Southerland's Tennessee Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1178 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC., SUCCESSOR or FRANKLIN
MILLS, INC., AND TENNESSEE TRICOT MILLS, INC., SUCCESSOR OF
SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. and UNITED TEXTILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. of L. Case No. 10-CA-1078. Febru-
ary 10, 1953
Decision and Order
On September 15, 1952, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that Respondent Tricot
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, Respondent Tricot filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 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 In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modi-
fications :
We agree with the Trial Examiner that at all times material herein
the Union was the statutory bargaining representative of the em-
ployees of both Respondent Southerland and Respondent Tricot.
We base this finding on the fact, as set forth in the Intermediate
Report, that the Union was certified as the representative of such em-
ployees and that, although more than 2 years had elapsed, the pre-
sumption of the Union's continued majority status has not been re-
butted. As we also agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that
Respondent Tricot is the successor to Respondent Southerland, the
continuing effect of the previous certification is binding upon Respond-
ent Tricot.2
We agree with the Trial Examiner that both Respondents refused
to bargain in good faith with the Union, in violation of Section 8
(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. As to Respondent Southerland, we base
our conclusion on the unilateral wage increases given to some of its
employees, and the admitted delays in arranging for meetings re-
quested by the Union, as fully described in the Intermediate Report.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
2 Krantz Wire d Mfg . Co. et al., 97 NLRB 971, 985; N. L. R. B . v. Blair Quarries, Inc.,
152 F. 2d 25 ( C. A. 4), enfg. 58 NLRB 1448.
102 NLRB No. 118.
SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1179
As to Respondent Tricot, we base our conclusion on, as set forth in
the Intermediate Report, the unilateral wage increases given to some
of its employees and the refusal to recognize the Union, unless the
Union's majority was proved anew.
In view of the fact that King, the general manager of both Re-
spondents, who questioned the Union's majority status on behalf
of Respondent Tricot without advancing any valid reason therefor,s
had previously on behalf of Respondent Southerland unlawfully
refused to bargain with the Union, we are unable to find that Respond-
ent Tricot had the requisite good-faith doubt of the Union's majority
status which might have excused its refusal to bargain.4
Even if Respond?nt Tricot had not independently refused to bar-
gain, we would nevertheless hold it responsible for remedying Re-
spondent Southerland's unfair labor practices, as a successor who
took over the business with knowledge of the latter's unlawful con-
duct.5
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Tennessee Tricot Mills,
Inc., Elizabethton, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall :
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Textile Workers
of America, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representative of all produc-
tion and maintenance employees at the Elizabethton, Tennessee, plant,
excluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Taking any unilateral action in derogation of the aforesaid
Union's right to act as the exclusive representative of such employees,
with respect to any matter properly subject to the collective bargain-
ing process.
(c) Interfering in any other manner with the efforts of the Union
to bargain collectively with it, on behalf of the employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit, as their exclusive bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
3 See Atlanta Journal Company , 82 NLRB 832 ; United States Gypsum Company, 90
NLRB 964. Cf. Celanese Corporation of America , 95 NLRB 664.
4 In view of the fact that the certification was only about 2 years old and that Respond-
ent Tricot , as successor to Respondent Sutherland , continued to operate the business in
question with substantially the same personnel , the mere change in ownership cannot be
regarded as a valid reason for requiring the Union to reestablish its majority.
5J. E. Cote, et al., 101 NLRB 1486; The L. B. Hosiery Co., incorporated , 88 NLRB
1000.
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Textile
Workers of America, A. F. of L., as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement
(b) Post at its establishment in Elizabethton, Tennessee, copies
of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Ap-
pendix H." 6 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), shall, after being
duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it
for a period of 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 Tenth Region , in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
9 This notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from line 3 thereof
the words "The recommendations of a Trial Examiner " and substitute in lieu thereof
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."
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The above -captioned proceeding concerns allegations that Southerland's Ten-
nessee Company , Inc., herein called Respondent Southerland 's, on or about March
31, 1951 , and thereafter, and that Tennessee Tricot Mills , Inc., herein referred
to as Respondent Tricot, on or about February 1, 1952, and thereafter , refused
to bargain with United Textile Workers of America, A. F. of L., herein called
the Union . Respondents ' answers deny these allegations . The issues , framed
by a complaint and answers , were fully litigated at a hearing before the under-
signed in Elizabethton , Tennessee , on July 21, 1952 . After the close of the
hearing counsel for the General Counsel submitted a memorandum of authori-
ties which has been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following
findings, conclusions , and recommendations :
THE BUSINESS INVOLVED
Franklin Mills, Inc., a Tennessee corporation , in the period from 1948 until
February 1, 1950 , engaged in Elizabethton , Tennessee , in the manufacture and
sale of rayon acetate cloth.
On or about February 1, 1950 , Respondent Southerland 's, a Tennessee corpo-
ration , acquired the Elizabethton plant and facilities of Franklin Mills, Inc., and
SOUTHERLAND ' S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1181
continued , with the same personnel, the business previously conducted, In
Elizabethton , Tennessee , by Franklin Mills, Inc.
On or about February 1, 1952, Respondent Tricot, a Tennessee corporation,
acquired the business and properties' in Elizabethton, Tennessee, formerly
operated by Franklin Mills, Inc., and by Respondent Southerland's, as noted
above, and continued with the same personnel the business previously conducted
by the last-named corporations. The place of business in Elizabethton, Ten-
nessee, of the corporations named above is herein referred to as the Elizabethton
plant.
Franklin Mills, Inc., and Respondent Southerland's, during the periods of
their respective operation of the Elizabetbton plant, shipped annually from
said plant to points and places outside Tennessee finished products valued
in excess of $50,000. It was stipulated at the hearing herein that on an
annual basis Respondent Tricot will ship from the Elizabethton plant to points
and places outside Tennessee products valued in excess of $50,000.
