Reliance Manufacturing Co. of Hattiesburg, Mississippi

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1946

67 N.L.R.B. 515 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of RELIANCE MANIIFACTURIxG COMPANY OF HATFIESBURG,
Mississippi and UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L.
In the Matter of RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG,
MISSISSIPPI and UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L.
Cases Nos. 15-R-1326 and 15-C-1058, respectively.Decided
April 19, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On January 8, 1946,1 the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. No request for oral
argument before the Board at Washington, D. C., was made by any
of the parties, and none was held.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and modifica-
tions hereinafter set forth.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that by the totality of the acts
and statements of Superintendent Day, Head Mechanic Day, Foremen
Bowman and Hyatt, and Foreladies Fairchild, Mooney, and Langford,
the respondent engaged in a coercive course of conduct violative of
Section 8 (1) of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, however, we
have not relied upon the Trial Examiner's finding that Foreman Bow-
man's remark to employee Harper "that from the reports he had re-
ceived,2 he did not think the Union would win," indicated that the
1 The Trial Examiner inadvertently dated his Intermediate Report January 8, 1945,
instead of January 8, 1946.
8 The record shows that Foreman Bowman stated "from all accounts he had got." The
Intermediate Report is hereby corrected in this respect.
67 N. L. R. B., No. 67.
515
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sentiments of the employees were being investigated; nor have we
relied upon the finding that Forelady Gilmore's statement to employee
Knight that "When they get through with you, your tail will be
dragging on the floor," constituted an adverse reflection on Knight
because of his union activities.
2. Like the Trial Examiner, we.find that Rule 7 of the respondent's
rules and regulations is violative of the Act insofar as it prohibits
union solicitation on company property during the employees' non-
working time. The restraint on the employees' right to self-organiza-
tion is not cured by the qualification in the Rule "without written per-
mission from the Superintendent." As the Board has previously held,
with such a qualification "the rule exercises a still greater restraining
influence due to the natural reluctance of employees to disclose to their
employer their interest in a union." 3
3. As recommended by the Trial Examiner, we shall also sustain the
objections to the election held on May 9, 1945, and set aside the results
thereof.
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 the respondent, Reliance Manufacturing
Company of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Threatening to take economic reprisals against its employees
because of membership in or activities on behalf of United Garment
Workers of America, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization;
(b) Questioning its employees regarding union membership and
activities on behalf of the above-named or any other labor organiza-
tion, and concerning how they intend to vote in an election for a bar-
gaining representative;
(c) Directing employees to vote for or against the above-named or
any other labor organization;
(d) Interfering with the self-organizational rights of its employees
to select the above-named or any other labor organization as their
bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act;
(a) Rescind immediately its no-solicitation rule insofar as it pro-
hibits its employees from engaging in union solicitation on company
property during the employees' non-working time.
(b) Post at its plant at Hattiesburg, Mississippi, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
8Matter of Tomlinson of High Point, Inc , 58 N L R B. 982
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG, MISS. 517
furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it 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 respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on May 9, 1945, among
the employees of Reliance Manufacturing Company of Hattiesburg,
Mississippi, at Hattiesburg, Mississippi, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY 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 threaten to take economic reprisals against our
employees because of membership in or activities on behalf of
United Garment Workers of America, A. F. of L., or any other
labor organization.
We will not question our employees regarding union member-
ship and activities on behalf of the above-named or any other
labor organization, and concerning how they intend to vote in
an election for a bargaining representative.
We will not direct our employees to vote for or against the
above-named or any other labor organization.
We will not interfere with the self-organizational rights of our
employees to select the above-named or any other labor organiza-
tion as their bargaining agent.
We hereby rescind our no-solicitation rule insofar as it prohibits
our employees from engaging in union solicitation on company
property during their non-working-time.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization.
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF
HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI.
Dated--------------- By---------------------------------------
(Representative) • (Title)
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. T. Lowry Whittaker , for the Board.
Messrs. Daniel D. Tucker and H. A. Newman , of Chicago , Ill., for the respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 3, 1945, United Garment Workers of America, A. F. of L., herein
called the Union, filed with the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, a petition for investigation and certification of representatives pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. A hearing was held on April 5, 1945. On April 21, 1945, the Board
issued a Decision and Direction of Election ordering that an election be conducted
among employees of Reliance Manufacturing Company of Hattiesburg, Missis-
sippi, herein called the respondent.'
