Peerless Wollen Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 1, 1939

13 N.L.R.B. 438 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of PEERLESS WOOLEN MILLS and TEXTILE WORHERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. C-619-Decided July 1, 1939
Woolen Textile Industry-Inteifeicnce, Restraint. and Coercion: anti-union
statements made by supervisory employees ; applicant for employment questioned
about union membership-Discrimination : allegations of discharge of four em-
ployees for union membership and activities-sustained ; deliberate plan to dis-
charge leading union members-Reinstatement: ordered-Back Pay: awarded to
two employees from date of discharge to date of offer of reinstatement and to
two other employees for periods from date of discharge to date of Trial Ex-
aminer 's recommendation that charges as to them be dismissed and from date of
Board 's Order to date of offer of reinstatement.
Mr. Louis Lib bin, for the Board.
Mr. F. M. Gleason, of Rossville, Ga., and Mr. T. S. Fletcher, of
Chattanooga, Tenn., for the respondent.
Mr. H. G. B. King, of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Mr. C. D. Puckett,
of Kingsport, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. William Stix, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and amended charge duly filed by Textile Workers
Organizing Committee, herein called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) on March 29, 1938, issued
its complaint against Peerless Woolen Mills, Rossville, Georgia, here-
in called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent had dis-
couraged membership in the Union by discharging four named em-
ployees,' and that the respondent had interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act by those discharges and by advising and warning
1 Ralph H. Yell, R. J Willox, Newton Mason, and Myrtle (Mrs Newton) Mason.
13 N. L. R. B.. No. 52.
438
PEERLESS WOOLEN MILLS 439
employees not to join the Union or attend its meetings, by exhibiting
open hostility to the Union, by ordering union members off the prem-
ises and threatening them with bodily harm, by threatening employees
with discharge and discrimination for joining the Union, and by
other acts and conduct. Copies of the complaint and notice of hear-
ing were duly served on the respondent and the Union. On April 5,
1938, the respondent filed a written answer to the complaint admitting
the allegations of fact as to its business but denying that its operations
affected commerce among the several States and that it had engaged
in the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a. hearing was held in Chattanooga, Tennessee,
from April 11 through 15, 1938, before Hugh C. McCarthy, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent,
and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was af-
forded all parties. At the opening of the hearing the respondent
moved that paragraphs 6 and 7 of the complaint be made more specific
or be stricken. This motion was denied. During the course of the
hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on objections to
the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed these rulings of
the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com-
rnitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On May 4, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report
in which he recommended that the complaint be sustained with regard
to the discharge of Ralph H. Yell and R. J. Willox and with regard
to the alleged violations of Section 8 (1), but that it be dismissed with
respect to the alleged discriminatory discharge of Newton Mason
and Myrtle Mason. On May 23, 1938, the Union filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report. On May 31, 1938, the respondent filed its
exceptions, together with a reply to the Union's exceptions. Pursuant
to notice duly served on the respondent and the Union, a hearing was
held before the Board on January 24, 1938, for the purpose of oral
argument. The respondent was represented by counsel and partici-
pated therein. The Union did not appear.
The Board has reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report,
but except in so far as they are consistent with the findings, conclu-
sions, and order herein, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent. a Georgia corporation, is engaged in the manu-
facture of woolen goods at Rossville, Georgia. Approximately 95
440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
per cent of its raw materials are received from States other than
Georgia. These materials include an annual average of .4,000,000
pounds of wool, 1,000,000 pounds of rags, 500,000 pounds of rayon,
and, in addition, coal and oil of the value of $22,000 to $40,000. The
value of the respondent's annual product is $5,000,000, and 931/2 per
cent of it is shipped outside Georgia. The respondent employs 1,200
workers and has a weekly pay roll of approximately $20,000.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Com-
mittee for Industrial Organization , herein called the C . I. 0., is a
labor organization which admits as members production and main-
tenance employees of the respondent who do not act in a supervisory
capacity.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On a number of occasions the respondent's employment and super-
visory personnel made statements to employees which interfered with
their rights under the Act. Newton Mason testified and, since it was
uncontroverted, we find that, when he applied for work with the
respondent in June, the employee who interviewed him asked whether
he belonged to the C. I. 0.; that he answered that he had belonged
to the American Federation of Labor during the 1934 strike; and
that his application card was marked, "Forced into the A. F. of L."
