Taylor-Colquitt Co.

N In the Matter of TAYLOR-COLQIIITT COMPANY AND MRS. ELMA LA- BOONE and UNITED MINE WORIiER9 OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 50, Case No. C4314.-Decided February 2, 1943 Jurisdiction : lumber processing industry. Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restraint and Coercion: anti-onion statements; maintaining sur- veillance over union meetings ; questioning as to union membership ; threatening violence because of union membership ; threatening discharge if employees re- mained members of 'union ; threatening and physically assaulting union mem- bers ; campaigning against union in election and distributing anti-union liter- ature. Discrimination: eviction of employees from premises by another employee with respondent's approval ; discharge of employees by respondent's supervisors ; discharges resulting from respondent's failure to afford employees adequate protection. Remedial Orders : cease and desist unfair labor practices; reinstatement of employees with back pay; employer requited to afford employees adequate,pro- tection at and about premises, to instruct employees that violence would not be tolerated, to instruct employees not to carry guns or other dangerous weapons on to premises. Practice and Procedure : events prior and subsequent to settlement and consent- election agreements, considered in view of respondent's continuing violations of the Act subsequent to their execution. Definitions : wife of important foreman of respondent purporting to speak for respondent held an employer, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. Mr. Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., Mr. William M. Pate, and Mr. Ralph L. Wiggins, for the Board. Mr. C. E. Daniel, Mr. L. W. Perrin, and Mrs. Rufus Ward, of Spar- tanburg, S. C., and Mr. C. G. Wyche, of Greenville, S. C., for the respondent. Price and Poag, by Mr. James H. Price and Mr. James D. Poag, of Greenville, S. C., for Mrs. LaBoone. Mr. Marvin C. Wahl, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed by United Mine Workers of America, District 50, herein called the Union, the National Labor 47 N. L.'R. B., No. 22. 225 513024-43-vol 4 7-15 226 DECISION'S OF `,NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Relations Boai•d, herein called 'the Board, by its Acting Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its com- plaint dated June 13,) 1942, against Taylor-Colquitt Company, herein called. the respondent, and Mrs. Elena LaBoone, herein called Mrs. LaBoone, alleging that the respondent and Mrs. LaBoone ' had en- gaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce,-within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.,449, herein called the Act, and that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning. of Section 8 (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of. the complaint, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent,, Mrs. LaBoone, and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that (1) on various elates, the respondent discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate 6 employees 1 because of\ their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union; (2) on Febru= ary 23, 1942, the respondent discharged and,, until April 1, 1942, refused to reinstate 12 employees 2 because of their membership in .and activities on behalf of the Union, and at various times on and after April 1, 1942, the respondent discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate 7 of such employees 3 because of their membership in and activities on'behalf of the Union ; (3) on and after January 1, 1942, the respondent and Mrs. LaBoone comliiitted, authorized, instigated, and acquiesced in'the following acts and conduct with respect to the respondent's employees : (a) warning them not to become or remain members of,the Union, (b) threatening them with discharge, loss of work, or other discipline if they became or remained members of the Union, (c) questioning them as to which employees were active in the Union, (d) attacking, beating, and threatening them with physical violence because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, (e) attacking and threatening to beat and kill union organizers and representatives in order to prevent organization of the respondent's employees, (f), circulating, anti-iulion propaganda -among the respondent's employees, (g) .making statements to the employees derogatory of the Union and its officers and representa- tives, (h) stating to the employees that the Union would not benefit them but would take their money and cause them to lose pay and 'Willie Dantzler, Arthur Gohghtely, Arthur Means, and Duce Robinson on February 23, 1942 ; ,Dock Culbieth on May 21, 1942, and V L. Blackwell on May 25, 1942. % 'Arthur and Doethus Jeter, Willis Means, D B Johnson, Ardean Rice, Booker Brannon, Raymond Black, Hudson Copeland, Warien Atchison„Nathaniel Foster, Otis Shippy, and Archie Byers., 3 Copeland on April 1, 1942 ; Arthur Jeter, Johnson, and Foster on April 5 ; Rice on. April. 7; Atchison on May 8, and Willis Means on May 22 TAYLOR-COLQUITTT COMPANY 227 , jobs, (i) campaigning against- the Union in an election conducted among them by the Board, (j) urging them to vote against the, Union in such election by threats'of physical violence, and (5) by such acts and conduct, the respondent and Mrs. LaBoone interfered with, re- strained, and coerced the employees of the respondent in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On June 22, 1942, Mrs. LaBoone filed her answer, denying the com- mission of any unfair labor practices, or that she was an employer, or that she at any time acted in the interest of the respondent, directly or indirectly. , On June 25, 1942, the respondent filed its answer, denying that it had engaged in any of the alleged unfair labor practices alid setting up certain affirmative defenses hereinafter more fully discussed. Pursuant'to notice, a hearing was held from June 25 through July 3, 1942, at Spartanburg, South Carolina, before Josef L. Hektoen, the Tria1'^Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and Mrs. LaBoone were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. - Full opportunity to be heard, to ex- amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the opening of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted, in part, the motion of counsel for the respondent for a bill of particulars. During the hearing, the motions of counsel for the Board to dismiss the allegations of the complaint that the respondent had discriminated against employees Culbreth and Byers were granted without objection. At the close, of the Board's case, the Trial Examiner granted a motion of counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof, denied a motion of counsel for Mrs. LaBoone to dismiss the complaint as to- her, and denied motions of the respondent to strike all evidence respect- ing Mrs. LaBoone's activities insofar as they related to the respondent and to dismiss the complaint. At the close of the hearing, rulings on separate motions of counsel for the respondent and for Mrs. LaBoone to dismiss the complaint were reserved by the Trial Examiner and were denied by biro in his Intermediate Report. During,the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled on other motions and on objec- tions to the admission of evidnce. The Board-has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds'that no prejudicial errors Were com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.` The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report, dated August 28,1942, copies of which were duly served upon-the respondent, * H. C. Moody, a colored employee of the respondent and a witness for the Board, at first refused to answer many questions during his examination , but after a threat of physical hai in w as made to him by a Board attorney , gave testimony on continued exainr- nation. The Trial Examiner denied a• motion of the'respondent -to strike MOody's testi- mony, but in his Intermediate Report stated that no findings were based upon his tests= mony. We reverse the ruling of the Trial Examiner and strike the testimony. 228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mrs.- LaBoone, and the Union. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and that Mrs. LaBoone is'an employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 2 (2) of the Act and had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section-8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the respondent and Mrs. LaBoone cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and take certain affirmative action, including the reinstatement by the respondent of'eertain discharged employees with back pay, deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. On September 19 and 26, 1942, Mrs. LaBoone and the respondent, respectively, filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report; the respondent also filed a brief in support of its exceptions. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board at Wash- ington, D. C., on October 27, 1942, for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent and Mrs. LaBoone were represented by counsel and presented argument to the Board. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the briefs in support thereof, and, insofar a^ the exceptions are in- consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Taylor-Colquitt Company,is a South Carolina corporation, main= taining plants at. Spartanburg, South Carolina, and Wilmington, North Carolina.5 It treats and processes cross- and switch-ties, poles, and bridge, construction, and piling timber. During the year ending September 30, 1941, it bought raw materials consisting of raw timber products, poles, ties, cross-ties, construction and bridge timber, creo- sote oil, zinc chloride, copper sulphate, sodium and potassium di- chromate, arsenic acid, nuts, bolts, lubricating oil,' paint, and coal amounting in value to $2,650,000, approximately 50 percent thereof being obtained from sources outside the State of South Carolina. In the same period, its sales amounted to $4,280,000, approximately 60 percent thereof being shipped outside the State of South Carolina. At the time of the hearing the respondent employed about 340 pro- duction workers at the Spartanburg plant, approximately 60 percent 5 This proceeding is concerned exclusively with the activities of the respondent at its Spartanburg plant. The record is not clear as to whether the figures found are applicable to the Spartanburg plant alone or to both.the Spartanburg and Wilmington plants. TAYLOR-!COLQUPI'T COMPANY 229 of whom are-colored. The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the Act. Mrs. Elma LaBoone is the wife of John ' LaBoone, a , foreman of the respondent, and resides in Spartanburg, South Carolina. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Mine Workers of America,, District 50, is a labor organiza- tion admitting to membership employees of the respondent.' III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion 1. The, respondent's opposition to the initial organizational efforts of the Union Toward the end of January 1942 , the Union, through its repre- sentatives, J. R. Coope and J. R. Kirby, began to organize the employees at 'the respondent's Spartanburg plant. Although the Union's efforts were directed toward organizing the white and colored employees , with the exception of 1 white employee , V. L. Blackwell, only the latter responded . Between February 1 and 7, 'Coope con- ducted meetings at the homes of employees and at the Monk Grove School , a public school for colored children, not far from the plant. Only colored employees attended these meetings , and their number did not exceed 15 at any of the gatherings. As the Union's activities progressed , the respondent's supervisors' attempted , by various means , to undermine the support it had gained. Outstanding in their opposition were Foremen John LaBoone, Fred Myers, Paul Capell, and Clyde Glenn. LaBoone, as forem to of the lumberyard and sawmill, supervises-the work of more employees than any other foreman of the respondent . He has under him about 60 subordinates . He is in charge of an extensive series of 'operations involving the adzing and boring plant as well as the lumber mill, occupying ali area of approximately 50 acres. Assisting LaBoone at the adzing and boring plant is Carl Collins; Paul Case is LaBoone's assistant at the sawmill . Myers is foreman of the pole yard and has about 50 employees under his supervision. One of his assistants is H. M. Gosnell, who is in charge of the pole yard clean -up crew. Capell is the 'shop foreman , with 16 employees in his department.' Glenn, with 15 employees under his supervision , is foreman of the treating and boiler room. The Union is frequently referred- to in the record as "the C I. 0 ," since, at the times here in question, it was affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. ' All the respondent's foremen and supervisory employees are white, as are a minority of its production employees. \ 23O DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RE'LA'TIONS BOARD Willis and Arthur Means, brothers, and Warren Atchison, all colored employees, testified that on about February 10, Myers asked them individually if they had joined the Union; the Means brothers replied that they had. Myers then told each of the three employees, in sub- 'st'ance, that he doubted their wisdom in having anything to do with the Union, that in the event the Union succeeded in organizing the plant, President A. B. Taylor might shut it down, and that they should think the matter over. Myers testified that each of these employees approached him individually and asked him his opinion of the Union, and that he told them he could not advise them "in any Way for or against it." The Trial Examiner found that subsequent events, coupled with the surrounding circumstances and the consistent and credible testimony of the three employees, supported the conclusion that Myers made the remarks attributed to him,by them. We so find. Doethus Jeter, a colored employee, testified that at about this time, LaBoone sent for him while he 'was at work and told him that, while he did not care what Jeter did, if 'the Union succeeded in organizing the plant, Taylor might shut it down. LaBoone also said, accordingi to Jeter's testimony, that since LaBoone had his home and car to pay for, such action "would make it hard on, him." , LaBoone did not specifically deny,this conversation," and we ' find,- as did the Trial Examiner, that it occurred as testified to by Jeter. Atchison testified without contradiction, and we find, that at about the same time, Crane-Checker Furman Smith, on, whose crew Atchison had at one time worked, asked him whether he was a member of the Union. Atchison answered in the negative. Smith, who works under Myers, thereupon warned him, according to Atchison,- "You fellows better not fool with that thing . . ." and told him that the Union would only take his money. Several colored employees .testified that they received their orders from the crane checkers, who were white men, and consistently referred to them at the hearing as "foremen." The rate of -pay of crane checkers is approximately 55 cents per hour, while that of the Negro crew is 40 cents per hour. Crane checkers transmit foremen's orders,to their respective crews and keep time records and other records pertaining to the materials they handle. The respondent contends that the crane checkers have no supervisory status, that they are merely conduits for transmitting the orders of the foremen, that the colored employees erroneously believe them to be foremen, and that, therefore, the activities of the crane checkers are not attributable to the respondent. It is obvious that the colored employees 8 LaBoone and the majority of the witnesses for the respondent merely denied in language of legal conclusion the allegations of the complaint. The Trial'Examiner did not consider such denials to be of sufficient probative value as against the specific and otherwise uncohtradicted and credible testimony of `other witnesses ;'we - have adopted and followed such rule. TAYLOR-COLQUUIT COMPANY 231 have just cause to believe, from the nature of the functions performed by crane checkers, that the latter are representatives of the respondent .9 We so find. !' IAt the same time, according to Atchison's undenied testimony, Gosnell, whom he described as "foreman on the' yard," told him; r'efer'ring to the Union, "I wouldn't fool with the thing. I wouldn't put a darned penny into it unless I had to ..." Gosnell is the sole white employee in the pole yard clean-up crew, consisting of about 12 employees. He receives 55 cents per hour, while the colored members of the crew receive 38 cents. The evidence shows that Gosnell gives orders to and directs the work of the yard crew. The activities in the pole yard, of which Myers is foreman, are considerably, diversified. As we have found, Myers has approximately 50 employees under his authority. The duties of the clean-up crew are distinct: It is clear that the degree of supervision exercised by Myers over that crew is slight and that actual supervision of the crew is entrusted to Gosnell. Thus, as in the case-of the crane checkers, the colored employees had just cause to believe that Gosnell is a representative of the respondent, and accordingly, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the activities 'of Gosnell are attributable to the respondent. During this period, according to the undenied testimony of colored employee Willie Dantzler, which the Trial Examiner credited and which we also credit, Glenn, his foreman, asked him whether he was a union member. When Dantzler answered in the negative, Glenn said, "You take my advice and don't fool with it," adding that the Union' would merely take Dantzler's money and give him nothing in return. Glenn also asked colored employee David Tate whether he was a member of the Union. On February 14, the Union conducted a meeting at the Monk Grove School, presided over by Mike Ross, union representative.' About 75 employees, all colored, attended. Numerous employees testified, and we credit their testimony, 'as did the Trial Examiner, that the follow= ing events occurred in connection with this meeting : Immediately before the meeting began, and while those attending it were standing in the schoolyard, Foreman LaBoone, A. E. Lamb, Capell, Glenn, and Herbert Seay drove slowly back and forth on the adjoining road,1° observing those in the yard. After the meeting had been in progress about half an hour, Mrs. LaBoone, wife of Forerpan LaBoone, appeared. Ross met her on the schoolhouse porch and re= fused her request to address the meeting. Shortly thereafter Fore= man Capell and Posey Belcher, night watchman for the respondent, International Association of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72; H. J Heinz Co. v. N. -L R. B , 311 U. S: 514. 11 The school is located on a dirt , road, not ordinarily traveled by supervisors of the respondent. 1 232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ile appeared at the entrance to the schoolhouse and asked that Arthur Means 'come out of the meeting. When he' did so, they ordered him to advise those attending the meeting to -vacate the premises 11 Those attending, according to Belcher, "huddled up in the back yard," and -Belcher ordered them off. - They thereupon moved to the yard of the nearby home of Arthur Means, where Ross addressed them. Mrs. LaBoone, together with white employees Carl Green and Jim Garrett, both of whom were employed in the shop under Capell, watched the proceedings from close vantage points. As the meeting broke up, Mrs. LaBoone addressed those present, stating, according to Ross; "You honest colored workers, these men are going to steal your money, -this man [Ross] is going to collect your dues and you will never see them again . . . the union can ac complish nothing at Taylor-Colquitt, they are paying as well as they can, you better not get mixed up in this kind of stuff, you better stay with the company here." Ross thereafter gave a pro-union talk, at the close of which Mrs. LaBoone grabbed him by .the coat and dragged him a few paces until dissuaded by Green and Garrett. As she released him, she told Ross, according to the latter's undenied testimony, "If you will come down the road away from these people, I will beat hell out of you, you son-of-a-bitch." Ross did not make any answer, but started for Spartanburg in a car of one of the employees. Mrs. LaBoone blocked the road with her car. He turned around and- drove down another road, fol- lowed by other colored employees and Mrs. LaBoone. She soon drew abreast of Ross' cilr, shook her fist at him, and endeavored to run his car off the road by suddenly swerving in front of it. She then stopped, was joined in her car by Green and Garrett , and again took up the chase. Ross stopped at the home of Negro employee Ardean Rice and went inside., Mrs. LaBoone's car also stopped and waited a short distance away. Shortly thereafter Superintendent F. I. Brownley, accompanied by Plant Manager J. D. Taylor and Foreman Capell, drove up. Capell joined the occupants of the La- Boone car and conversed with them for some minutes, after which he returned to the Brownley car, which had been parked in a side road about a block and a half away. (Ross meanwhile had sent for the sheriff, and after about an hour, two deputies arrived. The lat- ter agreed to follow Ross to police headquarters in Spartanburg. When Ross, , accompanied in his car by two colored employees, ar- rived there, Mrs. LaBoone, who had continued to follow him, drove up behind Ross. She, Green, and Garrett gathered around Ross' car and tried to pull him and his companions from their vehicle, ss Capell and Belcher were trustees of the school. Neither Capell nor Belcher had previously ordered anyone out of the school or off the school grounds. In fact, the Union had held -a meeting at the school the previous week without' molestation. TAYILOR-'COLQUTrrT COMPANY 233 threatening them with violence and vilifying them. Ross, .Mrs. La- Boone, Green, and Garrett shortly . thereafter entered police head- quarters where, Ross testified, the three last-named repeatedly, and in the presence of a deputy, asked for an opportunity "to beat hell out of" him because he was assertedly inciting race riots by his activ- ities in organizing the employees of the respondent . Mrs. LaBoone told Ross that if he or Dr. Witherspoon Dodge, another union-rep- resentative, ever returned to Spartanburg, she- would kill them. When left alone with Ross for a short time, Mrs . LaBoone told him that she would lie and kill in order to protect , her husband's job. Ross testified without contradiction , and we find , that Mrs. LaBoone told him that she knew President Taylor well , that the respondent could pay no more than- it did, and that some 30 or 40 employees attending the meeting would on that " account be discharged. At the police station Ross was detained for about 5 hours for his protection because, as one of the deputies told him, ,a mob intent on killing him had formed outside. He was thereafter escorted from town by deputies. During the week following the February 14 meeting, further, at- tempts were made by management representatives , including Capell, to compel the colored employees to abandon the Union . Crane- Checker 'Smith told Willis Means, who worked in his crew, that Capell had told Myers, their foreman, that Means had attended the meeting.