Bewley Mills

In the Matter of BEWLEY MILLS and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS' Case No. 16-C-1178.-Decided April 10, 1946 DECISION AIM ORDER On July 31,1945, the Trial Examiner 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. The Trial Examiner also found that the respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to them. Thereafter, the Congress of Ind> strial Organizations and counsel for the Board filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report; and counsel for the Board filed a supporting brief. No request for oral argument before the Board at Washington, D. C., was made by any of the parties, and none was held. On January 10, 1946, subsequent to the issuance of the Intermediate Report herein, the Congress of Industrial Organizations filed with the Board a motion to reopen the record and to consolidate the instant proceeding with Case No. 16-C-1289, a pending proceeding involving additional charges against the respondent. The motion is hereby denied. The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs of all parties, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except as hereinafter modified. ' The amended charge was filed by the C I. O. Howe, er, during the organizational cam- paign among the Respondent's employees, it chartered a local known as "United Flour and Feed Workers, Local No 1421," herein called Local 1421, for the express purpose of serv- ing the Respondent's employees. 67 N. L. R. B., No. 28 191 192 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, Bewley Mills, Fort Worth, Texas, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from interrogating employees as to their union affiliation by the use of employment application or other personnel forms or by questioning employees in any other manner concerning union membership or activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Delete from the application forms for employment any ques- tion as to the applicant's union affiliation ; (b) Post at its plant in Fort Worth, Texas, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, 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 respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. 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 interrogate employees as to their union affiliation by the use of employment application or other personnel forms, or by questioning employees in any other manner concerning union membership or activities. We will delete from the application forms for employment any question as to the applicant's union affiliation. BEWLEY MILLS, Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------ ---------------- (Representative ) (Title) BEWLEY MILLS 193 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 Jlessi s Elmer P. Davis and Earl Saunders, for the Board Mr. J W. Gooch, of Fort Woi th, Tex., for the Respondent Mr. A. R. Hardesty, of Dallas, Tex., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge' duly tiled on March 26, 1945, by Congress of In- dustrial Organizations, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations $oard, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued its complaint, dated June 7, 1945, against Bewley Mills, Fort Worth, Texas, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Re- spondent 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 accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance: (1) that from about January 15, 1945, the Respondent, through its officers, agents, and employees, namely W P. Bomar, E. L (Red) Brashear, Lee Car- penter, Roy Glasco, Horace Allen, and F E Russell, has vilified and disparaged ilie Union, interrogated its employees concerning their union affiliations through u s application forms and otherwise, urged its employees to refrain from assist- ing or becoming members of the Union or remaining members of the Union, and has kept under surveillance the meetings, meeting places, and other activities of the Union and the concerted activities of its employees; (2) that during January and March 1945, the Respondent discharged, and thereafter refused to reinstate, Willie Duty, C. L. Green, Irvin Youngblood, and Girtha Mae Gilbert' because they joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; and (3) that by the aforesaid acts, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The Respondent's answer admits certain allegations of the complaint con- cerning the character and operation of the Respondent's business, and that the Respondent discharged Willie Duty, Irvin Youngblood, and Girtha Mae Gilbert on the dates alleged in the complaint, but denies that the Respondent has committed any unfair labor practices The answer avers that C. L Green was laid off by the Respondent and was not discharged Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Fort Worth Texas, on June 26, 28, and 29, 1945, before the undersigned, W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the Respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full op- ' The oiiginal charge was filed by the Union on January 29 , 1945 The amended charge contains the names of six employees in addition to the four employees named in the com- plaint. However, the amended charge iias withdrawn in respect to these six employees prior to the issuance of the instant complaint t Duty was alleged to have been discharged on January 26, 1945 . Green on January 27, 1945 , Youngblood and Gilbert on March 19, 1945. 