Cedartown Yarn Mills, Inc.

In the Matter Of CEDARTOWN YARN MILLS, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO Case No. 10-C-2219.Decided June 8, 1919 DECISION AND ORDER , On February 21, 1949, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his Intermediate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor 1 practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, and recommend- ing 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 Intermedi- ate Report and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul- ings are hereby affirmed .2 The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,3 and recommendations 4 of the Trial Examiner. 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston, and Murdock]. - The Respondent's exception to the Trial Examiner 's ruling denying its motions to dis- miss the 8 ( a) (1) allegations of the complaint on the ground that the charges did not specify the violations alleged is without merit. The charges alleged violation of Section 8 (a) (1) in the statutory language, and the complaint , which framed the issues in this proceeding, detailed the specific conduct alleged to violate Section 8 (a) (1). The failure of the charge to particularize the conduct in question was without prejudice to the Respondent. See Matter of Morristown Knitting Mills, 80 N. L R B. 731 ; , National Licorice Co v N. L R. B , 309 U. S. 350, 368, 369. 3 Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent violated Section & (a) (1) by granting its employees a day off with pay to celebrate the defeat of the Union. In the circumstances of this case, this gratuity is likely to have been construed by the employees not only as an expression of approval by the Respondent of the Union's defeat but also as a promise of future reward for continuing to reject union organization. As such it clearly interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act See Matter of The Hills Brothers Company, 67 N. L. R. B 1249, 1255, enfd. 161 F. (2d) 179 (C. A. 5). The fact that the paid holiday was granted both to the opponents and supporters of the Union does not detract from its essentially coercive character See Matter of Thompson Products, Inc., 57 N. L. R B 925 4 We find that the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent potentially relate to other unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their commission in the 84 N. L. R. B., No. 1. 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Upon the entire record in the case and -pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Cedartown Yarn Mills, Inc., of Cedartown, Georgia, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer- ica, CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by dis- criminatorily discharging employees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union member- ship, voting intentions, or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist 'Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organi- zation, 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, and to refrain from any or all such'activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an'agreement requiring membership in a labor organi- zation as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Lennie Collier immediate and full reinstatement to her former position as a winder or to a substantially equivalent position,5 without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privi- leges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination of the Respondent against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally future is to be anticipated from the Respondent 's past conduct . The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat . Accordingly, In order to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendation and order the Respondent to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U S 376; N. L. R. B. v. Entwistle Manufac- turcng Co, 120 F. (2d) 532 (C. A 4) ; Matter of Tre-State Casualty Insurance Co., 83 N. L. it. B. 828. In accordance with the Board 's consistent interpretation 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, San Juan, Puerto Rico Branch, 65 N L. it. B 827. +1CEDARTOWN YARN MILLS,- INC.: would, have tearned as wages from the date of the. Respondent's dis- crimination against her to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during the period; 6 (b) I Post at its plant in Cedartown, Georgia, copies of, the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it imme- diately 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; and (c) "-Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within-tweiity (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply with the foregoing recommendations. - IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects the complaint herein 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, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of mem- bership in or activity on behalf of TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in any manner as to their union activities or in any other 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 the above-named union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- • 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 else- where, which would ' not have been incurred but for the unlawful discrimination and the consequent necessity of seeking employment elsewhere. Matter of Crossett Lumber Com- pany, 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. Republic Steel Corporation V. N. L. R. B , 311 U S. 7. 1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words, "A DECREE OF THE UNITED' STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING." 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing, and to engage' in concerted activities for the purposes of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to re- frain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as, authorized in Section 8 (a) - (3) of the Act. WE WILL immediately offer to LENNIE COLLIER. full reinstate- ment to her former or substantially equivalent position- without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges pre- viously enjoyed and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered- as a result of the discrimination. • All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of the above-named union or any- other labor organization except to', the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act. - • • • We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employ- ment of any term or condition of employment against any em- ployee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. CEDARTOWN YARN MILLS, INC., Employer. Dated ------------------------ By ---------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER Clarence D. Musser, Esq., for the General Counsel. James A. Branch and Allen Lockerman, Esqs., of Atlanta, Ga., for the Re- spondent. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a third amended charge filed on July 30, 1948, by Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the General. Counsel of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), on August 5, 1948, issued a complaint against Cedartown Yarn Mills, Inc., 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, herein referred to as the Act and, as reenacted Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, herein referred to as the Amended Act Copies of the complaint, the third amended charge upon which it was based, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. ' The General Counsel and his representative are herein referred to as the General Coun- sel ; and the National Relations Board, as the Board. CEDARTOWN YARN MILLS, INC. CJ • With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance : (1) that since on or about January 15, 1947, to the date of the complaint the Respondent by certain named officers, agents, and employees and in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Amended Act, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act and of the Amended Act by: (a) warning its em- ployees that the Respondent could' afford to discharge employees and pay back pay cheaper than have a union in the plant; (b) threatening to discharge and terminate the employment of employees for continued union activities; (c) threatening to close the mill if union activity continued ; (d) fostering, aiding, assisting, and condoning the circulation of an anti-union petition during working hours; (e) questioning employees concerning how they would vote and how they did vote in, a secret ballot election conducted by the Board ; (f) threatening em- ployees with increased work loads if union activity was continued and success- ful.; (g) giving financial and other assistance to a parade celebrating the defeat of the Union; (h), closing the mill to celebrate the defeat of the Union; (i) threatening- employees with less than full time employment if union activity con- tinued ; (j) threatening to blacklist other members of the family of employees for continued union activities; (k) promising to promote employees upon condi- tion that..the,union was defeated; (1) ridiculing and threatening employees be- cause they wore union buttons; (m) warning its employees to refrain from assist- ing, becoming members of, or remaining members of the Union; and (2) that in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Amended Act, the Respondent discharged Gordon McCollum on or about Feb- ruary 26, 1947, Huey Moncrief on or about March 28, 1947, Lennie Collier on or about May 15, 1947, and Fay Hatfield on or about June 3, 1947, and has since refused and failed to reinstate them, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment in order to discourage membership in the Union. In its answer filed August 16, 1948, the Respondent admitted certain allega- tions of the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. The answer was thereafter amended at the hearing as hereinafter set forth. Prior to the hearing in this case, the Respondent demanded, Trial Examiner Wallace E Royster (duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner) ordered, and the General Counsel furnished to the Respondent, a bill of particulars concerning certain allegations of the complaint. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Cedartown, Georgia, from October 26, 1948, to November 1, 1948, inclusive, before W. Garard Ryan, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and Respondent participated in the hearing and were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi- dence bearing upon the issues. By agreement of counsel, approved by the Trial Examiner, certain witnesses were excluded from the hearing room, except while testifying. At the close of his case-in-chief, a motion by the General Counsel that the com- plaint be dismissed as to the alleged discriminatory discharge of Fay Hatfield was granted. Thereupon, Respondent moved: (1) to dismiss all of the 8 (1) and 8 (a) (1) allegations of the complaint contained in paragraph 7 on the ground that there is nothing contained in the charge upon which to predicate the allegations in paragraph 7 and that the Board was without jurisdiction to issue a complaint in the absence of the timely filing and service of a charge specifying such allega- tions; and (2) to dismiss all evidence taken in support of such allegations as 853396-50-vol 84-2 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD irrelevant. The undersigned reserved ruling thereon and now denies the mo- tions.2 The parties participated in oral argument at the conclusion of the testimony and were afforded an opportunity to file, briefs, proposed findings, of fact, and conclusions of law. Only the Respondent filed; proposed findings of fact as well as a brief with the undersigned. On the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a Georgia corporation having its principal office and place of business at Cedartown, Georgia, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cotton yarn and related products. During the year preceding the hearing, Respondent purchased materials including cotton of a value in excess of $500,000. Approximately 50 percent of the materials so purchased were brought to its Cedartown plant from points outside the State of Georgia. During the same period of time, Respondent manufactured, sold, and distributed cotton yarn of a value in excess of $1,000,000. More than 90 percent of such product sold by Respondent was delivered to points outside the State of Georgia. The Respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and Amended Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America, 0. I. 0., is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction The Union began its organizational campaign at Respondent's plant about January 1946. In October 1946, the campaign was renewed and from January 1947 to the Board election on May 21, 1947, was intensified. On or about April 7, 1947, the Union filed a petition with the Board for investigation and certifica- tion of representatives. On May 1, 1947, a consent election was agreed to which was held on May 21, 1947. The Union lost the election. The Union had an office in Cedartown two or three blocks from Respondent's mill, on the same side of the street. The union organizer, Ned Kocher, passed 2A charge alleging 8 (1) and one 8 (3) violations was filed and served on the Respondent on February 28, 1947 An amended charge alleging 8 (1) and three 8 (3) violations was filed May 1, 1947, and served June 26, 1947. A second amended charge alleging 8 (1) and eight 8 (3) violations was filed and served on July 7, 1947. A third amended charge listing 8 (1) and only four 8 (3) violations was filed and served on July 30, 1948. In all of the afore-mentioned the alleged 8 (1) was not spelled out but was stated only in the words of the Act. All of the testimony adduced by the General Counsel in support of the alleged 8 (1) related to incidents occurring prior to August 22, 1947. See Biggs Antique Co , Inc, 80 N L R B 345; Electric Auto-Lite Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 1601; Olin Industries, Inc., 79 N L R. B. 455; and Baker Manufacturing Co., 75 N. L. R. B 122. In making the findings herein the undersigned has considered and weighed the entire evidence It would needlessly burden this report to set up all the testimony on disputed points. Such testimony or other evidence as is in conflict with the findings herein is not credited CEDARTOWN YARN MILLS,- INC. 7 out leaflets at the company's gate and talked to employees in the mill village; from January 1947 until the election. When the employees come to work and' gather at the gate they are standing in front of Respondent 's office window on West Avenue. Practically every time that the union organizer distributed union leaflets at the gate, Assistant Superintendent Richey would ask for one and the organizer would give it to him. The Union formed an organizing com- mittee composed of those employees who took an active part in the campaign. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion5 1. Threats and interrogation Mrs. Ethel Malcolm was employed in the spinning room from October 1946 to June 1947. Two days before the election, Overseer Champion asked her whether she was going to vote for the company or for the Union and stated that if she would vote for the company it would help her and her father.' Champion also stated it would help,her, husband get his Saturday work back.° Mrs. Ruth Skelton Davis was employed in the spinning room from October 1945 to June 1948. A few days before the election Happy Costley, second hand in the winder room, asked her if she belonged to the Union. When she failed to inform him, he asked her to vote against the Union, adding that if the Union got in the mill would shut down. Mrs. Bessie Skinner Burns for the past 7 years has been and still is employed in the winder room. During the week prior to the election Costley spoke to her and told her that she better think it over and vote against the Union because they would goon short time if the Union came in. Costley also told her that they would "go on three days as the woolen mill did after they got the union over there." The night before the election, Costley again requested her to vote against the Union. Mrs. Fannie M. Stewart for the past 9 years has been and still is employed in the winder room. The day before the election Costley discussed the coming election with her and remarked that he would hate to go on 20 hours a week if the Union won. He also added that the Goodyear Company had cut out the bonus following unionization. Clarence Ray Cole was employed in the card room from August 1946 to August 1948. A few days before the election, Overseer Morris discussed the Union and -the coming election during which Morris stated that if the Union came in the -elderly employees would lose their jobs and the mill would probably have a reduction in the workweek. Overseer Adams also made coercive remarks concerning the Union to Mrs. Lennie Collier which are discussed later in this report. * The term "mill village" refers to the group of houses owned by Respondent in which certain employees and their families live. ° During the hearing it was stipulated that Superintendent L. V, Andrews ; Assistant Superintendent T. S. Richey ; Abner S. Champion , daytime overseer in the spinning room ; Bill Carter, night overseer in the spinning room ; J. C King, overseer in the card room ; Alvin G. Adams, overseer in the winder room ; Happy Costley, second hand in the winder Toom ; and Roy Lemming, master mechanic , were managerial and supervisory employees within the meaning of the Amended Act. ° Charles B. Wall, who testified as a witness herein. Wall had been discharged by Respondent prior to this incident and was then still out of work. ° The husband was at that time in the employ of Respondent. What his Saturday work .consisted of does not appear in the record. 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Champion, Adams, Morris, and Costley all denied making such statements. The undersigned credits the testimony, of Ethel Malcolm, Davis, Burns, Stewart, Cole, and Collier and finds ,that such statements were made. It is found that by the above-named supervisors questioning employees as to whether they were members of the Union, whether they were going to vote for the Union or for the company„and making, statements containing threats, implied threats and promises,of benefits, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. I , Doyle Powell has worked for the Respondent for approximately 15 years. Fol- lowing his honorable discharge from the army, he was reemployed by Respondent. After working for 10 months, he was discharged and not rehired until August 5, 1947, following'his application for reemployment to Superintendent Andrews. Doyle testified that he had been rehired following a conversation with Andrews and Assistant Superintendent Richey only after he had agreed to "drop his case with the Labor Board" s and to withdraw from the' Union. He further testified that he signed a statement at Respondent's request to that effect but was refused a copy by Respondent. Both Andrews and Richey denied Powell's testimony that there were any such conditions attached to his reemployment. On that issue, the undersigned credits the testimony of Andrews and Richey. 2. Other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion On the day following the election, the Respondent granted a holiday with pay to all its employees announcing the holiday over the radio in a paid commercial announcement.". . as a majority of employees have requested a day off to cele- brate their own victory in the C I. O. election . . ." On the day following the election, a parade was held by the nonunion employees celebrating the defeat of the Union. No supervisory employees took part in the parade. Respondent per- mitted one of its trucks to take part in the parade and closed the mill for that day. Mere participation by an employer in a post-election celebration has been held to be nonviolative of the Amended Act ° as an expression of opinion protected by Section 8 (c), and accordingly the undersigned finds that Respondent com- mitted no unfair labor practice insofar as the parade celebrating the Union's defeat is concerned. However, in the opinion of the undersigned the granting of a day's pay to all its employees was an act over and beyond the participation in a post-election celebration. On the basis of the entire record the undersigned is persuaded that the Respondent would not have given a day's pay to its em- ployees had the Union won the election. By thus rewarding its employees for vot- ing against the Union the Respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.'° On April 25, 1947, the Respondent printed in the Daily Standard (a news- paper published in Cedartown, Georgia) a full page advertisement announcing increased benefits under its medical and hospitalization plan for its employees to be effective immediately. Extra copies of the paper were purchased and dis- 8 Following his discharge above referred to Doyle filed charges that he had been discrim- inatorily discharged. The Board dismissed the complaint in its entirety on March 5, 1948. ° In the Matter of Macon Textiles, Inc., 80 N. L. R B. 1525. 