- Means, who had not been at the meeting, so informed Smith. At about the same time, Capell told colored' employee Duce Robinson, one of his subordinates, that the Union would not do him any good, but that Robinson could do as he chose about affiliating with it. Capell added, however , according to Robinson, "All you boys will be out of a job, you won't have nothing to do; you will be going around hungry. Furthermore . . . there is going to be some trouble around here if you don't stop this Union. There [will] be some blood shed." Robinson further testified that, on at least one other occasion, Capell said to him, "I guess you are one of the CIO Union boys." Foreman Glenn told colored employee Hudson Cope- land, according to the latter, in referring to the employees who were members of the Union , "If you keep on, some of you is going to get fired." Myers inquired of 'Arthur Jeter, a colored employee, whether the latter was a union member. - Jeter was non-committal. Myers then advised him, Jeter testified , that he was old enough to know what he Wanted to do, "but . . . if I was you, I wouldn't fool with it." The extreme animus of the respondent's foremen toward the Union continued to be shared by Mrs. LaBoone, the wife of Foreman La- Boone, and Carl Collins, a supervisory employee directly responsible to LaBoone . On February 21, the Union conducted a meeting at the Callahan Funeral Home, a Negro establishment , in Spartanburg. 234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR', RELATIONS BOARD' About 65 or 70 colored employees attended. During the course of the meeting, Mrs. LaBoone walked down the adjoining alley and peered through a window at those,in attendance. She told an em- ployee whom she had summoned from the meeting that she wished to address those present "for their own good." She was denied permission to do so. When the meeting broke up, she stood,on the porch watching the union adherents leave. Also observing the scene from close-by vantage points were several white employees, including W. R. Taylor, a worker under Capell, and Collins, the latter being described by Dantzler as "foreman of the adzing plant." Collins' is the sole white employee in the adzing and boring plant; he gives orders to the 7 colored employees working there and keeps their time, records. The respondent contends that Collins is not a supervisory employee and that his activities, are not attributable to it. Foreman LaBoone testified that the work performed in the adzing and boring plant is under his personal supervision and denied that Collins is a foreman. LaBoone admitted, however, that his ,orders are given to Collins, who in turn transmits them to the colored employees. La- Boone, as found above, has supervision over, approximately 60 employees and is in charge of an extensive series of operations involv-, ing the lumber mill and the adzing and-boring plant, occupying an' area of approximately 50 acres. It is obvious that the extent of LaBoone's duties prevent him from exercising more than cursory supervision, over the adzing and boring plant, which is located in a separate building. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree and find, that the supervision of that plant was delegated by LaBoone to Collins, and that the respondent is consequently responsible for the activities of Collins. , On February 23 and 24, W. R. Taylor'12 an employee who worked under Capell and who had, together with Collins, observed Mrs. LaBoone's attempts to disrupt the union meeting of February 21, forcibly evicted from the plant nine colored employees who had been active in the Union. His conduct also led to the flight of two other employees,from their jobs. The respondent, though fully aware of Taylor's violent treatment of these employees, did nothing to deter him or to protect his victims. Indeed, on these 2 days, Foreman Capell and Glenn clischarged two colored employees because of their union activity.13 ` 0 2. The settlement agreement and the events which followed On February 26, 1942, the Union filed charges under the Act, alleg- ing that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices by the 12 Not related to President Taylor or Plant Manager Taylor. ' The evictions and the discharges are full discussed in Section B, infra. 1 TAYLOR-C,OLQUFTT COMPANY 235 5' acts of its supervisors and by the evictions and discharges. After negotiations between the respondent , the Union, and the Board, the parties signed a settlement agreement dated' March 26, 1942, which was approved by the Acting Regional Director on March 28, 1942. It provided that the respondent ( 1) upon application on or, before April 15, reinstate to their former positions 14 the employees named in the charge; 15 (2) post notices informing its employees that it (a) recog- nized their rights under the Act, (b), would not discriminate against any employee because of union membership or activity , (c) had ad- vised its supervisors to refrain from interfering with, restraining; or coercing its employees because of such membership or activity, and (d), had advised W. R. Taylor to refrain from threatening or ofdering employees off company property ; (3) inform W. R. Taylor that he was to refrain from threatening employees with violence and ordering them off company property and from otherwise intimidating and coercing the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act; and ( 4) advise its foremen and supervisors who were trustees of the Monk Grove School to refrain from interfering with the con- duct of union meetings at the school if that building was in fact avail- able for such or other. public meetings . The Union consented to with- draw the charges if the agreement were carried out by the respondent. On April 4, W. P. Conyers , Jr., the respondent 's vice president, noti- fied the Acting Regional Director that the respondent had complied with its .ulidertakings under the agreement. All the employees named in the charge who applied for reinstatement were reemployed. The required notices were posted and remained posted for the agreed period. At that time , Plant Manager Taylor told W. R. Taylor that he must cease his activities respecting the Union, around the plant. He informed Superintendent Brownley and Foremen Myers , Capell, Glenn, Brown , LaBoone, Seay, and Baxter of the agreement insofar as it was applicable to them. He showed the provision -of the agreement Iespecting the Monk Grove School to Capell , who said he understood it. Despite the settlement agreement, the respondent continued to per- mit Mrs. LaBoone, frequently working together with Collins and Green, to, carry on the program of intimidation and violence. Late in March, and subsequent to the execution of the settlement agreement, Organizer Coope conducted separate meetings of both wjlite and colored employees . Mrs. LaBoone appeared at one of the latter meet- ings; held at Atchison's home. She took down the license numbers of the automobiles parked outside , threatened to "slap hell out of" Coope, as the latter testified, and told him that she would shoot up union meetings and break, up the Union even if she had to kill half 14 Except Hudson Copeland, who was to be given a different job. .16 It was agreed that the respondent donate to charity the amount of back pay due these employees. , 236 DECISIONS OF - NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD l a dozen people. After the meeting, she stopped Coope 's car on the highway, threatened him and other union representatives with phys- ical violence, and- followed him about 20 miles from Spartanburg, repeating her threats. At about the same time she told white employee John Liles At the Brownley store that she would dynamite the plant before she would see the Union come in, 'and warned him not to come back-to his job. About April 9, Field "Examiner Gould of the Board's Regional Office made an unsuccessful attempt in Vice-President Conyer's office to induce Mrs. LaBoone to sign an affidavit agreeing to cease interfering with the Union and -intimidating its members . Conyers refused to urge-her to sign the proposed instrument , but merely told her that the respondent disapproved of her activities. That Conyer 's 'statement was inadequate to halt Mrs. LaBoone's activities is apparent from the fact that 2 days later she called at Willis Means' home, in the company of Collins and Green. She told Means that if she were his foreman she would tell him not to come back to work , and warned him that if she caught him at either the Brownley store or another store adjoining the plant, she would, ac- cording to Means, "pull off his shirt" and ',beat hell out of" shim. She thereafter drove past Means' home once or twice a week, turned around a short distance beyond it, and drove back. On April 12, Mrs. LaBoone follooed Coope, Sims, and Kirby, all union representatives , for 40 or 50 miles in her car. They secured her arrest in Greenville , South Carolina ," and she was placed under a peace bond. She thereafter 'continued to threaten the union repre- sentatives' lives," and continued to follow them 'in her car until as late as June 10, 1942. Also during April, Mrs. LaBoone appeared at white employee D. R. Culbreth's home and told him that the time was not appropriate for a union to come into the plant . During this period,-she told various colored employees to drop the Union and that the Union would cause their children to go hungry . She also arranged for meetings of colored employees at which she made vitriolic anti-union talks. She frequently drove past Rice's home, accompanied by Collins and Green. On one occasion they stopped at Rice's house, and, according to Rice, Green said to him, in the presence of Mrs. , LaBoone and Collins, "If you all don't stop this Union there is going to be some killing between the whites and the blacks," to which Collins added, "Yes , he is telling you right." As a result of these threats , three colored employees left the respond- ent's employ.' 11 About 35 miles from Spartanburg. "On May 21, the day before the election at the plant, which is discussed infra, they swore out a warrant . for her arrest in Spartanburg . The charge was dismissed after hearing. _ 18 See Section B, 3, infra. TAYLOR-COLQULTT COMPANY , 237 3. The consent election and continued opposition, to, the Union On May 11, the Acting Regional Director notified the respondent that the Union had filed a petition for investigation and certification of representatives and that before action on it could be taken by the", Board, the activities of W. R. Taylor and Mrs. LaBoone would have to be "adjusted." 18 On May 13, after negotiations with Field Exam- iner Gould, the respondent agreed to post the following notice : 20 NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES The-Taylor-Colquitt Co. hereby states that Mrs. J. A. LaBoone has never had any connection whatever with this Company. Any activ- ities she may engage in are without our sanction. TAYLOR-COLQUITT CO. By (s) W. P. Conyers, Jr. W. P. CONYERS, Jr. Vice-President cfi Treasurer. On 'May 15, the negotiations between the respondent, ,the Union, and Gould resulted in the execution by the respondent and the Union of a consent election areement, approved by the Acting Regional Di- ;n - rector.21 It provided for an election by secret ballot on May 22 among the production and maintenance employees appearing on the respond- ent's pay roll of May 6. Beginning on May 15 and continuing to the day of the election, cop- ies of two sample ballots and five anti-union leaflets which Mrs. La-, Boone had printed were circulated among the employees in and outside the plant by supervisors, employees, and Mrs. LaBoone. She gave leaflets to colored employees Arthur Jeter and James Moore outside the plant property, and handed one to colored employee Willie John- son at the Brownley store. At the latter place, she asked Shippy how he was going to vote in the election. When Shippy'answered that he did not know, she told him, according to Shippy, "You better vote 19 On April 29, w. R . Taylor, accompanied by four other white employees , and colored employee D B. Johnson engaged in a shooting ,episode on the respondent's premises. The factors leading to the occurrence do not appear in the record Johnson ifled and his whereabouts were still unknown at the time of the hearing. The police took charge of the affair No investigation was made by the respondent, nor did it question Taylor con- cerning the Incident. A few days later, Mrs LaBoone told Doethus Jeter, according to Jeter, "Suppose you and your brother . .. don't report back to work in the morn-, ing . . there is five white inen ( Taylor and his companions ) under $750 bond, and . . . they are hot . If you don't keep off there is going to be some killing done " 20 Conyeis declined to write letters to the employees disavowing responsibility for Mrs: LaBoone's activities , claiming that he feared a possible libel suit. He also declined to take disciplinary action against Taylor , claiming that a preliminary investigation of Johnson would be necessary but inappropriate because of Johnson 's membership in the Union. "On May 19, the Acting Regional Director wrote the respondent that the charges previously filed by the Union had been withdrawn by it without prejudice. 