Southern Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1941

32 N.L.R.B. 141 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

III the Matter of SOUTHERN MANUFACTURING COMPANY and AMALGAM-
ATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE
C. I. O.
Case No. C-1629.-Decided May 27, 1941
Jurisdiction : garment manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor practices.
Interference, Restraint and Coercion: charges of, dismissed
Company -Dominated Union: charges of, dismissed.
Discrimination: charges of, dismissed.
Practice and Procedure : complaint dismissed.
Mr. John C. McKee and Mr. Clarence D. Musser, for the Board.
Cochran cC White, by Mr. Carmack Cochran, and Mr. Weldon B.
White, of Nashville, Tenn., for the respondent.
Mr. John H. Lechleiter, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Association.
Mr. W. I. Smith, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Woodrow J. Sandler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges and amended charges having been duly filed by Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America, herein called the Amal-
gamated, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia), issued its complaint, dated April 5, 1940, against Southern
Manufacturing Company, Nashville, Tennessee, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended
at the hearing, alleged in substance that the respondent: (1) since
September 15, 1937, had advised its employees to withdraw from or
to refuse'to affiliate with the Amalgamated, had threatened them
with discharge if they engaged in activities in behalf of the Amal-
32 N L R. R., No. 31.
141
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gamated, and had "committed, authorized, instigated, and acquiesced
in" other specified acts of a similar nature with reference to its
employees' self-organizational activity; (2) since on or about October
14, 1937, dominated and interfered with the formation and adminis-
tration of the Garment Workers' Association of Nashville, herein
called the Association, and contributed support thereto ; (3) since
on or about April 8, 1939, discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Margaret White and Mildred White; (4)
discriminatorily discharged Myrtle Merritt on or about November 6,
1939, and Grace Summers, Annie Higgs, Pauline Hargrove, Mary
Pack, Fannie Reasonover, and Daisie Harris, during the months of
August, September, and November 1939, for the reason that the
said employees joined and assisted the Amalgamated; and (5) by
the aforesaid and other acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
Copies of the complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were
duly served upon the respondent, the Amalgamated, and the Associ-
ation. Thereafter the respondent filed its answer, wherein, as
amended at the hearing, it admitted the allegations of the complaint
concerning the character of its business, but denied that it had en
gaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. The respondent also
alleged in its answer as an affirmative defense that it is not now
subject to any charge of unfair labor practices as to any acts it
performed prior to June 15, 1939, the date on which the Board issued
a Decision and Order 1 based upon a stipulation in settlement of
charges of unfair labor practices theretofore filed against the
respondent by the Amalgamated. The respondent also interposed
other affirmative defenses to the allegations of unfair labor practices.
On April 18, 1940, the Association filed with the Regional Director
an answer and petition for leave to intervene in the proceeding,
wherein it denied that it was dominated or supported by the respond-
ent. The Trial Examiner granted said petition at the opening of
the hearing, limiting the intervention of the Association to the issues
raised concerning it in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Nashville, Tennessee,
from May 2 to 9, 1940, before William P. Webb, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the
respondent, and the Association were represented by counsel; the
Amalgamated by a representative; and all participated in the hear-
ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was
'Matter of Southern Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, 13 N. L. R. B. 304.
SOUTHERN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 143
afforded all the parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial
Examiner made numerous rulings on motions and on objections to
the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of
the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On May 16, 1940, the Board's attorney filed with the Trial Exam-
iner a motion to dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleged that
the respondent had discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure
of employment of Margaret White, Mildred White, Mary Pack,
Daisie Harris, Grace Summers, Annie Higgs, Pauline Hargrove,
and Fannie Reasonover. On the same day the Trial Examiner
notified the respondent, the Association, and the Amalgamated that
said motion had been filed and that he would grant it unless an
objection was filed with him within 3 days.2 Thereafter, in his
Intermediate Report, he stated that he had received no objection
and therein granted the motion. This ruling is hereby affirmed.
