Renfro Hosiery Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 929 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

RENFRO HOSIERY MILLS, INC . 929)
4. Insurance Agents' International Union, AFL-CIO, was on May 7, 1957, and'.
at all times since has been, the exclusive representative of the employees in the
above-described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining , within the meaning,
of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on May 9, 1957, and at all times since , to bargain collectively
with Insurance Agents' International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre
sentative of the employees in the above-described unit, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act.
6. By the above conduct, thereby 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(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The above-described unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce , and constitute
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Renfro Hosiery Mills, Inc. and American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 11-CA-1173. January 14, 19591
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 1.9, 1958, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider isued 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 certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the.
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions to the failure of the Trial Examiner to recom.
mend a back-pay award for Walter Hiatt, Jr., and it supporting brief..
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three
member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
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. The Board has considered the.
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the record in the,
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modi..
fications.t
We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Walter Hiatt,,
Jr., should not be awarded back pay.
1 The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act; and further found that
the Respondent discriminatorily discharged employee Walter Hiatt, Jr., in violation of
Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act . In the absence of any exceptions to these findings , we adopt
them.
122 NLRB No. 113.
505395-60-vol. 122-60
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record shows, and the Trial Examiner so found, that on the
occasion of his discharge, Hiatt placed his hand on Foreman Sim-
mons' arm and invited Simmons outside to fight. When Simmons
declined his invitation, Hiatt indicated that he would apprehend and
deal with Simmons outside the plant.
Some weeks after his discharge, Hiatt flagged down Simmons' car,
and invited Simmons outside "to talk." Simmons refused the invi-
tation. Nevertheless, several weeks later, on December 6, 1957, as
Simmons came out of the plant, he. found Hiatt waiting for him
beside his automobile. Hiatt deliberately attacked Simmons and
knocked him down. When Simmons sought to escape, Hiatt cal-
lously knocked the foreman down several more times, brutally broke
a rib, bashed out some of his teeth, broke his denture, and. inflicted
lacerations.
As Hiatt accomplished his threat and assaulted Foreman Simmons,
we think Hiatt should neither be reinstated nor granted back pay.
Unlike our dissenting colleague,' who agrees that Hiatt should not
be reinstated, we can see no logical reason here for denying the one,
and granting the other. An award of back pay here is, in the words
of the Trial Examiner, just as much an encouragement "to self and
violent help and private retribution" as an order of reinstatement
would be. Both must be denied in the circumstances.
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 Renfro Hosiery Mills, Inc., Mount Airy,
North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discrinninatorily discharging such employees, or by dis-
criminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment, or any term or condition of employment, because of
their membership in, or participation or activity in respect of, any
such organization.
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist American Federation of Hosiery Workers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
9 Unlike the situation in Efco Manufacturing, Inc., 108 NLRB 245, 261, where the
employee merely extended an invitation to fight, here, Hiatt, on the occasion of his dis-
charge, not only "invited" Simmons outside to fight, but also indicated he would appre-
hend and deal with him outside the plant. Thus, our dissenting colleague' s reliance upon
Efco is misplaced.
RENFRO HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 931
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from any and all such activi-
ties, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant at Mount Airy, North Carolina, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix."'
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Eleventh Region (Winston-Salem, North Carolina), 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.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER FANNING, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the majority's decision finding a violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act and in denying reinstatement to
Walter Hiatt, Jr.4 However, I must disagree with so much of the
majority's decision exonerating the Respondent from paying Hiatt,
an unlawfully discharged employee, any back pay for the period
between October 4, 1957, the date of his discharge, and December 6,
1957, the date he engaged in serious misconduct.
In August 1957 the Union began an organizational drive among
the Respondent's employees. The record shows that the Respondent
immediately embarked upon a campaign of intimidation and coercion,
the purpose of which was to deprive its employees of their statutory
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. As more fully detailed
in the Intermediate Report, early in September 1957 Foreman Hayes
warned employees that the Company would liquidate rather than
operate under a union, that union sympathizers would be black-
listed and unable to get work at other knitting mills, that employees
8 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words " The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner " the words "A Decision and Order ." In the event that this Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for
the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
4I note that the majority adopts the Trial Examiner ' s findings , set forth above, "in the
absence of exceptions ." I have carefully considered all of the Trial Examiner 's findings
and am of the opinion that the record establishes conclusively the correctness of such
findings.
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would be deprived of bonuses and other benefits under a union, and
those who were for the Union would be "remembered" by the Re-
spondent. Similar threats were made by Vice President Merritt,
Vice President Sydnor, and Foreman Orbie Simmons. One em-
ployee, Hiatt, was not dissuaded from attending a union meeting,
despite the fact that Vice President Sydnor had warned him that
continuation of his union activity "would not be forgotten." Hiatt
attended the union meeting of September 21, 1957. On October 4
he was summarily discharged by Foreman Simmons on the pretext
that he had attempted to fix a machine himself rather than call the
head fixer to assist him. The Trial Examiner found, and the ma-
jority agrees, that the Respondent committed serious violations of
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act and violated Section 8(a) (3) in dis-
charging Hiatt, an employee of 8 years' standing and a "hard
worker."
The Trial Examiner did not recommend that Hiatt be reinstated
or given any back pay because he engaged in the following mis-
conduct : (1) At the time of his discharge he invited Simmons
outside to fight and placed his hand on Simmons' arm; (2) some
weeks after the discharge Hiatt encountered Simmons on the street
and invited the latter to get out of his car and "talk"; (3) on De-
cember 6, Hiatt waited for Simmons at the latter's car, fought with
him, and administered a severe beating to Simmons.