238 DE'CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD `no'. I don't want it." She gave Doethus Jeter a copy of the,small sample ballot and showed him how to vote against the Union and also handed him copies of all but one of the other leaflets. Jeter testified' and we,find; that on one occasion she told him that if any employee voted in favor of the Union she would find it out and kill him. On May 18, Collins, according'to the uncontradicted testimony of Doethus Jeter, which we credit, gave him a copy of one of the leaflets and later handed Jeter and the other employees in the adzing and bor- ing plant, shortly after work had commenced, copies of the large sam= ple ballot, telling them to vote "no." Jeter further testified, without contradiction, that Collins then stated, "We are doing mighty well for you in the company here. Let well go on." Collins also gave the group copies of one of the leaflets while they were working. During this period, Collins came into the boiler room, where colored employee Joseph Dawkins was working, and according to Dawkins' undenied testimony, which we believe, told him that the Union would cause trouble, asked Dawkins to assist him in inducing the other colored workers to vote against the Union, gave him a copy of one of the leaf- lets and of the small sample ballot, and explained to Dawkins how to vote against the Union. V. L. Blackwell, the only white employee who was a union member, was visited by Mrs. LaBoone at his home on May 18 or 19. She In- quired as to how he felt'about the Union and stated' that she was look- ing for the,union organizers. .About May,20, Mrs. LaBoone accosted colored employee Booker Brannon and David' Tate in Spartanburg. According to Tate's unde- nied testimony, which the Trial Examiner believed and which we also believe, she told him that the employees would' not benefit from the Union and made other anti-union remarks. Tate replied, "Mrs. La- Boone, I don't want to talk to you on this . . . You are a white lady. I am a colored boy. I couldn't talk to you on nothing like that." She warned Tate, "If you vote for it I will kill you." Tate then replied, "I will go down swinging." Willis Means testified without contradiction, and we find, that about May 20 Crane-Checker Smith, his supervisor, gave him a copy of a sample ballot marked against the Union and told him and Jack Wright, another colored employee, "I am going to show you how to vote. When the time comes it will be blank." The following day he returned with a large facsimile of the official Board ballot, similarly marked, told Means that the ballot he had previously shown him was wrong, and that the one he now had was correct. On May 20, Gould visited the plant with Conyers and posted the official Notice of Election. As they were leaving, Gould, who had complained to Conyers of Mrs. LaBoone's distribution of anti-union TAYLOR-COLQUPPT COMPANY 239 literature, saw Mrs. LaBoone in her car on the highway near the plant. Gould approached and again asked her to sign the affidavit in which she would agree to cease intimidating and interfering with the em- ployees in their union activities. According to Conyers, Gould re- ported back to him that "she was going to do as she pleased." Conyers made no comment. On the same day observers for the election were chosen. Conyers named Tom Moore, a clerk, Crane-Checker Smith,22 and Heber Culbreth,23 a crane operator who relieved Blackwell, all white employees. The Union named Blackwell, Liles, both white em- ployees, and Dawkins, a colored employee. Coope, on behalf of the Union, requested that Conyers withhold announcement of the names of the Union's watchers until he had had an opportunity to ask them to serve. Conyers withheld the announcement until the afternoon of May 21, when he disclosed their names to Plant Manager Taylor. Shortly thereafter, Heber Culbreth told Blackwell, according to the latter's undenied testimony, that "a man that had plenty of backing . . . was going to beat hell out of" Blackwell if he acted as an'observer for the Union. - On May 21,. according to the testimony of Doethus Jeter, Foreman. LaBoone appeared in the adzing and boring plant and gave Collins a number of leaflets. Colored employee Doc Copeland testi- fied that Collins. gave him three of the leaflets and that Copeland thereupon gave one each to Doethus Jeter and colored employee Willie Johnson. Both Jeter and Johnson substantiated his testimony in this regard, Johnson adding that he had observed Collins receive the papers from LaBoone and hand them to Copeland. Jeter and Johnson iden- tified the papers as copies of one of the leaflets Mrs. LaBoone had been distributing. LaBoone denied the incident, and Collins did not testify. We have found LaBoone to be an unreliable witness, as did the Trial Examiner, and we find that the events took place as testified to by Jeter, Copeland, and Johnson. ' , ' The election was conducted the following afternoon-, May '22, from 3 to 5 o'clock. No union observers were present. After the polls closed, Gould, on orders'from the Acting Regional Director, announced that the ballots would not then be counted, but would be impounded .24 When the balloting had ended, Gould and the respondent's observers signed certificates to the effect that the balloting had been fairly and secretly conducted. After Gould announced that the ballots would 22 Observers were to be chosen from non-supervisory employees . The choice 'of Smith and the acquiescence therein of the Union and the Board do not alter our finding that, to the employees , Smith represented the management. 0 Culbreth was one of the w. R. Taylor group which carried out the February evictions. 24 Conyers , informed of the decision not to count the ballots , addressed a menacing crowd of 20 to 40 employees gathered outside Plant Manager Taylor's office, pointing out to them that Gould was not personally responsible for impounding the ballots . but was acting on the orders of his superior, and requesting them to go home. n 240 DECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD be impounded,-.the respondent's observers insisted that he surrender the certificates. Gould refused. When it appeared that violence would probably follow his continued refusal, Gould relinquished the certificates, stating that ,he was doing so under duress. The respond- ent's observers thereupon destroyed them. The ballots, which re- mained uncounted , together with the list of eligible voters, were there- after placed in the custody of a Spartanburg bank, where they still were at the time of the hearing. On the same day, Coope made oral'objection to the Acting Regional Director with respect to the election, stating that the respondent's supervisors distributed anti-union literature to the employees during working hours, that the supervisors and "other agents" asked the employees not to vote for the Union , and that, because ' of the respond- ent's intimidation, it was impossible for the_Union to be represented at'the polls by observers. On May 30, Coope wrote the Acting Re- gional Director, confirming "oral objections made to you on date of election '..." As of the time of the hearing, Mrs. LaBoone had made no effort to abandon lzer intimiclatory tactics. On June 25, during the hearing, Mrs. LaBoone met Shippy at the Brownley store and asked him why he was not at the hearing. Shippy replied that he expected to, testify, the following day. She then: warned him, according to Shippy, "When you go down there you better not call my name" adding that if he did so, "something is going to happen." 4. Conclusions; responsibility for Mrs. LaBoone's conduct From the first day of the Union's organizational activities the re- spondent embarked upon a course of conduct, frequently' involving the most drastic forms of coercion, to compel As employees to abandon the Union and forego their rights to self-organization and concerted action. In executing that course of conduct the respondent operated through three principal channels-its supervisors, Mrs. LaBoone, and a group of its employees. Almost immediately upon the advent of the Union, the respondent's leading foremen, along with Smith and Gosnell, found above to be representatives of the respondent, led off the attack. They questioned various colored employees concerning their union , affiliation , advised them against joining or remaining members of the Union , threatened them that the plant might shut down if the Unionv-was successful in its organizing drive, and made other disparaging statements concern- ing the Union-. When their advice and threats were ignored and a Large group of-colored employees a few days later attended a union meeting at the Monk Grove School, five foremen, including LaBoone r TAYLOR-GOLQUITT COMPANY 241 and Capell, maintained surveillance of their meeting. Finally Capell, who was also a trustee of the school, evicted them from the premises. At this point, Mrs. LaBoone, wife of the respondent's ranking fore- man, inspired by the professed desire to protect her husband's job, became an active collaborator in the plan to outlaw the Union. In addressing the employees, she disparaged the Union and its leaders and physically assaulted Union Representative Ross. 