On May 23 and 24, 1940, respectively, the Association and the
respondent filed briefs with the Trial Examiner. On July 1, 1940,
the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, copies of which
were duly served upon the parties, in which he found that the re-
spondent had not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), or (3) of the Act and recommended
that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. Thereafter the
Amalgamated filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the
respondent filed a reply to these exceptions.
The Board has considered the exceptions and the reply thereto
and, save as the exceptions are consistent with the findings, conclu-
sions, and order set forth below, finds no merit in them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Southern Manufacturing Company, is a Tennessee
corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
work shirts, pants, and dress shirts. The principal raw materials
used by the respondent during 1939 were cloth, thread, and buttons,
valued at approximately $400,000, approximately 65 per cent of
'The notification was by telegram dated May 16, 1940. In the telegram, however, the
Trial Examiner failed to advise the parties that the motion to dismiss by the Board's
attorney included the names of Margaret White and Mildred White . This omission was
not prejudicial , since in any event no evidence was introduced at the hearing to support
the allegations of the complaint with respect to these two employees . Moreover, no excep-
tions were filed to the ruling of the Trial Examiner dismissing the complaint as to these
two individuals.
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which were obtained by the respondent from points outside the
State of Tenneessee. During the same year the respondent pro-
duced approximately 140,000 dozen garments, valued at approxi-
mately $850,000, of which the respondent shipped approximately
35 per cent to points outside the State of Tennessee. The respondent
admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce.
The respondent operates three plants in Nashville, Tennessee;
it manufactures work shirts in the "No. 1 plant," which is located
at 5th and Cedar Streets, and dress shirts and pants, respectively,
at the "No. 2 plant" and the "No. 3 plant," both of which are located
at 1202-4 Broad Street 3 in Nashville.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Local
361, in Nashville , Tennessee , admits to its membership production
and maintenance employees of the respondent.
Garment Workers' Association of Nashville ' is an unaffiliated
labor organization , admitting to its membership production employees
of the respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The alleged domination of, interference with , and support to
the Association
During the summer of 1937, prior to the respondent's entry into
business in Nashville, three former employees of the Washington
Manufacturing Company,,' Thelma Brooks, Mamie Demerich, and
Mickie Tubbs, who were desirous of persuading the Washington
Company to reopen its plants, decided to form a movement among
its former employees to this end. They asked John H. Lechleiter,
P. Nashville attorney, to aid them and he suggested that the former
employees form an organization. Pursuant to this suggestion,
Brooks and Demerich called a meeting of such former employees
on July 23, 1937, in a local hotel. Approximately 600 former em-
ployees of the Washington Company attended the meeting, but
an undetermined number left the meeting after Attorney Lechleiter
told those assembled that his "whole heart and soul was in favor
3 Prior to January 1939 the No . 2 and No. 3 plants were in separate buildings at different
addresses
4 This organization was originally called "Garment Workers' Association of the Southern
Manufacturing Company." Its name was changed to the above on August 7, 1939 (see
Section III A, infra).
8 Herein called the Washington Company The Washington Company had closed its
three Nashville plants on May 1, 1937.
SOUTHERN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 145
of breaking up the C. I. O. and running them out of Nashville.6
Lechleiter urged those who remained to form an "independent associ-
ation" and they thereupon passed a resolution instructing Lechleiter
to draw up a "back to work" petition and to help them form an
organization. Lechleiter prepared such a petition but it appears
never to have been circulated. On or about September 7, 1937,
however, Lechleiter prepared another petition, urging the Washing-
ton Company "and/or any lessee or purchaser of same" to reopen
its plants, and this petition was thereafter signed by 59 of the former
employees.
On September 14, 1937, the respondent purchased the Washington
Company's three plants 7 and on the following day, by means of
an advertisement in a local newspaper, it requested all the former
employees of the Washington Company to apply to it for employ-
ment. The record shows no connection between the respondent and
the Washington Company.
Sometime within the next 2 weeks Lechleiter told P. M. French,
the respondent's president, that he represented a majority of the
respondent's prospective employees and that he desired to "arrange
for bargaining." French testified that inasmuch as he was aware
of the controversy that had existed between the Washington Com-
pany and its former employees, he at that time refused Lechleiter's
request and did not investigate Lechleiter's claim of majority repre-
sentation. Lechleiter and French had never met each other prior
to this occasion. Nor had Lechleiter ever acted as attorney for
either the ,respondent or French.
