Standard Knitting Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 5, 1940

25 N.L.R.B. 168 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC, and FEDERAL
TEXTILE LABOR UNION No. 21751, AFFILIATED WITH THE AmERrcAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C-1509-Decided July 5, 194,0
Jurisdiction : garment manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
In general: responsibility of employer for acts of employees.
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: espionage and surveillance; anti-union
statements ; interrogation concerning union membership.
Discrimination: discharges, lay-offs, and demotions for union membership and
activity ; charges of, dismissed as to two employees.
Remedial Orders: reinstatement and back pay awarded.
Mr. Clarence D. Musser, for the Board.
Kramer and McNabb, by Mr. R. R. Kramer, and Mr. Len G.
Broughton, of Knoxville, Tenn., for the respondent.
Messrs. R. 0. Ross, of Knoxville, Tenn., John W. Pollard, of
Spartanburg S. C., and Herbert Thatcher, of Washington, D. C., for
the Union.
Mr. David Delman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Federal Textile
Labor Union No. 21751,1 affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint, dated November 4,
1939, against Standard Knitting Mills, Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee,
herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
'Incorrectly designated in the complaint as Federal Textile Labor Union #21751.
25 N. L. R. B., No. 20.
168
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 169
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hear-
ing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended,2
alleged in substance that the respondent (1) discharged 10 of its em-
ployees 3 on the dates set forth in the complaint, refused to reemploy,
them until the dates set opposite the name of each in the complaint,
and refused to reimburse them for their respective periods of unnem-
ployment, because they joined and assisted the Union and engaged in
concerted activities with other employees of the respondent for the
purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection;
(2) discriminatorily placed 2 of the said individuals, when they were
reemployed, in positions less favorable than those they had occupied
at the time of their discharge and refused to reinstate them to their
former positions; (3) discriminatorily transferred Jesse Brooks to a
less favorable position and refused to reinstate him to his former
position; and (4) by its officers, agents, and supervisory employees,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by the above acts ands
by (a) sponsoring the circulation of an anti-union (loyalty) petition
on company property during working hours'; (b) attempting to bribe
members of the Union in an effort to force them to abandon their mem-
bership; (c) urging individual employees not to join the Union and
threatening individual employees with the loss of their jobs if they
remained in the Union; and (d) posting on the bulletin boards at its
plant on or about August 4, 1939, notices discouraging membership in
and activities in behalf of the Union.
On December 8, 1939, the respondent filed its answer, admitting the
allegations concerning the nature of its business, but denying that it
had committed the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Knoxville, Tennessee, from
January 8 to 12, 1940, before Gustaf B. Erickson, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The respondent and the Board were
represented by counsel, and the Union by its representatives; all par-
ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all parties. At the opening of the hearing, the Trial Ex-
aminer granted the motion of counsel for the Board to amend the
complaint to cover the alleged discriminatory discharge of Joe White.
The respondent's motion to amend its answer to deny that it had dis-
criminatorily discharged Joe White was granted. At the conclusion
2 During the hearing the complaint was amended to include the name of Joe White as
one of the employees alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged by the respondent.
8 The names of these employees are as follows • Willie Cox, Guy Owens, Oral Watson,
Sheridan A Pique, James Franklin Owens, John Ray Watson, Earl Holbert , Earl Edward
Robinson , Clemmie Stout, and Joe White.
170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Board's case the respondent moved that the complaint be dis-
missed in so far,as it alleged that it had discriminatorily discharged
Clemmie Stout. Counsel for the Board joined in the respondent's
motion. The motion was granted. At the conclusion of the hearing
the Board's attorney moved to conform the pleadings to the proof with
respect to dates, spelling of names, and typographical errors. The mo-
tion was granted by the Trial Examiner. During the course of the
hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on other 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
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On March 2, 1940, the
respondent submitted a brief in support of its contentions to the Trial
Examiner.
On March 18, 1940, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and the
Union. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had engaged
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recom-
mended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor
practices and take certain affirmative action remedial of their effect.
On April 22,1940, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a request for oral argument before the Board. On May
1, 1940, it filed a brief which the Board has considered. The Union
did not file any exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon all parties, a hearing for the
purpose of oral argument was held before the Board on May 28, 1940,
at Washington, D. C. The respondent and the Union were represented
by counsel and participated in the hearing. The Board has consid-
ered the respondent's exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and its
brief and oral argument in support thereof and, save as they are
consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below,
finds the exceptions to be without-merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Standard Knitting Mills, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of men's and boys' under-
wear. It has its plant and principal place of business in Knoxville,
Tennessee. The raw materials used by the-respondent are cotton,
yarns, sateens, cambrics, buttons, facings, thread, and strawboard.
In excess of 60 per cent of the raw materials purchased by the
respondent have their origin outside the State of Tennessee. In 1937
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 171
the value of the raw materials purchased by the respondent was
approximately $2,451,248. About 97 per cent of respondent's finished
products are shipped to States other than Tennessee. In 1937 the
gross sales aggregated $4,848,921.87 in value. ' The respondent's plant
includes a cotton mill, a knitting mill, a garment factory, a box fac-
tory, and a warehouse, all operated as one integrated unit. In a
normal year the respondent employs approximately 2100 persons.
The respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Federal Textile Labor Union No. 21751, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to its mem-
bership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In July 1938 E. J. Ashe, vice president and general manager of the
respondent, at a picnic held by the respondent for its key employees,
including foremen and machine fixers,4 announced a coming wage
cut and suggested that some of the employees might be dissatisfied.
Ashe said that if any of the employees caused trouble he wanted to
get rid of them as soon as possible.
About the middle of August 1938, after the employees had heard
that a wage cut was proposed, a crowd gathered in the vicinity of
the mill to express their anger and dissatisfaction with conditions at
the mill. The men wanted to strike immediately. Willie Cox,S an
employee of the respondent, addressed the crowd and told them that
the best way to get relief would be to form an organization. For this
purpose, Cox secured the assistance of R. 0. Ross, chairman of the
organizing committee of the Knoxville Central Labor Union, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor. At a meeting of employees
on August 20 the Union was formed.e Prior to this date, no union
or other form of organization for collective employee action existed
at the respondent's plant.