On May 9, 1945, an election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional
Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate. The Tally of Ballots certified on the same
day showed that a majority of the votes had been cast against the participating
union 2
On May 11, 1945, the aforesaid Regional Director received from the Union
a telegram "protesting" the election. Thereafter, on June 15, 1945, the Regional
Director issued his Report on Objections. Respondent filed exceptions to this
report and the case was remanded by the Board to the Regional Director for
further investigation. The Union later filed a statement of objections to the
election, dated July 10, 1945. Thereafter, the Regional Director issued a Supple-
mental Report On Objections, dated August 17, 1945 finding that the objections
raised substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct of the elec-
tion and recommending that the election be set aside. This report together
with respondent's exceptions thereto were considered by the Board and on
August 31, 1945, it issued its Order Directing Hearing On Objections To
Election.
On June 11, 1945, the Union filed a charge that the respondent had violated
Section 8 (1) of the Act. The Board, on October 19, 1945, ordered that the
complaint case and the case on objections to election be consolidated.
On October 19, 1945, the Board, by its aforesaid Regional Director, issued a
complaint against the respondent alleging that the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance
that respondent, by its supervisory' employees, from and after April 1945, to
1 61 N. L. R B. 673
2 The tally was as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------------------ 552
Valid votes counted--------------------------------------------------- 1 463
Votes cast for the Union------------------------------------------------ 178
Votes cast against participating union----------------------------------- 285
Challenged ballots----------------------------------------------------- 12
Void ballots----------------------------------------------------------- 1
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG, MISS. 519
the date of the complaint, made statements discouraging organizational activity
among its employees ; questioned employees concerning their union activities,
how they intended to vote in the election, and how they actually had voted ;
disparaged the Union ; made an anti-union speech to its employees and distributed
copies thereof to the employees ; threatened to discriminate against and dis-
charge employees because of their membership in or activities on behalf of the
Union ; warned that if the Union won the election wages would be reduced and
certain supervisory officials would resign ; prohibited employees soliciting mem-
bership in any labor organization without written permisson ; acquiesced in,
permitted, condoned and ratified a "Vote No" campaign directed against the
Union. The respondent, in its answer dated October 24, 1945, denies engaging
in the unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Hattiesburg, Mississippi, on December
12, 1945 before the undersigned, Sidney L Feder, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. No appearance was made on behalf of the
Union. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the opening of the
hearing, the respondent made a motion to dismiss the proceedings. The motion
was denied as to the complaint case. Decision was reserved as to the Objections
to the Election. The motion is hereby denied as to the Objections'
During the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to amend the complaint by
adding to the list of supervisors who committed unfair labor practices the name
of Foreman J. L. Bowman. The motion was granted without objection. After
the presentation of all the evidence, counsel for the Board moved to amend the
pleadings as to formal matters. This motion was granted without objection.
Opportunity was afforded counsel to present oral argument and to file briefs.
The respondent contends that the Union failed to comply with the Rules and Regula-
tions of the Board as to the filing of objections to the election , and that the objections filed
are invalid and cannot be made the basis of further proceedings. Section 10 of Article III
of said Rules and Regulations provides , in part , as follows
Upon the conclusion of such election, the designated agent shall cause to be furnished
to the parties a Tally of the Ballots within five ( 5) days thereafter , the parties
may file with the designated agent an original and three copies of Objections to the
conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election . Copies thereof
shall be served upon each of the other parties by the party filing such Objections.
There is no dispute as to the basic facts herein . The election was conducted on May 9,
1945. On May 11, 1945, the Regional Director received from a representative of the
Union a telegram reading, "we are protesting election Reliance Hattiesburg Case 15-R-
1326 charging and supporting evidence will be filed next week " The Union advised the
respondent of its position by telegrams on May 14 The Regional Director , treating the
message received by him as objections to the election within the meaning of Section 10,
Article III, filed his Report on Objections, dated June 15, 1945 Respondent filed excep-
tions to the report on June 23. On June 27, the Board remanded the proceeding to the
Regional Director for further investigation In a document, dated July 10, 1945, duly
served upon the respondent , and filed with the Regional Director , the Union set forth the
substance of its objections to the election.