I agree with the Trial Examiner and the majority that the Board
should neither condone nor encourage resort to self-help by em-
ployees who have been unlawfully discharged by their employers.
I am equally concerned, however, with an adequate remedy for the
serious unfair labor practices spread so abundantly on the pages of
this record. It does not seem to me that the first two incidents of
Hiatt's misconduct were so serious in nature as to relieve the Re-
spondent of some monetary remedy for a most flagrant violation of
this Act. Few men can suffer to be wronged in silence. In addition,
Hiatt and Simmons were related, being "double first cousins." It
may be that Hiatt considered it double treachery to be double
crossed by a double cousin. In any event, a word spoken in anger,
a threatening gesture by an employee unfairly discharged after
8 years of faithful service, does not seem to me enough to relieve the
initial wrongdoer of a remedy adequate to inhibit future unlawful
acts on his part.' In this case the only effect of the majority's
remedy, predicted by Foreman Hayes in a conversation with em-
ployee Beeson, is to tell the Respondent "not to do it any more."
It seems to me that employees such as Hiatt will be sufficiently
deterred from "getting" their unfair employers by denying him
5 An invitation to fight does not preclude the usual remedy of back pay and reinstate-
ment. Efco Manufacturing , Inc., 108 NLRB 245, 261.
RENFRO HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 933
reinstatement to the job from which he was unlawfully discharged
and depriving him of back pay from December 6. On the other
hand, employers such as this Respondent may be deterred a bit more
effectively from committing unfair labor practices by a back-pay
order from October 4 to December 6.6
For these reasons I dissent in part.
" See the following cases wherein the Board ordered back pay covering the period from
the time of the unlawful discharge to the time of the misconduct . H. N. Thayer Company,
115 NLRB 1591 , footnote 7 ; Nutone, Incorporated , 112 NLRB 1153, 1156, 1173, enfd.
with respect to the back -pay remedy , 243 F . 2d 593 (C.A., D.C.), 357 U . S. 357.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the Board issued his complaint
dated February 18, 1958, against Renfro Hosiery Mills, Inc., Mount Airy, North
Carolina, herein called the Respondent. The complaint alleged that the Respondent
had engaged in various unfair labor practices affecting commerce, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136. More
specifically, the complaint alleged that the Respondent had discharged Walter
Hiatt, Jr., about October 4, 1957, because of his union and concerted activities;
and further that on various dates between August 29 and November 29, 1957, the
Respondent by various named supervisors or agents had, in connection with and
to forestall union activity, promised employee benefits, interrogated and threatened
employees, solicited them to abandon the Union, and kept them under surveillance.
In due course the Respondent filed its answer denying the allegations of unfair
labor practices.
Upon due notice a hearing was held in Mount Airy, North Carolina, on
March 4 and 5, 1958, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. The General
Counsel and the Respondent were represented at the hearing by counsel, the
Union by its representative. All parties were afforded opportunity to present and
to meet relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file
briefs and proposed findings of fact and law. The General Counsel has filed a
brief. Any motions inconsistent with the findings herein, and not previously'
disposed of, are now denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
Renfro Hosiery Mills, Inc., is a North Carolina corporation owning and op-
erating a plant in Mount Airy, North Carolina, where it is engaged in the
manufacture of seamless hosiery.
Respondent , at the Mount Airy plant, during the past calendar year, which
period is representative of all times material herein , purchased materials from
outside the State of North Carolina valued in excess of $ 100,000, and manu-
factured , sold, and shipped from the Mount Airy plant to customers outside the
State of North Carolina products valued in excess of $100,000.
It is found that the Respondent at all material times herein has been engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Dissatisfaction among the Respondent's fixers over their wages and working
conditions resulted in the institution of a union campaign among them in the
latter part of 1957, on behalf of the charging Union.
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Two union meetings were held, the first at the Blue-Vue, a restaurant in the
area, on August 31, 1957, and the second at the YMCA in Mount Airy, on
September 21, 1957.
.The Respondent concededly opposed the Union, so informed its employees, and
sought to influence them to the same conclusion. The General Counsel contends,
and the Respondent denies, that the Respondent's actions in that connection con-
stituted unfair labor practices. On October 4, 1957, the Respondent discharged
employee Walter Hiatt, according to the General Counsel because of his union
activities; according to the Respondent because Hiatt refused to obey the instruc-
tions of his supervisor. On some date not disclosed by the record, the Union's
petition for an election in a unit of fixers was disallowed.
We turn now to the evidence relating to the allegations of interference, restraint,
and coercion.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Foreman Hayes
Foreman Hayes, a supervisor, engaged in a number of conversations with em-
ployees regarding the Union and the union activity at the time the organizational
activity was in progress.
a. Donald Moore, a fixer still employed by the Respondent, testified to two
conversations he had with Foreman Hayes. Moore's testimony as to those con-
versations is undenied and is credited.
Moore's testimony as to the first conversation, which occurred in late August,
is as follows:
I was on the knitting floor and [Foreman Hayes] said that he heard there is
a union man in town and he said-"Has he been to see you all" and I said-
"Yeah I seen him" and he said-"Well now, the company will talk to you all
about this if you want to" he said. and he went on to say-"I worked under
union one time but I don't remember where and he said he didn't like it and
he quit. He said-"If we had a union we would have to pay our own
insurance and we wouldn't get no bonuses" and he said-"You know, we got
more fixers than we need. If we get a union, the last to come in would
be the first to go and they would fix it down to where you had more work
to do."
In his second conversation, which took place in September, and was also on
the knitting floor, Foreman Hayes told Moore that the Company "didn't have
to operate under the Union," and that it could "liquidate."
b. About the first of September 1957, according to the uncontradicted testimony
of employee Grover Beeson, Foreman Hayes spoke to him about the Union.