Immediately upon learning of the advent of the Union, the re-
spondent began to express its opposition to the Union and to warn
its employees against joining or remaining members of that organi-
zation.
4 It was customary for the respondent to hold a picnic for keymen , including foremen
and machine fixers, each summer.
Willie Cox is also referred to in the record as W. A. Cox and Bill Cox.
The Union was chartered on or about September 24, 1938.
172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Guy Owens, an employee in the cutting department, testified that
on August 22, 1938, he was asked by his foreman, Lou West, to
attend the union meeting the following Saturday night "to see what
they did." Owens agreed to go and did attend the meeting. When
Owens returned to work on Monday, August 29, West questioned
him concerning the number who had attended the meeting, asked
who the leader was, and whether any of the cutting-department
Employees besides Owens had attended. At the end of the conver-
sation, West said, "Whatever you do, don't say nothing about this
and I will take care of you."
Harry D. Williams, an employee in the knitting department, tes-
tified that on or about August 23 Hugh Cornwell, a foreman in the
knitting department, asked him to meet W. S. Acuff, another fore-
man of the knitting department and Cornwell's supervisor, the next
morning at the Andrew Johnson Hotel. When Williams met Acuff
at the hotel'the following morning, Acuff wanted to know whether
the Union was C. I. O. or A. F. of L. and the number of employees
who had attended the meeting of August 20. He then requested that
Williams give him a list of names of the employees who attended the
meeting. This Williams refused to do. On August 29, Cornwell
questioned Williams about the second meeting of the Union which
had been held on August 27.
The testimony of Owens and Williams with respect to these inci-
dents is uncontroverted. Neither West nor Cornwell testified at the
hearing. Acuff, who did testify, said nothing concerning his conver-
sation with Williams. We find that the respondent, by subjecting
Owens and Williams to such questioning concerning union affairs,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization.
On or about September 1, E. J. Ashe, vice president and general
manager of the respondent, entered the knitting room during work-
ing hours, ordered the machinery shut down, and addressed all of
the employees in the knitting department. Ashe made three such
speeches, one to each shift. According to the testimony of a number
of knitting-department employees called as witnesses by the Board,'
Ashe expressed his opposition to the Union. Their testimony is in
summary as follows: Ashe discussed business conditions and told the
men that a wage cut was necessary but that he was going to increase
their hours from 40 to 44 instead of cutting wages. He stated that
if there was any trouble he would settle it without interference from
any outside organization. He advised the men that the respondent
would do as much for the employees as the Union and that the Union
° These witnesses are Karl Martin, Earl E. Norris, Arnold Hensley, Earl Robinson, James
F. Owens, and John R. Watson.
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 173
was not necessary. He then urged those who had joined the Union
to withdraw from membership. During the course of his speech,
Ashe warned the men that while the respondent had money invested
in Knoxville and wanted to stay there, it could buy a mill in Engle-
wood, near Knoxville, where the labor costs were less, "and make
lots of money." He concluded his remarks by saying that he would
talk to each employee individually and get a "vote of confidence from
each man" and "each man's word of honor he would withdraw from
this outside interference."
Following each of these speeches to the respective shifts in the knit-
ting department, Ashe, accompanied by one or more of the knitting-
department supervisors, went through the department and talked to
each employee individually. Among those to whom Ashe talked was
Harry D. Williams, who previously had been questioned by Acuff
and Cornwell concerning the affairs of the Union as recounted above.
Williams testified that Ashe asked him if he had joined an outside
organization, and that when he replied that he had signed an appli-
cation, Ashe asked him if he would Withdraw the application and
stated that Bill Russell and Arnold Hensley s had withdrawn from
the Union. Williams answered that the only thing he could do if
those men had "pulled out" would be to "pull out too" because it would
do him no good to remain in the Union by himself. Ashe left him
with the parting thought : "You will not regret getting out of the
Union." Arnold Hensley testified that Ashe told him that Bill
'Russell had withdrawn from the Union and requested that Hensley
withdraw too, and that he had replied that he would be willing to
withdraw if the rest of the employees withdrew.' From the testi-
mony of other knitters 10 to whom Ashe spoke it appears very clearly
that he was anxious to bring hone to each employee the respondent's
hostility to the Union and its desire that its employees refrain from
joining the Union and withdraw from membership therein if they
had already joined.
Ashe's testimony with regard to these knitting-department speeches
and conversations with individual employees was the only evidence
introduced by the respondent to rebut the testimony recounted above.
Ashe admitted that he delivered an address to each shift in the knit-
8 Hensley was the financial secretary of the Union at that time and Russell was an active
member . Williams investigated and found that they had not withdrawn from the Union.
Hensley did not withdraw from the Union but he did resign as financial secretary in
October. He testified that after being called to Ashe's office several times to be told by
Ashe that "they didn ' t feel like they needed a union ," he resigned his office as financial
secretary and ceased being active in the Union "on the basis of what I seen it might lead
to, I might be out of a job if I continued to work with the Union."
io In addition to Williams and Hensley the following knitting-department employees testi-
fled concerning Ashe's cons ersations with them : Roy Sprouse , Earl Norris , James F. Owens,
John R. Watson , Earl Robinson , and Joe White.
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ting department and that he then spoke to each employee individ-
ually. He testified that in his speeches he explained to the men that
he wanted to pledge them all his "one hundred per cent cooperation,
and in turn , asked them for their one hundred per cent cooperation,"
and told them that "anyone who wanted to belong to the Union could
do so without being discriminated against." Concerning his coiiver-
sations with the men individually Ashe testified that after he finished
his talk to the assembled group he said, "Now, fellows, I won't em-
barrass any of you by standing up here and telling me what you think
is wrong in this room, or pledging your one hundred per cent coopera-
tion to ine, as I pledge you my one hundred per cent, but I will pass
down the aisle and you can tell me. " In each instance, Ashe testified,
he told them "they could belong to the Union without being discrimi-
nated against," asked them to tell him what they thought "was wrong
with the room and what we ought to do about it." Ashe added that
after securing each individual opinion, "we went to work straightening
out the room."