The original telegram 'sent to the Regional Director and the messages sent to the
respondent by the Union were all sent within 5 days after the election. While the mes-
sages did not contain the substance of the Union's contentions the respondent was clearly
advised of its position. There was no showing that the respondent was prejudiced by the
delay of the Union in amplifying its objections. The undersigned finds that the Regional
Director did not commit an abuse of discretion in receiving the original telegram from
the Union as objections to the election and receiving its statement of July 10, 1945, as a
supplement or amendment of the original objections (Matter of Pacific Gas & Electriic
Oo., 13 N. L. R. B. 268, 273, enf'd 118 F (2d) 780, 788 (C. C. A. 9) ) The Rules and
Regulations must be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes and provisions of the
Act (Article IX, Rules and Regulations.) The rejection of the Objections to Election
would not effectuate the purposes of the Act but would have a contrary effect
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Counsel for the Board and the respondent presented oral argument, but stated
that they would not file briefs.
Upon the entire record in the cases , and from his observation of the witnesses
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Mississippi corporation maintaining a plant at Hattiesburg,
Mississippi , hereinafter referred to as the plant , where it is engaged in the
manufacture of garments . During 1944 the respondent purchased raw materials
valued at approximately $700,000, of which approximately 90 percent was shipped
to the plant from points outside the State of Mississippi . During the same period
the respondent 's total sales were valued at approximately $1,000,000, of which
approximately 90 percent was shipped from the plant to points outside the State
of Mississippi . During 1945 the business operations of the respondent con-
tinued at approximately the same level as in 1944 and the ratio of goods shipped
and received from and to the plant from points outside the State of Mississippi
was maintained . The respondent concedes that it is engaged in interstate com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Garment Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Statements of supervisory officials
Organizational activity at the plant commenced about 15 months prior to the
election. As heretofore stated, the Union filed a Petition for Investigation and
Certification of Representatives on March 3, 1945 On April 21, 1945, the Board
directed that an election be held.' The Regional Director conducted the election
on May 9, 1945 . The events hereinafter discussed took place prior to the election
or immediately thereafter.
A group of witnesses who had been employed at the plant at the time of the
election testified concerning statements made by supervisors concerning the
election, the Union, or both.
Mrs. Jewel Humphrey testified that approximately a week before the election,
while she was riding to work in a bus which brought employees to the plant,
Forelady Fairchild had a conversation with her. An employee having handed
Mrs. Humphrey a signed union membership card, Forelady Fairchild inquired
what the card was. When Mrs. Humphrey told her that the card was a union
card , Fairchild said, according to Mrs. Humphrey , that if the Union won the
election the employees would be on strike half the time, wages would probably
be lower, the prices of certain services maintained at the plant, such as a beauty
parlor, would be higher, and Superintendent Day would probably not remain.
Fairchild then said if Mrs. Humphrey did not like conditions at the plant she
should leave and that if she did not watch out she would be discharged. This
4 The appropriate unit as found by the Board consisted of "all production and mainte-
nance employees at the Hattiesburg plant of the Company, excluding clerical employees,
superintendents , foreladies , foremen, and any othei supervisory employees with authority
to hire , promote, discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees, or effectively recommend such action "
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG, MISS. 521
conversation was in the hearing of other employees who were passengers on the
bus. Mrs. Humphrey's testimony was corroborated by another former produc-
tion employee, Mrs. Tannis Graves Forelady Fairchild did not testify. The testi-
mony of Mrs. Humphrey is credited.
Mrs Humphrey further testified that during the morning of the day of the
election her forelady, Mrs. Mooney, questioned her and other employees in her
department as to how they intended to vote. This testimony, which was not con-
tradicted, is credited.
Alonzo N. Harper testified that the day before the election his foreman, J. L.
Bowman, asked him what he thought would be the results of the election. When
Harper said he thought that the Union might win, Bowman remarked that from
the reports he had received he did not think the Union would win. Bowman's
reference to "reports" indicated both that the sentiments of employees were being
investigated and that Bowman's statement had a basis in fact and was not mere
opinion. The undersigned finds that Bowman was inferentially urging Harper
to join the winning side and was interfering with the freedom of choice of rep-
resentatives guaranteed to employees by the Act
Harper further testified that several days before the election Lonnie Day, head
mechanic, had told a group of employees in a rest room that if the Union won
there would be strikes, losses in wages, no overtime, and probably wage cuts.