This conversation took place in an office on the looping floor, at the instance of
Hayes. Beeson's uncontradicted and credited testimony as to this incident is as
follows:
[Foreman Hayes] started talking about the union trying to come in and he
said he didn't believe it would work. He said the company expected them
to read the law to them and they wouldn't operate with the union. He said
they were financially fixed so they could liquidate their holdings and be
alright; that they had more fixers than they needed anyway.
In this conversation Foreman Hayes also referred to the possibility of an elec-
tion, telling Beeson in that connection that the Respondent would know who
voted for the Union. Hayes said, "They will tell you it will be a secret ballot
but the company will know who voted for it and who didn't."
In amplification of his statement to the effect that the Respondent had more
fixers than it needed, Hayes told Beeson that if anyone lost a job it would be
"hard to find a job anywhere else in town."
Hayes also said, in substance, that although he could not legally make any
promises or threats, the extent of the punishment if he did so would be to "tell
him not to do it any more."
c. Former employee Paul Davis testified to several conversations with Foreman
Hayes. Davis' uncontradicted and credited account of these conversations is as
follows.
The first conversation was in an office on the third floor of the plant, in about
the second week of September. Hayes told Davis on this occasion that he wished
to talk to him about the Union. Despite Davis' rejoinder to the effect that he was
not supposed to discuss such matters, Hayes proceeded to do so. Hayes told
Davis that he didn't think that the Union was a good thing, and that employees
RENFRO HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 935
would be "worse off" because of the union activity or for having a union. Hayes
went on to say that the Company was opposed to the Union, did not want it, and
would not operate with it, suggesting in that connection that the Respondent
would close the plant rather than deal with the Union. Pointing out that Davis
had no seniority, and had recently purchased a home, Foreman Hayes said that
Davis would be laid off if he should "fool around with the Union"; would be
blacklisted and unable to get work at other knitting mills.' Hayes also said that
"when • this thing is over," those who had been active in the Union "would be
remembered."
Later in the month Hayes told Davis, in substance, that the Respondent would
not operate with the Union, even if the employees struck. He told Davis that
when the matter was concluded he (Hayes) would "have a job around here some
place" and that it might be Davis' job.
2. Vice President Hugh Merritt
With the advent of the union activity, Hugh Merritt, vice president of the
Respondent, gave a group talk to the fixers. In addition, Vice President Merritt
interviewed fixers individually, as did Vice President Frank Sydnor.2
a. The group talk by Hugh Merritt
On September 6, 1957, a week after the first union meeting, Vice President
Hugh Merritt spoke to the assembled fixers in a room at the plant. Merritt
spoke for about 40 minutes. This meeting was held, Vice President Merritt
testified, pursuant to request by one of the fixers for a statement of company posi-
tion respecting the Union.
In general, the testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel and for the
Respondent is in agreement as to what Merritt said. However, there is impor-
tant conflict.
There is agreement, as Vice President Merritt testified, that he said that he
could make no promises or threats, that he did not know or care who had been
at the union meeting or had signed cards; and that Merritt further stated that in
his opinion the Respondent would never operate under a union contract. Merritt
asked for a statement of the fixers' grievances. These were stated and discussed.
Merritt agreed that they were legitimate and indicated that the Respondent would-
in fact had already begun to-correct them. Merritt further said that the Respond-
ent would not agree to check off union dues, and that working with the Union was
like sitting on a keg of dynamite; it was liable to blow up any minute.
The conflict in the testimony is as to the context of two statements made by
Merritt to the effect that the plant would (1) "never operate under a union con-
tract," and (2) not operate "permanently" if the Union came in. For it is conceded
that Merritt made such declarations. The testimony of the General Counsel's
employee witnesses is, in sum, that Merritt made the statements without qualifica-
tion; the testimony of the Respondent's witnesses, in sum, that they were qualified.
The asserted qualifications, in substance, were that in Merritt's opinion (1) the
Respondent would not grant the Union's bargaining demands, and therefore would
never operate under a union contract, and (2) buyers would not buy from a
unionized plant, and therefore the mill could not continue to operate over an
extended period of time in the future if the Respondent had to deal with a union.
If Merritt expressed those qualifications, they were not caught by the majority
of the witnesses who testified, all of them-except himself and one other-em-
ployees presently employed in the plant. In this connection I think it significant
that Merritt himself testified that his remarks "apparently could have been mis-
interpreted." I think it a reasonable construction of Merritt's statements to the
effect that the plant would not operate under a union contract, or permanently if
the Union came in, that they were not substantially qualified. In such a circum-
stance, the speech having been so construed by employees, I am of the opinion
that Merritt is bound by that construction, even though erroneous. Whether the
result would be the same if the employees did not so construe the remarks, or if
to coercive interpretation was not reasonable under all the circumstances, is a
matter on which I express no opinion. Suffice to say that when two interpreta-
tions of an employer's remarks to employees in opposition to a union are reason-
I Hayes had hired Davis. He and Davis were friends.
2 The complaint alleged, and the answer admits, that Hugh Merritt Is president, and
Frank Sydnor general superintendent, of the Respondent. In their testimony, however,
each Identified himself as vice president. The variance is not explained.
'936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.ably possible , one coercive and the other not so, and the employees accept the
remarks as embodying the coercive interpretation , the employer must be deemed
to have intended such a consequence.
Moreover , in my judgment , in the context of the speech , the particular remark,
and the other events hereinafter recounted , the statements , however formally
qualified, acquired a coercive force and took on the aspect of veiled threats
.against the permanent continuation of employment . For nowhere in the testimony
is there any suggestion indicating assurance by Vice President Merritt that the
Respondent would attempt to combat the feared tendency , or would strive to
avoid the projected consequences and to keep the plant open.