692148-46-vol 67-14 194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. On June 21, 1945, the deposition of C. L. Green was duly taken pursuant to an agreement between counsel for the Board and the Respondent, for the reason that Green was due to leave Fort Worth, Texas, on June 22, 1945, for govern- ment work in Hawaii The deposition was admitted in evidence by the Trial Examiner without objection. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Respondent's counsel moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Ruling on this motion was reserved. It is disposed of as indicated below A motion by counsel for the Board to conform the plead- ings to the proof, with respect to formal matters, was granted by the Trial Exami- ner without objection. Opportunity to argue orally before the Trial Examiner at the conclusion of the hearing and to file briefs with the Trial Examiner was waived by the parties. Upon 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, Bewley Mills, is a Texas corporation having its principal office and place of business in Fort Worth, Texas, where it is engaged in the manu- facture, sale, and distribution of flour, meal, mixed feeds, and related products. During the 6 months next preceding the date of the instant hearing the Respond- ent processed, at its Fort Worth plant, raw materials valued at approximately $2,700,000, of which about 20 percent was obtained from sources outside of Texas. During the same period the Respondent manufactured finished products valued at approximately $4,300,000, of which about 20 percent was sold and distributed to points outside of Texas The Respondent concedes that it is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act. II THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Congress of Industrial Organizations, and United Flour and Fred Workers, Local No. 1421, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III THE UNFAIR TABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction In the latter part of September 1944, Lee Metker, a representative of the Union, inaugurated an organizational campaign among the Respondent's em- ployees. There was no union activity in the plant prior to that time. He was assisted in this effort by employees Willie Duty and Irvin Youngblood Union meetings' were held on Sundays and union literature was distributed at the plant during the week. Also union authorization cards were passed out among the employees During the campaign, Congress of Industrial Organizations issued a charter to Local 1421, and the membership of this local was at first confined to the Respondent's employees. On February 21, 1945, a consent election was held in the plant under the direction of the Regional Director. The ' The Union first held its meetings in Williams Funeral Home, which was located just across the street from the east-side of the Respondent's plant. In April 1945, the meeting place was changed to the colored v M C A. on Fifteenth and Jones Streets, some distance from the Respondent 's plant. BEWLEY MILLS 195 Union received a majority of the votes' No objections to the election were filed by any party. On March 20, 1945, the Union notified the Respondent by letter that employees E. T Richardson, B. E. Nelson, and Martel Lofton had been elected as the committee to "represent the Union in negotiations."' At the time of the instant hearing, the Union and the respondent were conducting negotiations with respect to the execution of a contract B. Interference, iestiaint, and coeeion There was received in evidence a blank "Application for Employment with Bewley Mills, Fort Worth, Texas," which the Respondent admitted nas a copy of the application form which the Respondent now uses and had been using for the past 20 years in the plant One of the questions appearing in this application, reads as follows. To what labor organization, if any, do you belong?" By the use of this application form the Respondent acknowledged its interest in the union activity of its employees. The Set forbids an employer to interrogate his employees, or applicants for employment, in regard to their union affiliations According to the credible testimony of Foreman Lee Carpenter, during the union campaign be asked employee Willie Duty what he thought about the CIO and if he had attended the meetings at Williams Funeral Home. Also Carpenter admitted that just a few days prior to the election in the plant, he asked most of the employees working under him if they belonged to the Union. The undersigned finds that the Respondent, by requiring applicants for em- ployment to execute the aforesaid form in respect to their union affiliations and by the acts of Foreman Carpenter in questioning its employees as to whether or not they belonged to the Union, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. C. Other acts of alleged interference, ,c tr1int, and coercion Willie Duty e testified that in December 1944' he asked Foreman Lee Car- penter what he thought about a union, and Carpenter replied that he did not think anything of them, and if the plant went union he would resign, and would kill anyone who "got on the stand" and "swore" that he had said anything about a union. Foreman Carpenter positively denied having made these statements'to Duty or anyone else. Carpenter testified that on one occasion an employee asked him if he knew anything about a union and he told him that he did not, Duty testified that when Carpenter made the alleged statements, as above related, there were, at least, 4 or 5 other employees present. However, not a single witness was called by the Board to corroborate Duty's testimony. The under- signed credits the testimony of Foreman Carpenter and finds that he did not make the statements attributed to him by Duty. The undersigned did not find Duty to be a credible witness Duty also testified that in December 1944, Foreman Carpenter asked him if they were having union meetings at the Funeral Home Carpenter testified that, on one occasion, he asked Duty what kind of meetings they were having at the Funeral Home. The undersigned credits Carpenter's testimony. Duty further testified that Foreman Roy Glasco asked him if they were having meetings over there. Glasco denied having asked Duty anything about the meetings . (=laseo's denial is credited by the undersigned. One hundred votes were cast for, and 78 against, the Union. 