Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills

In the Matter of FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS and INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS UNION OF NORTH AMERrCA, AFL In the Matter of FULTON BAG AND • COTTON MILLS and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Cases Nos. 10-C-10444 and 10-C-1980, respectively.Decided January 21,19118 Mr. William M. Pate, for the Board. Messrs. Frank A. Constangy and John M. Slaton, of Atlanta, Ga., .for the Respondent. Mr. Ralph Sanders, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union. DECISION AND ORDER On February 17, 1947, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.' Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Oral argument, originally granted, was subsequently canceled, at which time the re- spondent was notified of a further opportunity to file a supplemental brief or written argument, setting forth the matters which would have been covered in the oral argument. The respondent has not filed a supplemental brief in lieu of oral argument. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby af- firmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the ex- ceptions, brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions, modifications, and additions noted below : 'These piovislons of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, which the Trial Examiner found were violated, are reenacted in Sections 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 75 N. L. R. B, No. 111. 766972-48-col 75-57 883 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's-finding that the respondent, by the statements and actions of supervisors Johnson, Roberts, Chancy, Lanford, De Loach, Coleman and Couch, as set forth in the Intermediate Report, engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. The respondent excepts to the finding, pointing out as the basis for its exception that the Trial Ex- aminer failed to mention in his report a letter from the respondent's president to all its employees dated July 11, 1946, in which the re- spondent set forth its position regarding union activities by its em- ployees and declared that they could join or not join the union as they pleased, free from fear of any reprisal. While the Board has, on oc- casion, held that the posting of a notice, will relieve an employer from responsibility for acts of interference on the part of its super- visory personnel,2 it is to be observed that the letter, regarded as a notice in the present instance, contains no reference to any disavowal by the respondent of the past unneutral conduct on the part of its supervisors; neither does it specifically disclaim responsibility on the part of the respondent for any future acts of like nature by such supervisors.3 The Board has held ineffectual to relieve an employer from responsibility for the unneutral acts of a supervisor, a notice of neutrality which contained no specific disavowal of partisan con- duct by a supervisor, as would normally have dissipated the effects of his activities.4 We find, therefore, that the failure of the Trial Examiner to mention the letter in question is immaterial, and that the respondent's exception thereto is without merit. We do not find, however, that all statements in the Intermediate Report attributable to the above-named supervisors constitute a vio- lation of Section 8 (1). An examination of the record discloses that such statements, other than the questions regarding union affiliation, are in the nature of opinions and do not contain any threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the statements, other than the interrogatory remarks 5 and other than the anti-union activities upon which the Trial Examiner relies and upon which we affirm his finding of interference, are non-coercive ut- terances within the meaning of the Act, as amended. 2. We also agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that the re- spondent discriminated against employees Smith, Rose, Longmire, s Matter of Midwest Piping and Supply Co., Inc., 63 N. L. R. B. 1060. The only reference to possible future acts of interference is a statement that, as other misstatements come to the respondent 's attention , it will do its best to tell its employees the truth. 4 See Matter of Parkchester Machine Corporation, 72 N. L . R. B. 1410. 5 The interrogation of employees regarding their union affiliation remains an unfair labor practice under the Act, as amended . Matter of Ames Spot Welder Co., Inc., 75 N. L R. B 352 FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 885. Kelley, and Guthrie, with respect to their working conditions and wages in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act.6 3. We concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that the respondent, in violation of Section 8 (3) and ( 1) of the Act, discriminatorily laid off Harper C. Long, because of his activities in behalf of the Union, at various times from May 20 , 1946, to September 3, 1946. The respond- ent contends that a curtailment of operations in its Engraving Depart- ment, due to certain limitation orders issued by the President of the United States which restricted the milling and use of grain and the manufacture of flour, necessitated Long's lay-off. The respondent's contention is, however, inconsistent with the position which it took in a letter to a customer dated August 19, 1946, wherein the respondent stated that it was unable to fill an order because of a shortage of en- gravers, thereby implying that it had more work than it could handle.? It does not appear, therefore , that the limitation orders reduced the amount of work available in the Engraving Department at the re- spondent's Atlanta plant during the period in question . Under the circumstances, we find that the respondent 's contention is without merit. 4. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent , by its discrimina- tory treatment of Long, in violation of Section ' 8 (3) and ( 1) of the Act, constructively discharged him because of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union . The respondent excepts to this finding and contends that Long resigned as the result of an altercation between Long and Blalock . In our opinion , the record does not sup- port the Trial Examiner's finding, especially in view of the clear showing, as found by the Trial Examiner , that the affray was not insti- gated or provoked by the respondent . It is evident that the respond- ent's unlawful treatment of Long was interrupted by an independent act, the afore-mentioned altercation . It appears , therefore, that the proximate cause for Long's resignation was not the respondent's discriminatory treatment of him, but rather his unwillingness to work 9 We find, as did the Trial Examiner , that although the complaint contained no specific allegation of discrimination against employees Smith, Rose , Longmire, Kelley, and Guthrie , the issues with respect to such discrimination were fully litigated at the hearing, and an opportunity was afforded the respondent to adduce testimony to refute the charge of discrimination against these employees. Accordingly , we find immaterial any varIancp between the allegations of the complaint and our present finding based thereon See Matter of Ford Motor Company, 57 N L. R. B. 1814 ; cf. Matter of Marshall and Bruce Company, 75 N L R B 90, fn 10 and the cases cited therein. 7 The respondent asserts, by way of explanation , that the customer requested only a $200 order involving a $40 engraving cost, which made it unprofitable for the respondent to handle The respondent's explanation is, however , irrelevant to the issue since it does not appear that it has in any way denied the existence of a shortage of engravers or the implication therefrom that the Engraving Department was working at full capacity at that time 886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with Blalock as a result of the altercation between them., Under the circumstances, we do not find that Long was constructively discharged by the respondent on September 3, 1946.