After appraisal of the witnesses , the testimony , the other evidence , the context
of the meeting and of the several remarks, and the Respondent 's stated opposition
to the Union , it is my conclusion that whatever qualification may have been
expressed by Merritt , it was not such as to deprive his statement , in the context,
,of a coercive threat to permanency of employment if the employees chose the
Union as their bargaining representative.
b. The individual interviews by Hugh Merritt
Following the group meeting, Vice President Hugh Merritt interviewed between
10 and 15 fixers individually in his office , some more than once . Vice President
:Sydnor also interviewed about a dozen employees . We turn first to the interviews
by Vice President Merritt.
The employees interviewed were notified by their foremen to go to Merritt's
office. The testimony indicates that, in general , Merritt made many of the same
points in these interviews as he did in the group talk, and in much the same way.
Thus, Merritt asked what the employees ' grievances were that they wanted a
union. He said that: He did not think the Union would be good for the em-
ployees or the Company ; he opposed the Union ; the Respondent could do more
for the employees than the Union ; he could make no promises or threats; he
neither knew nor wanted to know who went to the union meetings or signed
union cards . He said that the Respondent could not continue to operate for
long with a union, and named a number of hosiery mills which had been union
.and had gone out of business . He stated that the fixers were underpaid and that
the Respondent intended to rectify the matter ; that projected improvements in
wages and other conditions of employment had already begun, but could not pro-
ceed further during the pendency of the union campaign because the Union "would
take credit for it ." He suggested that the way out of the difficulty was to get the
-"Union men out of town," and if after a reasonable time the employees were not
satisfied with the Respondent 's improvements , they could then recall the Union.
Vice President Merritt disputed making some of the above statements , or making
them in exactly the form testified to by employee witnesses . But as to the sub-
stance of the employees ' testimony there is little conflict . Thus it is admitted by
Mr. Merritt that he told the employees in these interviews that wage increases
.and other projected improvements in conditions which the Respondent was pre-
pared to make could not be effected until the union matter was "settled." In
his testimony Mr. Merritt explained that at the time of the interviews he had been
under the impression that the Respondent could not legally grant raises ' or change
-conditions of employment while the union campaign was in progress , and that
when it was ascertained at some later time that that impression was erroneous,
wage increases were in fact granted.
I find that, though there might be differences in the respective accounts as to
the exact words or phrases used, Mr. Merritt did tell the employees in substance,
and they understood , that no improvements in wages or working conditions could
be effected while the union campaign continued , and that the practical course
would be to send away the union organizers and give the Respondent an oppor-
tunity to rectify conditions.
With respect to Mr. Merritt 's statements in the interviews regarding the likeli-
hood of continued operation of the plant under the Union , it has been seen that
in the group meetings similar declarations by Mr. Merritt in the circumstances
constituted , and were understood by the employees to be, threats of restriction or
loss of employment as a consequence of continuation of the union activity. In
the light of that background Mr. Merritt 's statements of kindred character in the
individual interviews must be, and are, similarly interpreted.
In sum then , in the circumstances of their utterance , Vice President Merritt's
statements in the interviews to the effect that the Respondent would not proceed
with projected wage increases or improvements in working conditions while the
union campaign was in progress , and to the effect that unionization of the plant
RENFRO HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 937.
would result in loss of employment , constituted , not objective predictions of
consequences beyond the Respondent's control , but threats of reprisal in em -
ployment.
3. Vice President Frank Sydnor
Vice President Frank Sydnor also interviewed employees individually , in all,
about a dozen , concerning the Union . The purpose of these interviews, as Mr.
Sydnor testified , was the same as in Vice President Merritt's case-to give the.
Respondent 's position regarding the Union . The statements made by Sydnor to
the employees seem to have been along the same line as Merritt 's, with some
variation . The general pattern was to seek to divert the employees from the
Union, to make known to the employees the Respondent 's opposition to the
Union , to ascertain the fixers ' grievances , and to assure the fixers that the grievances,
would be remedied.
There was some variation . For example , employee James Smith testified that
in his interview-after assuring him that the grievances would be adjusted-
Sydnor asked Smith whether he believed Sydnor. When Smith replied that he
did, Sydnor said that if that was so, there would be "no more need for union
activity ." Smith responded that he wanted to hear "both sides," to which Sydnor
replied that if Smith engaged in further union activity , he (Sydnor) would assume
that Smith did not believe him, which Sydnor would not "forget ." Sydnor did
not specifically deny Smith 's testimony in this respect . Upon the basis of my
observation of Smith I credit his testimony.
Waiter Hiatt , who was also interviewed by Vice President Sydnor, testified,
without denial from Sydnor, to substantially the same effect as did Smith con-
cerning the gist of Sydnor's statements . This interview took place the day before
the second union meeting in late September . Inter alia , Hiatt quoted Sydnor as
saying that if the fixers would accept his assurances to remedy their grievances,
and "stayed away from the union meetings ," he would have them earning up to
or higher than the average in the State. Just before the end of the interview
Sydnor told Hiatt that whatever his union activities may have been before they
would not be held against him, but that any such activity that Hiatt engaged in
"from now on" would not be forgotten . Sydnor admittedly told Hiatt that the
wage increases could not be put into effect while the Union was organizing
"because [the Union ] would get credit for it" and the Respondent would not have
that; and also (Sydnor thinks he said) because Sydnor did not believe that the,
Respondent could legally do it. In that connection Sydnor suggested to Hiatt
that the employees stay away from the Union and get the union organizers out
of town . Hiatt's uncontradicted or admitted testimony is credited.