Harper further testified that several days before the election Lonnie Day, head
tell a worker that if the Union won both Superintendent Day and she would quit.
The undersigned credits Harper's testimony, which has not been contradicted.
Thomas W. Knight acted as an observer for the Union at the election, having
been so designated approximately one week earlier. He testified that on the
morning of the election a clerical employee , Annette Trigg , called him from his
work at the plant and told him to report to the office. On the way, they met
Forelady Gilmore who said, "When they get through with you, your tail will be
dragging on the floor." Trigg agreed. Neither Gilmore nor Trigg made any
explanation of the statement. In fact, Knight had been summoned to the office
to receive instructions from a Board representative concerning his official duties
at the election. Knight's undenied testimony is accepted as true. Under the
circumstances revealed by the record, it being a few hours before the election
and Knight being as yet unaware of the purpose for which he had been called
to the office, the undersigned finds that Gilmore's statement could be reasonably
interpreted only as an adverse reflection on Knight because of his union activities,
and that it was so intended by Gilmore.
Edward Ford testified that the morning of the election he asked Foreman
Hyatt whether he was eligible to vote in the election. Hyatt replied that Ford
had better go to the election booth and inquire there. Ford also testified that
he asked Hyatt what he thought about the election. Hyatt inquired whether
Ford was satisfied with his job. Ford replied that he was, but complained of
the pay scale. Hyatt then said, according to Ford, that Superintendent Day was
trying to secure salary increases and that if Ford was satisfied with his job
he had better "let the Union go." Ford's testimony, which was not contiadicted,
is credited. While Ford initiated the conversation with Hyatt the evidence estab-
lishes that Hyatt availed himself of the opportunity presented by Ford's inquiry
about the possible results of the election to make a recommendation that Ford
i o' e against the Union.
Lucille J. Smith testified that the day after the election Foreman Hyatt told
her that he noticed that since the election was over she was working harder.
Later, he asked her where she had obtained union cards, but she refused to give
this information. Her testimony is accepted as true.
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mrs. Smith also testified that Assistant Superintendent Martin told her on
the day after the election that she could not work overtime in the future. She
maintained that it was the practice for those employees doing the work to which
she was assigned to complete work on the day it was received, that she had been
allowed to work overtime in the past, and that since the election she had been
given little overtime while other employees doing similar work were allowed
more overtime work
Martin testified and admitted that lie told Mrs. Smith that her overtime work
would be cut down. He testified that this decision was due to a drop in govern-
ment contract work requiring speedy delivery as well as the requirements of the
production budget set for the plant He denied that there had been any discrim-
ination against Mrs. Smith in the allowance of overtime, and asserted that all
employees had received equal treatment in the allowance of overtime. The
Board offered no proof of difference in treatment as to Mrs. Smith except her
general statement. The undersigned credits Martin's explanation.
B. Respondent's no-solicitation rule
All new employees received a handbook of the respondent's rules, regulations,
and policies, entitled "Your Job At Reliance". General Rule 7 which was in effect
at the time of the election is as follows :
Soliciting among employees for funds, membership in any organization, or
for any other purpose, is prohibited during working hours or at any time
on company property without written permission from the superintendent.
This rule, by its terms, prohibited activity on behalf of any organization among
the employees on plant premises. This included labor organizations. Respond-
ent does not challenge this construction of the rule. The undersigned finds that
at all times here relevant employees of respondent were prohibited by rule from
soliciting membership in the Union or any other labor organization on plant
premises at any time, both working and non-working time.
C. The speech of Superintendent Day
On May 7, 1945, two days before the election , at about 11 :40 a. in. all motors
in the plant were stopped . Assistant Superintendent Martin spoke to the em-
ployees over the loud speaker system and , after asking for attention , stated that
Superintendent Day wished to address them . Day then read a statement to the
employees which is set forth in full in "Appendix A". After Day had finished
talking, operations were resumed . The talk took place during working hours
and employees were compensated for the time lost from work while listening
to Day. Copies of the speech were mailed to all employees eligible to vote in
the forthcoming election.