° Accordingly, the Trial Examiner's finding in this respect is hereby reversed. 5. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent, in violation of Section 8 (3) and (1) of the Act, discharged employee Ruby Ethridge because of her union activities and not, as the respondent contends, be- cause of her inefficiency and incompetence. We agree. It is apparent from the evidence detailed in the Intermediate Report that Ethridge's asserted shortcomings were not the reason motivating her discharge, but were merely an excuse for eliminating a known union leader. This is indicated by testimony to the effect that while Ethridge was given, as were other employees, an alleged non-discriminatory assignment, the respondent intended, in her case, to hold her to an impossible standard of performance for the purpose of later bringing about her discharge ,on the ground of inefficiency. Moreover, it is clear that Ethridge's work, which at best was only fair, became unsatisfactory only after her ,discriminatory transfer by the respondent to work which she was less ,capable of performing. Furthermore, we are convinced that a con- tributing cause for the unsatisfactory quality of her work was the respondent's failure to repair her machine although, on several differ- ent occasions, she had requested the respondent to repair it. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the real cause for Ethridge's discharge was the respondent's desire to discriminate against her because of her union activities, and not her inefficiency as claimed by the respondent 10 THE REMEDY The Trial Examiner recommended that, in view of the extensive nature of the unfair labor practices on the part of the respondent, manifesting a determination generally to defeat and discourage self- organization, and in order to effectuate the guarantee of Section 7 of the Act, the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any man- ner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. This recom- mendation was based, in part, upon the Trial Examiner's finding that, in addition td the commission of other unfair labor practices within 8 The lack of any intent on the part of the respondent to discharge Long on this occasion is evident from the following remark by Superintendent Johnson to Foreman Scroggins shortly after obseivmg the effects of the fight on both men. "Give both a pass out. 'They're not in any shape to «ork today " D See Matter of Gibbs Co; poration, 74 N. L. R. B 1182; Matter of St. Joseph Lead Company, 65 N L R B 439, cf. Matter of Palm Beach Broadcasting Company, 63 N L. R. B 597 'D See Matter of Peoples Motor Express, Inc., 74 N. L R B 1597 ; Matter of Spencer Auto Electric, Inc, 73 N. L R B 1416. FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 887 the meaning of Section 8 (1) and 8 (3) of the Act as found herein, the respondent constructively discharged Long because of his member- ship in and activities on behalf of the Union. While we have found that the respondent did not constructively discharge Long, we have found that the respondent subjected him to discriminatory lay-offs- in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the respondent has demonstrated an attitude of opposi- tion to the general purposes of the Act by its discriminatory treatment of both Long and Ethridge, by its action permitting anti-union solici- tations on Company time and property while denying like privileges, to the Union, and by the action of the respondent's supervisors in in- terrogating employees concerning their union activity. We believe, therefore, that in order to satisfy the remedial purposes of the Act, the respondent should be ordered to cease and desist from in any man- ner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We have found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Long by laying him off at various times during the period beginning about May 20, 1946, and ending September 3, 1946, and by discharging Ethridge on August 13, 1946. As regards Ethridge, we shall order that the respondent offer her im- mediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equiv- alent position without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suf- fered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount she normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of her discriminatory discharge to the date of an offer of reinstatement by the respondent, less her net earnings. Similarly, in the case of Long, while we shall not direct his reinstatement in view of our finding that he was not discharged by the respondent, we shall order the re- spondent to make him whole for such loss of pay as he may have suf- fered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him result- ing in his being laid off on a number of occasions, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages during the periods covered by such lay-offs, less his actual earnings during said periods. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills, Atlanta, Georgia, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, AFL, or in American Fed-' eration of Labor, or in any other labor organization of its employ- ees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Printing Press- men and Assistants Union of North America, AFL, and American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively 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) Offer Ruby Ethridge immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges ; (b) Make whole Ruby Ethridge for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount which she nor- lnally would have earned as wages during the period from August 13, 1946, the date of her discriminatory discharge, to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings, during such period ; (c) Make whole H. C. Long for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages during the period from May 20, 1946, to September 3, 1946, less his actual earnings, during such periods; (d) Post at its plant at 170 Boulevard, S. E., Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 11 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representa- tive, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respond- 11 In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words, "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING" FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 889 ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, Atlanta, Georgia, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, What steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills discriminatorily discharged H. C. Long, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. L. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR or any other labor organization, 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 protec- tion. WE WILL OFFER to the employee named below immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent posi- tion without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privi- leges previously enjoyed, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. Ruby Ethridge WE WILL make whole the following employee for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason,of discrimination against him. H. C. Long All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term 890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or condition of employment against any employee because of member- ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. 