The undersigned finds that during the period of its operation of the Elizabeth-
ton plant Respondent Southerland' s was engaged in commerce within the
meanin.; of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the
Act, and that Respondent Tricot is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America , A. F. of L., is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
All production and maintenance employees at the Elizabethton plant, excluding
office and clerical employees, supervisors, guards, and professional employees
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
FACTS BEARING ON CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES
Since about 1938, the Elizabethton plant has been engaged in the manufacture
of rayon acetate cloth. Although the plant has been operated at various times
by different corporations, the type of business conducted has remained the
same.'
The plant, property,e equipment, manufacturing method; and working force
1 Title to sundry items such as machinery was not acquired by Respondent Tricot but
such sundry items were used in the organization of said Respondent and in the operation
of this business by said Respondent.
9 However , Respondent Tricot , since it began the operation of this business, has
eliminated dyeing and finishing work and contract ( outside ) work and ceased purchasing
and reselling rayon . Respondent Tricot now manufactures only one line of cloth.
® When Respondent Tricot first began operating the Elizabethton plant it used the build-
ing previously used by Respondent Southerland 's and by Franklin Mills , Inc., but since
that time it has utilized a building at another location in Elizabethton , Tennessee.
" When Respondent Tricot first began operating the Elizabethton plant it used some of
the same machinery that had been used by its predecessors . This machinery is presently
being overhauled and rebuilt . In addition , Respondent Tricot replaced some of the
equipment with more modern equipment. This more modern equipment changed the method
of handling yarn in the warper, and eliminated dyeing and finishing . However, the
knitting operation has not been changed and the same personnel that operated the dis-
carded machinery operate the more modern machinery.
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have remained substantially the same ' and no essential attribute of the em-
ployment relationship has been changed as a result of the transfers of the
business.
Sequence of Events
On or about November 23, 1949, a consent election was conducted among all
production and maintenance employees of the Elizabethton plant, excluding office
and clerical employees, supervisors, guards, and professionals as defined in the
Act. A majority of the valid ballots having been cast for United Textile
Workers of America, A. F. of L., a certification of representatives was issued
December 2, 1949'
On or about December 20, 1949, the Union filed with this Board a charge
alleging violations of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act by Franklin
Mills, Inc.' By a written instrument, dated January 28, 1950, by and between
R. N. Southerland (then owner of the Elizabethton plant) and the Union,
it was agreed that the parties would execute a contract, effective for 1 year,
incorporating certain specified conditions with respect to employment at the
Elizabethton plant and that contingent upon the execution of such a contract
the Union would, and did, thereby withdraw the charge pending before this
Board. On or about February 15, 1950, Southerland's Tennessee Company,
Inc., and the Union and its local executed what purports to be a collective-
bargaining agreement effective "until February 15, 1952, and shall continue
thereafter for yearly periods unless notice of termination is given. . . ."'
Sometime prior to March 31, 1950, a dispute arose concerning the discharge
of Ray McNiel. This matter was referred to a board of arbiters and there-
after litigated through the State courts. A final decision was rendered in
the spring of 1952.
In June 1950, 2 arbiters-1 appointed by the Union and 1 appointed by the
Company-heard a matter involving: (1) Interpretation of the vacation
clause of the February 15, 1950, contract; (2) interpretation and application
of the seniority clause; and (3) hiring of a new employee to do work formerly
done by an employee in layoff status. These arbiters were unable to agree.
Thereafter, on July 10, 1950, the Union, relying upon the Februray 15, 1950,
contract, requested from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service a list
of available arbitrators so that a third member of a board of arbitration could
be selected. On July 13, 1950, the Mediation and Conciliation Service notified
Respondent Southerland's of the Union's request and was informed (by letter
dated July 17) that Respondent Southerland's "has not been officialy notified
of the results of the arbitration heretofore had on these questions" and that
Respondent Southerland's would fully advise after being "brought up to date
6 The same individual has been the general manager of the Elizabethton plant since
December 1949 and the same group of 10 regular production and maintenance employees
has been employed there since sometime in 1949. At times since February 1950 employ-
ment reached a peak of 25 workers . However, the record infers, and the undersigned
finds , that the normal complement of employees has been 10 (the 10 employed since 1949)
and that the others have been temporary workers, such as seasonal employees and employees
working during change of equipment.
e Franklin Mills, Inc., 10-RC-778.
Case No. 10-CA-924.
a There is a dispute as to whether this is a valid contract since one of the signatories
thereto was only the temporary president of the union local although the document
indicates he signed as "President Local Union No. 2075" since it was signed before the
local was formally installed and granted a charter, and since at the time the contract was,
signed the local had not complied with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and
(h) of the Act. A resolution of this issue does not appear necessary to determine the
issues herein . Accordingly, the undersigned is not resolving this dispute.
SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1183
on this matter." Respondent Southerland's reply to the Mediation and Con-
ciliation Service was sent to the Union with a request for its comments. The
Union by letter dated July 24, 1950, advised the Mediation and Conciliation
Service that the arbitrators met in June and could come to no agreement and
that the "arbitrator for the company was the company's bookkeeper, whom
Mr. King [vice president and manager of Respondent Southerland's] sees
every days Further, I [Dean, international representative of the Union]
advised Mr King on or about July 10th in his office that I was writing for a
list of arbitrators from your office. He raised no objection at that time."
The Union again requested that a list of available arbitratca "be forwarded
to the company and the union." By letter dated July 28, 1950, the Mediation
and Conciliation Service submitted to the parties a list of available arbitrators.
Thereafter, in September 1950, the Union endeavored to get Respondent
Southerland's to select a third arbitrator from the list, but was unable to
do so because Respondent Southerland's took the position that it "was only
going to do what the courts made him [King] do and that he would not select
any arbitrator."
In December 1950, a dispute arose involving alleged violations of the seniority
provisions of the February 15, 1950, contract. This matter was submitted to
arbitration and an award was made in favor of the Union in March 1951 wherein
Respondent Southerland's was directed to pay Cindy Stevens 10 hours' pay at
her hourly rate of pay. Respondents have not complied with the award of
the arbiters.