In his speech , Day told the employees that the respondent recognized their
rights under the Act, that they were free to join labor organizations , and would
not be discriminated against because of such affiliation . He then proceeded to
discuss union representation and said, "It is my opinion that you have nothing
to gain by selecting a union as your bargaining agent." His principal argu-
ment was that a union would not be as fully cognizant of local conditions as the
workers themselves . Day then listed certain aspects of working conditions at
the plant which he claimed proved that the respondent was interested in the
employees ' welfare. He concluded by urging all eligible voters to vote.
Concluding findings
The undisputed evidence establishes that the respondent by Foreladies Fair-
child, Mooney, Langford, Gilmore, Foremen Hyatt, Bowman and Head Mechanic
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG , MISS. 523
Day, engaged in activities designed to hinder and defeat the self-organization
of the respondent's production employees and the free expression of their wishes
at the election.' These activities took the form of statements to various em-
ployees that if the Union won the election the employees would suffer definite
economic loss in the form of wage cuts, strikes, loss of overtime, and increased
expenses of employee services. Employees also were questioned concerning the
possession of union cards and how they intended to vote in the election. Finally,
supervisors evinced a definite hostility to the Union and talked of quitting their
jobs if the Union should be successful, and one employee was threatened with
discharge for union activity.
Respondent contends that as to each supervisor there was no proof that that
supervisor carried on a definite anti-union campaign or spoke to more than one
employee about the election. However, the effect of these statements on the em-
ployees was greater than if the statements had each evinced the attitude of one
supervisory employee who conducted a thorough campaign, since the statements
were indicativb of a common attitude on the part of the supervisory staff as a
whole. The respondent also urges that the coercive effect of the statements, if
any, was nullified by the speech of Superintendent Day wherein he declared that
employees had full freedom to join labor organizations and to exercise the rights
guaranteed by the Act. However, the record clearly establishes that supervisors
committed acts in violation of the rights guaranteed by the Act both before and
after Day's speech. The undersigned concludes and finds that Day's generaliza-
tions concerning the rights of the employees would not and did not eliminate
the harmful effect of these activities by the respondent's supervisors, for which
conduct the respondent is responsible.
The undersigned concludes that the general statement of the rights of the
employees contained in Superintendent Day's speech were not sufficient to
counteract the effects of the activities of the afore-mentioned supervisory em-
ployees. The undersigned further concludes and finds that by the activities of
those supervisors the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
The rights of the employees were further infringed by the respondent's no-
solicitation rule. As heretofore stated this rule was sufficiently broad to pro-
hibit solicitation for any purpose, including self-organization for collective
bargaining, at any time, non-working or working, on respondent' s premises
without permission of the superintendent.
The Board and the Courts have passed upon the validity of rules of this type.
In the Peyton Packing case" the Board set up the following standard:
The Act, of course, does not prevent an employer from making and
enforcing reasonable rules covering the conduct of employees on company
time. Working time is for work. It is therefore within the province of
an employer to promulgate and enforce a rule prohibiting union solicitation
during working hours. Such a rule must be presumed to be valid in the
absence of evidence that it was adopted for a discriminatory purpose. It
is no less true that time outside working hours, whether before or after
work, or during luncheon or rest periods, is an employee's time to use as
he wishes without unreasonable restraint, although the employee is on
company property. It is therefore not within the province of an employer
to promulgate and enforce a rule prohibiting union solicitation by an
" No evidence was presented by the Board concerning the activities of Forelady Agnes
Patterson , a supervisor named in the complaint as guilty of unfair labor practices.
" Peyton Packing Company , Inc., 49 N. L. R. B 828, 142 F. (2d) 1009 (C. C. A. 5 ), cert.
den. 323 U S 730
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee outside of working hours, although on company property. Such
a rule must be presumed to be an unreasonable impediment to self-
organization and therefore discriminatory in the absence of evidence that
special circumstances make the rule necessary in order to maintain
production or discipline.
The United States Supreme Court has also ruled upon this question in the
Republic Aviation and Le Tourneau cases.? In the Republic case, an employee
was discharged for violating a company rule, providing that "Soliciting of
any type cannot be permitted in the factory or offices." An employee had
persisted after being warned of the rule in distributing union literature on
his own time during lunch periods. In the Le Tourneau case, two employees
were suspended for distributing union literature on their own time on company
property in violation of the following rule :
In the future no Merchants, Concern, Company or Individual or Individuals
will be permitted to distribute, post or otherwise circulate handbills or
posters, or any literature of any description on Company property without
first securing permission from the Personnel Department.