Ashe did not specifically deny that he told the men that a Union
was unnecessary, that he urged them to refrain from joining the
Union or to withdraw their membership. He did not deny that he
asked individuals, particularly Williams, an employee of many years
standing, and Hensley, an officer of the Union, to resign, find that he
attempted to induce such action by telling them falsely that persons
known to be active had resigned from the Union. It is highly signifi-
cant that Acuff, who accompanied Ashe in his tour of the knitting
room, said nothing to refute the testimony of the men concerning
Ashe's remarks, although he testified at length during the course of
the hearing. Even if Ashe's testimony be completely credited in this
regard, his story is consistent with the employees' testimony. It is
obvious that the employees must have understood that his remarks
were aimed against the Union. That Ashe in fact intended to leave
this impression among the employees is substantiated by his admission
that it came to his attention that "there was dissatisfaction in the
knitting room, and that some of the men who were dissatisfied were
participating or planning to join the Union."
In view of the failure of Ashe or Acuff to refute the testimony of
the employees on vital points, Ashe's own testimony concerning the
motivation for the speeches, their delivery approximately 10 days after
the formation of the Union and the fact that the Trial Examiner, who
from his observation of the demeanor of the witnesses had an oppor-
tunity to form a trustworthy opinion as to their credibility, credited the
testimony of the employees rather than of Ashe, we cannot give credence
to Ashe's testimony as to the purport of the speeches. We find that the
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 175
testimony of the employees concerning the speeches and the conversa-
tions that followed, as set-forth above, is substantially correct.
We find that Ashe's speeches and talks to individuals on or about
September 1, 1938, were designed to and did discourage membership
in the Union.
Clayton Phelps, a cutter, testified that T. S. Lavin, department man-
ager of the cutting department, called the cutting-department employ-
ees together toward the end of September 1938 and spoke to them about
the Union, saying that he did not believe "there was anybody in there
low down enough to belong to such as that." This testimony was cor-
roborated by Guy Owens, a cutting-department employee. Although
Lavin denied that he talked about the Union to his employees, he ad-
mitted that he spoke to them about the Act, and he did not specifically
deny that he made the statements attributed to him by Phelps and
Owens. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Lavin addressed the
cutting-department employees about the Union toward the end of Sep-
tember 1938, and that he made the remarks attributed to him by Phelps
as recited above.
In addition to the foregoing types of activity carried on by the re-
spondent against the Union through the agents above mentioned, other
supervisors of the respondent questioned the employees concerning their
union affiliation and the activities of the Union, warning such employees
against the Union. For example, in the latter part of August, Bert
Stalsworth, a foreman in the dyeing department, approached Thurman
McClain, one of his employees, and asked him, "Do you know whether
Thomas Stalsworth's knitting department 11 have joined this Union or
not?" McClain answered that he did not know anything about any
organization in the mill. Stalsworth said, "\Y7ell, they are organizing
a Union, or trying to here in the mill. You live close to Tom. You tell
Tom to stay out of it. You do the same. It will get you into trouble.
You better take my advice and not have anything to do with." In Sep-
tember Stalsworth called a number of employees in his department to a
room which was not normally used as an office and talked to them one at
a time. Among them was McClain. Stalsworth asked McClain if he
had joined the Union. McClain replied that he had signed an applica-
tion and intended to join. Stalsworth they advised him to "pray over
this and study over it for the next two or three days to see if you can't
make a different decision," and to let him know if he decided to drop
out. About a week later, Stalsworth again urged McClain to withdraw
from the Union. When McClain refused, Stalsworth said, "Mr. Ashe
asked me for a vote of confidence from my department. I told him I
n By "Thomas Stalsworth 's knitting department," Bert Stalsworth meant the knitting
department in which Thomas Stalsworth worked.
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
could give him a vote of confidence for oiir department with the excep-
tion of you and Sheridan Pique." The foregoing conversations were
uncontroverted since Bert Stalsworth did not appear as a witness.
In October 1938 O. A. Burchfield, department manager of the spin-
ning and winding department, informed Jesse Brooks, an employee in
his department, that he had learned that Brooks had joined the Union.
When Brooks said that Burchfield must be mistaken, Burchfield said,
"No, you are the one I am talking about. I am going to tell you right
now the ones that is loyal to the mill is the ones that the mill will be
loyal to. You don't have to join any outside organization to have your
seniority rights here." While Burchfield appeared as a witness he did
not deny the foregoing conversation. Other examples of such interfer-
ence with self-organization by individual foremen and other supervisors
are set forth below in connection with the alleged discriminatory dis-
charges and demotions, said alleged acts of discrimination in relation
to seven complainants having occurred contemporaneously with the acts
of the respondent set forth above.
The record discloses that in January and February 1939 there were
further attempts on the part of the respondent to discourage member-
ship in the Union. About January 23, 1939, C. C. Hauther, supervisor
of the spinning and winding department, asked Jesse Brooks if he
attended the union meeting on Saturday night. When Brooks said he
had, Hauther warned Brooks against union organization, told him that
many of the people who had joined unions and engaged in strikes at
other mills lost their jobs and were unable to secure jobs elsewhere, that
their records followed them wherever they went, and that if Brooks
had the "least bit of respect for [Hauther] or for [his] job [he] would
not join the Union." Hauther did not deny that he made this statement
to Brooks. About the same time, on or about February 1, 1939, a peti-
tion was circulated for signature, during working hours, among the
employees in the spinning department. L. C. French, William Ran-
dles, and I. L. Stipe, employees in the spinning department, testified
that, in substance, the petition pledged its signers to support "McMil-
lan 12 100% and not an outside organization." When the petition
reached Randles, he returned it to the employee who had handed it to
him and told her he could not sign it. Shortly thereafter Louis Tread-
well, foreman in the spinning and winding department, approached
Randles and asked him if he had signed the petition. Randles testified
that when he told Treadwell he had not signed Treadwell said, "I hear
you belong to the Union," and asked "Did you see anybody's names on
there that did sign the paper that belonged ?" Treadwell admitted he
knew of the circulation of the petition and its nature. Called as a
' E. J. McMillan is the respondent ' s president.