On June 27, 1950, the Union filed the original charge herein and on Janu-
ary 23, 1951, filed a first amended charge. Thereafter, on October 30, 1951,
Respondent Southerland's and the Union executed a settlement agreement, which
was approved by this Board's Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia) on November 19, 1951, providing that Respondent Southerland's would
comply with the terms and provisions of a "notice to all employees" which was
to be posted in the Elizabethton plant. Such "notice to all employees" states,
in substance, that Respondent Southerland's will bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance
employees of the Elizabethton plant.
Between November 10 and December 10, 1951, Everett F. Dean, international
representative of the Union, "on a couple occasions" contacted Roy C. Nelson,
attorney for Respondent Southerland's and for Respondent Tricot, and re-
quested meetings with Thomas J. King, general manager of the Elizabethton
plant since December 1949 and the official in charge of labor relations at said
plant. Nelson undertook to arrange such meetings. On December 10, 1951,
Nelson, in Dean's presence, attempted to contact, via telephone, King and arrange
a meeting between King and Dean. King was not available and Nelson told
Dean he (Nelson) would try to arrange a meeting and would advise Dean later.
On leaving Nelson's office Dean met King on the street and asked for a meeting
to discuss wages, a contract, and the McNiel matter 10 (the dispute involving
the discharge of McNiel which was then pending before the State courts). King
told Dean to see Nelson. Dean returned to Nelson's office, informed Nelson of the
conversation with King, and requested a meeting. Nelson told Dean he (Nelson)
"would see if he could get a meeting worked out." Three or four days later
Dean telephoned Nelson and was told by Nelson that he (Nelson) had not been
9 In fact , the bookkeeper was the arbiter appointed by Respondent Southerland's.
10 There is conflicting evidence as to whether Dean asked for a discussion of any matter
other than the McNiel case. On the basis of the entire record the undersigned finds a
request for a meeting to discuss wages , a contract, and the McNiel matter was made.
1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
able to contact King but that he (Nelson) would try to do so that day. The fol-
lowing day Dean again telephoned Nelson and suggested a meeting for Satur-
day, December 15, 1951. Nelson told Dean that King didn't want to meet on
Saturday and suggested Friday, December 21, 1951, as a meeting date. A
meeting was arranged for that date (December 21, 1951).
Dean appeared at the meeting place (the Elizabethton plant) at 2 p. m. on
December 21, 1951, and was informed by King that the meeting had been sched-
uled for 10 a. m. and that he (King) had been waiting since that time. Dean
told King he (Dean) understood the meeting was for 2 o'clock and asked if
King "wanted to discuss the matters" and King said, "Hell no, he had been
waiting there all day and he wouldn't wait any longer; he was going home."
No meeting was held. As King and Dean left the plant King accused Dean of
"trying to run him out of business" and of "harassing" him. Dean responded
that until King "lived up to his contract with us and treated us decently and
his people decently that we would continue to be on him even if it meant running
him out of business." Upon returning to the union office in Elizabethton, Dean
telephoned Nelson and arranged for a meeting with King on January 9, 1952.
On January 7, 1952, Dean telephoned Nelson and requested that the meeting
date be changed to January 8 since he (Dean) should be in Washington on
January 9, 1952. Nelson told Dean that King was out of town and that he
(Nelson) did not expect him (King) back before the weekend. No meeting was
held that week.
On January 19, 1952, Dean sent King a letter stating:
For the past two months I have attempted at various times to arrange
meetings with you to discuss matters pertaining to our contract with your
company with no success.
I still want to meet with you to discuss these matters. I would appreciate
your setting another date as soon as conveniently possible so that we can
attempt to iron out some of our difficulties.
Please give this your immediate attention.
By letter dated January 21, 1952, Dean wrote King:
I am advised that on October 30, 1951, you executed a settlement agree-
ment with the National Labor Relations Board, in which you agreed to "bar-
gain collectively upon request," with the United Textile Workers of America,
AFL, "with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions
of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement."
For the past two months or more, I have attempted at various times to
arrange meetings with you for this purpose, with no success.
I am ready to meet with you for the above purpose this week, commencing
Thursday, January 24th, or on the 25th, or on the 26th. Please call my home
and advise which day is agreeable.
If I do not hear from you, I shall understand it is not your intention to
comply with this settlement agreement and I shall thereupon notify the
NLRB of your failure to meet us.
Please give this your immediate attention.
By letter dated January 22,1952, King advised Dean :
Relative to your letter of January nineteenth in which you state "For the
past two months I have attempted at various times to arrange meetings with
you to discuss matters pertaining to our contract with your company with
SOUTHERLAND' S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC . 1185
no success." May I advise that on two occasions appointments had been
made with you and that you failed to keep these appointments.
In order to give both of us ample time to arrange our affairs, Friday,
February 1st, at two p. m., at the Union Hall is suggested.
On February 1, 1952, Dean went to the union hall. However, King did not
appear. After waiting 30 minutes Dean telephoned the plant and was informed
that King was in Philadelphia. Dean then telephoned Nelson and was told by
Nelson that King was out of town and he (Nelson) didn't know just when he
would be back.
By letter dated February 5, 1952, mailed from Rome, Georgia, February 8,
1952, and received by King on February 9, 1952, Dean advised Kin; :
I have your letter in which you stated that you tried to have two appoint-
ments with me and that I failed to keep them. I regret that this is not a
correct statement of what actually happened.
You will remember that on the last occasion that we were supposed to
meet, Feb. 1st at 2 P. M. at the Union Hall, you did not appear. I was there
at the time. When I called your office, I was informed that you were
out of town.
I thereupon called your lawyer, Mr. Roy Nelson, and he also stated that
you were out of town. I asked Mr. Nelson to set an immediate date for a
further meeting, but I haven't heard anything from you.
I am sending a copy of this letter to the National Labor Relations Board,
so that they may be advised that I have been unable to meet with you since
the time you executed a settlement agreement with the Board.