'The letter did not specify whether this committee would represent the 'Union in negoti- ations foi a contract or negotiations in reference to the settlement of grievances or both Dutv's discharge is discussed below The complaint does not allege any violation of the Act prior to January 15, 1945. 196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Irvin Youngblood' testified that on January 27, 1945, W. P. Bomar, president and general manager of the Respondent, called the employees together in the east warehouse of the plant and made a speech to them in which he said, inter alto, that the Congress of Industrial Organizations could not help them any, as they were now receiving or would receive just as much money as any other mill in the district was paying. President Bomar denied having made that statement. He testified that on January 27, 1945, he read a statement to the employees, the full text of which is as follows : I have made a careful study of the books, affairs and business of this company, and I am surprised, if not shocked, to find that with the lay ge number of employees that we have had on our books for many months, we are turning out proportionately less products, doing less work-and what is being done is being done less efficiently than ever before in the history of this company. I am of the opinion that if the force we have on hand were just a little more efficient and interested in woiking. that we could accomplish the same results with two-thirds of the help we now have employed I am wholeheartedly in sympathy with the movement out of Washington concerning the entire over-all manpower picture, and feel that prohabl^ there are both white and colored employees who probably could do good service in the armed torces of this nation. The management has at all times attempted to keep sufficient employees to perform the labor and services necessary to conduct the affairs of the company, and I firmly believe that we can continue to do work with a great deal less help than is now employed There must be a tightening up in every department of this company, and those employed-both white and colored-must turn in a reasonable day's work, and from now on out I not only expect but demand that this be done. Here at Bewley Mills we insist that each and every one of us do our full part to produce and handle as much food and feed as possible to supply our boys on the fighting fronts with needed supplies. If you are unwilling to do your part as a soldier of production, and are not willing to help the war effort, we will be glad to help you get into the fighting forces. They don't stop for cokes and coffee, but are on the job 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, fighting and dying to keep us free. Our carelessness is causing too much waste Let every one make it his or her business to pick up and help keep our house in order Safety is another MUST in our daily activities. This is your business home-and we must make it the best place of its kind in which to spend our working hours, You will have the opportunity of earning as much here as in any flour or feed mill in this neighborhood. All adjustments and changes in wages have to be authorized or granted from either the War Labor Board or the Treasury Department. No other agency has any authority or can effect wage increases. If anybody here at Bewley Mills hasn't the patriotism or enough guts to do his or her part to help win this war, the quicker they ask for a release and get into the armed forces, the better most of us here will be pleased. We have a job to do, and by all that's Holy, we are determined to let nothing stand in our way toward full cooperation with our Government to give our boys our best in food and feed production. 8 Youngblood's discharge is discussed below. BEWLEY MILLS 197 Is there anybody here who is not with me in backing up our boys by getting the job done to the best of our ability? Bomar also testified that in order to avoid being misquoted, he prepared the statement and read it to the employees.' Youngblood's testimony set forth above was not corroborated, although the record shows that there were several hundred employees in the plant, and no doubt a majority of them heard Bomar's speech ; however, none was called to corroborate Youngblood. The undersigned was not favorably impressed with the testimony of Youngblood and accepts Bomar's testimony as to what occurred at the meeting, and finds that he did not make the statements concerning the Congress of Industrial Organizations as testified to by Youngblood. The undersigned also finds that the reading of the aforesaid statement to the employees by Bomar does not constitute interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of the Act. Willie Duty testified that President Bomar said in a speech made to the em- plo.Nees in