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 177
witness on behalf of the respondent Treadwell testified on direct exam-
ination as follows :
Q. On or about February, 1939, did you have a conversation with
this man Randles in which you asked him if he -had signed a
paper or petition about joining or not joining the Union?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have a conversation with him about that?
A. Just a question was all.
On cross-examination, Treadwell admitted asking Randles, on or
about February 8, if he had gone to the union meeting the previous
Saturday night. Although the evidence does not support a finding that
the respondent sponsored the circulation of this anti-union petition, as
is alleged in the complaint, nevertheless there is no doubt that the
respondent had knowledge of and countenanced its circulation on com-
pany property during working hours.
It seems that the power to hire and discharge employees resided
solely in Ashe, the general manager. However, Acuff, Cornwell,
Lavin, West, Bert Stalsworth, Burchfield, Hauther, and Treadwell
were supervisory employees responsible for the operation of impor-
tant departments, were considered by the other employees to be
supervisory employees, issued orders to employees, and had the power
to recommend promotion or discharge of employees. We find that
the respondent is responsible for their above-described activities and
statements as well as those of Ashe.13
On August 4, 1939, on the respondent's stationery and over the
signature of E. J. Ashe the respondent posted a notice on the bulletin
boards throughout its plant addressed "To Our Employees." The
notice purported to inform the respondent's, employees of the "re-
quirements of the Federal Labor Relations Act." After quoting
Section 7 of the Act, the notice reads as follows :
IT IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR POLICY TO ABIDE BY THE
LAW, THEREFORE, NO ONE IN OUR EMPLOY WILL BE DISCRIMI-
NATED AGAINST IF HE OR SHE CHOOSES TO JOIN AN OUTSIDE
ORGANIZATION, NOR WILL ANY ONE RECEIVE ANY SPECIAL PRIV-
ILEGES OR CONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF SUCH MEMBERSHIP.
ON THE OTHER HAND, ANY ONE IN OUR EMPLOY WHO DOES NOT
CHOOSE TO JOIN AN OUTSIDE ORGANIZATION WILL RECEIVE
EVERY CONSIDERATION, WAGE BENEFIT AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
PROMOTION WE WILL BE GLAD TO EXPLAIN TO YOU FULLY
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY WISH TO ASK IN REGARDS
THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND OUR COMPANY POLICY
'" See Matter of Sierra Madre -Lainanda Citrus Association and Benjamin H. Betz, an
Individual Doing Business as Betz Packing Company and Citrus Packing House Workers
Union, Local No 20?66, 24 N. L R B 143, and cases cited therein
1 -78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
We think it plain that the notice was intended to, and had the
necessary effect of, discouraging membership in the Union. It rep-
resented a continuation of the anti-union policy adopted and pur-
sued by the respondent since- August 1938.
We find that the respondent, in August, September, and October,
1938, and in January and February 1939, by making the anti-union
statements set forth above, by questioning its employees as to their
membership in the Union, by requesting employees to attend union
meetings for the purpose of reporting to it on the activities of the
Union, by urging and warning its employees not to join or remain
members of the Union, by threatening to discharge its employees if
they continued their activities on behalf of the Union, by counte-
nancing the circulation of an anti-union petition among its employees
in February 1939, and by posting the above-described notice on its
bulletin boards on August 4, 1939, interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
B. Discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment and
terms and conditions of employment
1. Discrimination in September and October 1938
The complaint alleges that in September and October 1938 the
respondent discriminatorily discharged Sheridan A. Pique, James
F. Owens, John R. Watson, Earl E. Robinson, Joe White, Willie Cox,
and Oral Watson and discriminatorily demoted Sheridan A. Pique
and Oral Watson when they were reemployed. Six of these seven
were part of the small group who joined the Union at its inception
on August 20, 1938. One of the seven was the president of the Union
and five others were active members who talked about the Union to
other employees and urged them to join. Four of the seven were
employed in the knitting department. The record discloses that the
respondent considered the knitting department the center of the
Union's organization campaign and that union membership actually
was concentrated in this department.
At the end of September 1938 the Union had only 25 or 30 mem-
bers among a total of approximately 2100 persons employed by the
respondent. All of these cases must be considered against the back-
ground of -the unfair labor practices of the respondent described
above.
Sheridan A. Pique was employed continuously by the respondent
for more than 13 years prior to his discharge on September 2, 1938.
At that time he was employed as a machine fixer in the dyeing de-
partment and was paid 40 cents an hour. He had been employed
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 179
at this job for approximately 12 years. As a fixer he was one of
the "key men" who attended the picnic of the' respondent in July
1938. According to Ashe, the "key men," who helped the manage-
ment "in forming policies that will best protect our mutual interests,"
were charged with disseminating to the employees information
given at the picnic of 1938 concerning the proposed wage cut and
the respondent's business condition.
Pique joined the Union in August 1938 and became active in
its affairs. This came to the attention of his foreman, Bert Stals-
worth, who told Pique that he had heard that Pique had joined
the Union and "was organizing both shifts." On September 2, while
Bert Stalsworth, Pique's regular foreman, was on vacation, W. A.
Stalsworth, who was then in charge of the department, told Pique,
"I have tried to get along with you for two or three years and you
won't cooperate with me. I won't need your services any more."
W. A. Stalsworth, Bert's father, exercised supervisory powers and
duties in the dyeing department under or coordinate with his son.
He testified that with Ashe's consent he had discharged Pique because
he was inefficient, lazy, and could not be found when he was wanted.
A few days later at a conference between Ashe, the two Stalsworths
and Pique, Bert Stalsworth admitted, according to Pique, that he
had made statements to various employees in the department that
Pique "was the best fixer that had ever been in that department."
Pique's testimony was not denied, and Bert Stalsworth•, who was
best qualified to testify concerning the quality of Pique's work, was
not called as a witness. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
Bert Stalsworth made the admissions attributed to him by Pique as
recited above.