A copy of Dean's letter of February 5, 1952, was sent to Frank E. Hamilton,
Jr., attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Atlanta, Georgia.
By letter dated February 7, 1952, Hamilton requested that Nelson advise
"as to the step your company has taken or is taking in compliance with the
settlement agreement." (A copy of Hamilton's letter is attached hereto as
Appendix A.) By letter dated February 15, 1952, Nelson acknowledged
Hamilton's letter and advised that King "has tried to be present for meetings,
but he has had to be out of town. To my knowledge Mr. King was out of the
city on business on February 1st and Mr. Dean was so advised by this office."
We are also advised Mr. Dean's letter seeking to arrange the meeting on that
date was delivered several days late." 'Z (A copy of Nelson's letter of Febril-
ary 15, 1952, is attached hereto as Appendix B.)
By letter dated February 28, 1952, and addressed to Mr. T. J. King, vice
president Southerland's Tennessee Company, Inc., Joseph Jacobs, southern
director, United Textile Workers of America, advised King:
Word reaches me that there has been some change in the ownership
or the holders of stock in the above company.'' You are herewith put on
notice that this does not, in any way, affect our charges against this com-
pany, nor so far as we know, the settlement which you executed with the
National Labor Relations Board.
n As noted above, Dean was "so advised" by Nelson on the date of the scheduled meeting
and after the time set for such meeting and after Dean had called to inquire why King
did not appear for the meeting
" The record herein does not reveal any letter from Dean seeking to arrange a meeting
for February 1, 1952, but does reveal, as noted above, that by letter dated January 22,
1952, King suggested a meeting for February 1
11 See section above entitled "The business involved."
1186 DECISIONS 0r' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
You have continued to refuse to bargain with our union, and we are
asking the Board to take such action as may be necessary to enforce the
settlement. These new purchasers, owners, whoever they may be are
herewith advised that we shall hold them responsible, as well as the old
owners of this company, for violation of the rights of the workers whom
we represent.
By letter dated April 11, 1952, King, on behalf of Respondent Tricot, advised
Dean :
This is to advise that the undersigned is willing to meet you or a repre-
sentative of your union.
My offer to meet with you is made in good faith, however it is not a
waiver of my previous position that the earlier contract is void." May
I suggest that at your convenience you designate a date, time and place
for the meeting, which is to be confirmed by this office.
By letter dated April 12, 1952, Dean suggested a meeting at 10 a. in. on
Tuesday, April 29, 1952, "at your [King's] office in Ehzabethton." King ap-
proved this "date, place, and time for our meeting" in a letter dated April 17,
1952 (a copy of this letter is attached hereto as Appendix C) and stated that
Respondent Tricot assumed the meeting was for the purpose of collective
bargaining.
Concerning the April 29, 1952 meeting, Dean testified credibly:
When I went in Mr. King greeted me very cordially by asking what the
hell I wanted, lets get it over with. I told Mr. King that the meeting
had been arranged as a result of correspondence between us to arrange
a meeting to discuss the contract and Mr. King replied that he had no
contract, that this was the Tennessee Tricot Mills and they had never
had a contract. I asked him if he wanted to bargain for the company,
if he wanted to bargain for wages and if he was willing to give any sort
of increase. I informed him that I had been told some of the employees
were receiving a little more than others ; he told me that was his business
and that he would give them all more money when he could, but he
couldn't give any wage increase right at that time. So I asked then
about the contract, if there were any changes that he desired in the old
contract [the contract signed February 15, 1950] ; if there were, we were
'willing to try to make them with them [King and Warren, another represent-
ative for Respondent Tricot] even though we felt the contract had re-
newed itself 1D He stated lie wouldn't recognize any union unless he was
shown a majority. I asked him on a couple occasions about going through
the contract to see if there was anything we could agree on taking our
[out] or anything we could agree on leaving in and about all the answer
I received about it was what a good break he had given the boys and the
Union and how we had done him wrong by making him pay out money
for people that hadn't performed the work."
14 The contract referred to is the one executed on or about February 15, 1950, and as
noted above the parties have not been in agreement as to the validity of this contract.
16 No notice to terminate the contract as provided for in the contract had been given.
16
This refers to the dispute involving alleged violations of the seniority provisions of
the February 15, 1950, contract which was arbitrated in March 1951 . The arbiters gave
an award in favor of the Union and directed that Cindy Stevens "be paid ten (10) hours
pay at her hourly rate of pay."
SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1187
On May 16, 1952, the Union filed a second amended charge herein and on
that same date this Board's Regional Director withdrew the November 19,
1951, approval of the settlement "because of lack of compliance with the
terms of the agreement." On June 6, 1952, the complaint herein was issued.
By letter dated June 16 the Union suggested that, despite the issuance of the
complaint and scheduling of a hearing herein, it might be to the best interest of
all concerned to sit down and endeavor to reach an agreement and requested that
Respondent Tricot meet with the Union during the week of June 23 or June 30
or "suggest alternate dates when such meeting can be held." (A copy of this
letter is attached hereto as Appendix D.) By letter dated June 23, 1952, Re-
spondent Tricot acknowledged the Union's letter of June 16 and indicated that if
representatives of this Board desired such meeting Respondent Tricot would
not object and that it had no objection to such a meeting on the dates suggested
by the Union. (These letters are attached hereto as Appendix E and Appendix
F.) By letter dated June 26, 1952, the Union acknowledged the letters from
Respondent Tricot and stated that "our Mr. Dean will contact Mr. King" to
arrange a conference of the parties. (The Union's letter of June 26 is attached
as Appendix G.)
On or about July 7, 1952, Dean contacted King and arranged for a meeting
on July 11, 1952. Concerning the July 11 meeting Dean testified, credibly :
I went to the mill and walked in and went in the office and I asked Mr.