30 There is no evidence that Respondent made any promise before the election to give a paid holiday . Superintendent Andrews testified that it was decided to give a paid holi- day after certain employees on the day following the election requested that the mill be closed for the day. CEDARTOWN YARN MILLS, INC. 9 tributed to its employees by Respondent at the plant gate. Such benefits although announced as effective on April 25, 1947, did not become effective until May 7, 1947. It should be remembered that on April 7, 1947, the Union filed its petition for investigation and certification with the Board. The union campaign about reached its height and it was ready to test its strength in an election. That the Respondent acted precipitately and not in accord with usual business practices is borne out by the facts that the amendment to the policy providing for the in- creased benefits retroactive to May 7, 1947, was not signed by the vice president of the insurance company until August 29, 1947, and not signed on behalf of Respondent until November 14, 1947, when it was signed by Superintendent An- drews. The undersigned finds that such announcement of additional benefits, timed so significantly, was calculated directly to affect the decision of the em- ployees on the issue of union representation and therefore constituted interference within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act" During the intensification of the campaign and particularly from January 1, 1947, to the election on May 21, 1947, the Union passed out numerous pamphlets, literature, and copies of official C. I. 0. publications at the gate of Respondent's plant and distributed such material to the homes of Respondent's employees. The Respondent also distributed anti-union literature to its employees both inside and outside the plant. The undersigned finds that none of the papers or other written material distributed by Respondent contained statements not protected under Section 8 (c). Two or three days after the election was held a petition was circulated by three nonsupervisory employees, the Paxon sisters and Opal Waite. There is no evidence that the petition was threatening or coercive; in fact, there is little if any evidence as to what the petition contained for neither the petition nor any copy thereof was produced at the hearing and the General Counsel did not call either the Paxton girls or Opal Waite to testify. The undersigned finds the proof insufficient to sustain the allegation in the complaint that Re- spondent fostered, aided, assisted, and condoned the circulation of an anti- union petition during working hours and will recommend that such allegation be dismissed. C. The dischargees Gordon McCollum Respondent denied that McCollum was discriminatorily discharged and its answer was amended at the hearing to the effect that he was employed from May 28, 1946, to February 26; 1947, when he was discharged for insubordination, poor work record and other causes. McCollum was 16 years old at the time he went to work for Respondent and he was employed at the request of McCol- lum's father who asked Assistant Superintendent Richey to give him a job. He began work as a cleaner in the spinning room and thereafter worked as a "sweeper-cleaner" and "traveler changer." " During the period of his employ- ment his pay was increased from 601/2 cents per hour starting pay to 781/2 cents 11 In the Matter of Macon Tertales. Inc., supra. " His duties as a cleaner were to keep the spinning frames clean by keeping them free from cotton After 2 weeks as a cleaner, he became a "sweeper-cleaner" which McCollum described as an easier job with the same pay. A "traveler-changer" changes a small piece of metal called at traveler which spins and guides the thread through the rollers on to the bobbins. 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD per hour at the time he was discharged" On October 17, 1946, he joined the Union but did not become actively engaged in its activities until the middle of February 1947, when the Union's organizational campaign was intensified and he took an active part in its affairs. The start of, McCollum's difficulties occurred on February 24, 1947, when he failed to report for work and sent no word to the mill that he would be absent" He testified that the reason he stayed out was that his father's automobile had frozen and no telephone was available for him to use to inform the Respondent that he was unable to get to work. His testimony further disclosed that he lived about 1 mile from the mill and on cross-examination admitted that about 1 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day he applied for a job at the plant of the Goodyear Company which is located about one hundred yards distant from the mill of the Re- spondent." When he came to work at 8 o'clock the next morning, he mentioned his absence of the day previous to Overseer Champion who told him : "That's all right, go on back to work." It so happened that February 25, 1947, was the first day that McCollum ever wore a union button to work. On that day he wore two union buttons on his shirt. When he started work, following his con- versation with Champion, he removed his coat and the buttons were seen by Richey, Champion, and other employees. A little while later in the day he was called to Champion's office where Champion read a warning notice to him which was dated February 24, 1947, in which his attention was called to the number of times he had been absent from work ; to the fact that he had been leaving early during the month of January and that on February 24, 1947, he had been out without sending word to the plant. The notice further stated in conclusion, "All of this makes up a bad work record and we ask you to improve on this or it will be necessary to hire a hand for your place." McCollum questioned the accuracy of the number of his absences reported on the warning slip and asked to see the office records, which request was refused. McCollum, however, ad- mitted that during January 1947, he had left the mill about 5 minutes early two or three times a week for about 3 weeks but stopped the practice after the over- seer spoke to him about it. He maintained that from the middle of August 1946 to the time of his discharge he lost only 3 days from work without per- mission.18 Following the recipt of his warning slip on February 25, he went back to work. About 11: 30 or 11: 45 in the forenoon, Richey called him into Champion's office where they had a private conversation for 10 or 15 minutes. For the most part McCollum and Richey differ as to what was said between them. On that issue, the undersigned credits Richey's version and finds that Richey tried to counsel McCollum in an effort to get him to pay more attention .to his work, assuring him that no one was mad with him and no one was trying to discharge him. McCollum replied that he was not going to do any-differently and that Richey could fire him when Richey was ready. Richey then stated : "I'm not wanting to fire you, Gordon. You go on your job and stay with it. Ain't nobody going to fire you as long as you do that." McCollum thereupon 19 This was a plant-wide increase in pay corresponding to general Increases, in the industry. 14 McCollum admitted he knew of the rule requiring employees to notify the mill if they were to be absent and that he did not comply with that requirement 15 There is no evidence that Respondent knew he had applied for a job at the Goodyear plant until after his discharge. 