On September 7, 1938, Pique was reemployed as a, folding-machine
operator in the dyeing department, a position that was inferior and
paid 4 cents an hour- less than the job from which he had been
discharged. It was on or about September 9, 2 days after Pique's
demotion, that Bert Stalsworth told McClain• in the course of the
conversation described above that lie had reported to Ashe that he
could give him a "vote of confidence" from the employees in his
department except for Pique and McClain. On the same day Bert
Stalsworth asked Pique if he had "any notion of dropping out of"
the Union. When Pique replied, "No, sir," Stalsworth said, "All
right., Them that shoot square with the company will be the ones
that the Company will shoot square with."
The respondent's contention that Pique was discharged and sub-
sequently demoted because of his inefficiency is refuted by the evi-
dence. His record of 12 years of continuous employment as a ma-
chine fixer and the high praise accorded his work by his regular
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
foreman are ample proof that his work was satisfactory. His re-
employment in the same department within a week after his discharge
further negatives any contention that the respondent considered
his work to be unsatisfactory. The respondent's additional argument
that friction with W. A. Stalsworth rather than union activity
caused Pique's discharge and demotion is not supported by the rec-
ord. Although W. A.. Stalsworth testified that he had wanted to
discharge Pique for 3 years he admitted that he had made no objec-
tion to Pique's reemployment in the same department within a
week after his discharge.
Pique's discharge and subsequent demotion were coincidental with
the respondent's efforts to stifle the Union in its infancy. The respond-
ent knew of Pique's activity on behalf of the Union. As a machine fixer
he undoubtedly had been expected to side with the management in its
campaign for "100 per cent cooperation." Instead, he chose to be an
active union member. Pique was discharged and subsequently demoted
because of his persistence in that choice.
We find that the respondent, by its discharge and subsequent demo-
tion of Sheridan A. Pique and its refusal to reinstate him to his former
position of employment, discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure
of employment and the terms and conditions of his employment, there-
by discouraging membership in the Union, and thereby interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
James F. Owens, John R. Watson, Earl E. Robinson, and Joe White
were discharged within a period of 2 weeks following Pique's demo-
tion. All four of these employees were employed in the knitting de-
partment and were part of the small group who joined the Union in
August.
James F. Owens began to work for the respondent in March 1934 as
a sweeper in the knitting department. Thereafter he was promoted to
various jobs in the same department. At the time of his release on
September 8, 1938, he was employed as a knitter at 32 cents an hour.
Owens was one of the first to join the Union in August 1938. He
took an active part at union meetings and solicited applications for
membership.
When Ashe questioned Owens on September 1, following the general
speech to his shift, Ashe asked him if he was 100 per cent for the Com-
pany. Owens told him that he was for the outside organization too and
that he believed the Union would enable the men to get better working
conditions and more money. To this Ashe said, "Well, you are unrea-
sonable, and if that is the way you feel, if I were you I would hunt
me another job on the outside, because you might be here two weeks
or you might be here the rest of your life, but if you change your mind
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS , INC. 181
tell Mr. Acuff next week and he will explain things to you." On Sep-
tember 8 of the following week, 1 day after Pique's demotion, Acuff,
foreman of the knitting department , said to Owens, "I will have to
lay you off for a week ." He informed Owens that some changes might
be made on shifts and asked him to return the next week when he would
tell him "what shift to come on. " When Owens reported the following
week, Acuff said, "I won't be able to use you . I will have to lay you
off for a while on account work is slack." Neither Ashe nor Acuff
denied these conversations.
Owens had more seniority than some employees who were retained
and his efficiency record was very good . Owens was reemployed on
December 27, 1938, after a conference between the respondent's offi-
cials and a representative of the American Federation of Labor. When
he was reemployed he was given a job as sweeper at 25 cents per hour.
He later was advanced to his former position as a knitter , a job which
he held at the time of the hearing. Owens did not earn any money
between September 8 and December 27.
John R. Watson started to work for the respondent in the cutting
department in April 1934, and remained in that department until Octo-
ber 1935 when he was laid off. He came to work as a sweeper in the
knitting department in March 1936 and was promoted within the de=
partment until he became a knitter.
Watson joined the Union in August 1938 and became an active mem-
ber. When Ashe asked Watson, on September 1, if he belonged to
the Union, Watson did not deny that he belonged but told Ashe
that he "didn't know much about it." When Acuff told A'she that
Watson and James F. Owens were together "all the time" Ashe asked
Watson to talk Owens out of the Union. These statements were not
controverted.
On September 8, 1939, Acuff told Watson that he would have to
lay him off about a week and told him to' come back the following
Monday. Nothing ' was said about business conditions . When Owens
returned , Acuff for the first time told him that business was bad and
that he had to lay him off. At that time Watson was earning 32 cents
an hour as a knitter. His work in the knitting department had been
satisfactory and at 'least one knitter was retained who had less seniority
than Watson. -
Watson was reemployed on December 8, 1938, as a sweeper at 25
cents an hour. Later he was advanced to his former position as a
knitter which job he held at the time of the hearing.
From September 8 until the date of his reemployment , Watson
earned $11 . 00 and received $35.00 in unemployment compensation.
Earl E. Robinson began to work for the respondent in July 1933
in the knitting department. He was transferred to the cutting depart-
283030-42-vol 25 13
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment, and then returned to the knitting department in April 1934.
Thereafter he worked continuously at various jobs in that department
until September 19, 1938. He then was earning 32 cents an hour as
a yarn man.
Robinson joined the Union at its initial meeting in August 1938
and thereafter ,was active in its affairs and in the solicitation of new
members. -
In 1936 Robinson distributed union pamphlets to the respondent's
employees. At that time he was warned that such activity was a viola-
tion of company rules and could result in his discharge. On or about
September 15, 1938. Acuff quizzed Robinson about his union activities.
After a discussion pro and con with regard to the merits of unions,
Acuff said, "Did you tell Mr. Ashe you were 100 per cent for him?"