O. T. Marshall asserted that W. V. Jernigan, a second hand, had
told him that the Masons 2 would not "last long" because everybody
knew that they were in the C. I. 0., and that Jernigan had advised
him to have nothing to do with the C. I. O. and had requested him
to communicate any information he might receive about it. Since
Marshall and Jernigan were on friendly terms with one another,
there was consequently no personal hostility to induce Marshall to
testify falsely. Marshall's testimony was frank and convincing. We
find, despite Jernigan's denial, that he made the statements attrib-
uted to him by Marshall. H. L. Westbrook testified that Will R.
Adkins, a second hand, had called the C. I. O. a "bunch of hoodlums
and cut-throats" and had declared that, in the event of a strike, the
National Guard would be summoned and employees would be back
to work the next day. While Adkins did not recall having made
such statements, Westbrook's testimony was corroborated in part by
the Masons. We find that Adkins made the remarks attributed to
him by Westbrook.
Myrtle and Newton Mason.
PEERLESS WOOLEN MILLS 441
We find that by the interrogation of Mason and by the statements
of Jernigan and Adkins the respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
by Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discharges
Union activities of the discharged employees: The complaint
alleges that Ralph H. Yell, R. J. Willox, Newton Mason and his wife,
Myrtle Mason, were discharged because of their membership or
activity in the Union. All of these employees belonged to the Union.
Willox and Newton Mason having joined in April and Yell in Mays
Willox was chairman, while Yell and Newton were the only other
members of the shop organizational committee which aided the
union organizers in obtaining members, and as such they were
the only employees who were in contact with the organizers. Yell
obtained from 75 to 100 members, Mason approximately 25, and
Willox turned over to the organizers more than 100 signed cards.
Yell had solicited members near the mill entrance. Mrs. Mason
accompanied her husband on visits to the homes of fellow employees
when he solicited their membership in the Union. Yell, Willox, and
Newton Mason attended union meetings which were held on Saturday
mornings in a theatre in Rossville. They were leaders in the Union
and active in its organization. We find that their solicitation of niem-
bers was so general and their attendance at meetings so open that the
respondent had knowledge of their union activities.
Ralph H. Yell. Yell had worked for the respondent intermittently
since 1921. He had once been discharged but was subsequently re-
hired. Toward the end of 1936 or early in 1937 he was promoted to
the position of roving weigher.'
On May 26, 1937,5 workers in the spinning room discovered that
approximately 40 spools of roving were overweight and sent them
back to the carding room where Gibbs, a second hand, weighed them,
likewise found that they were unsatisfactory, and ordered them
"torn up." The following morning Gibbs, who had ascertained that
the spools were among those for the testing of which Yell was respon-
sible, told him what had occurred and said that he would be demoted
s Mrs Mason was a member of the Union but there is no evidence as to the date she
joined
4 Carding machines are adjustable so that roving can be made in different weights.
Roving is satisfactory if it does not vary more than 6 per cent in weight from specifica-
tion A finisher-tender operates three carding machines and weighs the roving produced
by them to ascertain whether they are functioning properly A roving weigher does not
tend any machines but weighs the roving produced by 10 or 72 machines
'The evidence is confused as to the exact date of Yell's discharge The events set forth
herein occurred, however, on three successive days and we have adopted the dates most
consistent with the evidence '
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LA13OR RELATIONS BOARD
to his old position as finisher-tender, instructing him to return at
3 o'clock in the afternoon. Yell had previously been criticised for
inaccuracies in his testing work, and the decision to demote him
was the result of consultation between Pat Clark, the foreman, and
R. H. Anderson, the superintendent, after their had been informed
about the, 40 spools.
Yell lived 21/^ miles from the plant. On the way home following
his demotion he had trouble with his car and, after his arrival, in
the hope that he could repair it, he worked on it until it was too late
to go to the mill. On the following day, May 28, he came to the
plant in the afternoon. The evidence is conflicting as to whether
on this occasion Yell quit or was discharged. Anderson, testified,
on the one hand, that Yell came to him before the beginning of the
shift to say that he had decided not to accept the demotion. Yell
testified, however, that Clark put him to work on a finisher, that 10
minutes later Clark informed him that he had orders for his dis-
charge, and that he protested his discharge to Anderson and one of
the respondent's vice presidents, even offering to work in another
department if his performance in the carding room had been unsat-
isfactory. Clark, who had moved out of the State, did not appear
as a witness, but A. J. O'Kelly, a second man, testified that he had
seen Yell and Clark in conversation in the shop on the day following
Yell's absence. There is, moreover, in the respondent's exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report, an admission that Yell
was discharged. We find that Yell did not leave the respondent's
employ voluntarily on May 28, but that he was discharged.s
R. J. Willox. Willox had worked for the respondent intermittently
for 25 years and with only one or two interruptions since 1931.7 At
the time of his discharge on June 9, 1937, he was working as a weaver.