16 McCollum produced pay-roll envelopes which Respondent did not dispute showing that he worked regularly from November 16, 1946, to February 15, 1947, and the only times he was off in that period were 2 hours with permission in the week ending December 21, 1946, and Christmas Eve which was a holiday. I CEDARTOWN'YARN MILLS, INC. 11 returned to his work and there was no further trouble that day. The next morning, February 26, 1947, McCollum came to work with seven or more union buttons on his shirt in the form of a "V". When he saw Richey around 9 or •9:30 o'clock in the morning, McCollum patted his buttons and asked Richey how he liked that. Richey replied : "That's all right. It's 0. K. to me ... If 'it suits you, it's not bothering me." McCollum then inquired why Richey did 'not fire him. Richey replied : "`I don't want to fire you. I don't care if you put a row on your back. I don't care nothing about them old buttons. They don't mean anything to me." Later in the morning, Richey received complaints from several employees that McCollum was running all over the spinning room, laughing and showing his buttons and warning notice to them ; bothering them, stopping them and stating : ". . . he had old Richey stretched over a barrel, couldn't fire him." 17 Even then McCollum was not discharged. It was not until Champion" went to Richey again and told him that he could not keep McCollum on the job at all and something had to be done about it that Richey wrote out his discharge slip and Champion fired him." Accordingly, the undersigned finds that McCollum was not discriminatorily discharged because of his union mem- bership or activities and will recommend that the complaint in that respect be dismissed. Huey Moncrief Respondent in its answer denied that Moncrief was discriminatorily discharged and refused reinstatement and at the hearing amended it answer to include the affirmative defense that he quit voluntarily in March 1947; thereafter was re- employed on April 29, 1948, and since then has been working for the Respondent. Moncrief had been steadily employed by Respondent as a frame hand from 1939 -until his employment terminated on March 28, 1947. Three or four months before March 28, 1947, he joined the Union but there is no evidence that he ever wore a union button to the plant or in any other way brought notice to the Respondent's supervisory force that he was a member of the Union. Mr. Charles B. Wall, called as a witness in behalf of the General Counsel, testi- fled that in March 1947 he was employed by the Respondent and was Moncrief's overseer ; that on or about May 1, 1947, the Respondent requested his resignation and he has not worked for Respondent since that date. Since on or about July 1, 1947, Wall has been living in Berryton, Georgia, where he is assistant superin- tendent in a cotton mill. Wall testified on cross-examination that on March 5, 1947, Moncrief told him that he wanted to work out a 4 weeks' notice because he was going to leave his employment to go into the filling station business ; that Wall thereupon marked the date of the notice and the date it would expire on a calendar which he identi- fied as an exhibit for Respondent with the notation in his handwriting thereon "Moncrief working notice" together with the arrows he drew marking the date the notice was given and the date of expiration; that after Moncrief gave his notice, 11 McCollum denied Richey's testimony although he did admit that Richey told him no one was mad with him and that Richey had stated he wanted to help McCollum on account of his friendship for McCollum's father The undersigned credits Richey's version of the conversation between Richey and McCollum. 18 Champion's testimony regarding McCollum's conduct and neglect of his work (although denied by McCollum) is credited. 11 Richey's testimony as to the events following his private conversation with McCollum up to the time of his discharge is corroborated by Champion who testified that he got McCollum out of the toilet and fired him. McCollum admitted he was in the rest room smoking when Champion came to him there and discharged him. 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Joe Ward was trained to be a frame hand and Chastain was hired to do the work Ward had been doing. Wall continued to testify that on March 28, 1947, Moncrief came to him and said he understood he was working a notice; that Wall told him that was right, that Moncrief had given the notice ; that Moncrief denied giving the notice to quit but when Wall continued to insist that he had given the notice, Moncrief asked if he could not take it back, but Wall told him he could not do that since Ward had already been trained for the job whereupon Moncrief said : "Pay me up now" and Moncrief was on that date paid. Moncrief admitted that it was true he had planned to quit his job during the first part of 1947 to go into the filling station business but that he had to abandon his plans ; he denied that he had given notice to Wall, although he admitted that he had told others at the mill of his intentions to leave his job there and go into business. Moncrief further testified that on March 28 he terminated the discus- sion with Wall by requesting his pay, saying, "If that is true, give me my time now." Later, on redirect examination, Moncrief testified : "Well, I told Mr. Wall, if that was the way he felt about it, just to give it to me." The testimony of Wall is corroborated by Andrews and Richey as to reports from Wall in March 1947 that Moncrief had given his notice and the subsequent assignment of Ward to learn Moncrief's job and the employment of Chastain to take over Ward's work. The undersigned credits the testimony of Wall. Richey, and Andrews and finds that Moncrief voluntarily quit his employment and was not discriminatorily discharged. Neither is there any evidence in the record to support any suggestion that he was forced to quit because of any union member- ship or union activity. The Respondent proved and Moncrief admitted that he was reemployed by Respondent on April 29, 1948, and at all times since has con- tinued in the employ of the Respondent. Moncrief testified, however, that he was not reemployed until he had given assurances to Andrews that he would drop his case with the Labor Board and withdraw from the Union, and that when lie was reemployed he made an oral statement in front of a witness in Andrews' office that he had met those conditions. Andrews denied that he had requested Moncrief to drop his case with the Board or to withdraw from the Union, which denial is supported by Moncrief's own statement on cross-examination when he testified : Now, when you were asking Mr. Andrews to put you back on the job, he never did say a word to you about union membership, did he? No, sir ; nothing. Never did? No, sir. And never had said anything to you about it, had he? No, sir. The undersigned credits the testimony of Andrews and finds that Moncrief was reemployed on April 29, 1948, and that Respondent did not discharge Moncrief nor discriminate in regard to his hire and tenure of employment nor interfere with, restrain, or coerce him in the exercise of his rights under the Act or Amended Act; and, accordingly, will recommend that the complaint with respect to Moncrief be dismissed. Mrs. Lennie Collier Respondent denied that Collier's discharge was discriminatory and contended that she was discharged for cause, including absenteeism and unsatisfactory work record. CEDARTOWN 'YARN MILLS, INC. 13 Collier was employed from November or December 1945 to May 16, 1947.' She was a winder hand at all times, working the second shift from 4 o'clock in the afternoon until midnight. For 6 or 7 months preceding her discharge, Alvin Adams was-overseer and Happy Costley was second hand 2° On October 15, 1946, she joined the Union but was not an active member until February 1, 1947, at which time sher became the most active member of the union committee. She attended committee meetings ; took a union book into the plant ; talked openly to fellow employees in the rest room and canteen and also at her job if other employees came to where she was working during their slack time. She testified that ,inside and outside the plant where she was observed by Andrews and Richey she discussed union affairs ; that