Robinson told him that he had, to which Acuff replied, "I don't feel
like you *are with Mr. Ashe." Acuff did not deny this colloquy. On
the following Monday, September 19, Acuff told Robinson that busi-
ness conditions were bad and that he had to lay him off. His work
had been satisfactory and he had more seniority than others ii his
department who continued to work.
Robinson was reemployed on December 15, 1938, as a sweeper in
the knitting department at 25 cents an hour. • Later he was advanced
to his former position as a yarn man and then to a job as a knitter
which lie held at the time of the hearing.
Joe•White began to work for the respondent in September 1936 as
a sweelier in the knitting department. Thereafter he was promoted
wil hin the department,, until finally he became a knitter.
White was among the first to join the' Union in August 1938.
Although he was not active in the solicitation of new members, he
attended union meetings. After one of Ashe's knitting-department
speeches, White was asked by Ashe and Acuff if he was "fooling with
any 'ou'tside organization." While White denied membership in the
Union, it is obvious that the respondent had made it a point to inform
itself about the Union and its members. We find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the respondent knew White's denial to be untrue.
On September 19, the same day that Robinson's employment was
terminated, Acuff told White that he was being laid off because busi-
ness-leas slack. On December 28, 1938, White was reemployed as a
sweeper and subsequently was advanced to his former position as a
knitter, the,'job which he held at the time of the hearing. He earned
no money during the period of his unemployment.
The respondent contends that Owens, Watson, Robinson, and White
were merely laid off due to business conditions. The record does not
sustain that contention. The only evidence to support this defense,
apart from Acuff's testimony that he laid off the above-named four
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 183
because business was bad, is the statement of H. A. Henniger, per-
sonnel manager, that "there were 288 separation notices listed for lay-
offs for lack of work" from September 8, 1938, to May 1939. Acuff
was very vague concerning the number of men that were laid off in
September 1938 and Henniger's bare statement is unsupported by any
evidence concerning the date or even the month of any of the 288 separa-
tion notices which were listed over a period of 9 months. Nor did
the respondent introduce any evidence at the hearing regarding the
duration of these lay-offs. Obviously such information was peculiarly
within the knowledge of the respondent.
The record discloses that seasonal fluctuation in employment at the
respondent's plant is related to the type of underwear produced. In
contrast to summer underwear, winter underwear is heavier, requiring
more parts and more operations; hence employment is normally greater
during the period of production of winter underwear. The period of
production of winter underwear usually continues until about the first
of the year, terminating in February or March in years of exceptionally
heavy production. It is reasonable to infer from all the evidence that
September and October are always periods of rising or peak employ-
ment. The respondent produced no records to the contrary. The
undenied testimony of Earl Norris, a knitting-department employee,
establishes that about 17 employees of the knitting department who
were laid off in September 1938 were reemployed within a week or
two, whereas Owens, Watson, Robinson, and White were not re-
employed until more than 3 months had passed.
In addition to the general defense of lack of work, the respondent
has attempted to explain more specifically why the employment of the
above-mentioned. four employees was terminated. Acuff testified that
when lay-offs became necessary in the knitting department it was the
respondent's policy to consider the following three factors : efficiency,
family status or financial condition, and seniority. We are told that
family status was the controlling factor in the cases of Owens and White
and that efficiency governed with respect to Watson and Robinson.
These explanations are not supported by the record. Numerous em-
ployees, some of whom have been employed by the respondent for
many years, testified that they were never told and had never heard
of any definite lay-off policy at the respondent's plant. The record
contains no departmental or plant-wide records of the respondent
showing comparative seniority, efficiency, or family responsibility
ratings as between employees retained and those allegedly discriminated
against by discharge. No reason other than lack of work was given
to Owens, Watson, Robinson, and White at the time when their em-
ployment was terminated. Furthermore Acuff's testimony, upon which
the respondent relies, is exceedingly vague. He testified that Owens
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was "laid off [because] he had a brother working [in the knitting
department] at the same time,14 and both boys were single, and rather
than go in there and lay off somebody else and maybfe 15 lay the only
one of a family that was working off, we laid off one of the two working
in the family"; that White was "a pretty good learner, but, had no
dependents. Just what his family status was, [Acuff] couldn't say, but
[he does] know that he has a brother that works in the dyehouse quite
a bit. Whether he was working at that time or not, [he] wouldn't
know"; that Robinson "was laid off on efficiency"; and that Watson
was "laid off, because we had better prospects for our knitting to put
on his job." It is worthy of note that "family status" is said to have
controlled with respect to Owens and White who were concededly
very good workers, whereas Robinson who was married and had other
dependents was "laid off on efficiency." Not only is there a complete
lack of evidence to support Acuff's story, but the record affirmatively
refutes it. It is undisputed that Robinson and Watson were promoted
within the knitting department several times and that there had never
been any complaints about their work. As for Owens and White, the
respondent introduced no proof whatever to show that their "family
status" differed fcom that of the many employees who were retained.
Ashe's own testimony, as quoted above, indicates that no such compari-
son was made by the respondent. We are convinced that the sole basis
of selection in the cases of Owens, Watson, Robinson, and White was
their union membership and activities.
We find that the respondent, by discharging James F. Owens and
John R. Watson on September 8, 1938, and Earl E. Robinson and Joe
White on September 19, 1938, discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of their employment, thereby discouraging membership in the
Union, and thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
Willie Cox first was employed by the respondent in March 1929
in the carding department. He left the respondent's employ in Janu-
ary 1937, returned in May 1937, and continued to work in the carding
department until October 12, 1938. During this period of more than
9 years of employment he performed almost every type of work that
was available in his department.
Cox was responsible for the formation of the Union. He was its
president until his employment was terminated on October 12, 1938.
About 2 weeks prior to that date his foreman, Houk Crisp, questioned
him about the "outside organization" and his activity therein. He
14 He is the brother to whom Ashe referred as being "more reasonable" than James F.
Owens.
15 Italics supplied.
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 185
told Crisp that he was the Union's president. Each night thereafter,
for about 2 weeks, Crisp told him that his machine was not going to
run that night?s When Cox came to the plant on October 12, 1938,
Crisp told him to see J. C. Ramsey, department manager of the card-
ing department. When Cox was finally told by Ramsey, "I am going
to have to lay you off," he asked why, but was unable to get a more
definite answer.