King if I could have Mr. Herbert Ritchie 17 present for the meeting. He
said, "Hell, let's get them all present," and he went out and motioned for
the other employees to come in. The other employees shut the machines
down and came in. I think about five or six [all of the employees present at
the plant that day]. I told Mr. King that we wanted to bargain on wages
and conditions of the contract and he asked me to show my credentials as a
Union representative. I showed him my credentials and he said, "Oh, you
are going to show them to me this time; you wouldn't show them to me
last time." I told him that he had not asked me for them at any previous
time. He took the credentials and looked at them and said, "but this
doesn't say you represent a majority of the employees." I said, "Mr. King,
we have a certification from the National Labor Relations Board saying
that we represent the employees." He said, "not these employees" ; he
said, "this is the Tennessee Tricot Mills and you wouldn't have any cer-
tification that you represent them. I told Mr. King if that were his position
I would see him at the court house on July 21st and left 18
At the hearing herein King testified he is willing to bargain with the Union
providing he is shown "proper credentials regarding the union membership."
Wage Increases
During the period that Respondent Southerland's operated the Elizabethton
plant it unilaterally (without consulting or advising the Union) raised the
wages of some of the employees at the Elizabethton plant and Respondent Tricot
during the period of its operation of said plant also unilaterally raised the
wages of some of these employees. The record herein does not reflect the dates
these increases were granted.
17 President of the Union Local.
18 The hearing herein was scheduled for, and was held on, July 21, 1952.
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Checkoff
The contract executed February 15, 1950 , provides , inter alia:
Article 16
Union Security-Checkoff
Section 1 . The employer agrees to deduct from the pay of any employee
the sum of $2.00 per month , each month upon written request of such em-
ployee. Money so deducted shall be paid to the Secretary-Treasurer of Local
No. 207 , by the 10th of each month. Authorization cards signed and pre-
sented to the employer for deduction , shall be effective for the duration of
this agreement , or one ( 1) year, whichever is sooner.
Section 2. Any employee who has signed , or who may hereafter sign an
authorization card, shall have the right to revoke the same during the ten
days preceding the termination of this contract or renewal hereof, upon
written notice to the company and the Union by registered mail . Only one
name shall be recognized in each registered letter.
Shortly after the execution of the contract , the Union gave Respondent
Southerland 's certain cards ( number not revealed by this record ) authorizing
deductions in accordance with the contract . Thereafter and until about the
middle of February 1952 union dues were deducted from the wages due em-
ployees and forwarded to the Union . At the time of the cessation of this pro-
cedure ( in February 1952 ) all of the production and maintenance employees at
the Elizabethton plant were having their dues deducted.
Conclusions
As noted elsewhere herein, although there have been changes of ownership of
the business now operated by Respondent Tricot in Elizabethton , Tennessee, Re-
spondent Tricot now operates substantially the same business that was operated
by its predecessors (Respondent Southerland's and Franklin Mills, Inc.) and
said changes of ownership did not change the essential attributes of the em-
ployment relationship. Furthermore, throughout these changes of ownership
the same individuals have been employed as regular production and maintenance
employees . Moreover, as noted above , Respondent Southerland's acquired the
business of its predecessor with knowledge of the pendency of an unfair labor
practice proceeding against its predecessor , and Respondent Tricot acquired the
business with similar knowledge. It is evident from the above-outlined facts
and the entire record herein that Respondent Southerland 's was the successor-
employer to Franklin Mills, Inc ., and that Respondent Tricot is the successor-
employer to Respondent Southerland 's's and that these Respondents were obliged
to bargain in good faith if in the "employing agency" the Union's majority
status continued or if the settlement agreements continued Respondents' obli-
gations to bargain.
On or about December 2, 1949, the Union was certified by this Board as the
representative of a majority of the production and maintenance employees of
the Elizabethton plant. Thereafter, and after the filing of an unfair labor prac-
tice charge, Respondent Southerland's acquired this business and with knowledge
of the foregoing proceedings executed a written instrument (contract of Febru-
ary 15, 1950) wherein it recognized the Union as the "sole bargaining agency"
19 See N L R B v. Arthur J. Colton et al., 105 F . 2d 179 ; Autopart Manufacturing
Company, 91 NLRB 80, Stonewall Cotton Mills , 80 NLRB 325 , The Alexander Milburn
Company, 78 NLRB 747; and The Northwest G love Co. Inc ., 74 NLRB 1697.
SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1189
for said employees and agreed to certain specified conditions of employment.
In effect Respondent Southerland's agreed to asaume the obligation of its prede-
cessor to bargain with the Union. After several disputes, a statement (in Sep-
tember 1950) that Respondent "was only going to do what the Courts made" it
do, a refusal to select an arbitrator (in September 1950) despite the terms of its
agreement of February 15, 1950, and a failure to comply with an award by an
arbitration panel (after March 1951), Respondent Southerland's again agreed
(in order to settle unfair labor practice charges filed June 27, 1950, and Janu-
ary 23, 1951), on October 30, 1951, to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the production and maintenance employees of the
Elizabethton plant. Throughout the period that Respondent Southerland's
operated this plant it deducted, monthly, union dues and remitted the total
deductions to the Union and at no time throughout the period of its operation
of this business did Respondent Southerland's question the Union's status as the
exclusive representative of the production and maintenance employees. On or
about February 1, 1952, Respondent Tricot, with full knowledge of all of the fore-
going, acquired the business involved and thereafter continued until the middle
of February 1952 to deduct union dues and remit same to the Union. At the
time of the cessation of deductions of union dues all of the production and main-
tenance employees of the Elizabethton plant were having their dues deducted.
Thereafter, on April 29, 1952, July 11, 1952, and at the hearing herein, Respond-
ent Tricot refused to bargain unless shown proof of majority representation.
Neither in its dealings with the Union nor in the record herein did Respondent
Tricot offer any evidence of a good-faith doubt of the Union's status as the repre-
sentative of the majority of the employees involved. Respondents rely upon the
age of the certification issued December 2, 1949, and the changes of ownership
of the plant involved.