December 193 i, that "it NNasn't no Congress of industrial Organizations going to cause him to pay any more than what he was paying because he was paying as much or more than any other will in town." Obviously this testimony of Duty cannot be relied upon. and the undersigned so finds, as both Youngblood and Bomar testified that the speech was made on January 27, 1945, at which time, Duty was not an employee of the Respondent, as be had been discharged on Jan- uary 26, 1945, the day before the speech was made This testimony of Duty goes further to his credibility as a witness. As stated above, the undersigned did not find Duty a credible witness. Youngblood further testified that on one occasion in January or February 1945, while he and several other employees were discussing the election and other union activities which had occurred at Universal Mills, Foreman Horace Allen "spoke up" and said that it would not do the employees of Universal Mills or the Respondent any good to or ganize, as the plants were too small. Allen also said that in 1938 an effort hail been made to organize the Respondent's em- ployees, in which he assisted ; that several employees had been discharged during the organizational campaign ; and that for fear of being discharged himself, he had borrowed some money from the Respondent. Foreman Allen denied that he ever had any conversation with Youngblood in regard to the Union or its activ- ities at the Respondent's plant. The undersigned credits his denial and finds that lie did not make the remarks accredited to hint by Youngblood Youngblood testified that several employees were present when Allen was alleged to have made the above remarks ; however, none was called to corroborate Youngblood As stated above, the undersigned was not impressed with the testimony of Young- blood. Employee King Davis testified that in the latter part of January 1945, Super- intendent E. L (Red) Brashear asked him if employee Willie Duty was passing out cards, and he replied in the affirmative, and that Brashear said if Duty did not look after his job he might get into trouble. Brashear denied that he made this statement, and testified that he did not know Duty had ever passed out any cards. Brashear further testified that after the election, he inquired of Davis what branch of the C. I 0 the Local represented, and Davis said he would see Duty and find out what name was on the union cards Brashear testified that nothing more was ever said about it. His testimony reads as follows : No, I never did think any more about it, see, it was just for curiosity and after they were voted in I just wanted to know what our branch was I knew 9 Bomar testified that he bad been a member of the original Texas Labor Board, and later "served on one of Doctor Elliott's panels here as an industrial representative," and he knew that he could not "vilify" any union which might attempt to organize the plant. 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD • the packing houses had a certain branch of the ('lO and that's all I wanted to know was just merely to find out the name of the branch, but he never did say anything more to me about it and I didn't either ; I figured he never did see Willie. The undersigned credits the testimony of Superintendent Brashear and finds that he did not make the statements attributed to him by Davis. According to the testimony of Ernest Lee. a former emplovee of the Respondent, on one occasion Foreman Carpenter asked him what he thought about the Union, and when he replied that he thought it was all right, Carpenter said that he did not think there was anything to it. Carpenter testified that on one o(,( asioii either Lee or some other employee asked him if he knew anything about the Union, and he replied that he did not. Carpenter denied Lee's testimony. The undersigned accepts the testimony of Foreman Carpenter and finds that he did not make the statements attributed to him by Lee The undersigned did not find Lee to be a credible witness Lee was discharged by the Respondent on April 4, 1945, because he refused to unload grain from the railway cars when ordered to do so by his supervisor He is not a complainant in this case. Lee also tettified that on one occasion in February or March 1945, Superin- tendent Brashear came up to him about 3: 00 p. m . and asked him if he was at a union meeting and if he had been elected to any office in the Union, and then walked away. Lee further testified that this was the only time Brashear had ever spoken to him about the Union. Superintendent Brashear denied that he had ever discussed the Union with any of the Respondent's employees. His denial is accepted by the undersigned, and the undersigned finds that he did pot make the statements to Lee as testified to by thelatter. As stated above, Lee was not a credible witness. Employee W. W Wright testified that he worked at night under Foreman Glasco, and on one occasion, about the middle of March 1945, they were dis- cussing the Union and Glasco asked him how many members the Union had; who they were; if he held any office in the Union; who were the other officers; and that Glasco finally said "Wright, if you have some men working for you and they didn't do what you wanted them to do what would you do about it?" Glasco positively denied that he asked Wright whether or not he belonged to the Union or who the members were, or who the officers were. Glasco also denied that Wright told him who the officers of the Union were Glasco testified that Wright voluntarily told him who the members of the