4. Foreman Orbie Simmons
Employees James Smith and Cass Stevens testified to coercive remarks allegedly
made by Foreman Orbie Simmons, a supervisor , during the course of the union
campaign, testimony which Simmons denied.
Thus, Smith testified that when Foreman Simmons notified him of the group-
meeting at which Vice President Merritt spoke to the fixers, Simmons told Smith
that the mill would not operate with the Union : "They would close the doors,
Smith quoted Simmons as saying.
At the time of the union campaign Stevens had been wanting to become a
learner-fixer . Hearing that another employee with less seniority was being given
preference for such a position , Stevens went to Foreman Simmons and threatened
to quit . Simmons assured Stevens that he would be given an opportunity to be-
come a fixer . However, Simmons added, in substance , according to Stevens, that
Stevens would not be so favored if the Respondent knew that he was "a union
man or working for the union ." Stevens further quoted Simmons as saying that
he thought that the mill would close if the Union came in.
Simmons, in substance , denied the testimony of Smith and Stevens. Thus, he
testified that he did not tell Smith that the mill would close its doors before it
would "have a union in there." As to the incident related by Stevens , Simmons.
admitted having a conversation with Stevens with respect to putting Stevens to
fixing, but Simmons denied saying anything whatever to Stevens about the Union.
I credit the testimony of Smith and Stevens.
In resolving that conflict I rely on my appraisal of the witnesses as based on
observation of their demeanor . I also consider significant the fact that both
Smith and Stevens are still in the Respondent 's employ. Other considerations are
also probative . Thus, there is little possibility that Stevens could have made an
honest mistake in his testimony . And Simmons' denial that he had any con-
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
versation whatever with Stevens about the Union rules out any possibility of
innocent distortion or misunderstanding of something innocuous that.Simmons may
have said about the Union. I think it improbable under the circumstances that
Stevens would have fabricated so blunt a . story. And if Simmons' denials as to
Stevens' account are not to be accepted there seems little reason to accept them
as to Smith's apparently credible testimony.
5. The incident involving Robert Merritt
An occurrence between Walter Hiatt, the dischargee, and Foreman Simmons
also led to the involvement of Assistant Superintendent Robert Merritt. .
Hiatt's substantially uncontradicted and credited testimony as to his conversation
with Simmons is as follows.
On August 30, 1957, the day before the first union meeting, Foreman Simmons
came to Hiatt at his workplace and initiated a conversation about. the Union.
Simmons asked Hiatt what he thought of the "union business," and inquired
whether Hiatt intended to go to the union meeting. Hiatt indicated that he in-
tended to go. Simmons then asked whether Hiatt had been to see the "union man"
(presumably the union organizer). Hiatt responded that he had not. Hiatt then
said that he understood that Vice President Hugh Merritt and Assistant Super-
intendent Robert Merritt had said that they "did not care" if employees went
to the union meeting. Simmons responded to the effect that his information was
different. He said, "That's not what they told me. They don't want no union.
They are against it. If I was you I wouldn't have nothing to do with it."
Foreman Simmons then reported to Assistant Superintendent Robert Merritt that
Hiatt was under the impression that Merritt did not care whether employees went
to the union meeting. Merritt said that he had been misquoted, immediately
sought out Hiatt and told Hiatt that somebody had given him the "wrong im-
pression." He told Hiatt, "You can attend the meeting but I wouldn't advise it,"
adding, "If you ask me if you can go home and beat your wife, I am not telling
you you can't do it but I am not telling you to do it." 3
6. Conclusions as to interference, restraint, and coercion
'An employer is entitled to seek to -persuade his employees not to affiliate with
a union, and to state his opposition to it, so long as in so doing he refrains from
coercive conduct, threats of reprisal, or promise of benefit. The question whether
the above-recited conduct by the Respondent's representatives constituted unfair
labor practices therefore depends upon whether it was coercive. Some of it I
find to be so.
Thus, in his conversations with employee Donald Moore, Foreman Hayes
interrogated Moore as to whether the union organizer had been to see Moore;
told Moore that under a union the employees would have to pay their own
insurance and would not get bonuses; and intimated that fixers would be laid off,
and the workload increased. Subsequently Hayes suggested to Moore that the
Respondent might liquidate rather than operate under the Union.
Hayes told employee Beeson that the Company would not operate with the
Union, suggested that it might liquidate, that fixers might be laid off and find it
difficult to get other jobs in town, and that the Respondent would know how the
employees voted.
Foreman Hayes also told Paul Davis that the Company would not operate with
a union; suggested that it would close first, that Davis would be laid off if he
were to "fool around with the Union," blacklisted and unable to get work at
other knitting mills, and said that those who were active in the Union would be
"remembered" by the Respondent.
The above statements by Foreman Hayes contained threats of reprisal in em-
ployment for engaging in union activity. In such a context the interrogation as
to Moore's contact with the union organizer acquired a coercive effect. The threats
and interrogation by Foreman Hayes thus constituted interference, restraint, and
coercion by the Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Edmont
Manufacturing Company, 120 NLRB 525.
• It has been found above that Vice President Hugh Merritt's group talk with the
fixers contained a coercive threat to the continuation of their employment if the
employees chose the Union as their bargaining representative. Similar statements
8 The findings as to Robert Merritt's statements to Hiatt are based on the testimony of
both. Though somewhat different in form and emphasis, there appears to be no substan-
tial conflict as to the material portions of their respective accounts.
RENFRO HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 939
by Vice President Merritt in the individual interviews are similarly unfair labor
practices . In addition , in those interviews Vice President Merritt told employees,
in sum, that improvements in conditions could not be effected while the union
campaign continued , and suggested that the campaign be abandoned and the union
organizers sent away . Those statements have been previously found to constitute
threats of reprisal and are now found to constitute unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1).