Willox testified that when he came to work on June 9 he found
under the motor guard of a loom which he tended about 25 bobbins of
tie yarn, from some of which the yarn had been knocked off, and that
in order to tidy up he began to knock the yarn "on" the bobbins.
While he was engaged in working with the bobbins, Henry F. H. Kel-
ler, the overseer, approached and said, "Willox, I have got orders to
This finding is further supported by the following evidence. Yell testified that on
June 21 he was rehired by the foreman who had succeeded Clark, that several days later
he was told to go to the office and fill out an employment application , that while he was
waiting in the office he was ordered to leave the plant by Lambert , the watchman, and
that he has not since been allowed to return. The respondent failed to controvert or
explain these occurrences except by the testimony of Lambert, who did not recall having
asked Yell to leave. Since Anderson testified that he alone hired workers, it is likely
that Yell was rehired without Anderson 's knowledge and was again discharged when
Anderson learned thereof.
7 Willox had once been discharged for "wrong draws" and once for "bad work of some
sort," but the record does not show when the discharges occurred
PEERLESS WOOLEN MILLS 443
fire every damn man doing that." Keller testified that Willox was
knocking yarn "off" the bobbins, that 3 days earlier he had issued a
warning to all employees that anyone discovered knocking yarn off a
bobbin would be summarily discharged, and that Willox was the
first man he had caught doing it. For reasons which we state subse-
quently, we deem it unnecessary to determine whether Willox was
knocking yarn on or off the bobbins.
If a loosely wound bobbin is placed in a loom, the yarn comes off
and causes a brief stoppage of the machine. Since weavers are paid
on a piece-work basis, they seek to avoid delay by not using loose
bobbins. A loose bobbin can be rewound at a small cost, but once
the yarn is knocked off the bobbin, the wool must again pass through
all the stages of the manufacturing process. The weaver, while
aware that he should set aside loose bobbins so that they may be
rewound, fears that his foreman's judgment of them may differ
from his and that he will be compelled to use bobbins which he con-
siders unsatisfactory. Consequently, in order to forestall that pos-
sibility and despite reprimands he receives for doing it, a weaver
commonly knocks the yarn off loose bobbins.
Keller testified that for 7 years he had constantly criticized Willox
for knocking yarn off bobbins. Willox admitted that he made a prac-
tice of doing it. He testified, however, that he had received no warn-
ing that this procedure would cause his discharge and we so find,
since Keller was uncertain whether he had personally given this
warning to Willox. Moreover, there was no evidence that any of his
subordinates had conveyed such a notice to Willox.
The Masons. Myrtle Mason had worked for the respondent in
1929, 1935, 1936, and 1937. Her husband, Newton Mason, had worked
for the respondent since June 10, 1937. Both were employed in the
cloth room-Mason's work being unskilled, his wife's semi-skilled.
They were discharged on July 16, 1937.
We have found that when Newton Mason was hired he was asked
whether he belonged to the Union, that Marshall heard from Jerni-
gan that the Masons would not last long because everybody knew
that they belonged to the C. I. 0., that Newton Mason was a member
of the shop committee, that he attended union meetings, and that he,
together with his wife, was active in soliciting members for the
Union.8
Between June 10 and July 16 the Masons had two unreported
and unexcused absences from work. When asked by a supervisory
employee why they had failed to come to work, Mason, on one of
these occasions, gave a surly answer and on the other occasion said
8 Supra.
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that it had been too hot. In fact the heat was the reason for both
absences but neither Mason nor his wife was reprimanded or warned
that another absence would result in their discharge. On July 16
they did not come to work because their car had broken down. They
were discharged the same day, although the respondent at the time
had no information as to the cause of their absence.
Conclusions. The respondent contends that Willox was discharged
for knocking yarn off bobbins and that Yell and the Masons were
discharged for unreported and unexcused absences. Yell and the
Masons were absent, as the respondent contends. The evidence is
conflicting as to whether Willox violated a rule of the plant. In any
event, however, the rules against absences and against knocking off
bobbins had not been strictly enforced with regard to other em-
ployees. Moreover, the respondent, as we have found in III, A,
supra, openly manifested antagonism to the Union. We are of the
opinion that the motivating factor for all of the discharges was the
union membership and activity of these employees.