grievance committee were and that he had been elected a steward, however, Glasco did not state their names, and could not say at what time that had occurred Wright did not testify that he told Glasco who were on the grievance committee or that he had been elected a steward . The undersigned was not impressed with the testimony of Wright and credits the testimony of Glasco, and finds that lie did not make the state- ments attributed to him by Wright The alleged surveillance The complaint alleged that the Respondent, since from about January 15, 1945, has kept under surveillance the meetings, meeting places, and other activities of the Union, and the concerted activities of its employees for the purpose of self- organization or improvement of their working conditions The evidence fails to sustain these allegations. As related above, the Union held its meetings on Sunday At first they were held in Williams Funeral Home. which was located just across the street from the east side of the Respondent's plant, and within plain sight of employees working in that part of the plant. The Respondent's gasoline pumps were also located on this side of the plant and in sight of the BEWLEY MILLS 199 Funeral Home In April 1945. the meeting place was changed to the colored Y M C A some distance trom the plant. There was some testimony by Metker, Youngblood and Duty that, before and after the election on Fabruary21, 1945, Superintendent Brashear and Foreman Glasco had been seen several times at the end of the loading dock next to the Respondent' s gasoline pumps, and that Fore- men Carpenter and Glasco had been seen standing in the east door of the plant opposite the Funeral Home Superintendent Brashear testified that he frequently went to the pumps for various reasons, sometimes as many as three times a day Also that he frequently waited at the end of the dock near the pumps for his wife to take him home in the evening Foreman Carpenter was in charge of the ware- house and his duties frequently took him to the east side of the plant. Glasco was night foreman of the feed mill and went to work at 4: 00 p. in. He testified that he parked his car on the plant property near the gasoline pumps These supervisors denied that they had engaged' in surveillance as alleged in the com- plaint The undersigned finds that there is no credible evidence that any of these supervisory employees ever engaged in surveillance of the union members or their meetings as alleged in the complaint ; therefore, the undersigned finds that the Respondent has not engaged in surveillance of the Union or its members, as alleged in the complaint. D. The alleged discriminatory discharges Willie Duty was continuously employed in the plant from August 1943 to the date of his discharge on Friday, January 26, 1945. During that time he per- formed several different operations in the flour mill. However, most of his time was spent on the flour chutes filling sacks. He worked under Foreman Carpenter Duty joined the Union in December 1944, and was somewhat active in the union campaign. On January 26, 1945, Duty was discharged by Cal- penter because he refused to work at the job that he had assigned to him. According to Foreman Carpenter's testimony, which is credited by the under- signed, at the time of Duty's discharge, extra help was required for unloading grain from the railway cars, and Carpenter was instructed by Superintendent Brashear to send some help to Foreman Elmo Cromwell for that purpose. Car- penter asked Duty if he would help out in unloading the grain, and Duty said he could not do it on account of the dust. Carpenter replied, "Well, if you can't help me out in a jam that way, why I'll just have to give you your time." Duty replied, "You will have to give it to me; I can't work in the dusts 10 Car- penter then gave Duty his time slip Duty corroborated, in substance, the tes- timony of Foreman Carpenter. Duty admitted that he refused to work in the grain cars when ordered to do so by Foreman Carpenter He testified that he was employed by Foreman Carpenter when he first went to work in the plant in 1943, and that he told Carpenter at that time, that he would work anywhere in the plant except where it was dusty. Carpenter denied that anything was said about dust when Duty was hired. According to Duty, at the time of his discharge, he asked Carpenter if be could give him a less dusty job, and Carpen- ter said that he could not at that time. Duty admitted that during the course of his employment with the Respondent he had worked all over the plant, except in the grain cars, and that it was customary in the plant to transfer employees to other departments when necessary. Duty also admitted that there 10 Unloading the grain cars was usually done by four nien, two on the outside and two on the inside of the car. The car door would be opened over the chute and after the grain stopped falling into the chute, it was neces',ary for a man to go into each end of the car and force the grain to the car door and Into the chute The men would alternate after each car, the two on the outside would work inside and vice versa It was a rather hot and dusty jot 200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was hardly any job in the mill that was free from dust, and that the several jobs he had worked at in the plant were dusty, such as filling flour sacks and stacking them, but that they were not as dusty as unloading grain cars Duty testified that "I just didn't want to work in that dust. That's right." In respect to transferring Duty and other employees