Mylan Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 574 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of CHARLES C. BASSINE AND ARTHUR YASPAN, GENERAL
PARTNERS, BEULAH BASSINE, AILEEN YASPAN, L. V. MYLES. BEULAH
BASSINE , TRUSTEE AND AILEEN YASPAN, TRUSTEE, LIMITED PARTNERS,
DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF MYLAN MANUFAC-
TURING COMPANY, MYLAN-SPARTA CO. INC., AND MYLAN MANUFAC-
TURING CO. INC. and SPARTA-WHITE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
and M. C. WALLACE and JAMES RICHARDSON TUBB, JR. and ROBERT
J. SNODGRASS and UNITED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, U. M. W, A.
Case No. 40-C-1684.-Decided August 26, 1946
Mr. Thomas T. Purdom, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Board.
Mr. Cecil Sims, of Nashville, Tenn., for the respondents Mylan,
Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co.
Messrs. Malcolm C. Hill, N. S. Camp, S. T. Butler, and J. W. Camp,
of Sparta, Tenn., for respondents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace,
Tubb, and Snodgrass.
Mr. Luke Ridenour, of Caryville, Tenn., and Mr. Silous Huddleston,
of LaFollette, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION"
ANDY
ORDER
On April 5, 1946, Trial Examiner T. B. Smoot issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
respondents, Charles C. Bassine and Arthur Yaspan, General Part-
ners, Beulah Bassine, Aileen Yaspan, L. V. Myles, Beulah Bassine,
Trustee, and Aileen Yaspan, Trustee, Limited Partners, doing busi=
ness under the name and style of Mylan Manufacturing Company,
herein collectively referred to as respondent Mylan; Mylan-Sparta
Co., Inc.; Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Sparta-White County
Chamber of Commerce; M. C. Wallace; James Richardson Tubb, Jr.;
and Robert J. Snodgrass, 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 copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, all of the
above-named respondents and counsel for the Board filed exceptions
70 N. L. R. B., No. 43.
574
MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 575
to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to notice
and at the request of the respondents, on July 25, 1946, the Board heard
oral argument at Washington, D. C. Each of the respondents and
the Union appeared and participated in the argument.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed insofar as they are consistent with our
findings, conclusions, and order set forth below. The Board has con-
sidered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, the oral
argument, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, save
as they are inconsistent with our findings, conclusions, and order set
forth below :
1. The Trial Examiner found that respondent Mylan violated Sec-
tion 8 (1) of the Act by : (1) the anti-union statements of its super-
visory employees Superintendent Feinstein and Forelady Hale; (2)
dealing with the Labor Relations Committee of the Chamber of Com-
merce for the purpose of contravening the Act; and (3) adopting and
approving the antiunion activities prosecuted by the "local business-
men" of Sparta, among whom were R. V. Racely, R. E. Knowles, and
respondents Al. C. Wallace, Robert J. Snodgrass, and James Richard-
son Tubb, Jr.
With respect to the Labor Relations Committee, the Trial Exam-
iner found in effect that respondent Mylan utilized the Committee to
effect the reinstatement of certain discriminatorily discharged em-
ployees upon the unlawful condition that they abandon the Union.
We are unable to concur in this finding because it is predicated, in sub-
stantial part, upon the following testimony, to which we attach no
material significance. According to the testimony of discriminatorily
discharged employees Bell and Hardie, over 4 months after their dis-
charge they sought out the Labor Relations Committee and, after
voluntarily stating that they had withdrawn from the Union and
would never rejoin, requested it to obtain their reinstatement at
Mylan's plant; and shortly thereafter, on July 25, 1945, at the sugges-
tion of the Committee, they went to the plant and were offered rein-
statement' However, as revealed in the Intermediate Report, two
other discriminatorily discharged employees had approached the Com-
mittee sometime before Bell and Hardie, and, so far as the record
shows, without any disclosure of their union sympathies being made,
the Committee also agreed to, and did, take steps which led to their
reinstatement by Mylan. Thus, it appears that the Committee readily
interceded in behalf of all four employees,' at their request, without
regard to their union affiliation. Moreover, Hardie admitted at the
i Bell accepted the offer of reinstatement and returned to work on July 25, 1945. Hardie,
however, rejected the offer.
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing that she had falsely represented to the Committee her anti-
union attitude, that at the time she approached the Committee she had
no intention of accepting reinstatement ,2 and that her only purpose
in going to the Committee was to ascertain if she had been "fired
over the Union." Finally, the record fails to establish to our satis-
faction that respondent Mylan knew of any representation concerning
the Union which Bell and Hardie may have made to the Committee,
or that Mylan's offer of feinstatement to Bell and Hardie was condi-
tioned upon their abandonment of the Union, especially in view of the
fact that the two other employees mentioned above had been previously
reinstated unconditionally. Accordingly, we find, contrary to the
Trial Examiner,,that on July 25, 1945, respondent Mylan offered em-
ployees Bell and Hardie unconditional reinstatement, which Hardie
rejected without cause.
The Trial Examiner's finding as to respondent Mylan's adoption
and approval of the anti-union activities of the Sparta businessmen
is predicated largely on Mylan's failure to disavow and repudiate the
repeated reports that it would close its plant in the event the em-
ployeeq were organized by the Union. While we agree that under
the circumstances of this case a neutral employer would have taken
effective affirmative action to rectify the reasonable belief of its em-
ployees that it was the authority for such reports, we are not prepared
to find on this record that Mylan's dereliction in this respect affords
per se a substantial basis for holding Mylan chargeable with all ante-
cedent and subsequent anti-union activities prosecuted by the business-
men. Thus, we do not hold respondent Mylan responsible, as did the
Trial Examiner, for the apparently spontaneous collective action of
"the businessmen's group at the home of the Justice of the Peace,"
which forced the union organizers involuntarily to leave the city.3
In the absence of a substantial showing of some connection between
respondent Mylan and R. V. Racely, the editor and publisher of the
local newspaper, we are not persuaded to find on this record, as did
the Trial Examiner, that Mylan's failure to repudiate Racely's edi-
torial comments constitutes an unfair labor practice. We also disa-
gree with the Trial Examiner's findings with respect to the activities
of Snodgrass and Tubb. In concluding that Tubb engaged in anti-
union conduct, the Trial Examiner relies on the fact that Tubb was a
2 Hardie also " inconsistently testified that she refused respondent Mylan's offer of rein-
statement because she did not want to return to work under the condition that she forego1, 1the Union.
3In attributing this conduct to respondent Mylan, the Trial Examiner also relies on
his further finding that in 1942 Mylan ratified through silence the action of a group
of citizens who at that time also forced a union organizer to leave town . So far as the
record shows , Mylan did not instigate or actively participate in the 1942 incident. In
our opinion that incident is too remote and the Trial Examiner's finding of ratification is
too speculative to support a finding in the, instant case that Mylan is chargeable with
the collective activities of the citizenry.
MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 577
member of the Labor Relations Committee, whose activity and rela-,
tionship with respondent Mylan we have heretofore found, contrary.
to the Trial Examiner, to have been unobjectionable. With respect
to Snodgrass, it appears that on one occasion, during the early stage
of the Union's organizational campaign, he, together with Knowles,
importuned two of respondent Mylan's employees to abandon the.
Union. In view of the isolated nature of this incident, its timing,
and the absence of a showing that Mylan had knowledge thereof, we
are not convinced that it constitutes a substantial basis for an unfair
labor practice finding.
With respect to Wallace and Knowles, however, we agree with the
Trial Examiner that they engaged in conduct violative of the Act, for
which respondent Mylan is responsible. As detailed in the Inter-
mediate Report, Wallace, a local businessman, on March 9, 1945,,deliv-
ered an openly anti-union speech to Mylan's employees at a meeting
in the plant called by Plant Manager Bassine. Among other things,
Wallace told the employees about the local coal mines and the silk
mill being forced to close because they had been organized by unions
and warned the employees that the Mylan plant would also close in the
event the Union organized it. Bassine, who had addressed the em-
ployees just prior to Wallace and who had remained at the meeting
throughout Wallace's speech, made no attempt to repudiate any of the'
statements made by Wallace. Under the circumstances, we find that
respondent Mylan, by permitting Wallace to address these anti-union
remarks to its employees in its plant and by failing to repudiate them,
acquiesced in and ratified Wallace's coercive remarks, made it reason-
ably appear to its employees that Wallace was reflecting its views,4 and
is therefore responsible for the anti-union statements made by Wallace.
As found by the Trial Examiner, the record reveals Knowles as the
most open and notorious combatant of the Union among the local busi-
nessmen. Thus, on March 7,1945, Knowles arranged an interview with
employee Herman Anderson, the leading protagonist of the Union, by
having a note attached to Anderson's time card. Upon seeing the note,
Anderson left the plant without checking out and was absent the entire
afternoon without comment from the plant officials. On this occasion
Knowles importuned Anderson to abandon the Union, warning him
that the Mylan plant would close if the employees were organized by
the Union. That same evening Knowles again questioned Anderson
about the Union at the latter's home. On this occasion Knowles had
* Contrary to the contention of respondent Alylan, we agree with the Trial Examiner
that Bassine 's speech reasonably permitted the employees "to infer that union organization
was the only danger to the plant's continued operation "-and, in any event , we find nothing
in Bassine 's speech which obviated the necessity of a forthright and absolute repudiation
of Wallace 's subsequent coercive statements.
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in his possession a typewritten list containing the names of Mylan's
employees. He requested Anderson to indicate'on the list those em-
ployees who .were advocates of the Union. Anderson refused to do
this. The net evening Knowles again visited Anderson at his home
and urged Anderson to name the union leaders and to stop "fooling"
,with the Union. Knowles, along with Bassine and a number of other
local businessmen, attended a meeting at the home of respondent Wal-
lace, where it was decided that the local businessmen would visit the
Mylan plant. Knowles was among those who were present in the plant
when Bassine and Wallace spoke to the assembled employees. - Knowles
kept the union meeting of March 15 under close surveillance and was in
the forefront of the citizens group that forced the union organizers to
leave town. In view of (a) respondent Mylan's hostility toward the
Union, as evidenced by the anti-union statements of Superintendent,
Feinstein and Forelady Hale, (b) its knowledge of Knowles' open and
notorious anti-union activity and his use of the report concerning the
closing of Mylan's plant, (c) the close association between Knowles
and Bassine, as evidenced by the fact that Knowles and Bassine, among
others, participated in the meeting at Wallace's home and attended the
meeting held in the plant at which Bassine alid Wallace spoke to the
employees, (d) the fact that employee Anderson was permitted to
leave the plant at Knowles' request, (e) the fact that Knowles had in
his possession a list of Mylan's employees,-' and (f) the failure of
respondent Mylan to repudiate Wallace's statement at the plant meet-
ing that the plant would close if organized, we are convinced and find
that respondent Mylan rendered assistance to Knowles in the prosecu-
tion of his anti-union, activities and reasonably made it appear to its
employees that Knowles was acting with its tacit approval and consent,
and that therefore respondent Mylan is responsible for Knowles' anti-
union conduct.
Accordingly, we conclude and find that respondent Mylan, by aiding
and assisting Knowles and respondent Wallace in the manner described
above and by the various anti-union statements and acts of its super-
visory employees, as set forth in the Intermediate Report, engaged in
'conduct which, in its totality and especially when viewed in the light
of the discriminatory discharge of seven employees, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. The Trial Examiner has found, as alleged in the complaint, that,
in addition to respondent Mylan, the following named respondents
5 The Trial Examiner made no finding that Knowles obtained the list from respondent
Mylan because there was no affirmative evidence to that effect. However, in view of all
the circumstances disclosed by the record and especially the testimony of Mylan's pay-
roll supervisor that he did not know bow anyone could get such a list except from the
office . of the company , we infer and find that, through the assistance and cooperation of
Mylan, Knowles obtained possession of the list.
MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 579
engaged in unfair labor practices, as employers, within the meaning of
Section 2 (2) of the Act, and recommended that an order be directed
against them : M. C. Wallace, James Richardson Tubb, Jr., Robert J.