1` TJLTON BAG & COTTON MILLS, Employer. Date ----------------------- By ------:------------------------ (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. tiVsllaann M. Pate, for the Board. Messrs. Frank A Constangy and John H. Slaton, of Atlanta, Ga, for the respondent. Mr. TV. Ralph Sanders, of Atlanta, Ga, for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE (CASE Upon amended charges duly filed by International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, A. 1". L, and American Pedenatnon of Labor, herein collectively called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated October 8, 1940,' against I ulton Bag and Cotton Mills, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that the respondent (1) slid on or about 'Kav 20, 1940, lad off H C. Long and (lid thereafter provide hint with less employment than lie normally would have received for the reason that he joined and assisted the Union and engaged in other concerted activities; (2) discharged H. C Long on of about September 3, 1946, and Mrs. Ruby Ethridge on or about August 13, 1946, and failed and refused to reinstate said employees for the reason that they joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other concerted activities: and (3) by these acts, and from on or about April 1, 1946, to the date of the conmplannt, through certain of its officers, agents, and supervisory employees, by vdnf} ing, disparaging, and ex- pressing disapproval of the Union, by interrogating its employees concerning their Union affiliations and activities, and by tinging, persuading, threatening and warning its employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of or remain- ing members of the Union, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act On or about October 18. 1946, the respondent filed an answer wherein it admitted certain allegations of the complaint as to the nature and extent of its business but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices ' By order of the Board dated October 8, 1946 , the above two cases were consolidated. FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS _ 891 Pursuant to notice. a hearing was held at Atlanta, Georgia, on November 12, 13, 14, and 18, 1946, befoie the undersigned Trial Examinee, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by its repiesentative All parties participated in the hearing Full opportunity to be heaid, to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses, and to introduce evidence hearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the evidence, counsel for the Board moved to conform the pleadings to the proof as to tounal matters such as names and dates. The motion was granted without objection. All parties waived oral argument at the close of the hearing. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs or proposed 'findings of fact and conclusions of law or both. Counsel for the respondent has filed with the undersigned a brief and proposed findings of fact. The respondent's proposed findings are hereinafter specifically ruled upon Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF TIIE RESPONDENT Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills is a corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia: The respondent maintains its prin- cipal office and a plant at Atlanta. Georgia, and maintains other plants in various States of the United States other than the State of Georgia. The respondent is engaged in said plants in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of various kind, of bags. The instant proceeding is concerned only with the Atlanta plant. During the fiscal year ending September 1, 1946, the respondent purchased for its Atlanta plant raw maiteiials consisting principally of sheeting , osnaburg, burlap. and paper, of a value in excess of $1,000.000. 75 percent of which was shipped to the Atlanta plant front points outside the State of Georgia During the same period the respondent's sales of finished products from the Atlanta plant were of a value in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent was shipped and sold to customers outside the State of Georgia At the hearing the respondent admitted that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 1. International Printing- Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, A. F. L, is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the respondent. 2 American Federation of Labor is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the respondent. 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint and coercion About the middle of April 1946, some five or six employees in the respond- ent's Printing and Engraving Departments joined the Union. In the begin- ning, the Union's organizational drive was centered for the most part in these departments and later spread to the other departments in the plant. 892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Some few weeks after this group joined the Union, or about the beginning of May, James H Johnson, superintendent of the plant, sent for each employee in the Press Room and questioned them individually! Johnson started these conversations by telling the employees that "It's just in the air around here that some kind of a club or aid or something is going on," and asked them if they knew anything about it. If they did not give him any information he warned them by referring to strikes in other plants. For example, he stated to Howard Hanson, a pressman, as follows: "Well . . . I just want to warn you before it gets too far here. . . Bemis Bag Mills is out on a strike. . . . They have been out 10 weeks, and, . . . they have been sending out trying to get help to get some groceries so they can stay out longer. . . . I just want to warn you folks before anything like that happens here." Some few of the employees advised him that the Union was organizing the plant. In such cases he either asked them if they had been approached by anyone in the Press Room concerning the Union, and if so by whom, or asked them if they were in favor of the Union. He usually ended the conversation by telling the employee to keep him advised if they heard anything further. Chancy,' who also was ordered by Personnel Director Stone to make a survey of employees, spoke to each employee in the Press Room individually, at about the same time or shortly after Johnson spoke to them. He visited their place of work and in some instances spoke to them on two occasions. As to his conversation with Chancy, William Gallimore, an automatic pressman, testified credibly and without contradiction as follows : He said, "I just want to get a few things straight with you fellows down here." He says, "I want to talk with you about the conditions of things," and I told him, "Well, all right." He said, "Well, you have been working here for a long time." He says, "You are my friend, and," he says, "I am your friend." I says, "I hope so." And he says, "I want a little information. f rom you," he says, "If you will," I believe was the way he put it. I told him, "All-right," I would like to talk with him. And he says-I don't remember just how that was he went about it, but, anyway, he come around talking about, he said something or other about the Georgia Power Company strike. He didn't call it the Georgia Power Company strike. He said, "You see what happened uptown yesterday." 