from one job to another, the testimony of Superintendent Brashear reads as follows : Now, before I was feed mill foreman and ton up to superintendent I worked all over the entire plant and it has been that policy ever since I've been with the company, with them so far as I know. I've worked in the warehouse ; I've worked in the flour mills ; I've oiled in the flour mills and I have worked the chutes. I have shipped, exported, and I have trucked in the warehouse since; I have also worked on the trucking gang as foreman and I have loaned my men to the feed mill and to the flour mill and I've loaned them to the warehouse and I was foreman of the feed mill about 13 months and that's always been our policy and there's been days my crew would not have been able to work if they had not been able to use them in other parts of the plant . . . Well, at the time Willie Duty was laid off we were short in the grain, in the elevator department, unloading grain and I think we had 20 or 25 cars of wheat-Well, I should not say "wheat" but just say grain on the tracks and the 0 D. T. which is some unit of the Government behind it seeing that these cars were unloaded and the O. D. T. was on Mr. Bomar's neck and he called me in the office and said, "you get down on the elevator and see to it that Cromwell gets help and see that the O. D. T. gets off of me. I don't want to be embargoed." I said to Carpenter, "you give Elmo [Crom- well] whatever help you can, that you can scare up and if you don't have enough to satisfy Elmo,"-who is the elevator superintendent, Elmo Crom- well, "-if he don't have enough help to carry on his work see Mr. H. J. Blackman, Mr. F. E. Russell, and if you can't get enough men from those men with what you've got, come and see me and I'll have some part of the plant shut clown and give you those men. This grain must be unloaded or we will be embargoed," and I said, "I got that message direct from Mr. Bomar a few minutes ago." Superintendent Brashear further testified that he spoke to Duty just after his discharge, and the latter told him that Foreman Carpenter had discharged him because he refused to work in the grain cars ; that he told Duty he hated to see him go as he was a "good boy," but that he had refused to obey instructions and he would have to get his release. Duty replied, "Yes, sir, I knows it . . . that's what I'm up here for." There was nothing unusual in the transfer of Duty to another job in the plant. Duty testified that he had "worked practically all over the mill wherever they needed me." Duty also testified that he had seen other employees unloading the grain cars and lie knew that it was hot and dusty work, and be would not do it. Also that other employees had quit rather than do that work. The record shows that employee Ernest Lee was discharged by the Respondent on April 4, 1945, for the same reason. The undersigned finds that Duty was discharged by the Respondent on January 26, 1945, for cause, and not for the reasons alleged in the complaint. Claude L. Green. According to Green's deposition, he was first employed by the Respondent in September 1919 and worked until April 1921, at which time, he quit He was reemployed by the Respondent in September 1944" and worked 11 Between September 1921 and September 1944, Green was variously employed. He was a member of the Police Department for several years, owned and operated a cafe, worked for a wholesale drug company, traveled for a wholesale liquor house, and had other jobs. At the time of the instant hearing, Green was 49 years of age BEWLEY MILLS 201 until he was laid off on Saturday, January 27, 1945 Green's regular job was in the corn mill under Foreman Clyde Hogan' However, in the latter part of December 1944, at the request of Foreman Cromwell, he was assigned to part- time duty on the elevators, due to slack work in the corn mill. Green was sup- posed to do any kind of work in the elevator department, except unload grain from freight cars. The work in the elevator department was somewhat sporadic, depending upon the number of cars of grain to be unloaded. Green joined the Union in December 1944," but lie never attended a union meeting. On a few occasions, while away from the plant, lie solicited other employees to join the Union. On Saturday, January 27, 1945, Green was laid off by Foreman Cromwell. Green's testimony in regard to his lay-off reads as follows : Well, there wasn't nothing said at all After 12:00 o'clock on Saturday I was by myself on the bottom floor. We had filled up for feed mills and we filled up for the wheat mill and we had filled up for the corn will. I was by myself. The other man made the set ups up in the mill, up in the head house. Around ten o'clock on Saturday, the P. A. system that they had at that time, Brashear called Cromwell up in the office Well, after ten o'clock I didn't see anything more of Red [Cromwell] but up until I imagine 3:30 or 4 :00 o'clock he never showed up around there, in the elevator, and I was carrying on with my work because I was by myself and we were still un- loading and had everything else running and so everybody was-1 had cut off all the machines, the elevators, which have four legs ; one, two, three, four legs that carry your grain to different bins, or goes to the feed mill or any part of the mill. I went around and cut off all the machinery and everything else. We had everything cleaned Everybody was gone He [Cromwell] walked up and he said "Green, I am sorry, but" he said "We have caught up at the present time" he said "I am just going to have to