The law is well settled that where a union has been certified by the Board its
majority status is presumed to continue until circumstances appear which rebut
that presumption and justify a refusal to bargain 20 In the opinion of the under-
signed no such circumstances exist herein. As noted above, throughout the
period involved herein the normal complement of employees has remained sub-
stantially constant and throughout this period some, if not all, of these employees
have had their union dues deducted and as late as February 1952 all of the
employees were having such deductions. Respondents were well aware of this
situation and raised no claim that less than a majority of the employees were
having their union dues deducted and neither Respondents nor the employees
invoked the processes of this Board to eliminate the Union as bargaining agent.
In addition, by virtue of the settlement agreements (especially the one executed
October 30, 1951) Respondents' were bound to bargain in good faith with the
Union for a reasonable period of time after such agreement, without questioning
the Union's majority status. The settlement agreements (especially the one
dated October 30, 1951) constituted a basis for future liability and bound
Respondents to bargain in good faith for a reasonable period of time, even if,
as was not the case here, the Union clearly did not represent a majority of the
20 See Medo Corp . v. N. L. R. B., 321 U . S. 678 ; Franks Bros. v. N. L R. B., 321 U. S.
702 ; and N. L. R B. v. Tower Hosiery Mills, 180 F 2d 701, 706 and cases cited therein.
21 Any contention that Respondent Tricot was not bound by the terms of the settlement
agreement of October 30, 1951, must be, and hereby is, rejected by the undersigned See
N. L. R. B v. Arthur J. Colton et at. d/b/a Kiddie Kover Mfg. Co., 105 F 2d 179; Krimm
Lumber, 97 NLRB 1574; Indianapolis Wire-Bound Boa Company, 93 NLRB 875; Autopart
Mfg. Co, 91 NLRB 80; L B. Hosiery Company, Inc., 88 NLRB 1000. enforced in 187 F.
2d 335,; Stonewall Cotton, 80 NLRB 325, 328 ; and Alexander Milburn Company, 78
NLRB 747.
250983-vol. 102-53-76
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees . See Poole Foundry and Machine Company, 192 F. 2d 740, cert. den.
342 U. S. 954.
As hereinafter noted the undersigned believes Respondents' refusals to bargain
occurred prior to April 29, 1952, when King stated "he wouldn't recognize any
union unless he was shown a majority." 22 However, assuming, arguendo, that
the refusal to bargain dates from April 29, 1952, it appears, and the undersigned
finds, that a "reasonable period of time after the settlement agreement" of Octo-
ber 30, 1951, had not elapsed and that, under the circumstances revealed by this
record, Respondents should not be permitted, within 6 months after the agree-
ment, to refuse to bargain.
The record is clear that Respondents did meet with the Union on various
occasions but such conduct does not necessarily satisfy the bargaining obliga-
tion, for the obligation of the Act requires that bargaining shall be conducted in
complete good faith. It is believed that Respondents have not complied with
this requirement. While no one fact is necessarily determinative of Respond-
ents' good faith and all elements must be examined and appraised , it is believed
that Respondents' lack of good faith is evidenced, inter alia , by the following:
1. The contract provides for adjustment of grievances at successive stages
culminating in arbitration. In accordance therewith 2 arbiters-1 appointed by
the Union and 1 by the Employer-heard a dispute in June 1950 but were not
able to agree upon a proper resolution of this matter 23 Thereafter the Union
sought to process this matter further and, in accordance with the contract, sought
a third arbiter from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Although
aware of the results of the arbitration proceedings before the two arbiters,
Respondent Southerland's advised the Mediation and Conciliation Service that
it was not so advised and requested to be "brought up to date on this matter."
Upon being "brought up to date" Respondent Southerland's, in September 1950,
nevertheless refused to "select any arbitrator" and thus foreclosed the use of
the final stage of the grievance procedure. Also since March 1951 Respondents
have failed to honor an arbitration award made concerning another disputed
matter. In the opinion of the undersigned Respondents' treatment of these
grievances manifested less than wholehearted cooperation with the Union and
in the light of the entire record is an indication of lack of good faith in bar-
gaining. See Alexander Milburn Co., 62 NLRB 482; George E. Carroll, 56 NLRB
935; N. L. R. B. v. Seifer, d/b/a Ideal Leather Novelty Co., 145 F. 2d 237 enforcing
54 NLRB 761; and Louis Hornick & Co. Inc., 2 NLRB 983.
22 It has long been the policy of the Board to honor settlement agreements reached with
the approval of an agent of the Board , unless the agreement has been breached or unless
the alleged unfair labor practices have been continued in such a way that it seems neces-
sary to go behind the agreement in order to effectuate the policies of the Act Wooster
Brags Company , 80 NLRB 1633, 1634 , and cases cited. And see The Wallace Corporation
v. N. L. R. B , 323 U S. 248 , 254-5: Poole Foundry f Machine Co v. N L. R B , 192 F.
2d 740 (C. A. 4) ; N. L. R. B. v. May Department Stores Company, 154 F. 2d 533, 539
(C. A. 8). The Board 's practice in such a case is not to consider as evidence of unfair
labor practices conduct of a Respondent antedating the settlement , unless the Respondent
has failed to comply with the agreement or has engaged in independent unfair labor prac-
tices since the settlement . Larrance Tank Corporation, 94 NLRB 352; Rice-Stir of
Arkansas, Inc., 79 NLRB 1333, 1334 , and cases cited It is contended herein that Respond-
ents have not complied fully with the settlement agreement approved by the Board's
Regional Director on November 19, 1951, and that since the settlement independent unfair
labor practices have occurred . For reasons hereinafter noted, the undersigned finds these
contentions have merit . Attention is directed primarily to the unilateral wage increases
granted after the settlement and to the refusals to bargain on and after April 29, 1952.
21 It is noted that this dispute arose and was processed after a prior arbitration board
had rejected Respondent Southerland 's contention that the February 15, 1950 , contract
is void.
