Roane Hosiery, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1968

169 N.L.R.B. 1006 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Roane Hosiery, Incorporated and International
Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of
America . Case 10-CA-6914
February 20, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On November 22, 1967, Trial Examiner George
A. Downing issued his Decision in the above-enti-
tled 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respond-
ent, Roane Hosiery, Incorporated, Harriman,
Tennessee, its officers, agents , successors, and as-
signs , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order. I
' Delete from paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order that part thereof which reads "to be furnished " and substitute
therefor "on forms provided."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE A. DOWNING, Trial Examiner: This proceed-
ing under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, was heard at Harriman, Tennessee, on
October 11, 1967,' pursuant to due notice. The com-
plaint, which was issued August 2, on a charge dated
April 5, alleged that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
three alleged instances of interrogation and by a threat of
' All events herein occurred in 1967.
2 Respondent , a Tennessee corporation , operates a hosiery plant at
discharge concerning union activities. Respondent's
answer and the evidence at the hearing present purely
factual issues whether Respondent engaged in unlawful
conduct as alleged.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS; THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I conclude and find on facts alleged in the complaint
and admitted by answer that Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act2 and that the
Charging Party is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
It. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
As litigated at the hearing, the General Counsel's case
dwindled to a single instance of interrogation and a single
threat of discharge, both denied.
Shirley Langley testified that late in April her super-
visor, Avery Bright, asked her "just teasingly" if he had
had any night visitors, and Langley replied that someone
came by every once in a while. Bright continued "That's
not what I mean ... about the Union here." Langley an-
swered that no one came to see her to ask her to join the
Union.
Bright, though admitting that he talked with Langley
and with other employees daily, testified that he recalled
no such conversation as the above. Bright admitted that
he was aware of the union organizational campaign and
had heard that a number of the employees in his depart-
ment were involved in it. He testified further that he did
not think he wanted the Union in the shop, and though he
denied mentioning the Union to various employees, ad-
mitted that he could have done so.
Sidney Webb, a fixer in the knitting department,
worked on some 60 machines arranged in four alleys from
40 to 60 feet long. A single knitter usually ran some 200
machines and thus would have two or more fixers work-
ing on his machines.
Webb testified that on April 5, his supervisor, Evans
Kerley, came to his work station, accused him of spread-
ing rumors about the Union to other employees, stated
that Webb had the employees "all scared up," and
warned him that if he continued to spread such rumors,
Kerley would take the matter to Mr. Jim Talwater (vice
president and treasurer of the Company), who would let
Webb go. Webb denied that he had started any rumors or
that he had talked to anyone about the Union. On cross-
examination Webb admitted that other employees would
come from their own alleys and talk with him from time
to time but testified that Kerley never reprimanded him
either for talking too much or visiting too much in the al-
leys.
Kerley testified that for some 2 weeks before April 5,
Webb's practice was to "make the rounds" and talk with
two or three or four employees before he would start to
work. Kerley asked Webb's immediate foreman, Harlan
Thomas, if Thomas would like Kerley to talk with Webb,
and Thomas agreed. Kerley testified that he mentioned to
Harriman from which it sells and ships annually to extrastate points
products valued in excess of $50,000.
169 NLRB No. 146
ROANE HOSIERY
Webb certain rumors which Webb had been spreading,
one that there was going to be a picket line and another
that the men were going to shut down the machines. He
told Webb the rumors were disturbing the whole shift of
employees and Webb would have to cut them out. Webb
replied that he had been accused of a lot of things of
which he was blameless , including being the ringleader in
the Union . Kerley informed Webb that what he did out-
side the plant was his own business but what he did on the
job when he was supposed to be working was Kerley's
business and if the rumors were not stopped , he would
have to let Webb go. Webb insisted he had told nothing
except what he thought would help the Company, and
Kerley responded that Webb should be man enough to re-
port to Kerley and his foreman the things Webb thought
they should know and that he had "better keep his mouth
shut."
Though admitting he had known of the union cam-
paign since the first of March , Kerley denied that the ru-
mors he mentioned to Webb concerned the Union, ex-
plaining that he understood Webb's rumors to refer to the
employees of the knitting department as those who would
take action , and besides Webb stated during the conver-
sation he was not for the Union . Though Kerley agreed
that the Union could have been involved in the rumors,
he testified that what he went to Webb about was a
disturbance he was creating on the job concerning the ru-
mors about a picket line and closing down machines.