lay you off for a few days" I says "What's the matter, Red, we are 40 carloads behind at the present You were talking about working on Sunday. That means I am fired, does it?" He said "No, I am just going to have to lay you off for a few days until business picks up." According to Green. on the Monday following his lay off, he telephoned to Howard Banner," the Respondents' office manager, and asked him what reason had been given to him for his lay-off, and Banner replied that it was just a reduction of the force. Green then went to the office and requested a release from W. P. Bomar, president and general manager of the Respondent. Green said to Bomar "You know, when a man leaves a job he has to give some reason why he has left, and he has to have a release under the Manpower Act before he can be employed at other places." Bomar replied that he would investigate it and let him know. The next day, Green received his release by mail. About 3 weeks after his lay-off, Green secured a government job, and on June 22, 1944, he was due to leave for Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. According to Cromwell, he laid Green off on Saturday, January 27, 1945, because of lack of work. On that day, he said to Green "Claude, I guess I will have to lay you off a few days . . . We haven't got a whole lot to do here right now. There are just too many men around here doing nothing, and I guess I will just have to lay you off." Green Hogan did not testify at the hearing. Green's deposition does not show whether he joined the Union before or after he began working in the elevator department However, it is quite probable that it was before, as be did not begin work in the elevator department until after Christmas 1944 14 Banner did not testify at the hearing. 202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD made no protest and left the plant. Green did not apply for reinstatement after his lay-off. The record is clear that Green was laid off on January 27, 1945, and was not discharged as alleged in the complaint , and the undersigned so finds The undersigned also finds that Green was laid off in due course of business, because of lack of work in his department . Green admitted that he was laid off on that occasion Green also testified that he did not tell any foreman or anyone else that he belonged to the Union, and the record does not disclose that Cromwell knew that he was a member of the Union. It is true that Green usually worked overtime, alternating between the corn will and the elevator department, but he did it of his own volition in order to make more money. According to the undenied and credible testimony of Cromwell , for the past year he has worked only two men in his department ,15 and at the time Green was laid off there were no cars to be unloaded . No one was hired to replace Green. Superintendent Brashear testified that , at the time Green was laid off, he spoke to Foreman Hogan about giving Green a job in his department , but Hogan said he was `full up " Brashear further testified that, at that time, the Respondent was hiring a number of female employees at 45 cents an hour and that he did not think Green would have taken a cut in wages from 75 cents to 45 cents an hour, or that he could have done this without authority from the War Labor Board, therefore he could not use Green at that time About the middle of May an employee who had previously worked in the elevator department was reem- ployed He had been off on account of illness . He was very much senior to Green in point of service . The record shows that there was a considerable turn-over of employees in the plant , but Cromwell testified that there had been no shortage of help in his department . Green did not go back to the plant to seek reinstatement after his lay-off, and he did not complain to the union repre- sentative that lie had been discriminated against. The undersigned finds that Green was not discharged by the Respondent as alleged in the complaint, but was laid off for economic reasons, and not because of his membership in, or activity in behalf of, the Union. Irving R. Youngblood : Prior to his discharge by the Respondent on Wednesday, March 19, 1945 , Youngblood had been employed in the plant for the past 4 years or more, as a flour packer under Foreman Horace Allen. Youngblood joined the Union in September 1944, and was active in soliciting other employees to join. Youngblood was present at the conference held in the Regional Office prior to the consent election . 16 He was an observer for the Union at the election in the plant on February 21, 1945. About a week after the election , the Union elected officers for Local 1421. Youngblood was elected president . Youngblood was discharged by the Respondent on Monday, March 19, 1945 . Youngblood's testimony in respect to his discharge reads as follows : On the morning I was discharged I was at my packer at work and one of the colored ladies " had been discharged-had been fired and she came to me and asked me what should she do and I told her we'd call the committee's together and see if we could find out from her foreman what the purpose was. I went to Mr Allen, my supervisor , and asked for permission to leave. i5 Exclusive of the employees who worked in the railway freight cars unloading grain. 