'She represented that the respondent was paying the best possible wages and that the employees who had attended the meeting would be discharged. Her actions were observed in silence by Capell. Later Plant Manager Taylor, Superintendent Brownlgy, and Capell saw her, accompanied by Green and Garrett, two of Capell's subordinates in the shop, and con- versed with them as they followed and intimidated Ross while he was attempting to leave Spartanburg. None of these supervisors, however, sought to restrain either Airs. LaBoone, or Green or Garrett, from their violent conduct. By their failure so to do and by Capell's pre- vious manifested hostility, the respondent evinced its approval of such conduct. / • I During the week following the Monk Grove School meeting, threats against the employees' economic security were supplanted by threats against their physical well-being and by forebodings of "bloodshed." Mrs. LaBoone continued her obstruction of union meetings and was assisted in her surveillance pursuits by Collins, LaBoone's assistant in the adzing and boring plant, and by W. R. Taylor, an employee who worked under Capell's supervision. When all these tactics had failed, Mrs.,LaBoone's prediction that union employees would be dis- charged materialized when the respondent permitted W. R. Taylor to terrorize the employees who had joined the Union and to evict them from the plant. Taylor's action was in complete harmony with the respondent's open hostility to the Union and its leaders and found its inspiration in the behavior, of his own foreman, Capell. As we have found below, Rice, Arthur Jeter, and Willis Means were forced to leave the respondent's employee because of threats made to them by Mrs. LaBoone. The settlement, agreement 'of March 26 and the consent election agreement of May 15 did not abate the lawlessness of Foreman LaBoone and Ms assistants and of Mrs. LaBoone. In collaboration with Col- lins, whom we have found to be asupervisor, Mrs. LaBoone main- tained surveillance of at least one of the subsequent union meetings and continued to threaten, intimidate, and assault union adherents and representatives. To defeat the Union at the election, Mrs. La- Boone prepared leaflets disparaging the Union, and her husband, Collins, and Crane-Checker Smith assisted and cooperated with her 513024-43-vol. 47-16 1 242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD during working hours in distributing the leaflets and instructing employees how to vote against the Union. The respondent contends, both with respect to the March 26 settle- ment agreement and the consent-election agreement, that the conduct which preceded the execution of each of these agreements should not now be examined by the Board, as the agreements operated- as a bar to a consideration of all such matters. Further, in connection with the consent election, the respondent urges that Gould's 'certificate as to the conduct of the election in effect forecloses the Board from con- sidering the circumstances surrounding the election. We find these contentions to be without merit. The record discloses that, subse- quent to the execution of each agreement, the respondent engaged in continuing 'violations of the Act. To hold that we are precluded by the agreements from considering the respondent's -prior, unlawful conduct would in effect reward the respondent for violating a vital condition inherent in each agreement, i. e., that the unfair labor practices would cease. We have consistently' held` that where an employer engages in unfair labor practices after the execution of a consent-election agreement, we will not regard such agreement' as a bar to a consideration of prior unlawful acts and will examine the entire course of the respondent's conduct both before and-after the. agreement." Gould's certificate, attesting merely to the' fairness- of the balloting itself, is in no way inconsistent with our finding as to the respondent's conduct prior to the actual balloting. That the respondent, through its supervisors and high-ranking officials, interfered with the rights guaranteed its employees in the Act, is clear and unquestionable. It must also (be charged with re- sponsibility for the role played by' Mrs. LaBoone. In executing its campaign of intimidation and threats, the respondent found a willing coworker in Mrs. LaBoone. Thus, on February 14, while LaBoone, Capell, and other foremen' were maintaining surveillance over the union meeting, Mrs. LaBoone addressed the, employees, inveighing against the Union and urging them to abandon it; before the gather- ing disbanded, she physically assaulted Ross,,the union organizer. The respondent's "high-ranking supervisors and Capell thereafter observed her, with obvious approval as she pursued and intimidated Ross. Following the settlement agreement of March 26, she con- tinued to harass, threaten, and coerce the union leaders and adherents, frequently in the company of Collins, a LaBoone assistant, and Green, a worker under Capell. Nor did the consent-election agree- ment bring about a cessation of her hostility toward the Union. She z5 See N. L. R. B V. Hawk & Buck, Co., 120 F. (2d) 903 (C. C. A. 5 ) ; Matter of Houde Engineering Corporation and Inte,national Union, U. A. W.-C. I. 0, Local 850, 42 N. L. R B 713 , Matter of Wickwire Brothers and Amalgamated Association of Wire, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, etc., 10 N. L. R. B. 316. TAYLOR-COLQUITT COMPANY 243 printed, aiid with the aid of her husband, Collins, and Smith, dis- tributed anti-union leaflets and inquired of various colored employees how they were going to vote. As late as June 25, while the hearing was. in progress, Mrs. LaBoone continued her intimidatory tactics by -\v'arning Shippy not to mention her name when he testified. The fact that.she'was the wife of the highest-ranking foreman, her open asso- ciation with her husband and other supervisors, as well as with employees who worked directly under those supervisors, her state; ment that the respondent was paying as much as it could, and her threat that those who attended union meetings would be discharged constituted ample basis for a belief by the employees that she was operating with the respondent's approval. The respondent consist- ently failed to take any real steps to repudiate her activities or to dispel from the minds of its employees that very natural impression. Moreover, the respondent's own coercive conduct, Mrs. LaBoone's open and unmolested emulation of that conduct, the similarity between her statements to the employees and those made to them at the plant by the respondent's representatives, the materialization of her threats of discharge, her cooper,.tion with her husband and Collins in inter- fering with the election, and the respondent's acceptance of the effects ,of her intimidation served only to strengthen the reasonable and prevailing impression and belief among the colored employees that the respondent sanctioned, and perhaps directed, her actions. By permitting its supervisory and other employees to associate and cooperate with Mrs. LaBBoone, by its failure to take any effective steps to halt her excesses, by its refusal to repudiate in unequivocable and vigorous language her unlawful conduct, and by accepting the benefits of her activities, the respondent acqiesced in, ratified, and approved of her conduct. We find the respondent responsible for her activities. Since we have found that Mrs. LaBoone, by various statements and activities,.purported to act in behalf of the respondent and,since the respondent ratified and adopted her ,conduct, we also find that Mrs. LaBoone acted in the interest of the respondent and that she is an "employer," within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. We find that, by maintaining surveillance of union meetings, by questioning employees as to their membership in the Union, by threat- ening employees with violence because of their membership and activity in behalf of the Union, by threatening discharge and loss of employ- ment if the employees joined or remained members 'of the Union, by threatening and physically assaulting the Union's representatives, by campaigning against the Union prior to the election and circulating leaflets derogatory of the Union and its leaders, and by threatening violence to the employees supporting the Union, the respondent and Mrs. LaBoone, individually and collectively, interfered with, re- 244 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD strained, ;and coerced the employees of the respondent in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. Discrimination as to hire and tenure of employment 1. The February evictions On February 23 and 24, W. R. Taylor, an employee who worked under Capell, and who had, together with Collins, observed Mrs. LaBoone's attempts to disrupt the union meeting of February 21, according to his uncontroverted and credible testimony, conducted a meeting of white employees in the plant locker room. He told them of the union meeting of the preceding afternoon, stated that "they" were "trying to organize agin us," and asked those present,to "round up a crowd" to meet in the same place the following morning before the commencement of the working day. Shortly before the men were due at work the following morning, colored employee Ardean Rice observed a large number of employees driving into the plant premises- in several cars and disappearing into. the locker room, carrying 7 or 8 rifles. Among them was Crane-Checker Garrison Morrow, who worked under LaBoone. Some 75 white em- ployees, including Collins, for whose acts we have found the respondent to be responsible, thereafter met in the locker room. They were addressed by W. R. Taylor, who adverted to 'the union meeting of February 21, and again stressed the purported "organizin' agin the whites." Upon being named "leader" of the group, Taylor promised to rid the plant of the union leaders and'to stop the Union's organizational drive. About 5 minutes before the commencement of the working clay, Duce Robinson observed W. R. Taylor hurriedly depositing a shotgun in Foreman Capell's office. Although the locker room` adjoins the plant offices, it does not appear that any representative of the respond- ent interfered with either of the meetings. Nor did Capell or other supervisors object to the storing of guns on the premises. Taylor stopped working about noon of the same day and notified Capell, his foreman, to that effect. It does not appear that Capell inquired into the reasons for Taylor's early departure. During the afternoon, Taylor returned to the plant and accosted each of 8 colored employees, i.e., Willis and Arthur Means, Doethus and Arthur Jeter, Warren Atchison, Arthur Gohghtely, Booker Brannon, and D. B. Johnson, while they were at work in various parts of the plant. His approach was the same with each of them : He kept his right hand suggestively concealed in his pocket and told them to take their hands from their pockets and to keep their distance. -Then he stated that he did not want to hurt them, that the white employees would not tolerate their being members of the Union or the Union's organizing them, that TAYLOR-COLQUITT COMPANY 4- 245 they could finish out'the day and get their pay the same afternoon or on Friday, the regular pay day and that they were to leave the premises and not return until he sent for them. Each of the 8 colored men there- upon left the plant. While Taylor was ordering them off the premises, Assistant Foreman Collins, Crane-Checker Smith; Paul Case,26 and about 10 white employees' were seen by the colored employees to be lurking in the background and observing the conduct of Taylor. None attempted to interfere. - , Otis Shippy, colored employee and a union member, witnessed Taylor order Arthur Jeter and Golightely to get out. ' Taylor, followed by the above-named onlookers, then started toward Shippy. Shippy testified that he "was scared, scared to death," and told' Foreman LaBoone- that he was quitting. The latter merely sent him to the paymaster for his pay. - . Colored employee-Raymond Black witnessed Arthur Means ordered off the premises. Black, who had signed a union memberhip applica- tion, left-the plant immediately 27 because, as he stated, "I had signed a card, too, ;and I figured I wasn't any better than Arthur. I figured my time would be,next. I just took it on my part and left." On the same day, Capell discharged Robinson.and Glenn discharged Dantzler, as discussed more fully below,"' because of their union membership and activities. Before they left the plant, six of the evicted employees told Plant Manager Taylor and Superintendent Brownley that W. R. Taylor had ordered them off the premises and that they desired their pay because they were leaving. The two supervisors assured them that the respondent knew nothing of their being ordered off the premises and told them that they were not required to quit, but that if they desired to do so, they could get their pay immediately or the follow- ing Friday. Doethus Jeter and Golightely reported the episode to LaBoone.29' LaBoone, as in the case of Shippy, immediately wrote out their "time" and told them to see the paymaster, making no in- queries whatever. They received their money and, like the others, left the plant. Before Golightely departed, LaBoone came across the yard and told him, according to Golightely, to "get off the prem- ises. Don't let me catch you on it no more." Crane-Checker Smith advised Willis Means to go straight home and, as Means testified, 26 Case was described by Vice-President W P. Conyers , Jr., as a "gang-leader" Case supervised the activities of a group of about six colored employees at the sawmill, under the general jurisdiction of LaBoone . For the reasons given above in the case of Collins, we find that the respondent is responsible for Case's activities. n No pay was due Black from the respondent at the time. 21 See subsection 2, sutra. 