she openly wore her union button from February 10, 1947, to the time of her discharge. Collier received an hourly rate of pay for a 40-hour week. Winders were expected to produce a minimum number of pounds of yarn for the minimum rate of pay. If, however, an employee failed to meet production requirements, she still received the minimum hourly pay. If she wound yarn in excess of the minimum production required, she received additional pay. If the supply of yarn ran out, the hourly pay of the winder continued during the time she was waiting on the job for yarn, but her production would be lowered for the simple reason that she was being paid for not producing. Many times Collier had to wait for yarn, on occasions as much as an hour at a time. Costley testified he made no written record of how long a winder had to wait for yarn but he would inform Adams the length of time an employee had to wait. The record does not disclose whether Adams or anyone else kept any written record of such idle hours. - Adams and Costley testified for the most part from memory concerning Collier's failure to meet production requirements and absenteeism.' They at- tempted to account for her lack in production by testifying that she spent too much time in the canteen and rest room and not attending to her work. No company records were produced at any time by Respondent to fortify its con- tentions of absenteeism and deficient production. It was common practice for a supervisor to inquire from the winders if any of them wanted to take time -off when a spare hand came in and wanted to work. If so, the winder was excused and the spare hand employed. Likewise, at the instance of the winder, permission could be granted to be absent. On February 17, 1947, Collier received a written warning that her production record was deficient for the 4 weeks previous but that she would be given a chance to make it up. Collier proved by her pay-roll envelope that the warning slip was erroneous in that it reported she was paid $21.26 for a 40-hour week ending February 8, 1947, when in fact she was paid $28.59 22 After she received her first warning slip, Collier told Adams : "Alvin, you know it isn't production you are after me for ; it is because I belong to the C. I. 0." On May 12, 1947, Collier was given her second written notice warning her about deficient production for the weeks ending March 15, 1947, to May 10, 1947, inclusive. It reminded her that through a period of 9 weeks she worked only 1 full week and was deficient every week: No complaint is mentioned therein for the period from February 17 to March 15, and it is therefore fair to assume 20 Costley worked the same shift as Collier worked. 21 Absenteeism did not affect "production" because she was not paid when she was absent from work. 22 Amounts refer to gross pay without deductions. 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that in the absence of any evidence or complaint to the contrary, Collier worked regularly and met all requirements for production. On the warning slip of May 12, 1947, varying amounts are shown for each week as deficiencies in production, ranging from $1.97 in 1 week when she worked 12 hours to $4.92 in another week when she worked 32 hours. In another week when she worked 40 hours, the amount deficient is listed at $2.78. At the hearing, neither Costley nor Adams could testify what the production requirements were for those 9 weeks and it was impossible to elicit any facts from Respondent to provide any basis for showing how the stated weekly deficiencies were computed. Costley testified he did not know if Collier was meeting production requirements or not ; that he "didn't have a thing,to say about production or to do about it at all." While the import of the testimony of Adams and Costley is that she failed to "make production" because she loafed and spent too much time away from her job in the canteen and in the rest room it is considerably weakened by Costley's frank admission that the last time he talked to Collier about spending so much time away from her job in the canteen and rest room was 2 months before she was discharged. It is difficult to believe that if she was wasting time on the job that Costley would not speak to her about it between, March 15 and May 15, especially since her warning slips of February and May criticized her deficiency in production. Adams testified that he could not remember the formula for production at that time because production requirements increased with pay increases but that such information was kept at the office. Respondent offered no records to substantiate the accuracy of the claims made on the warning slip. Even if the Respondent was unable to prove the accuracy of the amounts claimed as deficient, Collier was again able to show by her pay-roll envelope that at least one entry was erroneous by proving that she worked 32 hours in the week ending May 10, 1947, and not 24 hours as shown on the warning notice. On the question of absenteeism, Collier did admit that for the period from March 15, 1947, to May 10, 1947, she lost quite a lot of time from work some of which was because her teeth were extracted ; but that any absences were with per- mission from Respondent. It should be noted at this point that absenteeism includes absence from work without permission, permitted absence at the in- stance of the supervisor, and permitted absence at the request of the employee. Collier testified that she was never away from work without permission. Adams testified that he had let her take time off several times. He "did not remember" if he had ever asked Collier if she wanted to take time off so that a spare hand could work ; he "would not say" if Collier was absent at any time without permission during the 9 weeks previous to May 12, 1947. On the question of excused absences, Adams at one part testified : Q. And you never made any record of the fact that she had asked to be off and had been excused? A. No. But later Adams also testified : Q. Now, you don't make any records . . . do you have any records to show who was off and the reason they were off for February, March, and April of 1947? A. Well, I have got them at the mill. We have a, daily report there, you know, and we just put on there why they are out, and everything. That is the onliest record we keep. - CEDARTOWN YARN MILLS, INC. 15 Q. Do you keep a record of whether they were off with permission or with- out permission? A. If I let them off I put on there "let off." On May 16, 1947, shortly after Collier had arrived at the plant gate in an automobile driven by the union organizer, she was discharged. At the time, a third warning slip was given to her dated May 15, 1947, which stated that she was again deficient for the week ending May 17, 1947, having worked only 32 hours, earning $21.90 and deficient in the amount of $3.22. This notice was signed by Adams as were the two previous notices, concerning which he testified that he dictated them, and, when questioned closely, that he had dictated "most" of them. He failed to disclose who dictated the parts not dictated by him. Again, no proof was forthcoming from Respondent as to how such computations were arrived at except Adams' statement that they were based on the company office records, which, however, were not produced to give any clue to the situation. According to the calendar, May 17, 1947, was Saturday, and it is pertinent to observe that the warning