Kerley admitted that Webb was known to him for 15
years as one who did a good deal of talking on the job but
that he never reprimanded Webb before and never had a
complaint about him until 2 weeks before April 5.
Though Webb 's actions caused two employees to miss 1
or 2 weeks ' work because they were nervous and afraid,
Kerley did not reprimand Webb during the 2 weeks
because he just put it off and did not get around to it.
Foreman Thomas testified in corroboration of Kerley's
testimony that Webb was a talkative person , that for
some 10 or 12 days Webb went around and talked with
the men before going to work, and that his own complaint
to Kerley was that Webb was not going to work when
worktime began. °
Talwater testified that around January 4 or 5, before
there was any union activity, employees in the knitting
department actually shut down their machines for 24
hours and that there were also rumors of picketing,
though no actual picketing occurred.
Concluding Findings
As Respondent employs more than 800 employees, the
subject matter of this case might well be considered
deminimus except for the threat of discharge which, of
course, presents a serious question since it involved a
direct threat of discrimination against employees who en-
gage in concerted or organizational activities which are
protected by the Act.
Considering the case on its merits, it is to be noted that
in denying the interrogation to which Langley testified,
Bright admitted talking daily with Langley and other em-
ployees, admitted knowing of the union campaign, and
admitted he could have mentioned the Union to various
employees. I therefore credit Langley 's testimony that he
did so in questioning her about night visitors.
1007
As concerned the Webb incident, the threat to
discharge was admitted and all that is in question is
whether Kerley specifically referred to rumors concern-
ing the Union . Kerley admitted knowing that the union
campaign was underway and admitted that the rumors
may well have concerned the Union since they included
activity of a type which unions commonly sponsor and
engage in ; i.e., picketing and calling a work stoppage.
The fact that employees engaged in a work stoppage
several months before the union activities does not ad-
vance Respondent 's claim that it was to that to which
Webb's alleged rumors related . The Union 's campaign
had been underway , to Kerley's knowledge , for some 5
weeks and organizational activities of the type involved
in the rumors would obviously be concomitant with, or in
furtherance of, the Union ' s campaign . Furthermore,
despite Webb's propensity for talking on the job, known
for some 15 years, no complaint was lodged and no repri-
mand was given until more than a month after the Union's
campaign began , and then it was delayed for some 2
weeks on the lame excuse that Kerley did not get around
to it. It is also to be noted that Thomas complained to
Kerley only that Webb was not promptly going to work
when he should.
I therefore conclude and find , as Webb testified, that
Kerley specifically referred to rumors concerning the
Union when he threatened Webb with discharge if he
continued to spread such rumors.3
In sum , I conclude and find that by interrogating
Langley concerning visitors from or on behalf of the
Union and by threatening Webb with discharge if he con-
tinued to talk with other employees about the Union and
its organizational activities , Respondent interfered with,
restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1).
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
as provided in the Recommended Order below which I
find to be necessary to remedy and to remove the effects
of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies
of the Act . By reason of the limited scope of the unfair
labor practices when viewed against the size of Respond-
ent's plant, I shall recommend a narrow cease-and-de-
sist order.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act , I hereby issue the following:
3 No evidence was offered that Respondent had any rule against talking
on worktime , and Webb's long course of conduct without complaint from
Respondent plainly indicated there was no such rule.
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER 5 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
Roane Hosiery, Incorporated, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating coercively its employees concerning
visitations from or on behalf of the Union or concerning
other participation in union activities.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge if they
should talk or continue to talk with other employees
about the Union and its organizational activities.
(c) In any like or similar manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist said
United Mine Workers of America, or any other labor or-
ganization , to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing or to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find
necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and plant in Harriman, Tennes-
see, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 10, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.5
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 10 , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate coercively our em-
ployees concerning visitations from or on behalf of
the Union nor concerning their participation in other
union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge
if they should continue to talk with other employees
about the Union and its organizational activities.
All our employees are free to become and remain or to
refrain from becoming or remaining members of United
Mine Workers of America, or any other labor organiza-
tion.
ROANE HOSIERY,
INCORPORATED
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,* In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , defaced, or covered by any other material.the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
If employees have any question concerning this noticeRecommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- directly with the Board's Regional Office, 730 Peachtree
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision Street, N.E., Room 701, Atlanta, Georgia 30308,
and Order." Telephone 526-5741.