SOUTHERLAND' S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC . 1191
2. Respondents' unilateral action in increasing the pay of employees while
maintaining at meetings with the Union inability to grant wage increases is
per se violative of Respondents' duty to bargain with the chosen representative
of the employees. (See Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 678;
N. L. R. B. v. Crompton-Highland Mills, Inc., 337 U. S. 217; Dixie Culvert Mfg.
Co., 87 NLRB 554; and Shannon and Simpson Casket Company, 99 NLRB 430.)
3. Respondents' delays in arranging for meetings requested by the Union and
Respondent Southerland's failure to appear, and to give the Union timely notice
of its intentions not to appear, for scheduled conferences suggests an intention
to delay and impede the bargaining process and is not compatible with a good-
faith effort to reach agreement by compromise.
4. Respondent Tricot's refusal to recognize the Union on and after April 29,
1952, unless shown proof of majority was clearly violative of the obligation to
bargain absent circumstances justifying such a position. As noted above the
undersigned believes no such circumstances existed and that on these dates
Respondent Tricot was required by law to bargain in good faith with the Union.
5. The general tenor of the evidence is that Respondents took a somewhat
casual approach toward their obligation to bargain and that they went through
some of the motions of collective bargaining without any intention to facilite
an early and successful agreement by compromise, but merely to preserve the
appearance of bargaining.
ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In view of the foregoing and upon consideration of the entire record herein,
the undersigned makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law :
1. During the period of its operation of the Elizabethton plant Respondent
Southerland's was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, and Respondent Tricot is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
2. United Textile Workers of America, A. F. of L., is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Elizabethton plant, ex-
cluding office and clerical employees, supervisors, guards, and professional em-
ployees as defined in the Act.
4. At all times since December 2, 1949, the Union has been the exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforementioned unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment.
5. On or about July 10, 1950, and at all times thereafter Respondents unlaw-
fully refused and have continued to refuse to bargain collectively with the
Union as the representative of the employees in the unit heretofore found
appropriate.
6. The aforesaid conduct of Respondents constitutes unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that Respondents by illegal acts violated Section 8 (a)
(1) and (5) of the Act, it is recommended that the action hereinafter specified
be taken in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since the record herein
reveals that Respondent Tricot now operates the Elizabethton plant as successor-
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employer to Respondent Southerland's and that Respondent Southerland's
does not now actively participate in the operation of said plant , it is believed
that the policies of the Act will be adequately effectuated if Respondent Tricot,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns take the action hereinafter specified.
(Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, TENTH REGION
Room 537, Peachtree -Seventh Building
50 Seventh Street , Northeast
Atlanta 5 , Georgia
Mr. Roy C. Nelson,
Attorney-at-Law,
609 Elk Avenue,
Elizabethton, Tennessee
February 7, 1952.
RE : Southerland 's Tennessee Company, Inc.
Case No. 10-CA-1078
Dear Mr . Nelson :
You will recall that I talked with you on January 9, 1952, relative to the
status of the above -entitled case and requested that you keep this office
advised as to any developments and you stated that you would do so. I
have received from Joseph Jacobs , Southern Director of the Union, a let-
ter to which was attached copies of correspondence between the Company
and the Union , the last letter from the Union being dated February 5, 1952.
I am attaching copies of this correspondence.
It is requested that you immediately advise this office as to the steps your
Company has taken or is taking in compliance with the Settlement Agree-
ment . In the event compliance is not shown in the immediate future it
will be necessary for me to recommend that the Settlement be set aside and
an Order of the Board be sought.
Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Yours very truly,
/s/ Frank E. Hamilton, Jr.
FRANK E. HAMILTON, Jr.,
Attorney.
Enclosures
cc : Mr. T. J. King, Vice-President
Southerland's Tennessee Company, Inc.,
300 West Elk Avenue,
Elizabethton, Tennessee.
Joseph Jacobs, Southern Director
United Textile Workers of America, AFL
Wigwam Building, 160 Central Avenue, S. W.,
Atlanta, Georgia.
Mr. Everett F. Dean
International Representative, UTWA-AFL
404 West Pine Street,
Johnson City, Tennessee.
SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY,
Appendix B
ROY C. NELSON,
Attorney and Counsellor at Law
Elizabethton , Tennessee
JOHN L. BOWERS, JR.
Associate
Mr. Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., Attorney,
National Labor Relations Board,
Tenth Region,
Room 537 Peachtree-Seventh Building,
50 Seventh Street, Northeast,
Atlanta 5, Georgia
Dear Mr. Hamilton :
INC. 1193
February 15, 1952.
Re: Southerland 's Tennessee Co., Inc.
Case No. 10-CA-1078
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 7th. I think
Mr. King has tried to be present for meetings , but he has had to be out of
Town . To my knowledge Mr. King was out of the City on business on
February 1st and Mr . Dean was so advised by this office. We are also
advised Mr. Dean 's letter seeking to arrange the meeting on that date was
delivered several days late.
We are advised of a very astounding situation by Mr. King. He states
he did not receive the letter , a copy of which you sent us dated February 5th,
until February 9th, 1952 . The letter was then mailed or post marked "Rome,
Georgia". We do not feel this is fair for these people to send out letters
like that and withhold mailing as alleged by Mr. King.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Roy C. Nelson
Roy C. NEr.soN
RCN/bb
CC : Mr. Thomas J. King, Vice-President,
Southerland 's Tennessee Co., Inc.,
Elk Avenue,
Elizabethton , Tennessee.
Appendix C
TENNESSEE TRICOT MILLS, INC.
309 W. Elk Ave. Elizabethton, Tenn.
April 17, 1952
Registered Mail
Mr. Everett Dean, Int. Rep.
P. O. Box 812,
Johnson City, Tenn.
Dear Mr. Dean :
This is to advice that the date, place and time for our meeting specified
in your letter of April 12, 1952, meets with our approval.
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Please be further advised that Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc., assumes that
you request this meeting for the purpose of bargaining collectively with
respect to rates of pay, hours of employment and other conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached, will embody such under-
standing in a signed contract.
Yours very truly,
TENNESSEE TRICOT MILLS, INC.
