, Purvis, Sumrall, and
Collins, all in Mississippi, copies of the attached applicable notices marked "Ap-
pendix." 49 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative
of the Respondents, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what
steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith 50
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed in all other respects.
98 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order "
60 In the event that ithis Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read- "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that-
MOVIE STAR , INC., ETC. 345
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of employment because of their
union activities, or threaten to close or move our plants in case of a strike,
or coercively question employees concerning union matters.
WE WILL NOT interfere with our employees' attempts to persuade other em-
ployees to join International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, or ask employees to withdraw from or to assist
the Company in causing other employees to withdraw from ILGWU or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT attempt to bargain with our employees directly concerning
their wages, hours, and other conditions of employment.
WE WILL bargain, on request, with International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of our production
and maintenance employees at our plants at Poplarville, Ellisville, Magnolia,
Purvis, Collins, and Sumrall, Mississippi, excluding supervisors, with respect
to rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment.
All of our employees have the right to form, join, or assist any labor organization
or to refrain from doing so.
MOVIE STAR, INC., AND
MOVIE STAR OF POPLARVILLE, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice mu°st remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Tele-
phone No. 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of employment because of their
union activities, or threaten to close or move our plants in case of a strike,
or coercively question employees concerning union matters
WE WILL NOT interfere with our employees' attempts to persuade other em-
ployees to join International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, or ask employees to withdraw from or to assist
the Company in causing other employees to withdraw from ILGWU or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT attempt to bargain with our employees directly concerning
their wages, hours, and other conditions of employment.
WE WILL bargain, on request, with International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of our production
and maintenance employees at our plants at Poplarville, Ellisville, Magnolia,
Purvis, Collins, and Sumrall, Mississippi, excluding supervisors, with respect
to rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment.
All of our employees have the right to form, join, or assist any labor organization
or to refrain from doing so.
MOVIE STAR, INC., AND
MOVIE STAR OF MAGNOLIA, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office T6024
Federal Building (Lovola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Tele-
phone No. 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of employment because of their
union activities, or threaten to close or move our plants in case of a strike,
or coercively question employees concerning union matters.
WE WILL NOT interfere with our employees' attempts to persuade other em-
ployees to join International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, or ask employees to withdraw from or to assist
the Company in causing other employees to withdraw from ILGWU or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT attempt to bargain with our employees directly concerning
their wages, hours, and other conditions of employment.
WE WILL bargain, on request, with International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of our production
and maintenance employees at our plants at Poplarville, Ellisville, Magnolia,
Purvis, Collins, and Sumrall, Mississippi, excluding supervisors, with respect
to rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment.
All of our employees have the right to form, join, or assist any labor organization
or to refrain from doing so.
MOVIE STAR, INC., AND
MOVIE STAR OF PURVIS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Tele-
phone No. 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of employment because of their
union activities, or threaten to close or move our plants in case of a strike, or
coercively question employees concerning union matters.
WE WILL NOT interfere with our employees' attempts to persuade other em-
ployees to join International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, or ask employees to withdraw from or to assist
the Company in causing other employees to withdraw from ILGWU or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT attempt to bargain with our employees directly concerning their
wages, hours, and other conditions of employment.
WE WILL bargain, on request, with International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of our production
and maintenance employees at our plants at Poplarville, Ellisville, Magnolia,
Purvis, Collins, and Sumrall, Mississippi, excluding supervisors, with respect
to rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment.
All of our employees have the right to form, join, or assist any labor organiza-
tion or to refrain from doing so.
MOVIE STAR, INC., and
MOVIE STAR OF ELLISVILLE, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
MOVIE STAR, INC., ETC. 347
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Tele-
phone No. 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of employment because of their
union activities, or threaten to close or move our plants in case of a strike, or
coercively question employees concerning union matters.
WE WILL NOT interfere with our employees' attempts to persuade other em-
ployees to join International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, or ask employees to withdraw from or to assist
the Company in causing other employees to withdraw from ILGWU or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT attempt to bargain with our employees directly concerning their
wages, hours, and other conditions of employment.
WE WILL bargain, on request, with International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of our production
and maintenance employees at our plants at Poplarville, Ellisville, Magnolia,
Purvis, Collins, and Sumrall, Mississippi, excluding supervisors, with respect
to rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment.
All of our employees have the right to form , join, or assist any labor organiza-
tion or to refrain from doing so.
MOVIE STAR, INC., and
MOVIE STAR OF COLLINS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Tele-
phone No. 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of employment because of their
union activities, or threaten to close or move our plants in case of a strike, or
coercively question employees concerning union matters.
WE WILL NOT interfere with our employees' attempts to persuade other em-
ployees to join International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, or ask employees to withdraw from or to assist
the Company in causing other employees to withdraw from ILGWU or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT attempt to bargain with our employees directly concerning their
wages, hours, and other conditions of employment.
WE WILL bargain, on request, with International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of our production
and maintenance employees at our plants at Poplarville, Ellisville, Magnolia,
Purvis, Collins, and Sumrall, Mississippi, excluding supervisors, with respect
to rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment.
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All of our employees have the right to form, join, or assist any labor organiza-
tion or to refrain from doing so.
MOVIE STAR, INC., and
MOVIE STAR OF SUMRALL, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Tele-
phone No. 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Simmons, Inc. and George L. Weasler and Mariano Vazques
Ariel Morales . Cases Nos. 24-CA-1167 and 24-CA-1168. De-
cember 10, 1963
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 7,1961, the Board issued a Decision and Order in this
case.' The Board found, inter alga, that the Respondent: (a) on
March 20, 1959, unlawfully threatened employees with discharge for
engaging in protected organizational activities; (b) on March 24, un-
lawfully discharged Avilles-Padilla, member of a five-man committee
known as the Comite; and (c) on or about April 15, unlawfully dis-
charged employees who had gone on strike on March 25 to protest the
Respondent's discharge of Padilla as well as of the four other members
of the Comite whose discharges were found to have been lawful.
Concluding that the Respondent had violated Section 8 (a) (1) and
(3) of the Act, the Board ordered Respondent to reinstate Padilla
with backpay and to remedy its discrimination against the striking
employees.
Thereafter, on March 21, 1963, the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit handed down its opinion in this matter.2 The
court accepted the Board's finding of the 8(a) (1) violation based on
the Respondent's threats of March 20 and agreed with the Board that
the Respondent violated 8(a) (3) of the Act by its discharge of
Padilla on March 24. However, the court rejected the Board's con-
clusion that the strike of March 25 was an unfair labor practice strike.
In addition, the court held that a contract containing a no-strike
clause which was executed by Respondent sand the SIU on April 10,
during the course of the strike, became binding upon the striking
employees and converted the strike into an unprotected activity as
of that date. The court therefore refused enforcement of that part of
the Board's Order granting relief to the striking employees. With
1 134 NLRB 1038.
2315 F. 2d 143.
145 NLRB No. 35.