0. Was that during the streetcar strike? - A. It was about the same time. Q. That he was talking about? A. I think he talked to me the day after they went on strike, I believe it was, or the day after it was settled. I forget which. He said, "You can see what happened up town." He said, "We don't want anything like that happening around here, and," he said, "All these things that you read in the paper, too," he says, "About these organiza- tions," and he kept on and I said, "What you are talking about is the Union, isn't it?" 2 Johnson was not called as a witness at the hearing Troy Stone, personnel director, testified that he directed Johnson and one Chancy, who was the former paymaster and who handled special matters for the respondent, to investigate "dissatisfaction" in the plant. i Chancy was not called as a witness at the hearing. FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 893 He said, "That's right. A. F. of L. and CIO." He says, "All these things This Company don't want anything like that around here. They are not going to stand for it." He says, "This Company has got too much 'money for somebody uptown to come down here and tell them what they can do and what they can't do." I says, something or other about my brother had been over in the war and fighting against people going around .trying to dictate to other people, and he said, "Let me get you straight, now." He says, "The Company is not going to put up with no such as that." He says, "This Company is a large concern. You known that. And," he says, "They have got too much money for anybody to come down here and tell them what to do, and," he said, "This Company pays above the Union wage."' Some few days after Johnson spoke to the employees, J. H. Roberts, foreman of the Press Room, had a conversation with Horace Blalock in the presence of H. C. Long, both of whom were employees in the Engraving Department. During this conversation, Roberts told Blalock that anyone who joined the Union was "nothing more or less than a cut-throat, gangster and an outlaw," and that he hoped to see them starve to death.' About the end of May, Eula Lanford, forelady of the Sewing Room, sent for Pearl Longmire, a sewing machine operator, and questioned her about a meeting of the Union which had been held the previous night During the conversation, Lanford asked Longmire if she knew anything about the meeting. Longmire replied that she did not and Lanford then said that she did not want any of the employees to cause trouble in the Sewing Room. Lanford also referred to current strikes, particularly the Bemis strike, and stated that such strikes would cause them all to pay more for their living expenses.' About the middle of June, Bonnie Selman, a turner in the Sewing Room, had a conversation with Superintendent Johnson. Selman had been discharged imme- diately prior to the conversation, allegedly for taking time off without permission' During the conversation with Johnson, Selman intimated that she was being discharged because of her union activities. Johnson then asked her if she be- longed to the Union and Selman replied in the affirmative Johnson then said, "You mean to tell me you have been disloyal to this Company, knowing all the time they are against the Union and you are for it and you still want to work for them?" Also about the middle of June, Thomas Burdett, an employee in the Cutting. Room, had several conversations with Paul DeLoach,8 his foreman. Burdett testified credibly and without contradiction, as to these conversations, that he heard DeLoach grant Mildred Gabriel, an employee in the,Cutting Room, permission to take time off, Burdett said DeLoach then spoke to him and asked him if Gabriel was "a big Union worker" ; that Burdett replied that he did not know; that later in the same week, DeLoach refused Gabriel permission to take time off ; that DeLoach asked him what he thought about the Union ; and that when Burdett replied that he had not made up his mind, DeLoach referred to an ° Other witnesses testified credibly to conversations with Chancy, in which Chancy made statements similar to the above Roberts was not called as a witness at the hearing s Lanford was not called as a witness at the hearing. Longmire testified without con- tradiction to the above conversation with Lanford . Ruby Ethridge, a sewing machine opeiatoi, testified to a similar conversation Rlth Lanford as will be heieinafter related. 4 Selman was later reinstated to her position , apparently after filing charges with the Board. She was elected vice president of the Union on July 20. 8 DeLoach NA as not called as a witness at the hearing. 894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD incident in which a female employee for whom he had obtained a job with the respondent was discharged after she had joined a union. About July 20, 1946, the Union held a meeting at which officers of its local were elected. The following _Monday morning a notice which named the officers ,elected was posted in the Sewing Room Shortly after the notice was posted, Johnson, accompanied by John Weitnaur, chief machinist in the plant, re- moved the notice front the wall.' E G Smith, an elevator operator, had been appointed to the Union's contract committee for the Sewing Room, and it was so stated on the notice Johnson then spoke to Smith and said, "I thought you didn't belong to that old union." Smith replied to the effect that he did not belong to the Union when he had previously talked to Johnson, but that he had since signed an application for membership. Johnson then said that he thought ,that anybody who joined the Union was not a friend for him and the respondent. O'Neal Martin was employed in the Tent Department and his foreman was B Y. Coleman. At some time in August, Martin had several conversations with Cole- man.10 Coleman asked Martin it he knew anything about the Union and, during ,one conversation, Coleman stated that he heard that Martin's wife had been .asked to join the Union When Martin replied that his wife had been asked to join but had not joined at the time, Coleman stated that Martin should tell her to see Johnson about it and that Johnson would see that she was left alone. W. J. Couch was foreman of respondent's Tent Basement. During August, ,Couch asked the employees under him if they had joined the Union. It appears that all of these employees advised Couch that they had not joined. Couch then told them to suit themselves as he did not have anything against the Union, but that he hoped they would not join. It is undisputed that from about July or August until shortly before the hearing herein, Weitnaur and Floyd Bryant, another machine fixer, circulated anti-Union petitions throughout the plant and solicited employees to sign then ,on company time and property." The evidence conclusively shows that the re- spondent not only had knowledge of such solicitations but permitted them to take place on company time and property without any restraint. For example, -about sometime in August, Weitnaur and Bryant, in the presence of Foreman 'Couch, individually solicited some 16 or 18 employees in the Tent Basement to .sign an anti-Union petition. Such solicitations required about an hour' s time. Couch was with Weitnaur and Bryant when they solicited the employees, but he did not make any comments However, as related above, he questioned the employees on the following clay as to whether or not they had joined the Union." A number of witnesses for the Board testified credibly that Weitnaur continuously and openly solicited them to sign petitions while they were at work, and that in some instances lie would not fix their machines properly until they agreed to ' At the hearing it was contended by the Board that Weitnaur was a supervisory em- ployee The undersigned finds no merit in this contention as it was conclusively proved that Weitn.rur exercised veiy little, if any, supervisory authority however, Weitnaui appears to have been closelN associated with Johnson in the iespondent's anti-Union cam- paign In connnentiug on this evidence, the undersigned does not find that the iemoval of the notice by Johnson per se constitutes interference 10 Coleman was not called as a witness at the hearing. 