In both cases, the Court upheld the findings of the Board that the rules set
forth had been applied in violation of the Act. As to the rule enunciated by
the Board in the Peyton Packing case, the Court said :
We perceive no error in the Board's adoption of this presumption. The
Board previously considered similar rules in industrial establishments and
the definitive form which the Peyton Packing Company decision gave to the
presumption was the product of the Board's appraisal of normal conditions
about industrial establishments.
The rulings in the Le Tourneau and Republic Aviation cases are controlling in
this case. Respondent offered no proof that the no-solicitation rule herein was
necessary to maintain production or discipline.
The undersigned finds that respondent by its no-solicitation rule placed an
unreasonable and unlawful restraint upon the organizational efforts of its em-
ployees. The effect of this restraint was aggravated by its existence at the time
of an election to determine collective bargaining representatives.
The speech of Superintendent Day which was delivered just 2 days before the
election and during working time is of great importance in the determination of
the issues herein In his speech, Day openly opposed the selection of the Union
as a collective bargaining representative and advanced arguments for that posi-
tion He also sought to demonstrate that the respondent was interested in the
welfare of the employees and had done a "splendid job." The Board contends
that the respondent by this speech, in the circumstances under which it was
delivered, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees within the mean-
ing of the Act The respondent contends that the speech was an exercise of the
constitutional right of free speech. In the absence of other evidence, the presenta-
tion of an argument, temperate in form, such as appeared in the American Tube
Bending case is a legitimate exercise of the right of free expression' However,
the speech herein cannot be considered by itself, but can be properly evaluated
only against the background of the respondent's total activities. It must be
considered together with the conduct of the supervisory officials. The respond-
7 Republic Aviation Corporation v. N. L. R B, 324 U S. 793, affirming 142 F. (2d) 193
(C. C. A. 2), enforcing 51 N L. R B. 1186; N. L. R. B. v. Le Tourneau Company of Georgia,
324 U S 793, reversing 143 F. (2d) 67 (C. C. A. 5), setting aside 54 N L R B. 1253.
8 N. L R B. v. American Tube Bending Co., 134 F. ( 2d) 993 (C. C. A. 2), cert. den. 320
U. S. 768
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG, MISS. 525
a'nt's no-solicitation rule which hampered organizational activity must also be
weighed. In summary, the existing case is not one where the respondent merely
expressed its opinion concerning the Union, but one where its total conduct took
on the character of a campaign designed to defeat the organizational efforts of
its employees. The speech as an integral part of this program was not privileged.9
The undersigned finds that the respondent has interfered with, restrained and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with its operations described in Section I above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has violated Section 8 (1) of the
Act it will be recommended that the respondent, pursuant to the mandate of
Section 10 (c), cease and desist therefrom. The cease and desist order is also
predicated upon a finding that the respondent's illegal conduct discloses a pur-
pose to defeat self-organization and its objects among its employees. Because
of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose the under-
signed is convinced that the unfair labor practices are persuasively related to
the other unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their commission
in the future is to be anticipated from the respondent's conduct in the past 10
The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless this recommended
order is coextensive with the threat. 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 that
the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner infringing
upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. It will be further recom-
mended that the respondent take certain affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned will also recommend that the objections to the election be
sustained and the results of the election be set aside.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLusIONs OF LAW
1. United Garment Workers of America, A. F. of L., is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. 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.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
,commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
9 N. L. R. B. v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 314 U. S. 469, 477; N L. R. B. v. Trojan
,Powder Co., 135 F. (2d) 337 (C. C. A. 3), cert. den. 320 U, S. 768.
11 See N. L. R. B. V. Empress Publishing Company, 312 U. S 426.
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the
undersigned recommends that the respondent Reliance Manufacturing Com-
pany of Hattiesburg, Mississippi , its officers, agents, successors and assigns
shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations , to joint or assist United Garment Workers of America,
A. F. of L., 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 guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Rescind immediately its no-solicitation rule insofar as it prohibits em-
ployees from exercising their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection on plant premises except during working
hours ;
(b) Post at its plant at Hattiesburg, Mississippi , copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix B". Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director of the Fifteenth Region, shall after being duly signed by the
respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writing, within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps respondent
has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations,
the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the Board sustain the objections to the
election which was held on May 9, 1945, and set aside the results thereof.