At this time Cox was employed as a frame hand, operating a ma-
chine known as a "speeder." Three other men were doing the same
type of work. None of them was a member of the Union. Although
the work on all of their machines was shut down, none of the other
three was laid off. All were transferred to other jobs in the mill.
Cox's efficiency was not questioned. He offered to work at any other
job, even that of a sweeper, but he was refused other employment, al-
though over a period of 9 years he had operated practically every
machine in the department.
The respondent contends that Cox was laid off because of shortage
of work. The evidence does not sustain that defense. We believe
that Cox was discharged because of his union activities and as part of
the respondent's efforts to discourage organization of the Union.
Cox was reemployed on May 2, 1939. During the interven-
ing period, he earned $50 at odd jobs and received $138.65 in
unemployment compensation.
We find that the respondent, by discharging Willie Cox on October
12, 1938, discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of his employ-
ment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and thereby
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Oral Watson was first employed by the respondent in 1923 in the
spinning department. He quit in 1926 but returned in March 1937
to the carding department, where he was employed until October 19,
1938, except for a lay-off in the summer of 1938.
Watson joined the Union about October 1, 1938, and was active in
its affairs and in the solicitation of new members.
Early in September 1938 Watson was questioned by his foreman,
Houk Crisp, concerning his knowledge of union organization in the
mill. He was advised by Crisp that "a union couldn't help you in
here, can't help anyone because the company is giving you all that
they can give you, and they will treat you just as well without the
union as they will with the union, and we need no outside organiza-
18 Crisp admitted that he spoke to Cox about the Union. Ashe testified that Cox was
not definitely laid off during this period of 2 weeks because the respondent hoped to be
able to restore him to work and wished to retain him if it possibly could, since he was the
president of the Union.
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion here whatever." Crisp also told Watson to give the matter "se-
rious thought before you ever put your name to an application" and
talk to one Crocker, an employee in the picker room, before signing.
In the early part of October, shortly after Watson joined the Union,
Crisp asked him if he had joined the Union. Watson told him that
he had joined because he "didn't want to be the last one to join it." To
this Crisp said, "If my men haven't lied to me, there is very few in
my department belongs to it. There has only been you and two more
that have told me that they belonged to it. If the rest of them do
they have denied it." Crisp did not deny these conversations.
On October 19, 1938, J. C. Ramsey, manager of the department, told
Watson he was being laid off, saying. "You know we go by seniority
more or less here, and you are the youngest man by one clay on the
job." At this time Watson was employed as a card operator on the
second shift,1 at 39 cents an hour. Watson's efficiency was not ques-
tioned. Some time prior to October 19, the respondent had trans-
ferred Keesling, who worked on the third shift and was the youngest
man in the department in Watson's section of the mill, to a job then
held by Lambert on the second shift in another section, and replaced
Keesling with Lambert. Lambert, who had slightly more seniority
than Watson replaced Watson on October 19:
When Watson was reemployed on May 23, 1939, after conferences
concerning his reinstatement , he was given his former type of employ-
ment at his former wage, but was placed upon the third shift instead
of the second. The third shift is less desirable for Watson than the
second, both because it provides less security of employment and be-
cause working on the third shift complicates the domestic life of
Watson whose wife is employed on the second shift at the respondent's
plant.
The respondent contends that Watson was laid off because busi-
ness was dull , because part of the third shift had to be laid off, and
because Lambert had more seniority than Watson. In view of the
transfer of Keesling and in the light of the entire record we are con-
vinced that the respondent 'discharged Watson on October 19, 1938,
because he joined and assisted the Union . Inasmuch as Watson's
discharge was discriminatory , he was entitled to his position on the
second shift when reemployed.
Watson did not earn any money between the time of his discharge
and the date of his reemployment.
We find that the respondent, by discharging Oral Watson on
October 19 , 1938, and by reemploying him to a less desirable position
on May 23, 1939 , discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of his
17 The complaint erroneously alleges that Watson was employed on the first shift.
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 187
employment and the terms and conditions of his employment, thereby
discouraging membership in the Union, and thereby interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees -in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.,
2. The discharge of Guy Owens:
Guy Owens was first employed by the respondent in January 1937
as a sweeper in the cutting department. Later, after cutting for 5 or
6 weeks, he was transferred early in 1937 to the waste job in the same
department. He continued to hold this job until January 30, 1939.
As set forth above, as soon as the Union'was formed, Owens was asked
by his foreman, Lou West, to attend the union meeting and to furnish
information about the Union to West. Owens joined the Union in
August 1938 and became active in its aff airs. In October Lou West told
Owens, "If I was you, I wouldn't have nothing to do with- that union.
There ain't nobody belongs to it only the dirtiest people in the mill." 18
In December 1938 Owens was elected recording secretary of the Union.
On January 30, 1939, about the time that the anti-union petition was
circulated in the cutting department, T: S. Lavin, the department man-
ager, told Owens that business was getting slack, that Nick Owsley's job
had to be shut down and that since Owsley had been there a long time
they had to give him Owens' job. Lavin added that Owens would be
recalled to work as soon as business picked up, but that if Owens could
find work elsewhere, Lavin would give him a recommendation.
Early in January Lavin had Owens teach Owsley the waste job,
which consisted of gathering up the cutters' waste, weighing it, and haul-
ing it to the waste house to be baled. Owsley was an old employee who
was regularly employed on the trucking system. When Owsley re-
placed Owens, another employee filled Owsley's regular job. Apart
from Owens, no one employed in the cutting-department was dismissed
at that time. Shortly thereafter, the respondent commenced hiring
hands and reemployed some who had quit a year previously. Owens
was not reemployed at that time.
After a conference concerning his reinstatement, Owens was reem-
ployed in the dyeing department on May 15, 1939. After a few weeks
he was transferred to his former position in the cutting department at
32 cents an hour, the same rate of pay that he had received in January.