Even if we assume that Willox was knocking yarn off rather than
on bobbins, it is nevertheless apparent that what he did is a common
practice among weavers. Keller's testimony that he had for 7 years
criticized Willox for this practice and his inability to name anyone
who had been discharged on account of it furnish additional proof
that it was tolerated by the respondent. There was no corroboration
for his testimony that a warning had been issued that discharge would
be the penalty for knocking yarn off bobbins, and, moreover, Willox
did not receive any such notice. In view of the leading role which
he played in the Union, we find that Willox was discharged because
of his union membership and activities.
Yell and the Masons were allegedly discharged for their absence
from work. Since experienced woolen mill hands are not readily
available in the vicinity of Rossville, the respondent is cautious in
discharging employees for being absent from work. Anderson ad-
mitted that employees are never discharged for their first unexcused
absence, though the circumstances are carefully investigated. Other
witnesses testified that employees are not disciplined for occasional
unreported absences. There was no evidence that Yell had pre-
viously failed to come to work. We find that Yell was discharged
because of his membership and activities in the Union.
The Masons were the last' of the shop committee members re-
maining in the respondent's employ. It is' significant that they were
discharged before the reason for their last absence was known.
From all the circumstances of this case we believe that the respondent
was pursuing a deliberate plan to rid its pay roll of the leading
PEERLESS WOOLEN MILLS 445
figures in the Union. We find that Myrtle and Newton Mason were
discharged because of their membership and activity in the Union.
We find that in discharging Yell, Willox, and the Masons the re-
spondent discouraged membership in the T. W. 0. C. by discrimi-
nation in regard to their tenure of employment and that the
respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
In addition to requiring the respondent to cease and desist from its
unfair labor practices, we shall, in order to effectuate the purposes
of the Act, order the respondent to offer immediate and full rein-
statement to the four employees discriminatorily discharged. We
shall, furthermore, order the respondent to make whole Willox and
Yell for any loss of pay each may have suffered as the result of his
discharge from the date thereof to the date reinstatement is offered
to him, less his net earnings' in the interim ; and to make whole
Newton Mason and Myrtle Mason for any loss of pay each may have
suffered as the result of his discharge from the date thereof to May
4, 1938, the date on which the Trial Examiner filed his Interme-
diate Report, and from the date of this decision to the date rein-
statement is offered' to him, less his net earnings during those
periods."'
6 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 particular respondent , which would not have been incurred but for
the unlawful refusal of his application for reinstatement and the consequent necessity of
his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill, Workers Union,
Local 2590, 8 N. L. R B 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State,
county, municipal , or other work -relief projects ate not considered as earnings , but, as
provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from the sum due the employees and the
amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal , State,
county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for
said work -relief projects.
loMatter of E. R. Ha$elfinger Company, Inc. and United Well Paper Crafts of North
America, Local No. 6, 1 N. L. R. B. 760.
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the en-
tire record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Com-
mittee for Industrial Organization, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discharging and refusing to reinstate Ralph H. Yell, R. J.
Willox, Myrtle Mason, and Newton Mason because of their mem-
bership in the Textile Workers Organizing Committee, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ent, Peerless Woolen Mills, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Organizing
Committee, or any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
charging any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Ralph H. Yell, R. J. Willox, Myrtle Mason, and New-
ton Mason, immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges;
PEERLESS WOOLEN MILLS 447
(b) Make whole Ralph H. Yell and R. J. Willox for any loss of
pay each has suffered by reason of his discriminatory discharge by
payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he
would normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge
to the date he is offered reinstatement, less his net earnings during
that period, deducting however from the amount otherwise due to
each of them monies received by him during that period for work
performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-
relief projects, and pay over the amount so deducted to the appro-
priate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-
relief projects;
(c) Make whole Newton Mason and Myrtle Mason for any loss of
pay each has suffered by reason of his discriminatory discharge by
payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he
would normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge
to May 4, 1938, and from the date of this Order to the date he is
offered reinstatement, less his net earnings during that period, deduct-
ing, however, from the amount otherwise due to each of them monies
received by him during those periods for work performed upon Fed-
eral, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay
over the amount so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency of the
Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or govern-
ments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(d) Post notices immediately in conspicuous places in its plant
stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner afore-
said and will take the affirmative action required by paragraphs 2
(a), (b), and (c) of this Order, and maintain said notices for a
period of sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.