Snodgrass, and the Sparta-White County Chamber of Commerce. We
agree with the Trial Examiner only with respect to Wallace. -
In the light of our prior findings and upon the entire record, we are
convinced and find that Wallace, in making his anti-union speech to
the employees at the meeting in Myllin's plant, as set forth above,
was acting in the interest of respondent Mylan, within the meaning of
Section 2 (2) of the Act, thereby interfering with, restraining, and
coercing the employees of Mylan in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.' Inasmuch as we have found, above,
that the activities of Tubb and Snodgrass were not unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of the Act, we shall dismiss the complaint
as to them.
In concluding that the Chamber of Commerce, acting in the inter-
est of respondent Mylan, violated the Act, the Trial Examiner relies
cn his findings that the Chamber of Commerce is responsible for the
antiunion activities of certain of its officers and directors and that
there was some unlawful connection between its Labor Relations Com-
mittee and respondent Mylan in effecting the reinstatement of four
discriminatorily discharged employees. Although we suspect that
the Chamber of Commerce joined with Mylan in fostering the local
anti-union campaign against the Union, there is no substantial evi-
dence to confirm our suspicion. Thus, in our opinion, the record fails,
to establish that the Chamber of Commerce officially sanctioned the
activity of its officers and directors or that there is any other basis
for attributing their acts to the Chamber of Commerce. Moreover, in
view of our findings above with respect to the Labor Relations Com-
mittee, there is no basis for the Trial Examiner's finding of complicity
in connection with the reinstatement of the four employees. On all
the facts, we shall also dismiss the complaint as to the Chamber of
Commerce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that respondent Mylan and respondent Wallace en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall, as recommended by
the Trial Examiner, order the respondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc.,
and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., as successors to respondent My-
lan,7 and respondent Wallace to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
8 See N . L R. B v Taylor-Colquitt Company, 140 F. (2d) 92 ( C. C. A. 4)V As set forth in the Intermediate Report , in January 1946 respondent Mylan effected
a reorganization of its business operation without any change in actual ownership or labor
relations control ; the employing industry here involved now operates under the name-
of Mylan - Sparta Co , Inc. and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc.
712344-47-vol. 70-38
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent Mylan, by the anti-union statements of its supervisory
employees, by discharging the seven most prominent advocates of
the Union as a reprisal for their activities in behalf of the Union, and
by utilizing respondent Wallace and R. E. Knowles to further its
interests in destroying the Union, has demonstrated an "attitude of
opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of the em-
ployees generally." 8 In view of this attitude, there is a danger that
respondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co.,
Inc., will in the future engage in conduct proscribed by the Act; and
therefore, to effectuate the deterrent purposes of the Act, it is necessary
that our order be as comprehensive as the threat. Limiting the order
to the particular violations found herein would tend to encourage
respondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co.,
Inc., to find other and more subtle means of achieving their demon-
strated purpose of defeating their employees in the exercise of their
right of self-organization for the purpose of collective bargaining.
This same reasoning applies with as great force to respondent Wallace.
We therefore deem it necessary, in order to effectuate the policies of
the Act, to order respondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan
Manufacturing Co., Inc., and respondent Wallace to cease and desist
from in any other manner interfering with the rights guaranteed to
employees in Section 7 of the Act._
Inasmuch as all seven discriminatorily discharged employees have
been reinstated to their former positions, we find it unnecessary to
order their reinstatement now. However, we shall order that re-
spondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc.
make these employees whole for losses incurred because of the dis-
crimination against them, by payment to each of them, except Mary
Hardie, of a sum of money equal to the amount which she normally
would have earned from the date of her discriminatory discharge to
the date of her reinstatement, less her net earnings during said period,
and by payment to Hardie of a sum of money equal to the amount
which she would have earned from the date of her discriminatory dis-
charge to July 25, 1945, the date she refused to accept respondent
Mylan's unconditional offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings
during said period.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in-the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that :
A. The respondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc. and Mylan Manufac-
turing Co., Inc., and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall :
" May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B. 326 U. S. 376.
MYI:AN- MANUFACTURING COMPANY 581
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership - in United Construction Workers,
U.M. W. A., or any other labor organization of its employees , by dis-
'charging or refusing to reinstate any of their employees, or by dis-
criminating in any other'nianner in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment , or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) Engaging in surveillance of union activities;
(c) Using the assistance of R. E. Knowles, respondent M. C. Wal-
lace, or any other person or groups of persons, for the purpose of
violating the Act ; -
(d) In any other manner interfering with; restraining , or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations , to join or assist United Construction.
Workers, U. M. W. A., or any other labor organization ., to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities , for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. ' Take the following affirmative action , which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act : '
'(a) Make whole Pauline Anderson , Carrie Bennett, Della Fletcher,
Rebecca Bell , Nola Martin , Ora Burgess , and Mary Hardie for any
loss of pay they-may have suffered by reason of their discriminatory
discharge , in the manner set forth in our Decision under the Section
entitled "The Remedy" ;
(b) Post for a period of at least 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places at their plant in Sparta , Tennessee, copies of the notice to be
prepared by respondent Wallace in accordance with the provisions
of the Order directed against him ;
(c) Post at their ' plant in Sparta , Tennessee , copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the representative of respondents Mylan-
Sparta Co ., Inc. and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., be posted by
said respondents immediately upon receipt thereof , and maintained
by them for sixty- ,(60); consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be• taken by the said respondents to
insure that such =notices are not altered, defaced , or covered by any
other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Order, what steps they
have taken to comply herewith. -
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The respondent M. C. Wallace, Sparta, Tennessee, and his
agents, successors, and assigns shall:-
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing the
employees of respondents Mylan-Sparta Co:, Inc. and Mylan Manu-
facturing Co., Inc., at their Sparta plant in the exercise of the right
to form, join or assist United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A.,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual
aid or- protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2: Take the following affirmative action, which the Board -finds
will effectuate the purposes of the Act :
(a) Publish in the local newspaper, the Sparta Expositor, and
post at the Sparta, Tennessee, plant of respondents Mylan-Sparta
Co., Inc. and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix B." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by respondent Wallace, be posted by re-
spondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc. and Mylan Manufacturing Co.,
Inc., immediatey upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by respondents Mylan-Sparta Co.,
Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten' (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent Wallace has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed, insofar as it alleges that the respondents Sparta-White
County Chamber of Commerce, James Richardson Tubb, Jr., and
Robert J. Snodgrass engaged in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of the Act.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National ,Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not engage in surveillance of union meetings.
MY LAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 583
We will make whole the employees named below for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of discrimination against them :
-Pauline Anderson Rebecca Bell
Mary Hardie Nola Martin
Carrie Bennett Ora Burgess
Della Fletcher
We will not in any manner use the assistance of M. C. Wallace,
R. E. Knowles, or any other persons or groups of persons for
the purpose of violating the National Labor Relations Act.
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Construction
Workers, U. M. W. A., or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or any other mutual aid or protection.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment against any employee because of mem-
bership or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
MYLAN-SPARTA CO., INC.,
MYLAN- MANUFACTURING, CO., 'INC.
Employer.
By ---------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated------------------------ k
This notice must remain posted for sixty days from the date hereof
and must not be altered , defaced ; or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, I hereby notify the employees of Mylan-Sparta Co.,
Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., that :
I will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce em-
ployees of Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co.,
Inc., in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist United Construction Work-
ers, U. M. W. A., or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of thekr own choosing and to
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining, or other mutual aid or protection. All employees are free
to become or remain members of this union or any other labor
organization.
M.'C. WALLACE.
Dated------------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty days from the date hereof
and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Thomas T. Purdom, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Board.
Mr. Cecil Sims, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Respondents Mylan, Mylan-Sparta
and Mylan Manufacturing Co.
Messrs. Malcolm C. Hill, N. S. Camp, S T. Butler, and J. W. Camp of Sparta,
Tenn., for Respondents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Tubb, and Snodgrass.
Mr. 'Luke `Ridenour, of Caryville, Tenn., and 'Mr. Silous-H'uddleston, of La-
Follette, Tenn., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., herein
called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its
complaint dated January 23, 1946, against Charles C. Bassine and Arthur
Yaspan, General Partners, Beulah Bassine, Aileen Yaspan, L. V. Myles, Beulah
Bassine, Trustee and Aileen Yaspan, Trustee, Limited Partners, doing business as
Mylan Manufacturing Company, a partnership, herein called the respondent
Mylan, Sparta-White County Chamber of Commerce, herein called the respondent
Chamber of Commerce, M. C. Wallace, herein called the respondentWallace, James
Richardson Tubb, Jr. herein called the respondent•Tubb, and Robert J. Snodgrass,
herein called the respondent Snodgrass, and its Amendments to Complaint dated
February 7, 1946 adding as parties respondent hereto Mylan-Sparta Co. Inc., a
corporation, herein called respondent Mylan-Sparta, and Mylan Manufacturing
Co., Inc., a corporation, herein called Mylan Manufacturing Co., alleging that the
above named respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. Copies of the Complaint, Amendments to the Complaint and
Notices of Hearing were duly served upon the respondents and the Union.
With respect to the unfar labor practices the Complaint and Amendments
to Complaint allege in substance, (1) that-until on or about January 10, 1946
the respondent Mylan engaged in manufacture and sale of men's and boys' shirts
at its plant in Sparta, Tenn., (2) that on or about January 10, 1946 respondent
Mylan formed two corporations, the respondent Mylan-Sparta and the respondent
Mylan Manufacturing Co., which became the successors of the respondent Mylan,
(3) that the respondents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Tubb and Snodgrass
have acted-in the interest of the respondent Mylan and that each said respond-
ent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act (4) that the
respondents Mylan, Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Tubb and Snodgrass from
on or about February 7, 1945, to the date of the complaint vilified, disparaged
and expressed disapproval of the Union, interrogated employees of respondent
MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 585
Mylan regarding the Union, urged, persuaded, threatened and warned employees
of respondent Mylan to refrain from assisting or joining the Union and ,kept
under surveillance the meetings of the Union; (5) that the respondent Mylan
on or about the dates set opposite their names discriminatorily discharged and
thereafter discriminatorily refused to reinstate its following named employees:
Pauline Anderson, Mar. 13, 1945
Mary Hardie, Mar. 16, 1945
Carrie Bennett, Mar. 16, 1945
Della Fletcher, Mar. 16, 1945
Rebecca Bell, Mar. 19, 1945
Nola Martin, Mar. 19, 1945
Ora Burgess, April 12, 1945
(6) that by these acts the respondents have interfered with, restrained and
coerced the employees at the Sparta plant in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent Mylan filed an answer dated Jan. 30, 1946 which was adopted
during the hearing as the answer also of the respondents Mylan-Sparta and
Mylan Manufacturing Co , denying the commission- of any unfair labor practices.
The respondents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Tubb and Snodgrass filed
separate answers dated Feb. 2, 1946, denying generally in each instance the
commission of unfair labor practices and specifically in each instance that the
answering respondent was an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of
the Act, or that it acted in the interest of the respondent Mylan.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Sparta, Tennessee, on March 4, 5,
6, 7, and 8, 1946, before the undersigned, T. B. Smoot, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and respondents were
represented by counsel and the Union by its representatives. All parties par-
ticipated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues.
At the close of the Board's case in chief the respondents Chamber of Com-
merce, Wallace, Tubb, and Snodgrass severally moved to dismiss the complaint
on the ground that there was no evidence that these respondents acted in the
interest of the respondent Mylan and therefore each said respondent was not
an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. These motions
were renewed at the close of the hearing. On each occasion the undersigned
reserved ruling. The motions are hereby denied. During the hearing the
respondents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Tubb and Snodgrass moved to
strike certain portions of the testimony of Silous Huddleston upon which motion
ruling was reserved. The motion is hereby denied. At the close of the hearing
counsel for the Board moved that all pleadings be conformed to the proof in
minor particulars. The motion was granted.