11 Weitnaur testified to the effect that most of his solicitations occuried during rest periods ,or away from the plant The undersigned does not believe lVeitnaur to he a credible wit- ness in this i espect iz The above facts were testified to by Fannie Lazenby, and the undersigned credits her testimony in this connection Weitnaur admitted soliciting employees in this department, but claimed that he and Bryant were fixing machetes at the time He also testified that Couch mad have been present in the department at the time the solicitations took place. FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 895 sign. Most of these employees were in the Sewing Room and the evidence con- clusively shows that Forelady Lanford was aware that the solicitations took place on company time and property. The undisputed evidence shows that when the respondent became aware of solicitations on behalf of the Union on company time and property, the employees involved were ordered to cease their activities. It is the uncontradicted testimony of Ruby Ethridge that Lanford told her that she could not have application blanks of the Union in the plant, and that she could sign up employees outside but not in the plant 13 As related above, Weitnaur was with Superintendent Johnson when the latter removed the Union notice which was posted on the wall in the Sewing Room. There are other indi- cations in the record, in addition to Johnson's questioning and statements to, employees concerning 0the Union, which strongly indicate that the two were closely associated in the anti-Union campaign in the plant. The undersigned finds that the above-related statements and actions of Johnson, Roberts, Chancy, Lanford, DeLoach, Coleman, and Couch, and their totality, constitute interference, restraint, and coercion. By such statements. and actions the respondent interrogated employees concerning their membership- in and activities on behalf of the Union; disparaged and expressed disapproval) of the Union ; and urged and warned the employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of or remaining members of the Union. It is also found. that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in that it permitted-anti-Union solicitations on company time and property while denying like privileges to the Union. In addition to'the above interference, there is uncontradicted and credible evidence that the respondent discriminated against its employees with regard. to their working conditions and wages, because of their membership in and' activities on behalf of the Union These acts were not alleged in the complaint: to be violative of the Act. However, the undersigned feels that the issues were• fully litigated at the hearing, especially since each instance of discrimination+ was brought out upon cross-examination of Board's witnesses. Employees Smith,. Rose, Longmire, Kelley, and Guthrie testified, in substance and without contra- dicttion, that their work was changed after they joined the Union, so that thereby they either lost wages or had additional work put upon them Of these, Long- mire, Smith, and Kelley were listed as officers or committee members of the- Union on the notice which was posted in the Sewing Room on July 20, as has been previously related herein. The evidence conclusively shows that the re- spondent had knowledge that Rose and Guthrie were adherents of the Union, prior to the time that their working conditions were changed Smith,* althouglhi lie did not suffer any loss of pay, was required to do trucking in addition to his, regular duties as an elevator operator The evidence shows that Smith had not done any trucking for a number of years. Guthrie, a sewing machine operator, was transferred to making laundry bags, at which work she was inexperienced and which resulted in a temporary cut in her wages of approximately $20 per week. The other three employees were similarly treated. The undersigned finds that the respondent by discriminating in regard to the working conditions .and pay of the above-named employees, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 11 This direction was violative of the Act insofar as it restiicted employees fioni engaging- in union activities on their own time in the plant See Republic Aviation Corp. v N L R B.,. 324 U S 793, Le Tournean Co v N L R B 324 U. S. 793. " Smith's conversation with Johnson immediately after the removal. off the notice byr Johnson has been previously related 896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The discriminatory lay-offs and discharge of H. C. Long Long, a hand engraver, was employed by the respondent for a number of years prior to the events related herein. During the war, due to labor shortages, it appears that he was the only employee in the respondent 's Engraving Depart- ment. Long did "routing" work during this period of time until an employee by the name of Wadell was hired to assist him. It appears that Wadell quit his job shortly before February 1946, and Horace Blalock was transferred into the department as a trainee under the vocational rehabilitation program of the Veterans Administration. Long was instructed by J. H. Roberts, foreman of the Press Room, to teach engraving and routing to Blalock. - Long became interested in the Union about the middle of April 1946, and went to the local office of the Union in Atlanta to obtain `information. He later returned with some four or five fellow emloyees and they signed applications for membership In the Union at that time. Long thereafter was the leader of the Union's organizational efforts in the plant and the evidence conclusively shows that the respondent recognized him as such.15 He actively engaged in soliciting employees in the plant to join the Union. As heretofore related, about the first part of May, Johnson, superintendent of the plant, spoke to the employees individually about the Union. Johnson also sent for Long at that time and questioned him concerning the activities of the Union in the presence of Roberts During the conversation Long informed Johnson that he was in favor of the Union. Also as related above, some few days later Roberts told Blalock in the presence of Long that anyone who joined the Union was a "cut-throat, a gangster and an outlaw," and that he hoped to see them starve to death. Long told Roberts that he resented the remark. Later that same day Johnson came to Long and told him that Roberts had repeated to him what Long had said. Long thereupon told Johnson what Roberts had said to Blalock. Johnson replied, "Well, I wouldn't say that, . . . If you don't like the way the Company's treating you, why don't you quit?" Long said that he had nothing against the Company and that ended the conversation. Up and until the time of the above conversations, Long had had steady work and it appears that he had never been laid off, excepting when the whole plant had been closed down. On May 20 Johnson and Glenn Scroggins, assistant fore- man under Roberts," came to Long, and Johnson told him that it would be neces- sary to lay him off for 3 days due to the lack of engraving work.14 After Johnson left, Long told Scroggins that Johnson might be sorry for laying him off and that Long knew the real reason for the lay-off. Later that same day Johnson spoke to Long and, referring to Long's remark to Scroggins, said, "That sounds like a threat." Long then accused Johnson of laying him off because of his union activities. Johnson left him without making a reply. Thereafter and starting on May 21, Long received numerous lay-offs, ranging from 2 days to 2 weeks ; and it appears that he never again worked a full week up and until the time he left the respondent's employ on September 3. Starting about June 1, Long was not permitted to do any more routing. Prior to this time both Long and Blalock were performing this work. Long asked Scroggins why he was not permitted to do any routing. Scroggins told him 15 Long was president of the local of the Union for an undisclosed period of time prior to July 20, 1946. 