The respondent actually entered into business on or about Sep-
tember 30, 1937. Up to that time no steps had been taken to perfect
the organization of the Association. As stated above, however, a
number of the respondent's employees who had formerly been em-
ployed by the Washington Company were members of the Amal-
gamated. On October 13, 1937, representatives of the Amalgamated,
claiming that it represented a majority of the respondent's em-
ployees in its three plants, requested the respondent to recognize it
as the exclusive representative of such employees and requested a
conference with the respondent for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining. French, on behalf of the respondent, told the Amalgamated
representatives to address their request to him in writing, and they
did so on the same day. Directly thereafter, and during working
hours on the same day, French called a meeting of the respondent's
9 Marv of the former employees of the Washington Company were members of the
Amalgamated
7 At this time the respondent's name was 'Hermitage Manufacturing Company." Its
name was changed to the present name on September 16, 1937.
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees in the No. 2 plant." Board witnesses testified, over the
respondent's objection, that French told the assembled employees
that the Amalgamated had requested exclusive recognition by the
respondent, that they should, not "sign up" with the Amalgamated
if they "wanted to work," and that whenever a majority of them
joined the Amalgamated the respondent would close its plant. They
further testified that French "said he was violating the Wagner
Act, but he did not care, he would stand the test." French did not
deny any of the above testimony except the statement with refer-
ence to the respondent's closing its plant. In view of French's
failure to deny most of the testimony concerning his statements, we
do not credit his denial of any single statement which is consistent
with the others attributed to him, and we therefore find that he made
all the foregoing statements substantially as testified to by the
Board's witnesses. On the following day, October 14, 1937, French
again called together the employees in the No. 2 plant during work-
ing hours and addressed remarks to them substantially similar to
his remarks of the previous day.
The respondent's objection at the hearing to the admission of
the above evidence is based upon the following facts : On June 15,
1939, the Board issued its Decision and Order,9 wherein it ordered
the respondent to cease and desist from unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act and to take certain
affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. The respond-
ent contends that it complied with the Board's order and that it
cannot now be charged with any unfair labor practices alleged to
have been committed prior to the date of such Decision and Order.
The Trial Examiner ruled at the hearing and in his Intermediate
Report that since no charge that the respondent had violated Sec-
tion 8 (2) of the Act was involved in the prior Decision and Order
of the Board, evidence as to alleged violations of Section 8 (2) by
the respondent prior to the date thereof was not barred in the instant
case. He therefore admitted the foregoing testimony, but only in
so far as it had bearing on the allegation of the complaint herein
that the respondent had violated Section 8 (2) of the Act. His
ruling is hereby affirmed.
Beginning on October 15, 1937, Lechleiter proceeded with the
organization of the Association. On that date, 337 of the respond-
ent's employees in Plant No. 1 signed statements which had been
8 The record does not show whether or not French called similar meetings at the respond-
ent's other two plants
O Matter at Southern Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, 13 N. L. R. B. 304. This decision was rendered pursuant to a stipulation entered
into by the respondent , the Amalgamated , and counsel for the Board , in settlement of
unfair labor practice charges which the Amalgamated originally filed against the respond-
ent on September 13, 1938.
SOUTHERN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 147
prepared by Lechleiter, and which were presented to them for
signature by other employees outside of that plant, wherein they
agreed to form an independent labor organization, appointed a com-
mittee, of five employees to prepare bylaws for such an organization
and agreed to hold a meeting of such organization on October 22,
1937. The meeting was held as scheduled at a theatre in Nashville.
At this meeting the employees present adopted bylaws which had
been prepared by Lechleiter. The bylaws provided that the organi-
zation was to be known as the "Garment Workers Association of
the Southern Manufacturing Co."; for a "Workers' Committee" of
five employees to represent the organization for collective bargain-
ing purposes ; for regular monthly membership meetings ; that any
employees who had signed the agreement to form the Association
or who attended the meeting at which the bylaws had been adopted
automatically became members of the Association ; and for dues of
25 cents per month. The Association having thus been organized,
it requested on November 2, 1937, that the respondent recognize it
as the exclusive representative of the respondent's employees 10 in
Plant No. 1.11 French refused to grant such recognition and told
the Workers' Committee of the Association that he would "take it
up with the Board of Directors."