In his interview with employee James Smith , Vice President Sydnor told Smith,
in sum, that continuance of union activities by Smith would indicate disbelief in
Sydnor's word , and this Sydnor "wouldn't forget ." Sydnor made a similar comment
to Walter Hiatt . In their context these statements must be interpreted as threats'
of reprisal and unfair labor practices.
In his interview with Walter Hiatt, Vice President Sydnor also told Hiatt, in
effect, that the fixers ' grievances would be remedied and the earnings increased if
they "stayed away from the union meetings"; informed Hiatt that wage increases
would not be effected, at least in part because the Respondent would not let the
Union "get credit" for them; and indicated that the quickest way to get the in-
creases was to abandon the Union . Sydnor's statements thus related contained
threats of reprisal and promises of benefit.
Foreman Orbie Simmons told employee Smith that the plant would not operate
with the Union , and told Smith and employee Stevens that the mill would close.
Simmons further stated to Stevens that Stevens would not be given the opportunity
to become a fixer if the Respondent knew that he was a union man or wcrked
for the Union . Simmons interrogated Hiatt as to his union views and as to whether
he intended to go to the union meeting . These various actions by Simmons con-
stituted threats of reprisal and coercive interrogation.
In its own context, and in the context of the other action of the Respondent
above related , Assistant Superintendent Robert Merritt 's statements to Hiatt to the
effect that Hiatt was misinformed if Hiatt thought that the Respondent did not
care whether employees went to the union meeting , that Hiatt could go to the
meeting if he "wanted ," but that Merritt "wouldn't advise it," constituted veiled
threats of reprisal.
It is found that by all the Respondent 's action found in this subsection to contain
threats of reprisal , promise of benefit, or coercive interrogation , the Respondent
interfered with , restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act , thereby violating Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
With respect to other asserted 8(a)(l) conduct of the Respondent , heretofore re-
lated and not specifically found to be unfair labor practices , or alleged, litigated,
and not referred to herein , it is found that the Respondent did not engage in unfair
labor practices thereby. The grounds for not so finding are variously that the
nature of the conduct was not such as to constitute unfair labor practices as a
matter of law, or because the evidence does not preponderantly establish the viola-
tion, or because the Respondent 's evidence or testimony in explanation or denial
has been accepted.
C. The discharge of Walter Hiatt
Walter Hiatt was discharged by the Respondent on October 4, 1957, according to
the General Counsel because of his union membership and activities ; according to
the Respondent for justifiable cause , namely, that he did not cooperate with his
supervisor , Foreman Orbie Simmons.
Hiatt, an employee for 8 years with the Respondent , was at the time of his
discharge a learner-fixer under the G.I. training program. He is described as a
"hard worker"; the quality of his work was satisfactory . The circumstances of.
his discharge are as follows..
Prior to September 1957, head fixers and fixers worked jointly on all flagged
machines . That policy was changed in August or September 1957. Thereafter
the fixing of flagged machines became the primary responsibility of the fixer
assigned to that particular machine , and the head fixer did not work on it until
called in by the fixer. If the fixer was unable to remedy the difficulty within
a reasonable time-generally about 24 hours-he was expected to call on the
head fixer for help.
The only evidence in the record reflective of any supervisory criticism of Hiatt
prior to his discharge is testimony by Foreman Orbie Simmons , not specifically
denied by Hiatt and consequently accepted , to the effect that about 2 weeks
before the discharge he reproved Hiatt for spending a day attempting to fix a
machine by himself without seeking assistance. Simmons' testimony is that on
this occasion he told Hiatt that he "had . to do better."
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For a week . or two prior to October 4, 1957, a machine operated by knitter
Dorothy Simmons did not operate properly. Hiatt attempted to fix the machine,
working on it off and on for several days, but was unsuccessful . On about
Tuesday, October 1, he asked Head Fixer J. R. Owens to check the machine.
Owens made an adjustment . Nevertheless , the machine continued to operate
improperly , whether from the same cause or a new one is not clear from the
evidence . Hiatt again sought to correct the condition , and believing that he had
succeeded , did not call Owens back . However, on Friday morning, October 4,
1957, Foreman Simmons found the machine operating improperly and flagged it.4
After finding the machine in this condition on Friday , Foreman Simmons
asked Head Fixer Owens whether he had worked on the machine , or had been
asked to. Owens , who had forgotten the incident of Tuesday , told Simmons that
he had not.
Foreman Simmons then spoke to Assistant Superintendent Merritt about the
matter, who said that in his opinion Hiatt should be discharged , and the decision
was made to terminate Hiatt. About 3 or 3:30 p.m. that afternoon Foreman
Simmons told Hiatt that he would have to let him go, and gave Hiatt his pay-
check. Upon inquiry from Hiatt as to the reason , Foreman Simmons stated that
Hiatt had let operator Simmons' machine run improperly for a week without seek-
ing help from Head Fixer Owens . Foreman Simmons also adverted to his talk
with Hiatt of 2 weeks before, and said, in sum , that Hiatt had not improved.
Hiatt told Simmons that the machine was running properly now . Hiatt further
informed Simmons that he had called in Owens for assistance , Simmons respond-
ing that Owens had told him the contrary . Hiatt finally became angry , placed
his hand on Simmons' arm , and invited Simmons outside to fight. When Simmons
declined the invitation Hiatt indicated , in words or in substance , that he would
apprehend and deal with Simmons outside the plant . At Hiatt's insistence the two
then saw Assistant Superintendent Merritt, who told Hiatt that it was a matter
between Hiatt and Simmons , and that he would not interfere . Simmons made no
reference in his conversation to Hiatt's threat to him.