Following the receipt of all evidence, the parties argued orally before the
undersigned. The respondents thereafter filed briefs, and the Board filed a
memorandum statement regarding the discharge of Carrie Bennett.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS Or FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS, MYLAN, MYLAN-SPARTA AND MYLAN
MANUFACTURING CO.
The respondent Mylan, a partnership, was engaged at Sparta, Tennessee, in
the manufacture, production, sale, and distribution of men's and boys' shirts
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and, during the war, produced shirts for the Armed Forces. During the year
1945, the respondent Mylan caused materials used in the manufacturing of its
products of a value in excess of $1,000,000 to be purchased, delivered, and trans-
ported in interstate commerce from and through States of the United States
other than the State of Tennessee to its plant in Sparta, and caused a sub-
stantial amount of its finished products of a value in excess of $1,000,000 to be
delivered and transported in interstate commerce to and through States of the
United States other than the State of Tennessee from its plant in Sparta.
In January 1946, the respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing
Co. were formed as Tennessee corporations and respondent Mylan, a partnership,
was terminated with its business sold and transferred to the new corporation
respondents. The stock in the corporation respondents was distributed in the
same proportion and to the same persons as were partners in respondent Mylan.
There was no change in managerial personnel nor control. The two respondent
corporations perform together the same functions formerly performed by the
respondent partnership alone, i. e., the respondent Mylan Manufacturing Com-
pany purchases all the raw materials except a few incidentals and furnishes
them to respondent Mylan-Sparta which manufactures and produces the finished
products for distribution and sale by respondent Mylan Manufacturing Company'
Charles C. Bassine testified that he and Arthur Yaspan, the two general part-
ners in respondent Mylan, had direction, supervision and absolute control of its
operation and management and that the same situation exists now as to respond-
ents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co.
Respondent Mylan was until January 1946, and respondents Mylan-Sparta and
Mylan Manufacturing Co. are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees- of the respondents Mylan, Mylan-Sparta, and Mylan
Manufacturing Co.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
Sparta is a town of about 2500 population, located in White County, Ten-
nessee, in the Cumberland mountains approximately 100 miles west of Knoxville
and the same distance east of Nashville In 1929, the White County Realty
Company was formed and erected a building to house the Welwood Sparta Silk
Mill. Theretofore no large industrial plant had been located in Sparta. The
building was rented to the operators of the silk mill until early in the 1930's
when it closed down. The building remained empty for several years until in
November 1937 an industrial agent for the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis
Railroad interested Mr. Charles C. Bassine in the building. He conferred with
the officers of the White County Realty Company and quickly came to terms for
the occupancy of the building under a leasing arrangement providing for the
payment of $125 a month rental and the purchase and installation of $6000
worth of machinery by the realty company to be rented and purchased eventu-
'N. L. R.,B v Condenser Corporation of America, et at, 128 F. (2d) 67 (C. C. A. 3),
. . . where in fact the production and distribution of merchandise is one enterprise,
that enterprise as a whole is responsible for compliance with the Labor Relations Act regard-
less of the corporate artangements among the parties themselves." See also In the Matter
of Salant and Salant, Inc, 66 N. L. R. B. 24.
MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 587
ally by the lessee. The lessee was the predecessor of the respondent Mylan in
the present case and undertook to operate a shirt factory on the premises. Later
the terms of the lease were changed to provide for a higher rental and the title-
to the machinery passed into the hands of the lessee, who also erected two addi-
tional buildings. The White County Realty Company pays all realty taxes on
the building and premises. The plant's success exceeded its expectations, em-
ployed instead of 400 employees, some 1000 employees during the war and 800
since hostilities ceased. It is by far the largest industry in Sparta, as the two
or three other industrial establishments there each employ less than 100 employees.
White County Realty Company has transacted no other business than with the
Welwdod Sparta Silk Mill and the respondent Mylan, its predecessor and its
successors, respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Company. The
realty company as of January 1945 had 43 stockholders holding from one to 30
shares for a total of 301 shares of a par value of $100 a share. Respondent
Tubb is president of the company and respondent Snodgrass treasurer. These
two men and C. T. Mayberry, a director of the respondent Chamber of Commerce,
are the largest individual stockholders but do not control a majority of the
stock 2
During 1942 an Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America organizer, Ed
Blair, entered Sparta with the apparent intention of organizing respondent My-
lan's employees. His attempt was shortlived. Shortly after his arrival in town
a group of 15 to 20 business men conferred with the Mayor of the town and
then went to Mr. Blair's hotel room where he was advised to leave town immedi-
ately He stated he had no money and was allowed to make one or more long
distance calls for monetary help. When this failed one of the business men
paid Blair's room rent and he was escorted to the county line. Respondents
Wallace, Snodgrass and Tubb and Ed Knowles, who as later shown was the most
outstanding spokesman in the anti-union element in Sparta, were active in the
group requesting Mr. Blair's presence elsewhere. Respondent Snodgrass' testi-
mony regarding the reasons behind this deprival of a citizen's liberty indicated
clearly these men's interest in keeping respondent Mylan's employees from
organizing into a labor union. He testified:
Q What was the purpose of having him [Blair] leave town?
A. Well, his activities here weren't welcome. That was the-main reason.
Q By whom?
A. By the citizens of Sparta.
Q. What were his activities?
A. I don't know whether he was a union man or not but it was stated
that he might have been. I don't know as far as that is concerned.
Q. Why did you have him leave town?
A. Because we felt lie was interfering with our business here.
Q In what manner?
A. In disturbing the workers in the [Mylan] plant.
Q. How was he disturbing them? -
A. Well, in trying to organize the union.
Respondent Mylan expressed no dissatisfaction with this manner of handling
one who was attempting to organize its employees.
2 Respondent Tubb holds 31 shares, respondent Snodgrass 18 shares and C. T Mayberry
22 shares . The First National Bank, of which respondent Snodgrass is treasurer, holds
18 shares and Mylan Manufacturing Co. holds 5 shares. Sixty-one shares are held by
estates of deceased persons. The remaining 146 shares are distributed among 30 towns-
people, each holding from 1 to 13 shares.
588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Prior to 1945 there were two business men's associations in White County, the
Rotary Club and the Civitan Club. In the middle of February 1945 a meeting
was held in the local hotel to organize a Chamber of Commerce, a temporary
chairman was appointed and nominating committee and by-laws, committee
named. On March 2, the organization was completed with the election of offi-
cers and adoption of by-laws. This organization is the respondent Chamber of
Commerce herein.
B. The Union's attempt to organize and its consequences
1. The attempted walk-out preceding the advent of the Union
The employees in the Mylan plant are in the main paid on a piece-rate scale
based on a certain production quota. In the employees' vernacular, meeting the
production quota was "making production." In early January 1945 this quota
was lowered so that employees theretofore earning 400 an hour would, by pro-
ducing the same amount, receive 50¢ an hour. As 400 an hour was the minimum
wage by law those employees who failed to meet the production quota received
400 an hour regardless. The lowering of the production quota was not adequately
explained to the workers, they being told merely that if they "made production"
thereafter they would receive 50¢ an hour instead of 40¢. When in the latter
part of January the first pay checks since the announcement of the change were
distributed, which in the case of many employees did not reflect any increase, a
spontaneous walk-out commenced. Estimates as to the number of employees
participating varied from 50 to 75. The group never left the factory but was
stopped by Max Feinstein,, plant superintendent, who told everyone to return
to work, that he would get in touch with Charles C. Bassine, manager of the
plant,' who, he promised, would straighten the matter out. Bassine was notified
and came to the plant the next day and spoke to the assembled employees,
explaining the wage scale and advising them that actually he had voluntarily
given them the equivalent of a 25-percent increase in wages. He also stated
during the course of his speech that he personally had money enough to last him
for many years and that he did not have to operate the plant.' \ ,
2. The Union commences to organize and the anti-union campaign develops
Bassine's speech did not satisfy some employees who wrote to the United Mine
-Workers of America requesting help in organizing the employees of respondent
Mylan. Nothing further occurred until the 1st, of March when organizers of the
Union, in response to the letter, arrived in Sparta and gave 200 or 300 application
cards to Herman Anderson, an employee, for distribution in the plant' The
cards were distributed to the employees and soon the union drive stimulated
discussions ,, meetings and action in the plant and outside the plant among
employees, supervisors and business men of the entire community.
3 Mr Bassine 's once was in Nashville , Tennessee.
' From testimony of Charles C. Bassine, Nola Martin, Rebacca Bell, Pauline Anderson,
and Maud Phillips. Employees remembered expressly these three tenets of Bassine's
speech, the "voluntary" increase, the fact that he did not have to operate the plant, and
the money he had. Bassine explained on the witness stand that he mentioned his wealth
as an illustration in connection with a plea that employees stop absenteeism to the effect
that whether they had money or not they should work hard during these "troublous times"
as he did.
',They also saw the Sheriff of White County , and told him they planned to organize
the Mylan plant. The Sheriff said he was with them "100 percent." Soon the Sheriff as
related hereafter was part and parcel of the anti-union drive . His change of attitude,'
he later explained to Huddleston , was due to his discovery that the plant would close if
organized.
MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 589 '
On March 2 the respondent Chamber of Commerce completed its organization;
electing Lee Baker, a local insurance agent, president. Among the directors
elected were respondent R. V. Snodgrass, cashier of the local bank and secre-
tary of the White County Realty Company, C. T. Mayberry, who operated a hard-
ware store, R. V. Racely, editor and publisher of the town's weekly and only
newspaper, the Sparta Expositor, respondent Tubb, owner of a small spoke
factory and president of White County Realty Co., respondent Wallace, a local
businessman, and,Charles C. Bassine, manager of respondent Mylan. A Labor
Relations Committee was appointed consisting of respondent Wallace, chairman,
and respondent Tubb. The date this committee was appointed is not determin-
able from the record as Wallace's and Tubb's memory failed them on this point.
R. E. (Ed) Knowles, a former sheriff of White County in which Sparta is
located, and a member of the Chamber of Commerce, worked closely with the
men above-named in the events hereinafter recorded although he was not an
officer nor director of the respondent Chamber of Commerce.
Soon after the Union started organizing, respondent Wallace and Ed Knowles
contacted Virgie Gentry, an employee of the plant, and endeavored to obtain
her services in disorganizing the Union in the factory, requesting her to do any-
thing to break up the organization. When she refused they advised her to join
her husband "up North" as they were going to run the union men out of town
and get rid of them one way or another. She also was told that all employees
who joined the Union would be fired.'
On March 7 at one o'clock in the afternoon, Herman Anderson received a -
note posted on his time card requesting him to see Ed Knowles at the City
Hall. He did not check out of the plant and was absent all afternoon without
comment from plant officials. At the City Hall, Ed Knowles, Chief of Police
Hobbs and Sheriff Anderson talked with hum, Knowles being chief spokesman.
Anderson was told emphatically that the plant with its $50,000 monthly pay-
roll would close if it was organized, that Bassine had plenty of money and
would not have any union. Knowles urged him to work against the Union
and said they would get him another job if he did not like the one he had.
Knowles, after discussing the matter in this tenor for an hour or so told Ander-
son they wished to see employees Rebecca Bell and Mary Hardie.'
Later in the same afternoon Herman Anderson met Mary Hardie and told
her of the meeting with Knowles and the group's desire to meet with her. Re-
spondent Snodgrass came by and unlocked the First National Bank and took
Mrs. Bell, Herman Anderson and Knowles in there s Snodgrass told Hardie
that the Union would tear up the town and leave the building empty if Bassine
moved out and that Bassine would do so if the Union "came in." He advised
Hardie and'Anderson to drop affiliation with the Union and to have no more to
do with it. He or Knowles suggested that a committee be formed to deal with
the business men. Hardie complained that she would be fired now and Snod-
grass assured her she wouldn't if the Union were dropped. He told her that
coal mines near Sparta had operated until a union came in and then closed,
that the Welwood Silk Mills, predecessor occupant of the building respondent
Mylan occupied, closed because of a union and that Bassine would also close
8 From the credited testimony of Virgie Gentry, undenied except that Wallace denied
saying the employees joining the Union would be fired. Wallace was far from a frank
witness. He remembered little except when confronted with a statement he gave prior to
the hearing and often retracted portions of it His denial is not credited.