The respondent having refused to recognize the Association, it
lapsed into inactivity. According to Lechleiter, "we had not heard
from Mr. French, and things just sort of drifted along. There was
no particular disturbance at the plant, and the Association may
have had some meetings, but I did not attend them . . ." It also
appears that organizational activity at the respondent's plants on
the part of the Amalgamated ceased after its initial request for
recognition, to which the respondent apparently never replied.
Early in the summer of 1939 both the Association and the Amal-
gamated renewed their organizational activity at the respondent's
plants. On several occasions during this period Mrs. Miller Moore,
the respondent's timekeeper and pay-roll clerk at Plant No. 1, who
had been secretary of the Association in 1937,12 solicited employees'
memberships. French testified that Moore's activities were first
brought to his attention by Clyde M. Mills, Southern director for
the Amalgamated. After learning of such activity, French told
Moore that she "must not solicit members or distribute any literature
on company time or company property under any circumstances for
any organization." In addition, on July 18, 1939, French and Mills
agreed upon a form of notice which was thereafter posted by the
10 The Association claimed to represent 310 of 380 employees at Plant No. 1.
11 At this time the Association had not conducted any organizational campaign at Plants
Nos 2 and 3.
12 Moore did not hold any office in the Association after July 24, 1939.
448692-42-vol 32-11
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent in its plants. 1.3 Mills then requested French to go "one
step further" and personally instruct supervisors to remain aloof
from union activity. A form of statement was agreed upon by
French Mills, a Federal labor conciliator, and a Tennessee. Com-
missioner of Labor, which French read to all the respondent's super-
visory and office employees, including Moore at Mills' insistence,
on August 11, 1939.14 There is no evidence that Moore engaged in
any activity on behalf of the Association thereafter.
On July 28, 1939, the Association again requested exclusive recog-
nition of it by the respondent as the representative of the respond-
ent's employees in Plant No. 1. The respondent refused this request
on the ground that the Association had submitted no proof of its
majority representation in that plant. On August 7, 1939, pursuant
to a request by the respondent, the Association changed its name
to "Garment Workers' Association of Nashville." At the same time
The text of the notice was as follows :
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Information has come to us that several employees are actively engaged in
securing members in some organization of employees of the Southern Manufacturing
Company. This activity has been carried on during working hours. The situation
has reached a point where two or more organizations are competing for member-
ship with the result that dissension and disruption of working schedules have
occurred.
We intend to abide by the laws of the land. We have posted a notice that we
will not discourage membership In a labor organization. We will not violate that
Order, and we will not permit any supervisory employee to violate the spirit of
that order by soliciting membership in any labor organization or by discriminating
against any employee because of his or her membership in any labor organization.
Any employee of the Southern Manufacturing Company who, during working
hours, tales any active part in securing members for ANY organization or dis-
tributes literature or pamphlets tin the plant will be discharged.
We sincerely trust that this penalty will not be necessary.
[S] SOUTHERN MFG. CO.
P. M. French
[s] P. M. FRENCH
14 The following is the text of the notice read by French:
AUGUST 11, 1939.
To the Supervisory Employees of Southern Manufacturing Co
In view of the situation which exists as to employee organizations, we take this
method of giving you the following instructions :
This Company and its management are not interested in the formation or pro-
motion of either the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the Garment
Workers Association of Nashville, or any other labor organization. You are in-
structed, therefore, to take no action to either encourage or discourage membership
in any such organization. You will express no opinion concerning or preference
of any such organization in your dealings with your subordinates, or applicants for
employment, and will refrain from discussing with your subordinates or applicants
for employment the merits or demerits of any such organization.
We are informed that certain of these organizations contemplate having meetings
from time to time. Since there is a possibility of your actions being chargeable to
this company, we will appreciate your refraining from taking an active part in
these meetings.