16 The evidence is not clear on the point , but it does appear that Scroggins acted as fore- man of the Press Room at about this time. He was not called as a witness at the hearing. lv On May 20 Long was working on a job which would have required 1 of 2 days to finish FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 897 that Johnson had ordered it and said, "If the Union come in, you would refuse to do it ( routing ) " Long protested that this work should not be taken from him. Thereafter Blalock did all routing work. 4 About June 28, Long wrote to T. S Florence, manager of the respondent's Pay Roll, Employment and Personnel Departments, to the effect that his lay-offs were clue to his union activities. At a subsequent meeting Florence offered Long a job at less pay in the respondent's cotton mill.18 Long refused the offer. At some time in the early part of August Long again remarked to Scroggins that he knew the reason why Johnson was laying him off. Scroggins replied, "Why don't you quit fighting the Company ; you might get to work regular." During one of his lay-offs and some few days prior to September 3, Long learned that Blalock was cursing him in the plant When he reported for work on September 3, Long complained to Scroggins about Blalock' s remarks and asked him to put a stop to it. Blalock was present at the time Scroggins replied that he did not have anything to-do with their affairs and that they should settle it outside He then told them both to get to work. After Scroggins left the room, Long and Blalock had a fight, during the course of which Blalock cut Long with a knife," A few minutes after the fight was over Johnson came into the room and blamed Long for the fight, saying, "You had no business saying anything to Glenn (Scroggins) about it. You came in here with a chip on your shoulder." He then ordered both men to lay off for the day. Later while Long was having his wounds dressed by the respondent's doctor, he told Johnson that he would not work with Blalock. Johnson asked him what he was going to do. Long replied, "I just refuse to work in there with him. I've got no protection over me . . . Seeing your attitude in this matter I wouldn't work in there with that fellow . . . You aught as well pay me oft " Long then signed a quit notice and has not worked for the respondent since Conclusions The respondent contends that Long's lay-offs were occasioned by lack of en- graving work due to Federal orders limiting the manufacture of white flour during the period beginning on February 15, 1946, through August. To support this contention the respondent introduced in evidence exhibits showing that during the period between May and September 1945, the Engraving Department had 42 orders requiring 589 hours ; and that during the identical period in 1946 it had 14 jobs requiring only 158 hours. The undersigned, however, is convinced that the respondent laid off Long because of his activities on behalf of the Union. Aside from the Engraving Department, there does not appear to have been any appreciable falling off of business in the bag plant itself, or any lay-offs occasioned thereby It is admitted that under date of August 19, 1946, the respondent sent a letter containilig the following to one of its customers : 18 The cotton mill is also located in Atlanta but is operated separately from the bag plant 19 Long had solicited Blalock to join the Union . It appears that Blalock agreed to join, but with reservations. Prior to September the men had had an argument concerning Bla- lock's application . The facts concerning this argument and the subsequent fight between them on September 3 were fully litigated at the hearing. Although it appears that the argu- ment and fight were purely a personal affair between Long and Blalock over the Union and that it was not directly provoked by the respondent , nevertheless, the undersigned is persuaded and finds, that the respondent 's anti-union animus had a controlling effect on Blalock's decision not to identify himself with the Union. 898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We acknowledge your letter of August 16 requesting that we make up :l set of printing plates for printing 1,000 PILOT DOG FOOD bags in the 100 lb size, bleached osnaburg 39 cut 48". We find on checking with our printing department that we have only printed 10 and 25 lb. bags for J our Dog Food brand. As stated in your letter it would be necessary to make all an additional set of plates for the 100 lb. size At the present we are very pressed in our printing department because we are short of engravers and it would probably be three or four mouths before we could get around to nicking the plates In addition due to the extra cost of making these plates we could not afford to absorb this cost for an order for only 1,000 bags, and we would be forced to ask you to pay the cost of the plates. This would probably run between $35.00 and $40 00 20 As will be noted in the above letter, the respondent states that it is pressed in the printing department because of the shortage of engravers Certainly this statement is not true as to the Atlanta plant, but it may apply to some of re• sponient's other plants It is the undisputed evidence that during the times mentioned herein some finished engraving was sent each week to the Atlanta plant from these other plants. In addition, the evidence shows that while Long was laid off, Blalock did routing and some engraving woi It °3 With these facts in mind, Scroggins" statement to Long in August to the effect that he might-get steady work if lie would cease fighting against the respondent becomes significant. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the respondent discriminated against Long because of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, by laying him off at various times during the period from May 20 to September 3, 1946 As to the alleged discriminatory discharge. it appears on the surface that Long quit his fob because Johnson, in effect, retused to afford him protection in the plant. Obviously this was the immediate cause of Long's resignation, but the undersigned is persuaded that it was not the primary cause. It has been found above that Long was discriminatorily laid off at various times during the period from May 20 to September 3 The lay-offs ranged in duration from 2 clays to 2 weeks and Long did not work a full week during this whole period of time He was returning to work on September 3 after one of these lay-offs Prior to that date Johnson had suggested to Long that lie quit his job and after the fight Johnson aibitrarily placed the blame for it upon Long without first giving him all opportunity to explain his side of the case or without any other investigation, These facts clearly show that the.respondent was anxious to dispose of Long's services not by the act of summary discharge but by discriminatory treatment inducing him to resign. In view of the above finding that the lay-offs wei e dls= criminatory, the reason is apparent. In fact, the evidence discloses that .Johnson nagged Long into quitting his position at a time when he obviously must have been in pain from his wounds and under a nervous strain. Therefore, it, is reasonable to assume and the undersigned is convinced that Long quit his job when he reached a point where lie could no longer stand the treatment accorded him by the respondent, namely, (1) the continuous and serious loss in wages occasioned by the lay-olts, (2) the suggestions that lie iesign his position, and (3) 20 It appears that Long worked on this order The let iet was brought to Longs atten- tion and lie wrote to the customer advising it to the effect that the facts in the respondent's letter were not true In commenting on this evidence the undersigned by no means intends to indicate approval of Long's ill-advised action in the matter 21 It does not appear that Blalock was laid off at any of the times mentioned hereiln, FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 899) the refusal by Johnson to afford him protection in the plant Long was the instigator and leader of the Union's organizational campaign