Testimony of Herman Anderson regarding this meeting was undenied.
" Snodgrass later testified he considered Anderson , Rebecca Bell , and Mary Hardie to be
the leaders of the Union.
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
if the Union organized the employees Hardie became tearful, inquiring
whether she had violated the law and was told she hadn't. The conference
lasted over an hour and after it concluded Knowles told Anderson they didn't
wish to see Rebecca Bell after all as she was "so damn hot about the union " 9
The same evening the union organizers Rideneor and Huddleston visited Her-
man Anderson at his home 13 miles from Sparta. Anderson spoke to them and
then saw other cars approaching and advised them to move away from his house.
Soon Ed Knowles and Sheriff Anderson arrived. Knowles asked Herman Ander-
son if he had seen the organizers and Anderson said he had not. Knowles said
that a business men's meeting was being held in Sparta and invited Anderson to
attend. He declined and Knowles then showed him a typewritten list of respond-
ent Mylan's,employees10 and asked him to check off the names of the leaders of
the Union so they could be seen. Anderson refused to do this. Again they urged
him to attend the meeting in town saying Bassine would be there. After being
further importuned to point out the union leaders among to employees, Ander-
son, in exasperation, said to tell Bassine to fire him, he didn't care about it and
he would rather be fired than have anyone else fired 11 n Knowles and-the sheriff
then left to return to the meeting in town.
Herman Anderson then saw Rideneor and Huddleston and told them of his
meeting with Knowles and advised them to take another road away from his
house and they left.
The next night, March S. Knowles and Chief of Police Hobbs visited Herman
.Anderson at his home, again in Knowles' car. Knowles complained that there
were still union cards being signed in the plant. Anderson disclaimed knowledge
of it whereupon Knowles asked him to name the leaders and to stop "fooling"
with the Union. Knowles and Hobbs were very expressive about the Union this
evening, Hobbs saying he would seriously injure even his wife if she joined and
Knowles saying the organizers had better "get out of White County and stay out."
Hobbs, Sparta's chief law enforcement officer, echoed this, saying "if the
sons of bitches knowed what was healthy for-them down here they had"better get
out and stay out." With these threats they left.10
That same evening, March 8, or the next morning, Sparta's•on]y-. newspaper, the
weekly Sparta Expositor, appeared with an "Open Letter" to Mylan employees,
occupying two full columns on the front page signed by Robert J. Racely, editor
and publisher and a director of the respondent Chamber of Commerce. This letter
was concerned entirely with the Union's attempt to organize the Mylan employees
and after asserting that the closing of the mines and the silk mill had occurred
because of unions, stated :
Events of this meeting are taken from Hardie's and Herman Anderson's creditable
testimony which was not denied by Knowles or Snodgrass.
11 In an affidavit made out in front of Board employee Kover prior to the hearing, Knowles
said this list of employees was given to either him or Chief of Police Hobbs by Bill
Cowden, pay -roll supervisor of respondent Mylan. However, on the witness stand Knowles
denied this, saying he did not know where he obtained the list. Cowden denied on the
witness stand that he had given out such a list but stated he did not- know how anyone
could get such a list except from the office of the company . The affidavit was received in
evidence as contradicting Knowles . The Board employee . Kover did not take the stand.
Therefore, although Knowles' testimony is definitely contiadicted on this point there is
no affirmative evidence that the list was received from the respondent Mylan and it is not
so found.
Ii Bassine received this message - but never-fired Anderson . Anderson quit after his wife
was fired on March 13.
11 Events of this meeting are taken from the undisputed testimony of Herman Anderson.
18 Events of this meeting again are from the uncontradicted testimony of Herman
Anderson.
MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 591
The writer has heard from various sources that should the Mylan Manu-
facturing Company be organized the factory will close immediately follow-
ing termination of government contracts, which we understand is in June.
What then friends? You know the Mylan Manufacturing Company owners
will do just what they say. What do you profit if you gain a few pennies a
week then too soon find your factory closed?
The front page of this paper was sent by Racely to employees of respondent Mylan.
At no time did officials of respondent Mylan repudiate the patent inference that
they had said the plant would close if organized.
3 The March 9 meetings
The next day, March 9, a meeting of certain business men was held with
Bassine-a-t the home, of respondent Wallace" Present besides Wallace and
Bassine were respondent Snodgrass, respondent Tubb, Ray Ward, a vice presi-
dent of respondent Chamber of Commerce, and Ed Knowles. All six of these
men testified and all contradicted each other in practically all details, on the
purpose, the discussion which occurred, and the result of the meeting. Only
Knowles' testimony bears the semblance of a straightforward story and his
testimony concerning this meeting is credited.1$ Knowles testified that Wallace
pointed one that Bassicie told the employees after the attempted walk-out that
he had plenty of money and didn't have to operate the plant and advised him
that he should not have said that to his employees Somebody at the meeting,
probably Wallace, Knowles testified, made the suggestion that business men
be invited to the plant "for the speaking" that afternoon. The inference is
clear and the undersigned finds that Bassine acquiesced in the plan to have
the business men come to the plant for his meeting with employees that afternoon.
Whether he decided at this time or prior thereto to hold the meeting at the
plant is not clear and it is not necessary that it be determined.
It is undisputed that Bassine made arrangements for a meeting of employees
that afternoon at 4 o'clock by ha\ ing plant supervisors notify all the employees
to be in the shipping room for the meeting and by having a rough platform built
for a speaker's stand. The 5 business men at Wallace's home earlier in the
clay were present at the plant and with them were 50 to 75 other business men.
Obviously Wallace, Snodgrass, Knowles, Ward and Tubb had followed the "sug-
gestion" made at Wallace's house to invite business men to the plant "for the
speaking" as at no previous time had any business men attended a plant meeting
Bassine opened the, meeting. His reasons for speaking, he testified, were to
refute the rumors that the plant would close down. His actions belied this
'" The date of this meeting at Wallace's and the meeting the same afternoon at the plant
is in dispute Bassine could not testify as to the date of the Wallace meeting but was
positive the meeting at the plant was Friday, March 9. Other witnesses not present at the
Wallace meeting placed the plant meeting as held on March 13. However it is clear that
the two meetings were held the same day and-from all the testimony it is clear and the
undersigned finds that both meetings occurred on March 9.
21 The other versions in contradiction to his are not credited. Ward testified he remem-
bered nothing about ,what occurred at the meeting. Wallace testified there was no refer-
ence to a union and that Bassine had asked the business men to meet with him regarding
grievances that Feinstein, superintendent of the plant had mistreated workers. He was,
flatly contradicted by a statement he gave and signed prior to the hearing. Tubb testified
he recalled only a discussion of some foreman kicking a:chair from under a lady. Snodgrass
testified there was talk about grievances and corroborates Knowles that Bassine was
warned not to repeat to his employees that he had money. Bassine said he was called to
the meeting by Wallace and that it was only about grievances and that he did not invite
business men to the plant to talk to employees but did invite them to the plant to hear
him talk to supervisors.
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
purpose. His speech as reconstructed by him on the witness stand was a plea
to the workers not to walk out and he mentioned their responsibilities to the
Armed Services ; he said he had heard rumors of union organization and that
the employees had a right to join a union or not to join but he coupled this
with another plea not to walk out during "these troublous times." He testified
that he dealt with the rumor that the plant might close by telling the employees
the plant would never close by any act of his but that the plant might close "if
the building burns up, if the owners of the building refuse to rent us the build-
ing, and [I] said the plant would close if they walked out and refused to come in."
He then testified . "I closed my statement with an appeal. I duplicate a lot, I
repeat myself a lot in these speeches, for the purpose of emphasis of the impor-
tant points. I closed with an appeal that they pledge with me that they would
continue to work and not walk out then I said thank you and good night e'
[Italics supplied.] 16
Respondent Wallace then commenced speaking . His speech was openly anti-
union. He recited the story about the mines and the silk mill closing because
of a union and made the statement, without contradiction 'from Bassine or any-
one else present, that this plant would also close if the Union organized the
employees.17 C. T. Mayberry, a director of the respondent Chamber of Commerce,
then spoke, concerning himself mainly with relating the munificence of Bas-
sine's gifts to the town. The meeting then adjourned. Bassine was present
throughout the meeting but did not speak again.
4. Further activities
I
The next night, March 10, the first formal union meeting was held at Rebecca
Bell's house, at which time another meeting was arranged to be held at the house
of Ora Burgess on Thursday, March 15, at 5: 00 p. in.
Meanwhile business men's meetings were occurring. Two or three were held
at the town community building, the Memorial Hall. Only business men at-
tended and those who testified were vague and evasive about the discussions at
these meetings. Each witness failed to recall anyone presiding or leading the
discussion, but they all agreed that the meetings were -for the sole purpose of
discussing ways and means of opposing the Union and Knowles, Wallace, Tubb
and Snodgrass were in attendance at one or more of these meetings.
During these same two weeks, Max Feinstein, plant superintendent, was active
in opposing the Union in the plant. Forelady Goodwin told employee Carrie -
Bennett that "Mr. Feinstein [has] just been up here and asked me if any of
my bunch is for the Union and I told him I didn't think so and he said 'if
they hadn't signed that he would see that they worked if he had to call in a
militia.' " 18 (83) Feinstein told Virgie Gentry, another employee, in the pres-
ence of Bennett that unions were a grand thing but he had a boss over him
just like he was over them and that "his boss didn't want the Union." Fein-
stein told another girl who asked him for a raise "Lady I will give you a 50
raise. You are one lady, you never joined a Union and never walked out. You
have a job here as long as the mill runs." Feinstein told Mary Hardie, whose
job was to supply other girls with work that "if Union comes in you couldn't let
.them sit without work." Feinstein asked to look in another employee's pocket-
book and had her turn her coat pockets inside out to see if she carried union
cards. He told Virgie Gentry that "when we get the Union in there we could
- 16 It was disputed whether Bassine dismissed the employees but obviously few left.
17 On cross examination Wallace admitted making this statement. In its brief respondent
Dfylan does not mention this all-important statement in its discussion of this incident.
11 Goodwin did not testify.
MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 593
turn in the bundles [of work] 2 or 3 times and get by with it if we wanted to.
He said that he wouldn't be the boss." 19 Another supervisor, forelady Maud
Hale, told Pauline Anderson that the ones who started the Union would be
fired 2°
5. The March 15 union meeting and its aftermath
On Thursday, March 15, the scheduled union meeting was held at Ora Burgess'
home, Feinstein being advised by an employee that the meeting would be held.
It was a well-attended meeting, by employees and townspeople who listened
to union organizer Huddleston speak. Thereupon, officers were nominated
and elected. The officers elected were; Herman Anderson, President ; Eugene
Floyd, Vice-President ; Herschell Dodson, Sergeant-at-Arms; Rebecca Bell, Sec-
retary ; Addie Davis, Treasurer ; and the following committeewomen, Ora Bur-
gess, Della Fletcher, Addie Davis and Nola Martin. This meeting was held in
the front yard °of the Burgess home. Right outside the yard many of the
business men parked their cars and stood around where they could hear and see
all that was going on in the yard. Among those thus present were Ed Knowles
and Chief of Police Hobbs. After the meeting, as union organizers Huddleston
and Brett left, they were stopped by a person unknown to them, who com-
menced questioning them about the Union's program. He was sitting at the
wheel of a car and while talking, reached out through the open window of the
car so that a revolver strapped under his left arm could be plainly seen by
the organizers while they talked to him As the organizers drove away they saw
this armed man point them out to Knowles and Hobbs, who followed them
out of town and finally stopped them, arrested them for speeding and ordered
them to drive back to the house of the Justice of the Peace in Sparta. Shortly
after their arrival at the home of the Justice of the Peace, the business men
arrived, some 20 to 25 crowding into the J. P.'s house. Those who testified
admitted they had never before attended a trial before a Justice of the Peace.