In general you will refrain from undertaking to influence subordinates or appli-
cants for employment concerning any controversy which exists, or which may arise
with reference to the choice of a bargaining agency for production employees of
this company.
SOUTHERN MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
By [s] P. M. FRENCH, President.
SOUTHERN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 149
the bylaws of the Association were amended to admit to membership
the respondent's employees in all three plants. On September 5,
1939, the Association, claiming to represent a majority of the em-
ployees in the three plants, again requested exclusive recognition
by the respondent. The respondent again refused, however, this
time for the stated reason that the Amalgamated also claimed to
represent a majority of its employees and had filed charges with
the Board to the effect that the Association was an illegal company-
dominated union. No further requests for recognition were made
by the Association.
From the foregoing, it appears that Lechleiter conceived the idea
of the Association and organized it, and that the respondent had no
connection with his activities. Nor do we see in the foregoing facts
any other proscribed connection between the respondent and the
Association. Under the circumstances we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the respondent has not dominated or interfered
with the formation or administration of the Association, or con-
tributed support thereto.
B. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Myrtle Merritt
The complaint alleges that the respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged Myrtle Merritt on or about November 6, 1939, because she
joined and assisted the Amalgamated.
Merritt was employed by the respondent on April 17, 1939, pur-
suant to the Decision and Order of the Board dated June 15, 1939.'
She had formerly been employed by the Washington Company as
an operator on the button-hole machine, and she worked in the same
capacity for the respondent in its No. 3 plant until her discharge.
Merritt had joined the Amalgamated in March 1937. After her
employment by the respondent, she openly solicited her fellow em-
ployees' membership in the Amalgamated on the respondent's
property, although not during working hours. She ceased such
activity, however, after the respondent posted the aforementioned
notice in July 1939 prohibiting all union activity on its premises.
In June 1939 Merritt was elected president of the Amalgamated.
On occasions she had conferred with French together with other
representatives of the Amalgamated.
Merritt was discharged by the respondent on November 6, 1939,
the respondent asserting that she could not produce enough work
to earn the minimum pay which the respondent was required to pay
is Matter of Southern Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, 13 N. L. R. B. 304. The complaint in that case alleged that the respondent, on
March 29 , 1938, had refused to employ Merritt because she was a member of the Amalgam-
ated In the stipulation settling the case, the respondent agreed to "reinstate" Merritt,
and the Board 's Order also so provided.
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
her under the Fair Labor Standards Act.- Merritt's pay-roll record,
the accuracy of which is undisputed, shows that she worked 25 weeks
for the respondent during the period from April 17 to November 6,
1939, that she failed to earn the minimum wage for 21 weeks during
that period, and that the respondent had to "make up" the balance.
During this period the respondent had to pay Merritt a total
`.make-up" of $23.76.
When Merritt was first employed by the respondent she was told
that during the slack winter season she would have to learn to
operate the serging machine 17 in addition to operating the button-
hole machine, since there was not enough button-hole work to keep
even one operator busy during such season. However, Merritt never
learned to perform the serging operation well. On the other hand,
Opal Johnson, an employee of the respondent who had been removed
from the button-hole machine when Merritt was employed, had
always earned more than her minimum wage, serging and button-
holing.
French testified that he had been concerned over Merritt's inability
to "make her production," because "I knew she was an officer in
her union . . . and we wanted to prove . . . to all the employees
... that I was particularly anxious that any of the ones that had
been ordered to be put back by the Board to make good, and I did
everything in my power to make them make good." French dis-
cussed the matter on several occasions with Merritt and with her
forelady. On September 27, 1939, French asked Merritt whether
she would agree to learn some other operation, at which she might
be able to earn her guaranteed minimum wage, but Merritt refused,
stating that button-holing was the only work she knew. On Novem-
ber 6, 1939, 2 weeks after the guaranteed minimum wage for the
industry had been raised from 25 to 30 cents per hour, French
again spoke to Merritt about her inability to "make her production,"'
and told her that he had other employees who could perform her
work more efficiently. He told her that the respondent could not
.'stand this make-up," that he intended to put Opal Johnson back
to work on Merritt's machine, and that he would call Merritt back.
if Johnson did not prove more efficient than she. The respondent
thereupon discharged Merritt.