and the evidence- shows conclusively that the respondent had knowledge of this fact. It is equally- clear that such knowledge motivated the respondent's successful attempt to force Long's resignation. Under the circumstances the undersigned is of the opinion that the protracted lay-offs and the resulting loss of wages, standing alone, con-' stitute sufficient justification for finding a constructive discharge. The additional pressure exerted by the respondent upon Long. such as Johnson's suggestion that be quit, supports this finding. In addition, while there is no evidence which would-,Justify a finding that the respondent had instigated tlie' fight through collusion with Blaloek,22 it may be argued that the respondent's unfair labor practices were the indirect cause of the fight The immediate cause of the- argument and ensuing fight was Blalock's application for membership in the Union, or Long's disclosure thereof. Blalock knew that the respondent was. opposed to the Union This is shown expressly by the above-related conversation between him and Roberts, foreman of the Press Room, in which Roberts dis- paraged the Union. Beyond doubt such knowledge of the respondent's position. on the Union influenced Blalock in his desire to maintain secrecy concerning his application for membership in the Union or to disassociate himself from the Union." Accordingly, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the respondent con- structively discharged Long on September 3, 1946, because of his inembershipa in and activities on behalf of the Union. C. The discrtinnxrtop discharge of Ruby Ftln1dge Ruby Ethridge first worked for the respondent in 1936 She was rehired in, November 1945, and worked continuously until discharged on August 13. 1946, as a sewing machine operator in the Sewing Room. Her forelady was hula Lanford. About June 1 Ethridge signed an application to join the Union At about than time and on the clay following a meeting of the Union, Ethridge had a cons ersa- tion with Lanford in which Lanford asked her it she knew anything about the' Union meeting. Ethridge replied that she did not," and Lanford then said, "We don't want any disturbance in this place . . That's all these strikes are for . . We don't like that, . . You know this Georgia Power strike That will probably cause more carfare later on." Ethridge thereafter activeli solicited employees can the plaint to join the Union About the middle of July and after Ethridge had solicited some em- ployees during the lunch period, Lanford told her, "They tell me you have appli- cation blanks for that Union . You can't have them here on the Company's property . . . Outside the mill, on the street, . . and oft the property, you can sign up all you can, but . . . you can't have it in here." 12 Although it appears that Johnson questioned almost all of the employees in the Print- ing Department concerning the Union. lie did not talk to Blalock in this connection The eiidence indicates that the respondent assisted Blalock in a court action brought by Long against him subsequent to September 3 23 Blalock testified, in substance, that he signed an application upon being solicited by Long, but that Long agreed not to turn in the application to the Union until instructed by Blalock to do so. Long's testimony indicates that the argument was caused by reason of the fact that, Blalock wished to withdraw his application The testimony of both wit- nesses was somewhat vague in this connection 24 Ethridge did not attend the meeting in question 706972-48-vol 75 5S 900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As has been previously related, a meeting of the local of the Union was held on July 20, 1946, at which Ethridge was elected secretary-treasurer. On the following work day a notice naming the persons who were elected officers at the Union meeting was posted on the wall in the Sewing Room by one of the employees The notice was removed by Johnson shortly after it was posted. Shortly thereafter Ethridge was given "soft bags" to sew. For about 5 months prior to this time she had worked with few exceptions every other week on "asphalt" bags 26 and seldom worked on soft or cotton bags. Ethridge was un- able to make her production quota on soft bags and she made numerous "bad" or rejected bags, particularly during about the last week or two of her em- ployment. During these last few weeks her machine needed repairs and she daily requested both Spencer and Weitnaur, machine fixers, to repair it. They either ignored her requests or made half-hearted attempts to repair the ma- chine.2° For the most part the bad bags made by Ethridge were caused by the fact that her machine needed repairs.2' About 4 days before Ethridge was discharged, Lanford told her that her work was bad and that she should try to do better. Ethridge replied that she would try to improve ; that her machine needed repairs ; and that the fixers would not repair it for her. Lanford did not comment on Ethridge's claim concerning machine repairs On August 12 Lanford again spoke to Ethridge about her bad work and Ethridge stated that she still was having difficulty with her ma- chine ' On the same day Superintendent Johnson sent for Ethridge and called her attention to a number of bad bags made by her. He warned her that if it happened again she would be discharged. She told him that her machine needed repairs. , He made no reply. During the conversation, Johnson suggested that she quit her job but Ethridge refused On August 13 Johnson again sent for Ethridge and showed her some defective bags She told him that the defects "The evidence shows that the machine operators preferred work on the asphalt bags as they were easier to handle and they made better wages on them The operators were divided into two groups and each group worked on asphalt every other week After the posting of the above notice it appears that Ethridge 's group received very little , if any, of this asphalt work. It further appears that her group was composed chiefly of adherents of the Union 26 As previously related, Weitnaur has been found not to be a supervisory employee He was the chief machinist in the plant and exercised only limited supervision over the other machinists or fixers, such as scheduling the work . In his testimony Spencer characterized Weitnaur as his "foreman." It has also been heietofore found that Weitnaur campaigned against the Union with the knowledge and approval of the respondent Etheiidge testified to the above facts concerning requests to fix her machine and the under- signed credits her testimony in this connection Other witnesses testified to the effect that non-Union employees received preferential treatment in having their machines repaired In substance, both Spencer and Weitnaur admitted numerous requests of Ethridge to fix her machine but denied that they failed or refused to fix it . Their testimony in this respect is not credited Mattie Taylor, also a sewing machine operator , testified credibly that on the day that Ethridge was discharged or the next day she operated Ethridge's machine for a short time ; that it "pulled the bags uneven" at the bottom ; and that Spencer there- after repaired it before it was again put in use . Both Spencer and Weitnaur were vague in their testimony as to whether or not major repairs had been made on the machine after Ethridge 's discharge, but Spencer did testify that it was thereafter used as a spare. n Both Ethridge and Taylor testified credibly that the machine made bad bags. A num- ber of "inspectors" testified as witnesses for the respondent to the effect that they in- spected and rejected numerous bags made by Ethridge and that the defects were not caused by the machine but by the, carelessness of the sewing operator. The undersigned does not credit their testimony in this connection. 