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
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG, MISS. 527
must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of
the order transferring the case to the Board.
SIDNEY FEIIEa,
Trial Examiner.
Dated January 8, 1945.
APPENDIX A
SPEECH OF SUPERINTENDENT DAY
HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI,
May 7, 1945.
FELLOW EMPLOYEE :
Tomorrow an election will be held for the purpose of enabling you to determine
whether you do or do not wish to designate as your exclusive bargaining agent
United Garment Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor. So that there may be no possible question in your minds concerning the
position of the Company as regards this election, I have prepared this statement
for you.
The Company recognizes gladly all rights guaranteed to you under the National
Labor Relations Act. You are free to join a labor organization of your own
choice and you are equally free not to join. The Company has not discriminated
and will not discriminate against any one of you because of any expression of
your wishes in this respect.
The one question for you to decide is whether it is to your best interests to
be represented by a labor organization in your dealings with the Company on
wages, working conditions and such related problems, or whether it is to your
best interests to deal directly with the Company, as you have done in the past.
It is my own opinion that you have nothing to gain by selecting a union as
your bargaining agent. I believe that you, as employees, know more about
the problems' which affect both you and the Company from time to time than
would any labor organization. You know more about these problems than
any organization whose interests are not limited to you and your problems.
You are better able than any such organization to solve such problems as they
arise. I do not believe that you have anything to gain by selecting an organiza-
tion as your representative whose decisions may be influenced by something other
than the local conditions in which you are interested. In making this state-
ment, however, I want to stress the fact that I am only giving my opinion, and
that you are free to decide the question just as you see fit, without any fear of
hurting your position with the Company.
It has always been the policy of Reliance Manufacturing Company to pay wages
as high or higher and maintain working conditions as good or better than any in
the industry. You can judge for yourselves whether the Company has succeeded
in that effort. This is not a temporary policy of the Company, but is a continu-
ing effort which will be maintained, regardless of the outcome of this election.
The following are typical examples of what has been done :
(1) Wages being paid are the highest in the area for the industry.
(2) Working conditions in this plant, from a sanitary and health point
of view, are equal to any in the country.
(3) A cafeteria has been established within the plant, where employees
may secure nourishing meals at cost.
(4) A beauty parlor was established within the plant to enable the girls
to get expert service at a reasonable cost.
(5) A vacation plan has been put in operation.
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(6) Personal complaints are given prompt and sympathetic consideration
by your Superintendent and his Supervisory Staff who work with you every
day and know your problems
(7) The Company maintains a competently staffed Engineering Depart-
ment, qualified to give you rates for your work and secure for you the best
possible working conditions.
Your Company has tried to indicate, not only by what it has said, but also by
what it has done, that it is interested in your welfare, and I hope that you will
agree that it has done a splendid job.
The election tomorrow will be by secret ballot. It will be conducted as closely
as possible like the ordinary city or town election. No one can know how you
vote-your ballot says "this is a secret ballot and must not be signed". Nothing
you have said or done in the past is in any way binding upon you.-You can and
should vote exactly as you think best-free from pressure or influence from any
source. You have an absolute right to vote as you desire regardless of whether
or not you belong to any group-regardless of whether or not you signed an
application card, authorization or anything else.
The outcome of this election will be decided by the majority of those voting.
This means that if more than half of those voting make a decision, it is binding
on all the rest of you. This is much different from a majority of those entitled
to vote. See that you vote yourself if you want this election to actually reflect
your wishes. Failure to vote means you will be letting the other fellow decide a
question which is vital to your welfare and which you must decide for yourself.
Sincerely,
DOEL F. DAY,
Supt. Reliance Manufacturing Co.
DFD/mf
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 our employees that:
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 Garment Workers of America, A. F. of L., 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 our employees
are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor
organization.
Our employees are free to exercise their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection on plant premises,
except during working hours, and Rule 7 is rescinded insofar as it conflicts
therewith.
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF
HATTIESBURO, MISSISSIPPI.
Dated------------------------ By----------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.