The respondent never recalled Merritt, nor did she ever reapply
to the respondent for employment. Although Merritt immediately
16 At the time Meri itt was first employed , the guaranteed minimum wage to production
employees in the garment industry in Nashville under the Fair Labor Standards Act was
25 cents per hour. On October 24, 1939, 2 weeks prior to Merritt ' s discharge, the
guaranteed minimum was raised to 30 cents per hour
17 "Serging" consists of stitching the raw edge of the material to prevent the material
from raveling.
SOUTHERN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 151
reported her discharge to the Amalgamated, it did not then protest
it or discuss it with the respondent.
French testified that Merritt's discharge was precipitated by the
fact that the guaranteed minimum wage for the industry had been
raised from 25 to 30 cents per hour on October 24, 1939. In addition
to Merritt, 40 or 50 other employees were laid off by the respondent
during the fall of 1939 because of their inability to earn their guar-
anteed minimum wage. Concerning Merritt's discharge, the Trial
Examiner found : "The record shows that respondent employed
Merritt in order to comply with the Board's order as afore-
mentioned, that she was laid off on November 6, 1939, because of
her inability to make the minimum wage and for no other reason,
and that respondent retained Merritt in its employ as long as it.
did in order to give her every opportunity to make her production
but that she failed to do so. The undersigned finds that Myrtle
Merritt was laid off by respondent on November 6, 1939, in due
course of business and for reasons other than those alleged in the
complaint, and that respondent has not discriminated in regard to
the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of her
employment." We concur in these findings.
We find that the respondent did not discriminate in regard to the
hire or tenure of employment of Merritt to discourage membership
in the Amalgamated.
C. Other alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint alleges that the respondent, since September 15,
1937, told its employees not to join the Amalgamated, threatened
them with discharge if they engaged in activities in behalf of the
Amalgamated, and engaged in other acts of a similar nature designed
to discourage the employees' self-organization activity.
The only evidence adduced at the hearing in support of such
allegations 18 is the following : Edward Blair, an employee in the
respondent's cutting room and a member of the executive board of
the Amalgamated, testified that in April 1940 he complained to
Foreman Swift that his pay was too low and that Swift replied,
"Well, they have not had anybody in there in the last four or five
years raising as much hell as you did." Blair further testified that
Swift told him that he could not expect an increase in pay until he
"cut that out," and "got right." On cross-examination Blair ad-
mitted that on October 20, 1939, he had left the plant before the
close of the working day and had persuaded another employee to
"punch out" the clock for him later in order to make it appear that
18 Other than the evidence which we have held in Section III A, supra, to be inadmissible
to prove such allegations in view of the Board's prior Decision and Order
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lie had worked until closing time. He also admitted that when ques-
tioned by French he had twice made false statements concerning the
incident, in order to protect himself and the employee who had
"punched out" for him. In view of Blair's background, as set forth
above, we believe that his testimony is insufficient to show that
Swift, if he made the remarks testified to by Blair, had reference
in his remarks to Blair's activity in behalf of the Amalgamated.
Blair further testified that on one other occasion Swift had said
to him, ". . . you can't expect a C. I. O. to tell anything but damn
lies; that is about all they do, is tell damn lies." Swift did not
testify at the hearing.- The Trial Examiner did not credit Blair's
testimony, nor do we.
We find that the evidence does not sustain the allegations of the
complaint as set forth above and find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that the respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
Since we have found that the respondent has not engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2),
or (3) of the Act, we shall order the complaint dismissed.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLusIONs OF LAW
1. Southern Manufacturing Company is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and Garment
Workers' Association of Nashville, are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), or (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the complaint against the respondent, Southern Manufacturing
Company, Nashville, Tennessee, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.
MR. WM. M. LEISERSON, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the result but I would not have admitted a repetition
of a portion of the testimony involving a violation of Section 8 (1)
of the Act, which presumably was part of the basis of the order
entered by the Board against the respondent with the respondent's
consent on June 15, 1939.