notice was made out on Thursday, May 15, stating that she was deficient for the week ending May 17. - It should be observed further that if she had been permitted to work the usual 8 hours on Friday, May 16, she would have worked the required 40 hours for the week ending May 17. Possibly, in addition, she might have made up the deficiency reported of $3.22 for that un- finished week. But in the absence of any evidence from the Respondent as to how deficiencies were computed it is needless to speculate on that possibility. Recognizing, perhaps, that the reasons already stated in the last warning notice might not be too substantial, the notice concluded : "Just last night you used very strong, and abusive, language to your second hand. Therefore, we can't go along with you any further." This brings up for consideration the evi- dence of Collier's conduct upon which Respondent relies as another reason for her discharge. The record shows clearly that while Collier used strong, em- phatic, and uncomplimentary language when referring to others in conversation with Costley there is no evidence anywhere that she "cussed out" Costley nor a scintilla of evidence to support the allegation in the warning notice that she used very strong and abusive language to Costley. Adams testified that Costley told him the night of May 14, that he had had a run-in down there with Mrs. Collier and "he said he didn't see how he could get along with her anymore." Costley, however, denied that he told Adams that Collier should be fired ; that nothing was said about firing Collier and he did not know she was going to be fired. Costley testified he- told Adams con- cerning Collier's conduct the night of May 14 as follows : Well, I told him that we had a little ruckus, that I was going to tell him about it and let him discuss the case and see what he thought about it. I said, "She got mad because the lint was a-coming over there in between the winders28 And I says `I couldn't help it.' And I told her I would do the best I could with it." And I said, "She got mad as hell." I told him that she got mad at the yarn taker, the woman that was taking down the yarn. Q. And did you tell him that-recommend that she be fired? A. No, sir. Q. And after you talked it all over, what was the conclusion of it? How did it end up, your conversation with Mr. Adams, after you had told him all this? What did he. say the decision was? 23 A few days previously Collier had been cautioned against letting lint get on the yarn. 16 DECISIONS ' OF. NATIONAL 'LABOR, RELATIONS BOARL A. He didn't put no decision to it. He just laughed. That was the decision ; he just laughed and said, "Well-" and so I walked out the door.' Costley further testified that on May 14, 1947, Bessie Winkles came to him crying and said Collier "had cussed her out." Winkles when called by Respond- ent denied that she had cried. Winkles' version of the affair with Collier is best described by reference to Winkles' testimony: Q. What was it she said to you about the yarn? A. She told me, when I came back from putting the yarn in the gangway- I told her that, "if they was all doffing like she was that night, that I wouldn't have to work so hard." And she said, "Well, you haven't got a goddamn bit of mercy on me." And I said, "Why, Lennie?" She says, "Why, my damn doff just weighed 47 pounds of yarn." And I said, "Well, that is all it weighed, and I will see Happy (Costley) about allowing you more." Winkles continued to testify that with Costley's permission she could give em- ployees extra weight. With such an admission that the weigher could add more pounds than the scales showed with Costley's permission, it strengthens Collier's contention that she was being cheated on the reported weight of her yarn for if Winkles would report added weight at Respondent's direction it is a proper infer- ence that she would just as readily report less weight if so'instructed. Adams further testified that Winkles told him Collier had called her a "son of a bitch and everything." Winkles, however, in her testimony said that she had not heard Collier call her that. Certainly, Winkles' version of the conversation with Collier gives little support to the exaggerated account as related by Adams and Costley." The use of the words "darn" "damn" and "God damn" ascribed to and admitted by Collier have little if any meaning in everyday conversational use" They may reveal emotions from affection to anger but,usually are used to supply a limited vocabulary. The determination of the question whether Collier was discriminatorily dis- charged resolves itself ultimately to an issue of credibility between Collier and Adams. The undersigned credits Collier's testimony and finds that she was a truthful, fearless, and forthright witness. The undersigned rejects the testi- mony of Adams because his attitude and demeanor as a witness, his refusal to answer questions by taking refuge in such replies as "I don't know." "I couldn't say," "I don't remember," etc., demonstrated that he was untruthful and no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. At times, be gave the impression of being surly and defiant. Although he has been employed for 15 years by the Re- spondent and for more than 7 years as overseer, his answer to the Trial Exam- iner's question as to whether or not there are any windows in the company canteen was : "I don't know nothing about how it was built " The solution to the problem whether Collier was discriminatorily discharged was provided by Adams himself when he let slip the answer immediately fol- lowing her discharge and while she was still on the premises as testified to by Collier : "Thus, upon the testimony of Respondent's own witness, two mirth provoking incidents of the night of May 14 were converted into a reason for discharge on May 16. 24 Throughout their testimony, Adams, Costley, and Winkles unknowingly contradict each other in important particulars. • 26 See Sunset Line and Twine Company, 79 N L. R B. 1487; also, Nelson Iron Works, Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 788, holding that the language used, though impolite according to genteel standards was mild according to the not-uncommon standards of conversation in industrial plants. • CEDARTOWN YARN MILLS, INC.' .17 I still had the knotter in my hand and walked on down through the winder room. And Mr. Adams said, "I will take.the knotter" and I handed it to him. And I said, "Alvin, you dirty skunk, you know you never treated me right about this." And he said, "I asked you to cooperate." I said, "I always cooperated until you found out that I belonged to the union, and then was when you decided I wasn't cooperating." And I said, "That is no concern of yours." And he said, "I make it my business ; and ,I will tell you right now, the Company can fire you and pay you for a year's work cheaper than they can let the damn union come in here." Upon all the evidence, the -undersigned concludes that because of Collier's known union membership and activities the reasons assigned by the Respondent were a pretext for discharging her on May 16, 1947, and therefore finds that in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Amended Act, the Respondent by discharging Collier and refusing her rein- statement to a winder's job on May 16, 1947, discriminated with respect to her 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 and Amended Act. 