28 There is no dispute that Ethridge at this time had considerably more rejected bags than any other machine operator in the Sewing Room. FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS - 901 were caused by her machine and that the fixers had failed to repair it although requested to do so. Without making any reply to this Johnson discharged her.' Conclusions Standing alone, the fact that the quality and quantity of Ethridge's work were poor was sufficient cause for the respondent to discharge her. However, it ap- pears that she never had been a good sewing machine operator and was not able or sufficiently experienced to sew all types of bags. She was one of the most active employees in the Sewing Room on behalf of the Union. The evidence shows conclusively that the respondent knew these facts. Heretofore, it has been shown that Johnson and Weitnaur were closely associated in the anti-Union campaign in the plant. The undersigned is convinced and finds that Spencer and Weitnaur ignored Ethridge's requests to repair her machine either with Johnson's knowledge and approval or pursuant to his orders. The failure of both Lanford and John- son to investigate or answer Ethridge's claims that her machine needed repairs is noteworthy in this connection. It may be argued that if the respondent wished to discourage union activities in the Sewing Room, it would have been more effective to discharge Pearl Long- mire who had been elected president of the Union's Local on July 20. However, Longmire, an employee for 20 years, was an "A-class sewer" who was ex- perienced in sewing all types of bags. Therefore, it appears that it would have been difficult to discharge her because of the quality or quantity of her work. As previously related, the respondent did discriminate against her. Starting about early in September and continuing until the date of the hearing Longmire was given more than her shale of the "heavy work." Accordingly, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the respondent dis- criminatorily assigned Ethridge to work on soft or cotton bags and discharged her because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union.30 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE 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 has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of H. C Long by laying him off at various times during the period beginning about May 20, 1946, and ending on September 3, 1946, and by discharging him on September 3, 1946, and of Ruby Ethridge by discharging her on August 13, 1946. It iviil therefore be recommended that the respondent offer H. C. Long and 20 Ethridge testified without contradiction to the above conversations with Lanford and Johnson. 30 The respondent's proposed findings of fact A, B, C, and D are hereby rejected. 902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ruby Ethridge immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions 31 without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make Long and Ethridge whole for any loss of pay they may have. suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount they normally would have earned as wages, during the period from the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, and, in the case of Long, during the additional period when the afore-mentioned lay-offs occurred, less their net earnings 3P during said periods. It has also been found that respondent has engaged in certain acts of inter- ference, restraint, and coercion. It will be'recommended that the respondent cease theieftom In view of the extensive nature of these unfair labor practices, manifesting a determination generally to defeat and discourage self-organization by its employees, and in order to effectuate the guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, it will be recommended that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, A F of L, and American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act 2 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of H C. Long and Ruby Ethridge, thereby discouraging membership in International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, A. F. of L, and American Federation of Labor, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3 By interfering With, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act 4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 31 In the case of Ethridge this does not mean an offer of a position involving work ex- clusivell on soft or cotton bags In accordance with the Board's consistent inteipretation of the term, the expression "former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wher- ever possible , but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equiva- lent position " See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, Salt Juan, Puerto Rico, Rianch, 65 N L R B 827 3= By "net ear mugs" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matte, of Crossett Lumber Company, 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 Corpei atioi v N L R B , 311 U. S 7 FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 903 RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact :uul conclusions of law, the -undersigned hereby recommends, that the respondent, Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills, its agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1 Cease and desist from (a) Discouraging membership in International Printing Pressmen and As- sistants Union of North America. A. F. of L, and American 'f'ederation of Labor, by laying off, discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to foam labor organiza- tions,-to join or assist International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, A F. of L, and American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, 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 undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer H. C Lou,- and Ruby Ethridge immediate and full iemstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges ; (b) Make whole Ruby Ethridge and H C Long for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by payment to each of them of'a sum of money equal to an amount determined in the manner set forth in the section entitled, "The remedy," above ; (c) Post at its plant at Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, after being signed by the respondent's repre- sentative, shall be posted by the respondent immediately upon the receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insole that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the (late of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid. As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 20338 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C , an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon , together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof; 904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report Im- mediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203 65. As further provided in said Section 203.39, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board. JOHN H EADIE, Trial Exanmuier. Dated February 17, 1947. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our eln- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Printing Pressmen and Assist- ants Union of North America, A. F. L. and American Federation of Labor or any other labor organization, 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. WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without preju- dice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. Ruby Ethridge H C. Long All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. FULTON B_\G & COTTON MILLS, Employer. Dated------------------------------ By----------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE: Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accord- ance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.