The trial itself lasted but a minute as Knowles merely instructed the J. P.
to fine the men $5 and costs, which was immediately done. Then Knowles ad-
vised the somewhat nervous organizers that the group of men was not a "mob"
but merely a business men's group and asked their, what they could offer the
business men. When Brett said that he had nothing to offer the business men,
Knowles turned to the "group" and said "What the hell are we waiting for?"
Brett then spoke up and said "What do you mean? Do you want us to leave?"
Knowles answered "Yes, get the hell out." One of the organizers turned to the
Chief of Police and asked for protection. Knowles interrupted, saying that they
would be protected, that he would follow them out of the county. This pro-
cedure was followed, with Knowles and the Chief of Police in one of the two
or three cars escorting the two organizers to the White County boundary 21
There was no further attempt made to organize the plant's employees, all
union organization and activities ending that night., However, the union leaders
in the plant had become known for certain. The Sparta Expositor appeared
the following morning with a banner headline that "UNION IS ORGANIZED.
11 From credited testimony of Carrie Bennett, Virgie Gentry, Myrtle Bussell, Mary Hardie,
and Nola Martin . Feinstein denied all these statements . He was an evasive , unreliable
witness who from his demeanor on the stand and all his testimony was obviously trying to
please respondent Mylan and justify his innocence as to any occurrence for which he might
be blamed . His denials are not credited
20 Credited testimony of Pauline Anderson . Forelady Hale did not testify.
21 The arrest , trial and events following are from the uncontradicted testimony of
Huddieston
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
OFFICERS ELECTED " The first paragraph of the two-column story written
by Racely, stated that a meeting was held at Ora Burgess' house and it listed
the officers and committeewomen elected. Racely closed his article as follows :
It was restated this week that should the factory be organized it will
definitely be closed at the termination of the present government schedules.
There is one decent thing to do. Why don't you do it? 22
This edition of the newspaper appeared Friday morning, March 16. Prior to
the Burgess meeting the union leaders in the plant had not actually been
known as Herman Anderson had refused to point them out on Knowles' list
of employees. Now, on March 16, since the election of officers in the presence
of Knowles and many others they were known and their names were published
prominently by" the newspaper. This day Mary Hardie, Carrie Bennett, and
Della Fletcher, all prominent in the Union and all named in Racely's article
in the paper as officers of the Union, were discharged by respondent Mylan.
Saturday, March 17, the plant worked only a few employees. ^ Rebecca Bell,
also elected committeewoman to the Union and so reported in the local news-
paper, did not work on Saturday but when she came to work Monday she was
handed her separation notice dated Saturday, March 17, and on the same day
Nola Martin, also a committeewoman, was discharged. Eugene Floyd, who was
elected to office in the Union at the Burgess meeting, immediately upon seeing
his name in the paper contacted his foreman and told him that it was all a
mistake and that his name should be, marked off the union list, and Addie
Davis, elected Treasurer of the Union and committeewoman, recanted to
Superintendent Feinstein." They were not discharged. Herschell Dodson,
elected Sergeant-at-Arms, was laid off.2d Herman Anderson, president of the
Union, who had theretofore asked that he. be fired and whose wife was the first
union employee discharged, quit his employment on April 10 as he did not feel
that with his wife not working he could afford to drive alone the 26 miles a
day from his home to work. Ora Burgess, at whose home the last union meet-
ing was held, was not discharged immediately but shortly after the meeting
she requested time off to go to Nashville with her brother, and was given per-
mission. Upon her return she saw Robert Frazier who stated that Feinstein
had told the pay-roll supervisor, William Cowden, to discharge her but Frazier
stated that he would not do so as she had- advised him she was going to Nash-
ville and she was allowed to return to work, but on-April 11 she went home for a
half day and when she returned the following day her separation slip was
handed her. By this time, all union organization had disappeared. All of
those elected to office who had not repudiated the Union to respondent blyl'an
were out of employment. The union organizers had been forced to leave town
and the organizing campaign was over.
6. The Labor Relations Committee
- The Chamber of Commerce had set up a Labor Relations Committee sometime'
theretofore with respondents Wallace and Tubb as the members thereof, for the
purpose, as testified by Wallace, of serving as a medium between the public and
'labor "of any organization," particularly if labor troubles occurred, and to serve
as a link between employees and the employer and to encourage employees to
22 Again respondent Mylan made no effort to repudiate the Inference-in Racely's 'paper
that it was the authority for the statement that the plant would close if organized.
23 Credited testimony of Maude Phillips.
24 Dodson -was,nbt alleged to have been laid off discriminatorily.
MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 595
bring their problems 'to the .committee so it could straighten them out 2e In
Jun' 1945 Nola Martin and Della Fletcher saw Lee Baker, president of the
Chamber of Commerce, and the Labor Relations Committee, Tubb and Wallace,
about getting their jobs back at the Mylan plant, and this was arranged,
Fletcher being reinstated June 5 and Martin on June 10, 1945.26
Mary Hardie and Rebecca Bell heard about Fletcher and Martin being reem-
ployed through the offices of the,Labor Relations Committee and decided to proceed
through the same channels to obtain reinstatement. They saw President Baker
of,the Chamber of Commerce, advising him that they had been fired because of
the Union and that they would "be finished with it" if he would help them get,
their jobs back Baker said that they "had a right to repent" and sent them- to
see the Labor Relations committeemen Wallace and Tubb They attempted to see
Tubb, who was out of town, and then conferred with Wallace, advising him also
that they had been fired because of the Union and would have no more to do with
it if he would have them reemployed, and advised him that'they had heard about
Fletcher and Martin 's reinstatement . Wallace lectured them on the evils of
unionism , even taking pencil and paper 4 and figuring, according to the hours they
had lost, that the Union had cost them each over $400. He queried them about
what they would do if a union came in again and they assured him they would
be against it. He then said he would see Mr Bassine and warned them there
would never lie a union in this plant, that "guns w8uld be used if necessary."
'Wallace told them to come back the following Monday. 13e11 did so and Wallace
said he had not been able to see Bassine, who was out of town, and for them to
return to him on the following Monday. Bell,at that time called Wallace on
the phope and he said he still had not been able to see Bassine. About an hour
later, Bell was notified that_there was a message for her to call Wallace.- On
telephoning him Wallace told her to get in touch with Hardie and for them to
"go to the factory that afternoon at 3 o'clock." This was done and Feinstein was
seen at that time, who told them he was sorry they had been fired like they had
been "but that lie was employed there just like we were." Feinstein expressed'
surprise when they said they had seen Wallace and asked them' why they had seen
himz: They did not answer, as Bell testified, because they didn't want to bring
the Union up at that time. Bell was reemployed July 25, 1945 at her former job.
Hardie was told that her job had hepn filled but that she would be given a better
job which- she eventually turned down I
25 Wallace, when he first took the witness stand, denied that he was chairman of,the
Labor Relatibns Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, but on being confronted with
his written statement given prior to the hearing, admitted his position on the committee
and its purpose. o
26 Tubb testified he contacted Bassine about obtaining their reinstatement. The girls
testified that when they reported to Feinstein they told him they supposed he knew how
they felt as they had been to Baker, Wallace and Tubb, and-that Feinstein said "yea they
had,told him." Bassine denied he had talked to Tubb about this and Feinstein denied
making the statement to the girls . Tubb did not make the admission until he-had been
confronted with a statement he gave prior to the hearing . From the demeanor of the
witnesses on the stand and all their testimony the undersigned credits Tubb's, Martin's
and Fletcher' s version of this incident and does not credit Bassine 's and Feinstein's denial,
and finds that the reinstatements were effected at the instance of the .Labor Relations
Committee.
24 Wallace , Feinstein and Bassine denied seeing each other about Bell 's and Hardie's
reemployment but Wallace did not deny the remainder of Bell's and Hardie's testimony
on this point . From all the testimony and particularly the reasons Wallace gave Bell and
Hardie for not getting quicker action, the inference is clear that Wallace did contact plant
officials and obtain their reemployment on the conditions set forth by him and it is so
fopnd, and it is equally plain ,that Feinstein ' s "surprise" was simulated.
712344-47-vol. 70-39
59Q DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Conclusions as to the various respondents ' responsibility for the anti-union
drive - o
1. Respondent Mylan
All the respondents contend that the evidence establishes no connection -between
respondent Mylan and the anti-union drive in Sparta on the theory that the con-
duct of the business men•of Sparta was conduct in their own or the community's'
interest. This contention ignores the respondent Mylan's ratification through'
silence of the lynch-law tactics of the business men's group in forcing the union
-organizer to leave town in 1942, which set the pattern for the same happening in
1945. It ignores the fact that the hitherto parallel lines of conduct of the business
men and respondent Mylan joined in the 1945 campaign at the meeting at re-'
spondent Wallace's home on March 9 It ignores also the known hostility of re- .
spondent Mylan to union 'Organization," and the dominant economic position of
the Mylan plant in the'life of the. town which made business men and city and
county law enforcement officers extremely responsive to the slightest suggestion'
that the plant might close. Only. a hint to this effect was heeded to enlist the
aid of the business men in achieving respondent Mylan's desire to'rid itself of
'the Union. .
During the week March 1-to March 8, rumors flew fast and furious in Sparta
that the Mylan plant would'olose,if it were organized. A word from the manage.-
ment that this was not true would have scotched the',runiors Such word was
not given. Instead, the day after the weekly newspaper 'carried a categorical
statement that the owners would close the Mylan plant if it were organized,
Bassine met with five officers of the Chamber of Commerce, and Ed Knowles and
arranged for the meeting at the plant tliiat same afternoon There -in front of all
his employees, who were forced to attend, and 50 to 75 business men who attended
voluntarily, Bassine had the perfect forum to allay all rumors that he would close
the plant if the union organized it. Every leader in the anti-union campaign was
present'including the editor of the local paper. In fact, Bassine testified that the
purpose of the meeting was to halt these rumors. But in his own. speech as sum-
marized by him on the witness stand, it is apparent that by stressing time and time
again his plea that a walk-out not occur, by his affirmatively listing situations
which would cause him to close, naming besides a walk-out only fire and a refusal
by the business men to rent the building to him, and by his final appeal'for the'
employees to pledge not to walk out, Bassine caused his listeners to infer that
union organization was the only danger to the plant's continued operation "
This speech alone could not fail to give official authentication to the rumors that
the plant would close and give authority to the assertion in the local newspaper
to this effect. But Bassine did not stop at this point ; he permitted respondent
Wallace to tell the assemblage of employees and business men in unequivocal
language that the plant would close if the Union continued-organizing.30 Nowthe
'" Snodgrass , Mayberry , and Tubb all testified they knew Bassine, was opposed to the
Union. -
29 Two foremen of respondent Mylan, W Payne and N L Bromme, testified that all they
remembered of the speeches that day was that they were to keep the Union from organizing
so the plant wouldn't close.
$0 Wallace in a signed statement given to a Board employee prior to the hearing said
Bassine told him about the Union organizing his employees and that if organization con-
tinued he might not be able to continue operating . On the witness stand Wallace d enied'
this occurrence The written statement was admitted in evidence as contradicting Wallace's
testimony . However, the Board employee who took the statement did not testify. There-
fore , although Wallace 's testimony is definitely contradicted , there is ' no affirmative evi=
dente that Bassine made these statements to Wallace and it is not so found.
1VIYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1 597
business men and employees had positive word that the plant would close if it
were organized by the Union . Subsequent developments proceeded naturally from'
this premise • The business men, actuated by the fear of losing the plant 's pay -roll ;
knowing that "mob" action in 1942 had not been\objected to by Bassine, logically!
and to them reasonably , thought that again organization- could be stopped by re--s
moving what they considered the cause , the organizers . The anti -union campaign
directed to the employees intensified and culminated after the open union meeting
in the Burgess yard in "deporting" the union organizers from the county. The
respondent Mylan directly condoned and approved the actions of the business men,
as narrated heretofore occurring prior to March 9, and inspired the further anti-
union activities of the same persons occurring thereafter , and nothing in the
,evidence negated its complete responsibility therefor.3' 3t
Nor did respondent Mylan halt its ranking supervisor in Sparta , Feinstein,
°nor Forelady Hale, in their anti-union activities an the plant itself . Feinstein
throughout the Union campaign interested himself in Union membership and
made numerous statements disparaging the Union and its members, searched one
member for Union cards and gave another employee a raise because he thought
she had refrained from joining the Union , while Hale advised Pauline Anderson
the Union leaders would be fired. This condnctowas never disavowed by Bassine
although lie testified he told his supervisory staff to refrain from interference in
union affairs . Such instructions , never conveyed to the employees as a body,
cannot absolve respondent Mylan of responsibility for these anti-moon statements
and actions •
R. E. (Ed )'Knowles was not named a party iespoudeii nor was lie'an oflicei
nor a director of respondent Chamber of Commerce . although he 'was a member
thereof, yet he was in the forefront of the anti -union campaign , always in col-
laboration with city and county officials . or with the, directors of respondent
Chamber of Commerce , respondents Snodgrass , Tubb and . Wallace or Mylan,
speaking iri the company of one or all of them at, one time or other during the
2 weeks which marked the beginning and end of union organization in the Mylan
plant. He , with Wallace, warned and threatened Virgie Gentry ; with the Chief
of Police and Sheriff importuned Herman Anderson ; with Snodgrass urged Hardie
to fight the Union ; with representatives of all respondents at Wallace ' s home ;
at the Mylan plant when Bassine, Mayberry and Wallace spoke ; with Chief of
Police Hobbs kept under surveillance the March 15 union meeting at Ora Burgess'
home when the employees elected union officers ; and at the home of the Justice
of the Peace when he determined the fine to be levied on the organizers; and in
the forefront of-the "group" which forced the latter to leave town. Respondent
Mylan, through Bassine, sponsored and adopted the anti-union campaign by
authenticating the rumor that the plant would close if organized ; it cannot now
disclaim responsibility for Knowles ' open and notorious part therein. The un-
dersigned finds that Knowles was acting in the interest, of- respondent Mylan at
all times herein mentioned and this respondent is responsible for Knowles'
activities.
Bassine testified that several weeks later he spoke at a Civitan Club meeting and also
a Rotary Club meeting wherein he stated the plant would not close if organized No one
else testified as to this This is immaterial, the union campaign had been smashed by
that time He admittedly did not say so during the course of the union campaign nor did
he deny the statements made in the Expositor nor ask that correction be made
22 N L. R B. v. Elkland Leather Co., 114 F. (2d) 221 (C C A 3) , in the Matter of
Mani Ale Jenckes Corporation, 30 N L 'R. B. 382; N L. R B v Northwestern Mutual Fire
Association, 142 F (2d) 866 (C C A 9), cert den 323 U S 726; in the Matter of Brown.
Sloe Co, Inc; 1 N L R. B 803
31 In the Matter of Bird Machine Conwamy, 65 N L RtiB 311
0
598 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
As heretofore found,, respondent Mylan, on the instigation of the Labor Rela-
tions Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, offered reemployment to four of
its discharged employees. This de facto recognition of this committee sanc-
tioned its objectives and respondent Mylan by thus bestowing authority on it
became liable for its activities. - , ,
The undersigned finds that by the above-described anti-union activities, includ-
ing among others, the.adoption and approval of the anti-union campaign carried
on by the local business men, through- the Wallace meeting where preparations
were made for the plant meeting March 9, and the plant meeting, where the
rumors of the plant closing if organized were confirmed, the ratification through
silence of Racely's written 'statements about the plant closing if, organized,
the surveillance by Knowles of the March 15 union meeting where the leaders
of the Union became known through the election of officers, and by the subsequent
"mob" action of the business men's group at the home of the Justice of the 0
Peace, patterned on the 1942 episode, by Feinstein's and Hale's statements and
conduct in the plant, 'by Knowles' activity and conduct shown above, by dealing
with the Labor Relations Committee as a grievance committee, the respondent
Mylan has interfered with, restrained, and cberced its employees in the ,exercise
-of the rights guaranteed in-Section 7 of-the Act. -
2. Respondent Chamber of Commerce .
Respondent Chamber of Commerce was organized tentatively before the union
-drive in Sparta commenced and completed, its organization the day after the
Union openly began organizing in thee Mylan plant. There is no proof that this
respondent was organized for 'the purpose, of-combatting the union drive. Min-
utes were not kept of its meetings and there is no evidence of its instructing its
officers, directors or members to participate in the anti-union campaign. How-
ever, prominently featured on the front page of the same edition of the Sparta
Expositor which carried Editor Racely's "open letter" to Mylan employees was
a story setting forth the names of the officers-and directors of the Chamber of
Commerce which included Baker, Mayberry, Snodgrass, Wallace, Racely and '
Tubb, who were the spearhead of the campaign to rid Sparta of'the Union. Bas-
sine, the sponsor, adopter and'beneficiary of their campaign, was also named
on, the Board of Directors. 'To say these men were acting in their -individual
capacity and not as officers of this, respondent is to indulge in a technical dichot-
_omy totally without a -basis in reality. Had a single spokesman for this re-
spondent, during the union drive, denied that these men were acting in their
official capacity there might be some foundation for upholding this respondent's
contention that it as an organization was not involved, but no such spokes-
man appeared and the employees of respondent Mylan could only know
that these men, known to them as newly elected officers of the newly formed
Chamber of Commerce,' were in the forefront combatting the Union's attempt
to organize among them. It could only- be assumed that these officers were
backed, by the power engendered by the banding together of 145 business men
into the Chamber of Commerce.
With all the evidence' of these officers' participation in the anti-union cam-
paign and with the appointment of a Labor Relations Committee, which func-
tioned as a grievance committee dealing with respondent Mylan in obtaining
reemployment of discharged employees ; some upon their promise to refrain from
' The, front page of the edition of the Sparta Expositor carrying the story of the Cham-
ber of Commerce formation and election of officers and the "Open Letter to Mylan Em-
ployees" was mailed to respondent Mylan's employees'by Editor Racely.
0
MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 599
union activities, the undersigned is compelled to infer and therefore finds that
the Chamber of Commerce through its officers and directors was acting in the
interest of the employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, it being
only "reasonable to hold that the interpretation of the Act makes one who aids
the immediate employer in contravening the statute an employer also.";
The undersigned finds that by the anti-union activities of its officers and direc-
tors, heretofore described, including among others, participation in the impor-
tuning of Virgie Gentry, Herman Anderson and Mary Hardie to repudiate and
oppose the Union, participation in the meetings at Wallace's home, 'and at the
plant on March 9, in the meeting at the home of the Justice of the Peace where
the union organizers were compelled to leave town, and by the activities of its
Labor Relations Committee, the respondent Chamber of Commerce has interfered
with, restrained and coerced the employees of respondent Mylan in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. The individual respondents
Respondents Wallace, Tubb and Snodgrass were directors of the Chamber
of Commerce and Tubb and Snodgrass were officers of the White County Realty
Co, lessor of the premises occupied by respondent Mylan. Whether these re-
spondents were acting in their own interest, the interest of the Chamber of Com-
merce, the White County Realty Co., or other persons or organizations is imma-
terial inasmuch as they were simultaneously acting throughout in the interest of
respondent Myl'an and in concert with that employer in violating the Act. The
undersigned finds that in so aiding and abetting respondent Mylan in its unlawful
activities each of these three respondents became an employer within the meaning
of Section 2 (2) of the Act and interfered with, restrained and coerced respond-
ent Mylan's employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
D. Individual discharges.
Six of the most" prominent union protagonists and officials were discharged
almost immediately following their election to office in the Union. One employee
was discharged shortly prior to the election. It is impossible to consider the
discharge of these seven persons as if in a vacuum completely apart from the
activities of the business men and'plant officials. All the evidence, including
the coincidence of six of the discharges occurring as the coupe de grace of the
Union's effort to organize the Mylan plant, and the defenses set forth by re-
spondent Mylan must be considered in determining the motivating factor for each
discharge.
1. Pauline Anderson
Pauline Anderson had worked in the plant prior to 1945 as a pocket stitcher
in the stitching department and as a sleeve staclier in the cutting department.
January 23, 1945, she was rehired and placed .trimming shirts. She only re-
mained on this operation until January 30 when she was transferred to trim-
ming sleeve facings." There is ample proof that Anderson's husband, Herman,
36 N L R B. v. Taylor-Colguitt Company , at al ., 140 F ( 2d) 92 (C C A 4) ; Consumers
Lumber & Veneer Company , 63 N. L R. B 17.
se Respondent Mylan proved at the hearing that Mrs. Anderson did not "make produc-
tion" on the shirt trimming operation and averred her transfer was for that reason. How-
ever she had not worked for sometime and hadn 't before ,Norked on that operation and she
was not told of any reason for her transfer nor was her work criticized . Many others
also failed to "make production" on this operation . The sleeve facing operation was an
emergency one created by errors in the cutting room which required that someone be put
on that work . The inference is plain that the transfer was not because she failed to
make production but due to the necessity of someone clipping sleeve facings and it is so
found.
i
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was the leading proponent of the Union, most active in its organization, and that
in disgust at the continued pressure to quit such activities he requested discharge
and that this message was received by Bassine. Pauline Anderson herself
distributed union application cards in the plant and obtained signatures thereto
and on March 7, the day her husband was called out of the plant to be importuned
by Ed Knowles and city officials, she was told by her forelady that the ones who
started the Union would be discharged 87 -
Respondent Mylan averred in its answer 3R that Anderson "was employed as a
sleeve facing trimmer and that her employment was.terminated because there
was no work available of the type in which she was experienced." Respondent
wholly failed to sustain these allegations, proving in fact that she was not hired
as a sleeve facing trimmer and offering no proof that there was no work avail-
able in which she was experienced. It was shown that 76 employees were hired
in March 1945 and respondents' officials admitted their manpower needs were
great during this period and that many of the persons hired were totally inexpe-
rienced ' The only proof offered by respondent as to the termination of Pauline
Anderson was that the errors in the cutting room which resulted in the neces-
sity of an employee cutting sleeve facings were'corrected and that this work ran
out March 13 and respondent averred that caused her lay-off. This is not logical
in view of Anderson's experience, respondent's manpower needs and their re-
liance on wholly inexperienced employees. Therefore the real reason for An-
derson's termination must be sought elsewhere. Her and her husband's out-
standing work on behalf of the Union remains the only rational basis for her
discharge and the undersigned finds that Pauline Anderson was discharged be-
cause of their activities on behalf of the Union.
2. Carrie Bennett
Carrie Bennett worked for respondent Mylan from sometime in 1941 until
October 1942, and returned to their employment February 13, 1945, as a shirt
trimmer, and worked until her discharge on March 16, 1945 She joined the
Union the day Bassine, Wallace and Mayberry spoke in the plant and was ad-
vised the same day by her forelady that Feinstein had just been to see her about
whether her group of employees were in the Union. She was with Virgie Gentry
when the latter was told by Feinstein that Bassine did not want the Union in
the plant. She obtained signatures to application cards and attended the
March 15 Burgess meeting where she became a charter member of the Union,
being one of seven persons listed on the, charter' She worked the day after the
meeting at Burgess' but the following morning, Saturday, her card was not in
place and William Cowden, pay-roll supervisor, told her that Feinstein said her
production was too low. She protested and asked Feinstein to compare her
record with others in the department, which he refused to do. Respondent's'
answer averred that although she was a "throughly experienced employee" she,
"failed to make the volume of production of which she was easily capable" and
for that reason was discharged. No one complained to her of her failure to
make production "of which she was easily capable" and in her department the
production levels were set too high for the majority of the workers and Bennett
actually produced more than the majority of the workers on the same operation.