/s/ T. J. King
T. J. KING
TJK/pc
CC : Mr. Frank Hamilton, Attorney at Law,
National Labor Relations Board,
Atlanta, Ga.
Appendix D
The Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc.,
Elizabethton,
Tennessee
June 16, 1952.
Re : Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc., Etc.
Case No. 10-CA-1078
Gentlemen :
Even though the National Labor Relations Board issued its complaint in
the above matter, and has set same down for a hearing on July 21, 1952, it
occurs to me that if we can, through arranging a bargaining session, sit
down and endeavor to reach an agreement between your company and the
United Textile Workers of America, AFL, that it might be to the best interest
of all concerned.
I am, therefore, writing to ask if your company would be willing to arrange
such meeting, at any time during the week of June 23 or June 30, with repre-
sentatives of our Union and the Local Negotiating Committee.
As I understand it, the certification of our union is still in full force and
effect, and applies to your company.
Will you please be good enough to advise me whether this suggestion for
a meeting meets with your approval, and would you suggest alternate dates
when such meeting can be held.
Yours very truly,
/s/ Joseph Jacobs
JOSEPH JACOBS,
Southern Director,
UTWA-AFL.
JJ: ss
cc : Mr. Roy C. Nelson, Attorney, 609 Elk Avenue, Elizabethton, Tenn.
Mr. Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., National Labor Relations Board, Atlanta
Mr. Everett Dean, P. O. Box 812, Johnson City, Tennessee
SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1195
Appendix E
ROY C. NELSON
Attorney At Law
609 Elk Avenue
Elizabethton, Tennessee
Telephone 8811
Mr. Joseph Jacobs, Southern Director
United Textile Workers of America, AFL,
Wigwam Building,
160 Central Avenue, S. W.,
Atlanta 3, Georgia
June 23, 1952.
Dear Mr. Jacobs :
Re : Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc.
Case No. 10-CA-1078
It is certainly a surprise to this office to receive a copy of your letter dated
June 16th, addressed to Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc., suggesting we set a
date for a meeting in which to sit down and endeavor to reach an agreement.
We have made all manner of efforts to set a date which would be agreeable.
We presume Mr. King will reply to your letter.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Roy C. Nelson
Roy C. NELSON
RCN/bb
CC: Mr. Frank E. Hamilton, Jr.,
National Labor Relations Board,
Atlanta, Georgia
Mr. Everett Dean,
P. O. Box 812,
Johnson City, Tennessee
Mr. Thomas J. King,
Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc.,
Elizabethton, Tennessee
1196
Appendix F
Tel. Elizabethton 2-7673
TENNESSEE TRICOT MILLS, Inc.
309 WEST ELK AVENUE, ELIZABETHTON, TENN.
June 23, 1952.
Mr. Joseph Jacobs, Southern Director,
United Textile Workers of America, AFL,
Wigwam Building,
160 Central Avenue, S. W.,
Atlanta 3, Georgia
Dear Mr. Jacobs :
Re : Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc., etc.
Case No. 10-CA-1078
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 16, 1952. We do
not exactly understand your request. In as much as you have had the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board cite this Company under proceedings now
pending before that Board we are of the opinion that all matters should be
taken up through the representative of the National Labor Relations Board.
It is the contention of the Tricot Mills that they have, in no way, violated
any laws, contracts, and agreements of any kind. They are ready, at all
times, to comply with all laws, rules, regulations and proper requests.
Therefore, I am sending a copy of this letter to our attorney, and I am
sure that if this matter is properly brought to the attention of the represent-
atives of the National Labor Relations Board or representatives of the
same a time and place can be arranged when we can discuss the matters in
question. We can see no objection to a meeting on the dates suggested
by you.
May it be distinctly understood that we reserve such rights as we may
now have or may later ascertain and reserve, at all times, the rights of the
Tricot Mills.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.
Very truly yours,
TENNESSEE TRICOT MILLS, INC.
By : /s/ T. J. King
CC : Mr. Roy C. Nelson
Mr. Frank E. Hamilton, Jr.
Mr. Everett Dean
Mr. Roy C. Nelson
Attorney at Law
Elizabethton, Tennessee
Appendix G
June 26, 1952.
Re : Tennessee Tricot Mills
Dear Mr. Nelson :
This office received a letter from you on yesterday with reference to the
above matter and another one today.
I regret that we cannot agree that this company has made efforts to set
a date to reach an agreement. There is a difference between being willing
to meet, and being willing to bargain in good faith.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC . 1197
Your response to my letter of June 16 coming at this time makes it im-
possible for us to set a conference this week, since the week is half over.
I also have a letter of the 23rd signed by Mr. King which patently reads
like an effort to bolster the company's position in an NLRB hearing rather
than to arrange to meet and bargain with our Union for a contract.
It is obvious that we are in disagreement as to prior events. It is our
purpose and intent however, if we can arrange a conference to enter same
with an open mind and with the view of endeavoring to reach a collective
bargaining agreement. Our Mr. Dean will contact Mr. King for such
purpose.
Yours very truly,
JOSEPH JACOBS,
SOUTHERN DIRECTOR,
UTWA-AFL.
JJ : ss
cc : Mr. Everett Dean
Mr. Thomas King, Tennessee Tri-cot Mills, Elizabethton, Tenn.
Mr. Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., NLRB, Atlanta, Georgia
Appendix H
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMER-
ICA, A. F. OF L., as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit described below with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bar-
gaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees at our Elizabethton, Ten-
nessee establishment, excluding office and clerical employees, supervisors,
guards, and professional employees as defined in the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT take any unilateral action in derogation of the above-named
union's right to act as the exclusive representative of our employees in the
above-described unit, with respect to any matter properly subject to the
collective-bargaining process.
WE WILL NOT interfere, in any other manner, with the efforts of the union
to bargain collectively with us in regard to the above-mentioned matters,
as the exclusive representative of our employees in the appropriate unit
described above.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming mem-
bers of the above-named union or any other labor organization.
TENNESSEE TRICOT MILLS, INC.,
Employer.
By --------------------------------------------
Dated --------------------
(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.