On the day he was rehired, Owens and another employee were told by
Henniger, the personnel manager, that the "scattering handful" that
belonged to the Union "are going to be sorry one of these days they
belong" to it. Henniger did not deny that he made this statement to
18 West did not appear as a witness although apparently he was still in the employ of the
respondent.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
Owens, although he denied that he told Owens not to pay any attention
to the Union.
The respondent's contention that Owens was laid off because of lack
of work is untenable. On the basis of the foregoing facts, we believe
that Owens was discharged because of his membership in and activities
on behalf of the Union.
We find that the respondent, by discharging Guy Owens on January
30, 1939, discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of his employ-
ment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and thereby
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. The alleged discrimination against Jesse Brooks and Earl Holbert
Jesse Brooks started to work for the respondent in 1925. His last
regular employment began in October 1932.
He joined the Union in December 1938 and became an active member.
As noted above, the respondent was aware of Brooks' union membership
and through Supervisors Burchfield and Hauther had warned him
that such membership might be detrimental to him. On January 30,
1939, he was transferred from his position as oiler in the spinning
department, a job which he had held about 4 years, to the roping piler
job in the same department, which job he held at the time of the hearing.
His transfer involved no reduction in pay. However, it^appears that
the roping piler job necessitated greater manual labor. The respondent
contends that Brooks was transferred because his inefficient oiling
spoiled material that passed through the machines. O. A. Burchfield,
his department manager, testified that other employees complained con-
cerning Brooks' work and that he had tried to correct his oiling over a
period of a year. Brooks admitted that he received one complaint
about his work. Burchfield testified further that the installation of new
machinery in 1939 has made the roping piler job less burdensome. We
find, from all the evidence, that Brooks was not discriminatorily
demoted.
Earl Holbert was employed as a cutter in the cutting department from
June 1936 to May 4,1939. He joined the Union in September 1938 and
was active therein. On that date it became necessary to make some lay-
offs in the cutting department.19 Holbert was told that he was being
laid off because his record for waste and seconds was the worst in the
department. Holbert admitted that his average of seconds was very
high. He claimed that the comparative records were not accurate be-
cause some of the other cutters who did work that was no better than his
managed to avoid having all their seconds recorded. However, there
"Nine persons in all were laid off about this time.
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 189
was no proof that the foreman or the department manager knew of this
practice. Prior to his lay-off, Holbert and his fellow employees had
been warned that if it became necessary to make law-offs, those em-
ployees with the highest average of seconds would be laid off first.
Holbert was recalled to work as a cutter on July 31, 1939. Holbert
testified that immediately prior to his return to work Henninger asked
Holbert whether or not he was going to remain in the Union, told him
that Ross was "leading [him] wrong," that he would "never feel
happy working" for the respondent if he collected back pay, and that
no one "could make [the respondent] put him back to work." Hen-
niger denied that he made these statements. He testified that he ex-
plained to Holbert that Ross had spoken in Holbert's behalf, but that
the real reason for Holbert's reemployment was that the respondent's
sales had increased. We find that the respondent did not discriminate
against Earl Holbert because of his union activities.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occur-
ring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in
Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom, and to take
certain affirmative action which we find necessary to effecutate the
policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment and terms and conditions of em-
ployment of Sheridan A. Pique, James F. Owens, John R. Watson,
Earl E . Robinson, Joe White, Willie Cox, Oral Watson, and Guy
Owens. Although all of them are at present in the employ of the
respondent, Sheridan A. Pique has not been returned to his former
position as machine fixer and Oral Watson has not been returned to
his former position on the second shift. We shall, therefore, order
the respondent to offer to Pique and Oral Watson immediate and full
reinstatement to their "former positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges. We shall also order the re-
spondent to make each of the eight above-named employees whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of such discrimination,
by payment to each of them of a sum equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimi
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
nation against him to the date of his reinstatement, or, in the case of
Sheridan A. Pique, the offer of reinstatement to his former position,
less his net earnings 20 during'said period.
Since we have found that the respondent has not discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Jesse Brooks or Earl
Holbert, we shall dismiss the complaint as to them.
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. Federal Textile Labor Union No. 21751, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, Within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment and terms and conditions of employment of Sheridan A. Pique,
James F. Owens, John R. Watson, Earl E. Robinson, Joe White, Wil-
lie Cox, Oral Watson, and Guy Owens, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in the Union, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect to Jesse Brooks
and Earl Holbert.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
20 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining w,oik and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
termination of emplo,)ment and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment else-
where . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L R B 440
Monies received for work peiformed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
work-relief projects are not considered as earnings, but as provided below in the Older,
shall be deducted from the sum due'the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid
over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
government or governments which supplied the funds for said worn.-ielief projects.
Matter of Republic Steel Corporation and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 9 N. L R' B.
219, enf'd , as modified as to other issues, Republic Steel Corporation v N. L. R B , 107
F. (2d) 472 (C. C. A. 3), cert. `granted as to this issue May 20, 1940.
STANDARD KNITTING, MILLS, INC. 191
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
Standard Knitting Mills, Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Federal Labor Union No. 21751,
or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging, trans-
ferring, demoting, or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Sheridan A. Pique and Oral Watson immediate and full
reinstatement to their former positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges; _
(b) Make whole Sheridan A. Pique, James F. Owens, John R. Wat-
son, Earl E. Robinson, Joe White, Willie Cox, Oral Watson, and Guy
Owens for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
respondent's discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of their
employment and the terms and conditions of their employment by
payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that
which each normally would have earned as wages during the period
from the date of such discrimination to the date each was reinstated,
and in the case of Sheridan A. Pique to the date of the offer of rein-
statement to his former position, less his net earnings 21 during such
period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each of
them, monies received by them during said period for work performed
upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects;
and pay over the amount so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency
of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or gov-
ernments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant, and main-
tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date
of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and
desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that the
respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2
21 See footnote 20, supra.
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
(a) and (b) of this Order; (3) that the respondent's employees are
free to become or remain members of Federal Textile Labor Union
No. 21751 and the respondent will not discriminate against any em-
ployee because of membership or activity in that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, as amended, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act with respect to Jesse Brooks and
Earl Holbert.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.