Thus respondent is contending that with the majority failing to make production
37 Credible testimony of Pauline Anderson. Her forelady did not testify.
58 Respondent Mylan's answer was adopted by respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan
Manufacturing Co. '
39 Testimony of Cowden, pay-roll supervisor for respondent Mylan
40 However, Bennett's name wao not carried in the Sparta Expositor
MYLAN MANUFACTURING ' COMPANY 601
in this department , and with its necessity to ' use totally inexperienced 'em-
ployees, Bennett alone was discharged for failing to make production "of which
she was easily capable" with the discharge occurring a day after the union
meeting, which attracted the attention of all the townspeople , and at which
she had been named a charter member. It is evident that the failure to, make
production "of which she was easily capable" was but the pretext used by re-
spondent or rid itself of-this union leader and the undersigned finds that Carrie
Bennett was discharged because of her union activities.
3 Della Fletcher
Della Fletcher was employed February 4, 1939, and worked until her dis-
charge March ' 16, 1945. Shortly after the attempted - walk-out in January
1945, Feinstein berated her for participating in it. She protested that she
hadn't been involved and was substantiated by her forelady , whereupon Fein-
stein patted her upon the shoulder and told her to go back to work. She
joined the Union March 6 and shortly thereafter while some persons were
signing union cards in the washroom , Feinstein accused her of repeatedly
going to the washroom and also criticized her because employees stopped at
her machine and talked to her. She attended the Burgess meeting and was
named a committeewoman and her name was carried in the Sparta Expositor
as such the next clay , Friday, March 16, when she was laid off . The respond-
ent Mylan averred in its answer that her lay -off w ,as a temporary lay-off
caused by lack of work on her particular operation, that of hemming pockets.
However , it was admitted that another person was placed on this operation
when Fletcher was laid off and that Fletcher had been regularly on that
operation for a long time. Feinstein belied respondent Mylan's answer by
testifying that Fletcher had not been laid off but had quit, and no other
testimony was offered by respondent . The undersigned does not credit Fein-
stein 's testimony °' and from all the evidence it is clear that Fletcher was dis-
charged and with respondent offering no reason for her discharge and ample
proof being shown that she was active in the Union and of respondent's bias
against the Union, the undersigned finds that Della Fletcher was discharged
because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union . She was
,reemployed June 5, 1945 , through the offices of the Labor Relations Committee
of respondent Chamber of Commerce as related heretofore but was forced, to
lay off after working only a half day due to illness and has since then been
unable to work because of her health.
4. Mary Hardie
Mary Hardie worked as floorlady, a non-supervisory position, from 1942 until
her discharge on March 16, 1945" She participated in the attempted/walk-out
in the latter part of January and thereafter became very active in the Union.
Respondent Snodgrass testified that he considered her one of the three union
leaders, and' she was urged by Snodgrass and Ed Knowles at the meeting in
the First Natidnal Bank to drop the Union and help break it up as heretofore
related. At the l union meeting held at Mrs. Burgess' home, Hardie was nom-
inated for every office and declined all of them, but was named a ^ commit-
teewoman and her name was carried in the Sparta Expositor the next 'day,
March 16. On March 16, Supervisor Honig and Superintendent Feinstein
0
" See footnote 19, regarding Feinstein 's credibility.
'' Respondent Mylan's answer alleged Hardie to have been discharged March 15 but it
was stipulated at the hearing that March 16 was the correct date of the discharge.
6
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
watched Hardie all day-so much so that another employee accosted Hardie
and asked why she was being watched so closely. At the end of the day her
time card was not in its accustomed place and she was told to see the pay-roll
supervisor, who advised her that "Mr. Feinstein says he can't use you any
longer." Her separation slip stated that she was discharged because her
work was unsatisfactory. No one had complained abouf her work and no
explanation was given her.
Respondent Mylan averred in its answer that Hardie was discharged "due
to her constant and recurring inattention to her duties and interference with
the production of other employees, based upon complaints made by such other
employees." There was no testimony that other employees complained about
Mrs Hardie and no'evidence offered that she interfered with the production
of other employees. , In fact, Feinstein testified vaguely that she had gone to
the washroom too often and that he discharged her for that reason Respond-
ent Mylan needed employees at this time and there is no showing that Hardie
in her 3 years of employment was- not a completely satisfactory employee
except Feinstein's vague statement about Hardie's trip to the washroom.
Feinstein's testimony is not credited and from all of the testimony the inference
is clear and the undersigned finds that Mary Hardie was discharged because
of her membership in and.activities on behalf of the Union.
As related heretofore, Mrs. Hardie was offered reemployment on July 25, 1945,
after she cleared through the respondent Chamber of Commerce's Labor Relations
Committee. The reemployment offered was not to her former job but was to
a position at least its equivalent, monetarily, and certainly was not a lesser
position. She admitted`on cross-examination that she had no intention of taking
any position' offered her when she went through the Chamber of Commerce
channels with Rebecca Bell saying that she was merely attempting to help Bell
obtain reemployment. When Hardie was told to report to work by Feinstein
she reported and told him that she had canning to do and could not report until
some time later. She admitted this-to be false, that at that time she intended
not to return, her reason being that she did not want to return under the propise
she had made respondent Wallace to refrain from any union activities in the
future. The undersigned has found that the Labor Relations Committee of the
Chamber of Commerce did obtain the reemployment of Bell and the offer to
Hardie upon their promise not to engage in union activities and it is plain that-
this committee was acting in the interest of respondent Mylan in so-obtaining
these offers of reemployment, and that respondent Mylan was thus, in effect,
offering reemployment on the basis set forth by respondent Chamber of Com-
merce. It is clear that the offer of reemployment to Hardie under such terms
is not, in law, an unconditional offer of reinstatement and the undersigned so
finds and Hardie's deception during her conferences with the Chamber of Com-
merce and respondent Mylan, while certainly not commendable, does not make
the offer legal.
5. Rebecca Bell
Rebecca Bell commenced working for respondent Mylan in' October 1942 and
worked until her discharge March 17, 1945. The operation she performed was
that of stitching collars. She was one of the first to sign a union membership
apptication and the first union meeting was held at her hone. Bell attended
the union meeting at the Burgess house and was elected Secretary of the Union,
and her name was so carried in the Sparta Expositor the next day. The day fol-
lowing- this union, meeting and the day the newspaper appeared, Feinstein
watched Bell's work closely but did not say anything to her. On Saturday,'she
d
MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 603
did not work and on Monday, her card was out of the rack and Supervisor Honig
told her that he didn't have a card for her because she had stayed out Saturday
and that therefore she was-discharged and her separation notice dated Saturday,
March 17, was handed to her. It is not denied that she had actually been dis-
charged on that day. She testified that she had not been requested to work that
Saturday. Respondent Mylan's answer averred that she had been discharged
because she failed to report to work on Saturday without reason. Bell testified
that many times before she had stayed out on Saturday when 10 or 11 had been
told to come in and only 2 would show up and that no one was disciplined. Owen
Kinnard, an assistant to Mr. Feinstein, testified that in regard to work on Satur-
days, Feinstein would give him the names of those to work and he would
notify the employees named He testified "I have told lots to come in on
Saturday and they have failed to come in," and "we don't fire them for
not coming in on Saturday even when they have been told and wilfully stay out."
Walter Payne, a supervisor, testified that Honig or Robert Frazier, another assis-
tant of Mr. Feinstein, would advise him the employees wanted on any particular
Saturday and he would tell the employees and that sometimes as high as 50 per-
cent would fail to appear and no one would be disciplined. Nannie Lee Bromme,
a supervisor in one department, testified that she had often advised employees to
come in on Saturday who failed to do so, and that no one was ever disciplined for
this: The evidence is overwhelming and the undersigned finds that whether or
not Rebecca Bell was told to report to work Saturday, March 17, her absence. from
work on that day was not the reason for her discharge but was merely a pre-
text seized upon by respondent Mylan to rid itself of this active union proponent
and official. The undersigned finds that Rebecca Bell was discharged because of
her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. Bell was reemployed
July 25, 1945, after clearance through the Labor Relations Committee of the
Chamber of Commerce upon her promise not to engage again in union activities.
6. Nola Martin '
Nola Martin was employed by respondent Mylan from December 1937 until
March 19, 1945, when she was discharged. Martin was one of the, oldest em-
ployees of respondent Mylan in point of service and has performed many opera-
tions, her last operation being that of making pockets. • She was one of the first
to join the Union and obtained signatures to union application cards. She
attended the first union meeting at the Bell home and shortly thereafter while
at work saw two girls who worked in Feinstein's office watching her as she was
about to hand union application cards to two workers so she told the two em-
ployees who had asked for the cards to follow her into the washroom. This was
done and the two girls from Feinstein's office also came in the washroom and
saw Martin take the cards out of her pocketbook. Later that day Feinstein told
her she was fired because she was bothering his people and demanded to look
into her pocketbook. She told him she didn't have her pocketbook with her and
he demanded that she turn open her coat pockets, which she did, and which were
found to be empty. Feinstein then told her that she was'not discharged and she
continuedworking.'a She attended the union meeting at Ora Burgess' house and
was elected a Committeewoman and her name was so carried in the-Sparta Ex-
positor tLe next day, Friday, March 16. She worked Friday the 16th and on
"The inference is plain and the undersigned finds that Feinstein's office held told him
Martin had union application cards in her pocketbook and, that he was looking for them.
Actually by that time she was hiding the cards in the bosom of her dress. Feinstein's
denial that this ' conduct occurred is not credited for reasons set forth heretofore. Martin's
testimony was straightforward and is credited. -
604
V
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Monday : the, 19th until 3: 30 in the afternoon when her operation ran out and
she and two other employees were told they were temporarily laid off . The other
two employees were called back to work 2 days later. Martin was not. . ,
Respondent Mylan averred in its answer that Martin was merely temporarily
laid off but Feinstein testified that she quit, admitting that two other `persons
were - put to work making pockets when, she left. Obviously this operation was
not discontinued for more than one day, if for that time , and respondent could
easily have done as it had before , placed Martin on another operation until the
work of making pockets increased , particularly in view of her long experience on
many operations . Respondent , however, did not do so, nor did it recall her
,when the operation of making pockets picked up. The evidence is plain that she
was not temporarily laid off and that she did not quit as Feinstein must have
known. The evidence is overwhelming and the undersigned finds that Nola
Martin was discharged because of her activities on, behalf of the Union . Martin
was reemployed by respondent Mylan on June 10, 1945, after clearance with the
Labor Relations Committee of the Chamber of Commerce , as related heretofore.
7. Ora Burgess
Ora Burgess was last employed from October or November 1944 until her dis-
charge on April 12, 1945. She advised Mannie Honig at the time of her reem-
ployment that she could only work 3 days a week , in which arrangement Robert
Frazier and Max Feinstein acquiesced . Burgess was very active in the Union
and the second and last meeting was held in 'her home ,where she was elected
a Committeewoman . Both the fact that the meeting was held at her home
and that she was elected to office were reported in the Sparta Expositor the next
day. From,the time of the first union meeting until the one at her home, she
was very active in handing out application cards and had been seen doing so by
Supervisor Mannie Honig. Shortly after the meeting at. her home she told
Frazier-that she was going .to Nashville . When she returned , her card was out
of the rack and she was told by Frazier that Feinstein had said to discharge her
but Frazier did not do so since -,she had obtained permission from him to leave,
and she •worked until April 11. On that day at noon , she told Honig that she
had to go home to do some work . The next day her check and separation slip
were awaiting her when she arrived at the plant, the separation slip saying "but
without excuse ." Honig would not talk with her and Feinstein claimed that he
didn't know anything about the matter. She admitted that Honig had told her
to see Feinstein when she left the day before but that she had said she wouldn't
see anybody.