21 LaBoone denied any knowledge of Taylor's activities ' in ordering employees off the property of the respondent He also denied that Doethus Jeter or Golightely told him why they were quitting. The Trial Examiner was not impressed with LaBoone as a witness and refused to credit his denial. We likewise refuse to credit LaBoone's denial. 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD told him "don't be fooling up there around the store 30 or the car;_ I don't want to see you get in any trouble." On the morning of February 24, Ardean Rice was approached by W. R. Taylor in the same manner in which his eight coworkers had been confronted on the previous day. On this occasion, Taylor did not formally take time off from his work. Behind Taylor, and within earshot, stood Assistant Foreman Case and his superior, La- Boone, together with a number of the shop crew. Rice promptly stopped working and left the premises. Five of the nine colored workers who were thus evicted-Willis and Arthur Means, Doethus and Arthur Jeter, and Warren Atchi- son-were already known or suspected by the'respondent as having strong pro-union leanings, as indicated by the various, statements -found above to have been made 'to these' employees by LaBoone, Myers, and other supervisory personnel. In addition, on February 23, just prior to the evictions, Assistant Foreman Seay, inquiring of Arthur Means whether he was a union member, was told that Means was treasurer of the Union. The respondent contends that it is in no way responsible for the evictions, claiminb that its white employees ousted the colored em- ployees in a spontaneous surge of resentment against the Union's organizational activities among the latter group. The evidence im- pels a ,contrary conclusion. The respondent's supervisory officials had, by various extreme means, openly demonstrated their determi- nation to prevent organization of, the respondent's employees. More- over, they had permitted their subordinates, including W. R. Taylor, to emulate their acts of espionage and intimidation. Thus the atmos- phere in which W. R. Taylor assumed leadership of the movement to oust the union members from the plant was clearly generated by the respondent's supervisory, officials. That these officials in fact ap- proved of Taylor's activities is apparent from their conduct at the time. Collins, a supervisor under LaBoone, participated in the meeting which authorized Taylor to rid the plant of the union em- ployees. Foreman Capell permitted Taylor who was his subordinate, to deposit a shotgun in his office; and Morrow, a crane checker under LaBoone, brought a rifle onto the respondent's premises. Although LaBoone; Collins, Case, and Smith observed the evictions, none, of them attempted to intervene. Indeed, LaBoone and Smith directed two of the evictees, whom they saw on the respondent's premises after their eviction, to leave immediately. Moreover, • while Taylor's activities were brought directly to the attention of Brownley and Plant Manager Taylor, they merely suggested to the evicted em- --------------- 80 The "store" adjoined the plant premises and employees frequently cashed their pay checks there. Its proprietor until,May 30, 1942, was Superintendent Brownley. r TAYLOR-COLQUITT COM PANY 247 ployees that -it was not necessary for them to leave. These high- ranking officials made lib effort to investigate the facts and failed entirely to censure ' or otherwise discipline Taylor for taking con- trol over the working conditions of the respondent's employees. Nor did they countermand Taylor's actions or undertake to return the evicted employees to their work with a promise of protection against further physical molestation or assault. These facts , viewed against the background of the respondent's openly demonstrated antagonism to the Union and 'coupled with the respondent 's prior knowledge .of Taylor's scheme through' Collins' attendance at the meeting, the use of Capell's office-to store firearms , and the' siinultaneous unlawful and summary discharges of Robinson and Dantzler by Capell and Glenn clearly show, and we find, that the respondent inspired , encouraged, and sanctioned the evictions . It is consequently responsible therefor. The open display of firearms on the premises and the use of Capell's office as a storeroom for such weapons placed the colored employees in well-founded apprehension of physical harm. Indeed, Black and Shippy, fearing for their safety, abandoned their employment after observing the treatment administered 'their fellows . The respondent was under a duty to safeguard its employees by all reasonable means against intimidation by fellow emplo3 ees.31 ' That it refused so to do is apparent. It was a reasonable and foreseeable consequence of the respondent's failure to furnish adequate protection to its employees that other colored union employees who were cognizant of such intimi- dation would anticipate harm to themselves . Under- these circum- stances, the failure, to furnish protection naturally resulted ' in a re- fusal to continue at work-until the danger of physical harm had been removed. Accordingly, we find that Black and Shippy were -in fact evicted and that the respondent was likewise responsible for their eviction. Under these. circumstances, responsibility for the eviction of the eight employees and the flight of Black and Shippy is directly attributable to the respondent and is, in fact , tantamount to a dis- charge in each case. We find that the respondent on February 23, 1942, discharged Arthur and Willis Means, Arthur and Doethus Jeter, Brannon, Golightely, Johnson, Atchison , Black, and Shippy, and on February 24, 1942, discharged Ardean Rice because they joined the Union and engaged in concerted activities in its behalf and that the respondent has discriminated in -regard to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. "N. L. R. B. v: Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company of Alabama, 129 F. (2d)'661 (C C. A 5) ; N. L. R. B. v. General Motors Corp., 116 F ( 2d) 306 (C. C. A. 7). 1 ^ 248 DEICISI'ONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Colored employee Nathaniel Foster testified that Taylor ordered him off the premises on February 23. Taylor, whom we have found to be a credible witness, denied that he had done, so. Foster returned to work on February 25. The records of the respondent indicate that he neither quit` nor was discharged at that time. The Trial Examiner found that Taylor did not evict Foster from the plant, and we too so find. - ' 2. The discharge of Copeland , Robinson , and Dantzler Hudson Copeland, Duce Robinson, and Willie,Dantzler , who were named in the charges filed by the Union on February 26, were offered reinstatement by the respondent , pursuant to the settlement -agreement of March 26. - Neither Robinson nor Dantzler applied for reinstate- ment, and it was conceded by Board's counsel at the .hearing that, had they `applied, they would have been reinstated . Copeland applied .,and was reemployed . However, we are considering the 'question of whether the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices by the re- spective discharges , thereby discouraging membership in the Union. As we have already found above, the agreement of March 26 does not preclude an examination of this aspect of the respondent 's conduct. Hudson Copeland joined they Union early in February . As found above, Foreman Glenn warned him shortly thereafter that some of the members of the Union would be discharged. Copeland .testified that on February 22, Morgan , a treating engineer , said to him, without further explanation, "Here is your money . .. Mr. Clyde Glenn told me,he can't use you no more ... Go ahead home . Don't be hanging around stopping the other boys from working." Glenn testified that Copeland was discharged for sleeping on the job and permitting a safety valve to "blow " after having been warned about such conduct. Night Foreman Ben Davis substantiated Glenn's testimony . Morgan did not testify. Copeland denied sleeping on the job but the, Trial Examiner found that he was not an impressive witness and did not credit his denial. The Union did not except to the Trial Examiner's finding that the discharge was not discriminatory. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent did not discharge Copeland on February 22, 1942, because of his union membership or activity. Duce Robinson joined the Union early in February and attended the meeting of February 21. Capell had previously advised him against joining the Union and had told him that the Union would cause bloodshed . After Robinson had witnessed W. R. Taylor de- posit his shotgun in Foreman Capell's office on the morning of Febru- ary 23, Capell told Robinson that he had something for him, handed him his "time" and ordered him to "Go ahead and don't let me catch you around here no more ." This incident occurred on the day of the TAYLOR-C0LQUITT COMPANY 249 Taylor evictions, previously considered. Capell did not testify respect- ing the incident. In view of Capell's previous anti-union statements and in the absence of any explanation for Robinson's discharge by the respondent,'we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Robinson was discharged on February 23, 1942, because of his union membership and activity. Willie Dantzler joined the Union early in February and was ob- served by Collins and Mrs. LaBoone at the February 21 meeting. He did not appear for work at the plant on that day. On February 22, Foreman Glenn, who had previously asked him whether he was a union member and advised him not to "fool with it," told Dantzler, according to the latter's undenied testimony, "They say when you lay out a day you are legally fired, so here is your time." The record indi- cates that other employees had failed to report for work without being discharged. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the real reason for discharging Dantzler was not his failure to report for work on February 21, but that the respondent wished to rid itself of him be- cause`of his union membership and activity. - 3. The post-settlement discrimination The complaint alleged that, after their reemployment pursuant to the terms of the March 26 settlement agreement, the respondent again discriminated in regard- to the hire and tenure of employment of Ardean Rice, D. B. Johnson, Nathaniel Foster, Arthur Jeter, Warren Atchison, Willis Means, and Hudson Copeland. It also alleged that V. L. Blackwell was discriminatorily discharged on or _ about May 25, 1942. Ardean Rice was reemployed by the respondent on March 25, fol- lowing his eviction by W. R. Taylor on February 24. After returning to the plant, Rice, who had had meetings of the Union at his home and who was one of the Union's most active supporters, became, as related above, a particular object of intimidation by Mrs.