Hiatt then got his tools, left the plant, went to the home of operator Dorothy
Simmons, and asked her whether she had complained about him. Simmons said
that she had not. Hiatt then went to the home of Head Fixer Owens, told Owens
that he had been discharged , and asked Owens whether he remembered working
on the machine . Owens replied that he did not. Hiatt then refreshed Owens'
recollection , and Owens recalled the incident. The two then went back to town
and saw Foreman Simmons. Fixer Owens told Foreman Simmons that he had
made a mistake, that he had actually worked on the machine , but had forgotten it.
Simmons told Owens that this information did not "change anything ," that Hiatt
had threatened him, that there was nothing further that he could do, and that Hiatt
would have to see Assistant Superintendent Merritt.
Owens and Hiatt then saw Merritt. Owens told Merritt that he had worked on
the machine . Merritt responded that he could not do anything , that it was a
matter between Hiatt and Foreman Simmons, but that he did not think that Hiatt
would "have any future with Renfro now anyway" after his threat to Simmons.
Hiatt said , in sum, that he had lost his temper because of family and financial
obligations , had probably said things that he "shouldn 't have," and offered to
apologize to Simmons . Merritt said that he didn 't think that things would "work
out," and the conversation was concluded.
Some weeks after the discharge , as Foreman Simmons was driving his car along
the street , he was flagged down by Hiatt , who invited him out of the car to
"talk." Simmons declined the invitation and drove on.
4 Foreman Simmons so testified , and his testimony in this respect is accepted. The
testimony of three other witnesses bears on the condition of the machine on that Friday
morning : Hiatt , operator Simmons , and Head Fixer Owens. The testimony of Hiatt is
that he fixed the machine when it continued to operate improperly after Head Fixer
Owens adjusted it and had it "running fine." That does not eliminate the possibility that
the machine became defective without his knowledge thereafter . Operator Simmons'
testimony is that she was unsure of the condition of the machine on Friday. Head
Fixer Owens testified that lie repaired the machine the following week , putting (he be-
lieved ) a new part in it . Owens ' testimony does not indicate whether the defect he
corrected then had any relation to the adjustment he made in the preceding week,
From the testimony and the circumstances , I conclude that the probable sum of the
situation is that Hiatt fixed the machine , but that unknown to him it began to operate
improperly again on Friday , and that Foreman Simmons found it in that condition. But
whether there was any connection between any of the episodes can only be speculated.
RENFRO HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 941
Almost 2 months after the discharge , on December 6, 1957, as Foreman Simmons
came out of the plant in the late afternoon , he found Hiatt waiting for him
beside his automobile . Hiatt attacked Simmons and knocked him down. When
Simmons sought to flee Hiatt knocked him down several more times, broke
Simmons' rib in two places, knocked out some of his teeth , broke the foreman's
denture, and inflicted lacerations.
In early September 1957, an employee of several years was discharged for having
threatened to beat up his group leader.
Conclusions as to Hiatt's Discharge
As has been seen , the Respondent was opposed to the •Union , in the course of
its opposition committing unfair labor practices , which have been found heretofore.
Hiatt's discharge is therefore to be considered against that background.
Hiatt 's record of 8 years of employment with the Respondent was good. His
work was considered satisfactory as to quality ; he was regarded as a hard worker.
The only established incidents of fault or dissatisfaction were the two occurrences
which took place within the last 2 weeks of his employment , related heretofore.
The discharge of a hard-working employee with an 8-year record of satisfactory
service, for a reason demonstrably erroneous , does not strike me as the conduct
ordinarily to be expected of a management interested primarily in the proper and
equitable operation of its shop ; in sum, not the kind of personnel action to be
anticipated in the absence of other motives . And in evaluating whether the dis-
charge of Hiatt was for other motives, the situation must be considered without
reference to the threat made by Hiatt to Foreman Simmons when Hiatt was dis-
charged. That occurrence could not have motivated Foreman Simmons and
Assistant Superintendent Merrittt to discharge Hiatt in the first place.
The ground asserted by the Respondent for the discharge is that Hiatt did not
cooperate with supervision ; specifically , that he did not secure help from the head
fixer in repairing operator Simmons' machine . The question is whether that is a
plausible and acceptable assertion , in the light of all the relevant circumstances.
It would appear, for the following reasons, that it is not.
There is no suggestion that Hiatt was under-ambitious or undiligent , and that his
claimed delinquency reflected this. Indeed , the exact contrary is true. If the
dereliction is indicative of fault , it is that Hiatt was zealous to stand upon his
own, perhaps unduly anxious to do his job, an attitude employers do not generally
find it in their interest to discourage or to penalize.5
It is true, of course , that misdirected diligence can make one an undesirable
employee. But neither the kind nor the degree of the asserted offense here appears
to the disinterested observer to be such as to make summary discharge a plausible
managerial reaction , especially when considered in the light of the fact that this
was a new procedure which altered the previous practice substantially.6
It has been noted that Foreman Simmons spoke to Hiatt about a week after the
rule was enacted about not calling a fixer for help on a machine . That offense,
if it was such , does not appear , at least to an outsider , to be grievous. Hiatt
completed the repair within the allowable day . On balance the incident scarcely
seems to warrant reproof, much less warning.
When we come to the actual discharge, the evidence does not indicate that
Foreman Simmons evinced any interest in whether Hiatt may have been truthful
in asserting that he had called in Head Fixer Owens. Simmons also apparently
disregarded Hiatt's claim that he had fixed the machine .? These actions do not
seem consistent with a premise that Simmons' only considerations were ascertain-
ment of fault and maintaining proper operations.