Respondent Mylan avers in its answer that they "requested this employee to
notify the respondent 's officials if she intended to be absent from work so arrange-
ments could be made for someone to take her place and she declined to do so
and stated that she intended to continue her plan [of working for short periods
of time] • without notice and respondent therefore was required in the interest
of business and other employees to terminate her services ." Respondent Mylan,
at the hearing , made nb attempt to prove these allegations in its answer and it
was admitted that when Burgess returned to work in the fall of 1944 she made
arrangements to work only 3 days a week and it is admitted that later on she
worked more than 3 days a week when she could . Supervisor Honig ,testified
that she refused to talk to Feinstein on her last day of employment and that
because he didn 't give her permission to leave . she quit her employment . , Fein-
stein admitted that the three-day arrangement had been made but said the
understanding was that it was only to be for a short time. He never testified
as to the reason for her employment being terminated . Regardless , of whether
MYLAN MANUFACTURING 'COMPANY 605
she had permission to work only 3 days a week, in view of Burgess' outstanding
union activities and the knowledge of them by respondent Mylan, the failure
of respondent Mylan to submit proof in support of the allegations in its answer
regarding Burgess, and the only testimony submitted by the respondent being
that she voluntarily quit, which is not credited as it contradicts the separation
slip given her when she was terminated and this respondent's desire to find a
pretext for discharging her as shown by the Nashville incident, the conclusion is
-inescapable that she was actually discharged because of her activities and of3icer-
ship in the Union, and the undersigned so finds.
8. Conclusions regarding the discharges,
The 'undersigned finds that by discharging Pauline Anderson, Mary Hardie,
Carrie-Bennett, Della Fletcher, Rebecca Bell, Nola Martin and Ora Burgess
because of their activities on behalf of the Union and in the case of Pauline
Anderson also because of her husband's activities in.the Union, respondent Dly-
lan discriminated in respect to their hire and tenure of employment thereby dis-
couraging membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining and coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRAOTICES ON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III, above , occurring in
connection with the operation of the respondent's business described in Section 1,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce ainong the ,:('veral States, and tend to, lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the various respondents have engaged in certain unfair
labor practices the undersigned will recommend that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act. - t
Respondent Mylan by its participation in the aggressive anti-union campaign,
its utilization of the Chamber of Commerce, the individual respondents, and
It. E Knowles, to further its interests in destroying the Union, and its discharge
of the seven most prominent union leaders as a reprisal for their union activities,
convinces the undersigned that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively
related to the other unfair labor practices, hereinafter proscribed and that danger
of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from respondent Mylan's
conduct herein set forth" The deterrent purposes of the Act will be defeated
if the order is not as comprehensive as the threat. -Limiting the order to the
particular violations found herein would encourage respondents Mylan-Sparta
and Mylan Manufacturing Company in finding other and more subtle means of
achieving its demonstrated purpose of defeating its employees in the exercise of
their rights of self-organization for the purpose of collective bargaining. This
same reasoning applies with as great force to the respondents Chamber of
Commerce, Wallace, Snodgrass and Tubb. In order therefore to make effective
the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair
labor practices and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and
obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the policies of the Act it is recommended
44 See N. L. R . B. v Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426 , and May Department
Stores, 326 U S. 376.
606 DECISIONS - OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that all the-respondents except respondent Mylan'a be ordered to cease and
desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act in relation to respondent Mylan's employees
The size of Sparta. the dominant economic position of respondents Mylan-
Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Company in the community, and the fact
that only one newspaper serves the county have all heretofore been noted In
view of these facts- it will be recommended that respondents Chamber of Com-
merce, Wallace, Snodgrass , and Tubb shall, besides posting a notice at respondent
Mylan's plant, also jointly publish in the local newspaper, the Sparta Expositor,
exact copies of the said notices'6
As shown heretofore Carrie Bennett was reinstated on June 10, 1945, and Della
Fletcher on June 5, 1945, to their former positions, while Rebecca Bell was
reinstated July 25, 1945, on her promise not to engage in Union" activities in the
future After complaint was issued in this niatter the evidence discloses Pauline
Anderson, Nola Martin, Ora Burgess and Mary Hardie were also reinstated.
In view of these facts recommending that respondent Mylan-Sparta and Mylan
Manufacturing Company reinstate these, employees would be a futile gesture
and it will not be recommended However, it will be recommended that respond-
ents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co notify Rebecca Bell in writing'
that she is not bound by her promise not to engage in union activities and that
her position with respoudent,is n6t conditioned on such a, promise
It will also be recommended that respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manu-
facturing Co make these discharged employees whole for losses incgrred be-
cause of the discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum
of money equal to that which each of them would normally have earned from
the date of their discriminatory discharge to the date of their actual reinstate-
ment" less in each case their net earnings during the said period .48
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the-following:
CoNcr.usloNs of Law
1. United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act
2 The Sparta-White County Chamber of Commerce, M. C. Wallace, James
Richardson Tubb, Jr., and Robert J' Snodgrass are employers within the meaning
of Section 2 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Pauline Anderson, Mary Hardie, Carrie Bennett, Della Fletcher,' Rebecca Bell,
Nola Martin, and Ora Burgess, thereby discouraging membership in the Union,
the respondent Mylan has engaged in and respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan
Manufacturing Co are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act. -
15 The existence of respondent Mylan has been terminated and it has been succeeded by
respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co.
96 In the Matter of Salant & Salant, Inc , et al , 66 N. L. R. B 24
47 It has been heretofore found that the offer of reinstatement made to Mary Hardie in
July 1945 was not an unconditional offer and her back pay therefore runs with the others
until her actual reinstatement.
44 By "net earnings " is meant, earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for . his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company , 8 N L R. B . 440. Monies received for work performed
upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work -relief projects shall be considered
as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R . B., 311 U. S. T.
MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 607
4. (a) The respondents Mylan, Mylan-Sparta, Mylan Manufacturing, Co.,
Chan\ber of Commerce, Wallace, 'Snodgrass, an-d Tubb by interfering with, re-
straining ,. and coercing employees of the respondents Mylan, Mylan-Sparta and
Mylan Manufacturing Co have engaged in and respondents Mylan-Sparta, Mylan
Manufacturing Co., Chamber A Commerce, Wallace, Snodgrass and'Tubb are
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act. - '
(b) The respondent Mylan by the acts set forth above in Sections 3 and 4 (a),
and by causingiand attempting to cause business men of Sparta to interfere with,
restrain and coerce the employees of respondent Mylan has engaged in, and
respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. are engaging in, unfair
labor practice's within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning'of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the
entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that
A. The respondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc. and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc.,
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., or
any other labor organization of its employees by discharging or refusing to rein-
state any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employ-
ment ;
(b) Engaging in surveillance of union activities;
(c) Recognizing the Labor Relations Committee of the Sparta-White County
Chamber of Commerce as representative of their employees covering grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours-of employment, or other conditions of
employment ;
(d) Using the assistance of respondents Chamber of 'Commerce, Wallace,
Snodgrass and Tubb, or R. E. Knowles or any other person or group of persons,
for the purpose of violating the Act ;
(e) Using the assistance of respondents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace,
Snodgrass and Tubbs, or R. E. Knowles, or any other person or group of persons,
to force representatives of United Construction Workers or any other labor,t
to leave the town of Sparta, Tennessee , for the purpose of dis-
couraging membership in the United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., or any
other labor organization ;
(f) In any manner interfering with, restraining or coercing their employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section,7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Pauline Anderson, Mary Hardie, Carrie Bennett, Della
Pletcher, Rebecca Bell, Nola Martin and Ora Burgess in the manner set forth in
the'section .of this Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of
pay them may have suffered ;
608 DECISIONS , QI NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify Rebecca Bell in writing that she is not bound by her promise not
to engage in union activities and that her position with, respondent is note con-
ditioned on such a promise;
(c) - Post fora period,of at least 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places at
their plant in Sparta, Tennessee, copies ofithe notice to be prepared by the respond-
ents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Snodgrass'and Tubb, in accordance with
the provisions of these recommendations directed• to them ;
(d) Post at their plant in Sparta, Tennessee, 'copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked "Appendix A. Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by respond-
ents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co.'s representative, be posted by
said respondents immediately on receipt thereof, and maintained by them for
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including, all places
where notices to employees are customarily, posted.' Reasonable steps shall be
taken by respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan•Manufacturing Co. to insure that
,such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
.. (e) File with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region on or before 10 days
from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing setting forth in
.detail the manner and form in which the respondent has complied with the fore-
going recommendations. °
B. The respondent Chamber of Commerce, its officers, directors, and agents
shall : , -
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Holding out its Labor Relations Committee as a committee to serve as a
link between respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. and their
employees concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours- of
employment, or other conditions of. employment ; , - -
(b) In any manner interfering with, restraining or coercing the employees of
respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. at their Sparta plant
in the,exercise of the right to form, join, or assist United Construction Workers,
U. M. W. A., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively, through
representatives of their own choosing and. to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining, or other, mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act. . J , - -
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the purposes of the Act: ' - , -
(a) Publish in the local newspaper '41 the Sparta, Expositor, and have posted at
the respondents' Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. plant in Sparta,
Tennessee, copies of the notice, attached hereto marked "Appendix B." Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent Chamber of Commerce's representa-
tive, be posted by the respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co.
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are 'customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
respondents Mylan- Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing, Co. to insure , that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(b) File with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region on or before 10
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing setting
forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent Chamber of Com-
merce has complied with the foregoing recommendations. ' • -
4s The undersigned does not mean to foreclose respondent Chamber of Commerce,, and
respondents Snodgrass , Wallace and Tubb from publishing this notice as a joint notice
if they so desire.
MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 609
C. The respondents , M. C. Wallace, Robert J. Snodgrass and James Richard-
son Tubb, Jr., and each of them shall :
1. Cease and desist from
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining or coercing the employees of
respondents Mylan.Sliarta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. at its Sparta plant
in' he exercise of the right to form, join or assist United Construction Workers,
U. M. W. A., or any other labor organization to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the purposes of the Act :
(a) Publish in the local newspaper; ° the Sparta Expositor, and have posted
at the respondents' Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. plant in Sparta,
Tennessee, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B." Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by these respondents, be posted-by the respondents
Mylan-Sparta and Mylan, Manufacturing Co immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintainetl by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan
Manufacturing • Co. to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material; -
(b) Each file with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region on or before
10 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing setting
forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with the fore-
going recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless on or before 10 days from the receipt
of this Intermediate Report, the respondents notify said Regional Director in
writing that they will comply with the foregoing recommendations the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondents to take the
action aforesaid. -
As provided in Section.33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as'amended, effective November 27,
1945, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the
date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to
Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations file with the Board,.
Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four' copies of a
statement in writing setting forth such exceptions'to the Intermediate Report
or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all
motions or-objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four
copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such state-
ment of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a
copy with the-Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor
must be made in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the order trans-
ferring the case to the Board.
T. B. Smoar
Trial Examiner.
Dated April-5,1946.
See footnote 49, supra.
e
6 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate` the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We wfll not engage in surveillance of union, meetings:-
We will make whole the employees named below for any loss of pay suf-
fered as a result of discrimination against them :
Pauline Anderson Rebecca Bell
Mary Hardie Nola Martin -
Carrie Bennett'- Ora Burgess
Della Fletcher
We will not in any manner use the assistance of the Sparta-White County
Chamber of Commerce, M C• Wallace, James Richardson Tubb, Jr., Robert
J. Snodgrass, R. E. Knowles, or any other persons or groups of persons for
the purpose of violating the National Labor Relations Act.
-We will not recognize the Labor Relations Committee of the Sparta-White
County Chamber of Commerce as representatives of our employees concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other
conditions of employment.
We will notify Rebecca Bell, in writing, that she is not bound by her
promise not to engage in union activities and that her position with us is
not conditioned on such a promise.
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist United Construction' Workers, U. M. W. A.,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or any other mutual aid or protection.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named,
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership or activity on behalf of any such labor
-organization.
MYLAN -SPARTA CO., INC.,
MYLAN MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
Employer.
By --------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated --------------------
NoTE.-Any of the (above-named employees presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted sixty days from the date hereof and must
not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material.
A
MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY _ 611
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify the employees of Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and
Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., that :
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
of Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co, Inc., in. the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist United Construction Workers, U. M W. A, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection. All employees
are free to become or remain members of this union or any other labor
organization.
SPARTA-WHITE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
By-------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
M. C. WALLACE,
ROBERT J. SNODGRASS,
JAMES RICHARDSON TUBB, JR.
Dated ------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty days from the date hereof and
must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material.
712344-47-vol. 70-40
I