* LaBoone, Collins, and Green'. On or about April 8, according to the undenied testimony of Rice, Green told Rice in the presence of Mrs. LaBoone and Collins that Rice was the "ringleader" of the Union and that "it has got to be stopped, because we white folks ain't going to have it," and warned him that otherwise there would be "some killing." Col- lins assured Rice that Green was telling him the truth. On the evening of April 10, Rice received a note which, as he explained on cross-examination by counsel for the respondent, stated, "We done warned' you one time, and you don't do wrong no more." Immediately upon receiving the anonymous threat, Rice called at Superintendent Brownley's home and showed the note to him. The latter said he knew nothing of conditions at the plant, that he had been sick, and `25O DECISIONS Or, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD referred Rice to Plant Manager Taylor. Rice went to Taylor's home but the latter was not there. The next morning Rice advised the re- spondent that he was leaving. Rice, who normally reported for work early in the morning while it was still dark, testified, "I figured I couldn't see out there at night, and some of them could do something to me. That is the reason I quit." Brownley was a responsible supervisor of the respondent. He made no offer to furnish protection to Rice. In view of the unrestrained, violence at the plant, participated in by supervisory employees, the continuing intimidation of employees by Collins and Mrs. LaBoone outside the plant, and the failure of the respondent to afford, protec- tion'to its employees while on its premises, Rice had reason, under the circumstances, to conclude that his physical well being was seri- ously jeopardized by his union membership and his continued employ- ment. The cessation of Rice's employment was a direct result of the respondent's failure to furnish,, as it was obligated to do, adequate -protection to employees at and about its premises, and to put an end to the lawlessness )of its 'super'visors and Mrs. LaBoone. Therefore,, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Rice's resignation was not a mere voluntary severance of employment but was in fact a discrimi- natory discharge. D. B. Johnson, who had been evicted on February 23, was reem- ployed by the respondent on March 25. He left his job on April 29, after a shooting affray with W. R. Taylor, and was not present at the hearing. The circumstances surrounding the shooting are obscure and the record fails to disclose any responsibility of the respondent for Johnson's sudden departure. The Trial Examiner found, and we' agree and find, that the respondent did not discriminate against Johnson in regard to his hire or tenure of employment after the settlement agreement of March 26. Nathaniel Foster left his employment on April when he heard of .the Johnson-Taylor incident because, as he testified, he "got afraid and quit.". Since the respondent has not been found responsible for the affray between Johnson and Taylor, we are unable to conclude that it is answerable for Foster's abandonment of his employment. Ac-, cordingly, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent did not discriminate against Foster in regard to his,hire or tenure of employment. Arthur Jeter was reinstated on March 25, following his eviction on February 23, and worked for the respondent until May 6. He testi- fied, and we find, that early in May his brother Doethus conveyed to him Mrs. LaBoone's message to keep off the respondent's premises or "there will be some killing done," that he worked 2 days thereafter, and left because "..: I just got kind of frightened . . . I decided it would-be best for me to go on home." Jeter, on cross-examination, TAYLOR.=COLQUITT COMPANY 251 -denied that the shooting of April 29 caused him to quit, and testified, "I ain't as scared of a crowd of nien as I is [of] the lady." He testi- fied further, without contradiction, and we find, that h(j told Foreman Myers of Mrs. LaBoone's threat and that the latter merely said that it was' for Jeter to decide whether to continue to work or to quit. Jeter thereupon left, returning only to vote in the election of May 22. Thus again, as in the case of Rice, the respondent made no effort to halt 'Mrs. LaBoone's intimidatory action or to provide for the safety of its employees upon its premises. By'its failure to do so, it caused Jeter, as it had previously caused Rice, to succumb to, Mrs. LaBoone's threats by leaving his employment. While his brother Doethus con- tinued to work at the plant despite Mrs. LaBoone's warnings, we are of the opinion that such fact in no way reflects upon the reasonableness of Jeter's fears and his consequent decision not to return to work. Accordingly, we find that Jeter's failure to report for work was not a voluntary termination of employment, but was in fact a discharge for his union activity. Warren Atchison, who was also forced to leave the plant on February 23, was reemployed on, April 1 and worked until May 8, 1942. Shortly before the last date, Gosnell, an assistant foreman under Myers, asked him to "double over" until midnight. Atchison, testified that he told Gosnell that "with all this rough stuf" he was afraid To work at the plant at night. / Gosnell replied that he did not blame Atchison for his fears. The next night, however, he again asked Atchison to work. ,When Atchison again protested, he was sent to Myers. Myers told him, according to Atchison, "I give my orders. You are supposed to go ahead and work." Atchison then reported to Plant Manager Taylor. He told Taylor that, while lie had formerly worked at night, he was now afraid to do so because of the "rough stuff." Taylor gave him no assurance of protection. Atchison testified that he left because he was afraid to work at the plant at night, and stated, "After,I had so many threats around there I was afraid somebody would knock me in the head. I wouldn't take that chance." As in the case of Rice and Arthur Jeter,we find that Atchison was in fact discharged for his union activity. Willis Means was reemployed on March 25 after his eviction on February 23. On April 11, Mrs. LaBoone threatened him with vio- lence and thereafter frequently drove back and forth past his home. On May 22.Means decided to leave the respondent's employ., He testi- fied that his decision was made in consequence of the following con- siderations and incidents : Mrs. LaBoone's threats against him "got me scared, because she was a woman, you know, and a white lady," and he was "all the time . .-bothered." In addition, some per- sons whoiiz Means was unable to identify had attempted to set fire to 4 252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD his home on the night of May 21. Because of all these circumstances, -he testified, he'decided to quit on May 22 "before there was any more trouble." On that day; he spoke to Conyers and, Taylor, telling them what had occurred the previous night. They merely asked him whether he had been "bothered" -on the job and he replied that he had- not. Taylor then told Means, according to the latter, that the 'respondent was "trying to do all [it] could to prevent anything on the job but [it] couldn't protect the whole community." Conyers urged Means to stay at his work for the remainder of the day, but the latter was adamant because, as he testified, "It seemed to me the longer I worked there, the more trouble I would have." He returned to the plant that afternoon, voted in the election, received his pay, and left. In this instance too, it is clear that had the respondent fulfilled its duty to afford Means reasonable protection at and about its plant and had it openly and unequivocally repudiated the activities of Mrs. LaBoone and forbidden its supervisory employees to collaborate with her, the conditions giving rise to Means' decision to terminate his em- ployment would' not have existed. Plant Manager Taylor's statement that the respondent was trying "to do all [it] could to prevent anything on the job" was not supported by any overt act on its part and, viewed in the light of the events of the preceding 4 months, it was obviously no more than a bare assertion upon which no employee could reasonably rely as adequate assurance. Accordingly, we find that Means' resignation was not a voluntary termination of employment but resulted from the respondent's failure to perform its obligations toward its employees. The resignation was consequently tantamount to a ,discharge for union activity. V. L. Blackwell had been employed by the respondent for 25' years when he left his job as crane operator on May 23, 1942. He joined the Union in April and was the only white member. As related above, Blackwell was named as an observer for the Union at the election. Shortly after Conyers had announced his name and those of the other two union observers to Plant Manager Taylor on May 21, Heber Cul- bretli, a crane operator who relieved Blackwell and who acted as an observer for the respondent, told Blackwell that he would be beaten if he acted for the Union. This incident, together with the previous visit of Mrs. LaBoone to his home when she was in search of the union organizers, caused Blackwell to leave his job, for, as he testified, "I had got about all of that foolishness I wanted." He did not report for work on May 22, the day of the election, and on May' 23 obtained his pay from Superintendent Brownley, who asked him, according to 'Blackwell, "I suppose you have quit?" Blackwell replied, "Yes, I have quit and am going to stay quit until you get to where you can control these fellows without these boys interfering with,me." On P TAYLOR-COLQUITT COMPANY 253- cross-examination by the respondent, Blackwell explained, "I thought I had better get away from there while I could." It is apparent that Blackwell would not have terminated his own employment if the respondent had afforded him adequate protection from physical harm, as it was bound to do. Accordingly, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that on May 23, 1942, the respondent dis- charged V. L. Blackwell because of his union membership and activity. Hudson Copeland was reemployed on April 18, 1942, pursuant to the terms of the March 26 settlement agreement and was given a job wrenching doors. The settlement agreement provided'that Copeland be given a job other than his former one. His new duties were more arduous than those he had formerly performed. He testified that he informed Foreman Glenn that his work was too fatiguing, that he could not perform it, and asked him for his old job. Glenn told him that his former job was filled. Copeland thereupon left the plant. The record discloses no discriminatory motive on the part of the re- spondent in assigning Copeland to a job other than that which he had previously held.' The Trial Examiner found that the respondent slid not discriminate against Copeland in regard to his hire or tenure of employment and recommended that the allegations of the complaint as to him be dismissed. The Union did not except. We also find that the respondent did not discriminate against Copeland. We find that the respondent discriminated in regard to-the hire and tenure of employment of Duce Robinson, Willie Dantzler, Ardean Rice, Arthur Jeter, Warren Atchison, Willis Means, and V. L. Black- well, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow, of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent and Mrs. LaBoone have in a very serious manner and to a far-reaching degree engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act and in aid of our cease and desist order, it is essential that the respondent be directed to take cer- tain affirmative action, more particularly described below. 