The evidence also indicates inconsistent assertions as to responsibility for the
discharge . Thus, according to Foreman Simmons, when he consulted Assistant
Superintendent Merritt, Merritt told Simmons that he thought that Hiatt should
be discharged . However, when Hiatt appealed to Merritt after the discharge,
5 Head Fixer Owens ' testimony is that he preferred a fixer to use initiative ; otherwise,
said Owens , "he will never learn." Owens , a witness for the Respondent , found no fault
with Hiatt.
9 According to Foreman Simmons' testimony, the procedure had been in existence only
3 weeks when Hiatt was discharged.
7 Hiatt's statement to Simmons to the effect that the machine was fixed and running
properly , even if incorrect as of that moment, obviously raised the possibility that its
condition was the result of a new and different breakdown . Testimony by Simmons to
the effect that the machine was "down off and on" over the previous 2 weeks suggests
that the machine was subject to recurrent breakdown , despite prompt fixing.
942 DECISIONS, OF- NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Merritt told him that it was a matter between Hiatt and Simmons. When Head
Fixer Owens told Foreman Simmons that Hiatt had called him in to , work on the
machine, Simmons. indicated that it made no difference , said that he could do
nothing, and referred Hiatt to Merritt. But when Hiatt saw Merritt, the latter,
although suggesting that whatever happened Hiatt's future prospects with the
Company were dubious, said, in effect, that the matter was up to Simmons. Hiatt's
explanation of his outburst, his: penitence, and his offer, to apologize to Simmons
were unavailing.
Also to be considered, along with the above fact, in determining the plausibility
of the ground asserted by the. Respondent for Hiatt's discharge, is the question of
Hiatt's identification with the union activity, to which we now turn.
Hiatt had attended both union meetings , although warned against it, and his
activities in connection with the union activity had been the subject of substantial
supervisory and managerial attention, as the following resume discloses.
Prior to the first union meeting Foreman Simmons asked Hiatt whether he was
going to attend that meeting, and when Hiatt replied that he was, Simmons ad-
•vised him not to have anything to do with the Union. After Hiatt had expressed
his understanding that the Respondent did not care whether employees went to
the union meeting, Assistant Superintendent Merritt sought him out, specifically
corrected that impression, and, in sum, advised him not to go. Following that
first union meeting both Merritt and Simmons made comments to Hiatt about it,
indicating their awareness of the fact that he had attended.
In interviewing Hiatt just prior to the second union meeting, Vice President
Sydnor suggested to Hiatt that employees stay away from the union meetings. In
concluding that interview Sydnor told Hiatt, in sum , that his union activities here-
tofore would be overlooked, but that any continuation of them "would not be
forgotten." Despite this second warning and offer of amnesty, Hiatt went to the
second union meeting.
About a week or 10 days later Hiatt was called back into Vice President Sydnor's
office. On this occasion Sydnor told Hiatt that Hiatt was reputedly saying that
he had "told off" Sydnor in their prior interview. Hiatt denied the accusation.
After some discussion Sydnor finally told Hiatt to forget the incident, but that only
Hiatt knew whether Hiatt had made the reputed assertions. Several days or a
week thereafter Hiatt was discharged.
On the basis of the above facts it is my conclusion that the Respondent's as-
serted ground for the discharge of Walter Hiatt is not plausible or acceptable in
the context of all the circumstances. It appears that the Respondent was not
motivated in discharging Hiatt by his failure to cooperate with supervision or by
his failure to call in Head Fixer Owens for assistance. The most reasonable con-
clusion from the evidence is that the real motive was Hiatt's continued participation
in union activities after being warned and advised against it, and that the Re-
spondent 's asserted reason constituted a pretext therefor. It is so found.
It is consequently found that by the discharge of Walter Hiatt, Jr., for the
reasons found herein, the Respondent discriminated in terms and conditions of
employment, discouraged membership in the Union, and interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
However, in view of Hiatt's assault upon and threats of violence to Foreman
Simmons , I do not believe that Hiatt's reinstatement would effectuate the policies
of the Act. Rather I think that it would discourage resort to the peaceful proc-
esses of the statute and encourage resort to self and violent help and private retri-
bution. Consequently neither reinstatement nor back pay will be recommended.
Carthage Fabrics Corporation, 101 NLRB 541 at 553-555 (case of Thomas
Baldwin).
Cases involving mere invitation to engage in fisticuffs, such as Efco Manufac-
turing, Inc., 108 NLRB 245, 261, cited by the General Counsel, I find distinguish-
able. An offer of combat, in which the invitee has a. choice and his choice is
respected, is not a threat of violence. Here Hiatt gave Simmons no option, for
upon refusal of the invitation, Hiatt notified Simmons that he would apprehend
him outside, and subsequently did so.
I think the case of Electronics Equipment Co., Inc., 94 NLRB 62, 66, also cited
by the General 'Counsel, equally distinguishable. The statements there asserted
were conditional in nature , not absolute as here, nor followed by execution, as
here. Whether the principle followed in the Electronics case is inconsistent with
subsequent decisions , such as Efco (pp. 249-250, 265-266), supra, and American
Tool Works Company, 116 NLRB 1681, need not, be determined.'
RENFRO HOSIERY MILLS, ' INC. 943
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 the operations of the Respondent, 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 ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
For the reasons heretofore stated, no recommendation is made for the reinstate-
ment of Walter Hiatt, Jr., or for the awarding to him of back pay.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of
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(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Walter
Hiatt, Jr., thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) 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.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
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 discourage membership in American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by
discharging employees or, in any other manner discriminating in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT 'interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from any
and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become, or refrain from becoming, members of
the above-named Union or any other labor organization, except to the extent that
this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
RENFRO HOSIERY MILLS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Rrpresentative)' (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.