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 violated Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Amended Act, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom , and that it take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that the Respondent discriminated against Lennie Collier in regard to her hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging member- ship in the Union, by discharging Collier and refusing her reinstatement to a winder job on or about May 16, 1947, the undersigned accordingly will recom- mend that the Respondent offer to Lennie Collier immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former job as a winder or a substantially equivalent position; T without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges ; and that the Respondent also make the said Lennie Collier whole for any loss of earnings suffered by her by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages as a winder from the date of the discrimination against her, May 16, 1947, to the date of the offer of reinstatement , less her net earnings during that period 28 It will also be recommended that the complaint , so far as it alleges discrimina- tion by the Respondent against Gordon McCollum and Huey Moncrief, be dismissed. 27 See Matter of the Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico Branch , 65 N L. it. B. 837 . Also, Matter of Macon Textiles, Inc., supra. 28 Matter o f Crossett Lumber Co , 8 N. L. R. B. 440, 497-498. 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the-foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act and of the Amended Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and the Amended Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Amended Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Lennie Collier, and thereby discouraging membership, in Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, and Section 8 (a) (3) of the Amended 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 and of the Amended Act. 5. The Respondent has not violated Section 8 (3) of the Act or Section 8 (a) (3) of the Amended Act by discharging Gordon McCollum and Huey Moncrief. 6. The Respondent has not violated Section 8 (1) of the Act or Section 8 (a) (1) of the Amended Act by (a) fostering, aiding, assisting, and condoning the circulation of an anti-union petition during working hours ; or (b) threatening employees with increased work loads if union activity was continued and suc- cessful ; or (c) threatening to blacklist other members of the family of employees for continued union activities; or (d) promising to promote employees upon condition that the Union was defeated; or (e) ridiculing and threatening union employees because they wore union buttons; or (f) warning its employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of the Union. ' RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent, Cedartown Yarn Mills, Inc., of Cedartown, Georgia, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminatorily dis- charging employees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or 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 form labor organiza-, tions, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., 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 bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and of the amended Act. 21 The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are not separately numbered nor otherwise distinguishable. Accordingly, the undersigned is, unable to make separate rulings upon them, but adopts such of them as are consistent with the findings and conclusions herein, and rejects all others. CEDARTOWN YARN MILLS, INC. 19 2. Take the following affirmative action , which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Lennie Collier immediate and full reinstatement to her former position as a winder or to a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination of the Re- spondent against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages as a winder from the date of the Respondent's discrimination against her to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during the period; (b) Post at its plant in Cedartown , Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region , shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent,,be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and main- tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous' places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reas- onable . steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material; and (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply with the foregoing recommendations. It is further recommended that, unless the Respondent shall within twenty (20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order notify 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. It is further recommended that the complaint, so far as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Gordon McCollum and Huey Moncrief, be dismissed. It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent has violated Section 8 (1) of the Act or Section 8 (a) (1) of the Amended Act by ( a) fostering, aiding, assisting, and condoning the circula- tion of an anti-union petition during working hours; or (b) threatening em- ployees with increased work loads if union activity was continued and successful ; or (c) threatening to blacklist other members of the family of employees for continued union activities; or (d) promising to promote employees upon condi- tion that the Union was defeated; or (e) ridiculing and threatening union employees because they wore union buttons ; or (f) warning its employees to re- frain from assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of the Union. As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and Recommended Order 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 six copies -of a brief in support thereof, and any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Im- mediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. State- 20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD ments of exceptions and briefs shall designate by- precise 'citation the portions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Sectioi 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46, should any party desire per- mission 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. In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid Rules and Regulations, the findings , conclusions , recommendations , and recom- mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order , and all objections thereto shall be'deemed waived for all purposes.- Dated at Washington, D. C., this 21st day of February 1949. W. GERARD RYAN, Trial Examiner. 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 discourage membership in Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment ; WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL immediately offer to LENNIE COLLIER full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any seniority . or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. 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 employ- ment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. --------------------------------- Employer. Dated ------------------------------ By --------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the (late hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.