254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We have found that the respondent and Airs. LaBoone have intimi- dated, threatened, and assaulted the respondent's employees and various representatives of the Union in order to interfere with the right of the employees to form, join, or assist the Union.' We have found, in ad- dition, that the respondent failed to provide, at and about its ' plant adequate protection for its employees from intimidation, physical assaults, or threats of violence because of union membership. We shall, therefore, order the respondent at all times -to afford all its employees- adequate protection at and about the plant from intimidation, phys- ical assaults, or threats of violence directed at discouraging member- ship in the Union or in any other labor organization.3- It has also been found that, in connection with _ its anti-union campaign, the respondent permitted its employees to store firearms on its premises. We shall order the respondent to prohibit the storing in its plant of any dangerous weapons, for the purpose of discouraging, membership. in the Union or in any other labor organization. We believe that further affirmative, action must be taken by the respondent to dissipate the serious effects of the flagrant unfair labor practices we have found to have been committed at its plant. The record has shown that LaBoone, Capell, Myers, Collins, Case, Smith, Morrow, and various other supervisory employees, and W. R. Taylor, Green, Garrett, and other non=supervisory employees, who participated in various forms of unlawful conduct are still employed at the respond- ent's' plant. They 'are therefore still capable of persisting in such unlawful acts. Moreover, they remain as symbols of the respondent's anti-union program and their continued presence at the plant 'in a position of authority or otherwise will undoubtedly serve to deter the employees from enjoying the freedom of which they have been deprived ,by that program and its manifold manifestations. We consequently deem it imperative, under the circumstances, to require the respondent to release its employees-from the restraint imposed, upon them by the presence of these persons at the plant. We shall therefore order the respondent to make known to its employees its intention, and in fact to carry out such intention, to dismiss or otherwise penalize severely any supervisory or non-supervisory employee who attempts in the future to engage in intimidation, physical assaults, or threats of violence, directed at discouraging membership in the Union and any supervisory employee who attempts in the,future to interfere with the right of the respondent's employees to form, join, or assist any labor organization. ' 12 N. L. R. B. v. Pond Motor Co., 119 F. ( 2d) 326 (C. C. A. 5), enf'g as mod , Matter of Ford Motor Company andiIl. C. McGarity, an individual, etc., 26 N L. R B 322 ; and see N L R B v General Motors Corp., 116 F. (2d) 306 (C. C. A. 7),,enf'g Matter,of-General Motors Corpoi ation and Delco-Remy Corporation and International Uhion, Unsted-Auto- mobile Workers of America, Local No. 1116, 14 N. L. R. B. 113. J TAYLOR-COLQU1TT COMPANY 255, We have further found that the respondent discriminatorily dis- charged five employees during April and May 1942.33 We shall order that the respondent offer these employees immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,`without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of-the respondent's discrimination against them, by the payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 34 during-that period. -, 'Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Mine Workers of America, District 50, is a labor organi- zation, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. - 2. Mrs. Elnla LaBoone is an employer, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. 3. By maintaining surveillance of union meetings, by questioning employees as to their membership i° the Union, by threatening em- ployees with violence because of their membership and' activity in behalf of the Union, by threatening discharge and loss of employ- lnent if the employees joined or remained members of the Union, by threatening and physically assaulting the Union's representatives, by campaigning against the Union prior to the election and circulating leaflets derogatory of the Union and its leaders, end by threatening violence to the employees supporting the Union, the respondent and Mrs. LaBoone, individually and collectively, interfered with, re- strained, and coerced the employees of the respondent in the exercise "'We have also found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged 13 employees in February 1942 All such employees were offered reinstatement and those who applied ,were reemployed ' As to those who did not apply, it was conceded by counsel for the Board that , had they applied , they would also have been reemployed It further appears that, in accordance with the settlement agreement, the respondent contributed to a chary table organization a sum of money equal to the back pay of all such employees . Accord- ingly , the respondent has already fulfilled its obligation to offer reinstatement to those employees whom it had disc riminatoril y discharged and has paid , as it agreed to do, the amount of back wages to charity. We do not believe that the policies of the Act will be effectuated by requiring the respondent again to offer reinstatement to the 13 'employees or to make them whole for wages lost. "By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working lelse- wheue than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful dischaige and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lo?nber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, '8 N L R B. 440 Monies received for, work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal, or other work -relief projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel ,Corpo; aeon v. N L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7. J 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of'the Act, and have thereby engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. By discriminatinb in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment of Arthur Means, Willis Means, Warren Atchison, D. B. John- son, Doethus Jeter,, Arthur Jeter, Booker Brannon, Arthur Golightley, Ardean Rice, Otis Shippy Raymond Black, Duce Robinson, Willie -Dantzler, and V. L. Blackwell, thereby discouraging membership in United Mine Workers of America, District 50, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of, Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, with respect to D. B. Johnson after March 26, 1942, or with respect to Hudson Copeland or Nathaniel Foster. 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, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that -A. The respondent, Taylor-Colquitt Company, Spartanburg; South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Assaulting, beating, or otherwise engaging in physical vio- lence, with respect to any employee, union representative, or any other person, or inciting, encouraging, or assisting others to assault, beat, or otherwise engage in physical violence, with respect to any employee, union representative, or any other person for the purpose of, discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf of, United Mine Workers of America, District 50, or any other labor organization; (b) Maintaining surveillance of, or employing any other means of espionage, for the purpose of ascertaining or investigating the activities of any labor organization or the activities of its employees in connection with any labor organization; (c) Disrupting meetings for the purpose of interfering with the right of its employees to self-organization; (d) Discouraging membership in United Mine Workers of Amer- r\ca, District 50, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or by dis- criminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure, of employment or any terms or conditions thereof; i TAYLOR-GOLQUITT .COMPANY 257 (e) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, 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) Afford all its employees adequate protection at all times at and about its plant from intimidation, physical assaults, or 'threats of physical violence directed at discouraging membership in, or activity on behalf of, United Mine Workers of America, District 50, or any other labor organization; (b) Instruct in writing all its employees at its plant that intimida- tion, physical assaults, or threats of violence directed at discouraging membership, in, or activities on behalf of, United Mine Workers of America, District 50, or any other labor organization, will not be tolerated at any time, and take effective action to enforce such rule; (c) Instruct in writing all its employees at its plant that they may not store, carry, or bring i11to the plant guns or other dangerous weapons of any nature for the purpose of discouraging membership in•United Mine Workers of America, District 50, or any other labor organization, and take effective action to enforce such rule (d) Instruct orally and in writing, all its employees that its crane checkers, gang leaders, assistant foremen, foremen, superintendents, and other officials and supervisory employees may not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organ- izations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their "own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, . and take effective action to enforce such rule;. (e) Offerto Ardean Rice. Arthur Jeter, Warren Atchison, Willis Means, and V. L. Blackwell immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges; (f) Make whole Ardean Rice, Arthur Jeter, Warren Atchison, Willis Means, and V. L. Blackwell for any loss of pay they may have .suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of them a sum of money equal to that which each would normal] y'have earned as wages from the date, of discrim- ination against each 'to the date of his offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period; 513 0 24-4 3,-v o 1 4 7--17 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ' (g) Post immeditely.in conspicuous places throughout its Spartan- burg, South Carolina, plant, and maintain 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), (b), (c), (d), and (e) hereof; (2) that the respondent, will. take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) hereof; (3) that its employees are free to become or remain members of United Mine Workers of America, District 50, and that the respondent will not in any manner discriminate against any employee because of his membership in or activity on behalf of that organization; and (4) that it completely repudiates the activities of Mrs. Elma LaBoone among its employees; that-such, activities have occurred in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, and that it takes this means of notifying its employees that it will neither accept, participate in, nor condone any such acts; (h) 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. B. Mrs. Elma LaBoone, her agents and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Assaulting, beating, or otherwise engaging in physical vio- lence, with-respect to any employee, union representative, or any other person, or inciting, encouraging, or assisting others to assault, beat, or otherwise engage in physical violence, with respect to any em- ployee, union representative, or any other person, for the purpose of discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf of, United Mine Workers of America, District 50, or any other labor organization; (b) Maintaining surveillance of, or employing any other means of espionage, for the purpose of ascertaining or investigating, the activities of any labor organization or the activities of the employees of any employer, including the respondent, in connection with any labor organization; (c) Disrupting meetings for the purpose of interfering with the right of the employees of any employer, including the respondent, to self-organization; (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing the employees of any employer, including the respondent, in the exer- cise of their right to" self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. TAYLOR-COLQUITT COMPANY 259 AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the complaint , in sofar as it alleges that the respondent has discriminated against Hudson Copeland and Nathaniel Foster, and insofar as it alleges that the respondent has discriminated against D. B. Johnson on and after March 26, 1942, within',the meaning,of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.