16 The confer ecs were Metker, A R Hardesty, union representatives, and employees King, Davis, and Youngblood representing the Union, and W P. Bomar, President of the Re- spondent, representing the Respondent 17 This employee's name was Dessie Lee Jones 18 The grievance committee was composed of employees Youngblood, E P. Richardson, and Girtha Mae Gilbert. BEWLEY MILLS 203 He wouldn't answer me. I gave him at least 30 seconds to answer my question one way or the other and he wouldn't answer me no way at all, so I left and I told him I'd be gone about 15 minutes. I was gone, I judge, about 15 minutes. I couldn't find the foreman, who fired the girl, so I left word with some employees under him to ask him to come to the packer and said that I'd like to talk to him and before I could get to the packer floor and I started to go to Mr. Bomar to talk to him about the case but before I could get to him my foreman, Mr. Allen, informed me to go to the office and get my pay, that I had been fired-so, I'd started to the dressing room there to change clothes and before I got my clothes changed Mr. Allen asked me to go on back to my job and I asked him if he really wanted me to go back to my work and lie said yes and made the statement that I was too good a hand to lose and he'd go talk to Mr. Bomar himself 19 Well, I started to work and I guess I'd worked about five minutes when he came back and he said it wasn't no use, Mr Bomar would not let nie work, so I changed clothes and then talked to Mr. Bomar and in the conversation I tried to explain to him-Well, in the first place I asked him why he had discharged- fired me and his statement was for leaving my job without permission. So I tried to explain to him that I was in my rights, or that, I thought I was in my rights that lie had given Mr Metker permission that in case any griev- ance came tip to let the committee get together and try to straighten it out with the foreman and if we couldn't get it straightened out with the foreman that we had a right to come to him and straighten out the _situation.20 Before I had time to explain all of that he said Mr. Metker was a damned liar and that he hadn't given Mr. Metker any such authority. So then I asked him if he was gonna give me my vacation and he said no, that any employee who had been discharged forfeited the right to his vacation and he informed me to go to Mr. Banner-anyway, that I had to go to Mr. Banner to get my release and my check Youngblood further testified that on that occasion, President Bomar told him that since the Union came in, he, Youngblood had been assuming too much au- thority in the plant, and he was going to show him that the Union was not going to run things, and that "a God damned good way to do it was to fire me"" According to Youngblood, when he returned to the plant, on the day of his dis- charge, to get his personal belongings, Allen said to him, "I'm sorry this all happened. If you hadn't gotten all mixed up in this Union business you would-a had a pretty good opportunity here." 22 About the first of March 1945, Foreman Allen put Youngblood to packing 100 pound sacks of flour instead of the 25 and 50 pound sacks that he had been packing. Youngblood complained to Metker about this and said he would have to quit unless something was done abort it. According to Metker, he brought this matter to the attention of President Bomar by telephone and told him that some of the employees had complained of being "pushed around " Bomar denied this and told Metker that production was down and he was going to "raise hell" until production was increased. Metker further testified that, about that time, In Allen denied that he told Youngblood to go back to work, and that he was too good a hand to lose 20 Metker testified at the instant hearing, but he made no reference in his testimony of having said anything to Bomar about a grievance committee or who was on the committee., In fact, _Metker testified that, so far as he knew, the Union had never advised the Respond- ent that a grievance committee had been selected by the Union. zi Bomar denied having made these statements to Youngblood , The undersigned credits his denials. ii Allen denied having made any statements about the Union to Youngblood. His denial is credited by the undersigned 204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a grievance committee was selected by the Union. It was composed of employees Irving Youngblood, Girtha Mae Gilbert, and E. P. Richardson 23 and that, so far as lie knew, the names of the members of this committee had never been disclosed to the Respondent. Foreman Allen testified that the reason he changed Young- blood to the 100-pound sacks, was due to the fact that the Respondent was com- pelled to hire more women on account of the manpower shortage, and that women could not handle the heavier sacks. A woman replaced Youngblood on the 25- and 50-pound sacks. At that time there were about 7 packers and they were packing sacks from 2 to 200 pounds each. After the discharge of Youngblood only one man was left on the smaller sacks, and he had been working in the plant 15 or 20 years. Foreman Allen's testimony in respect to Youngblood's discharge was in sub- stance, as follows : On Monday, March 19, 1945, Youngblood told Allen to cut off his flour chute as a girl had been fired in the feed mill and he had to go down there and investigate it. Youngblood then left the packing floor. Allen made no reply and promptly cut off the flour chute to keep the flour from running out on the floor. After Youngblood had been away from his flour chute about 20 or 25 minutes, Allen went to the office and informed President Bomar what had occurred. Bomar said that the rule "still stood" that a man who left his packer was fired" Allen then went back to the packing floor and told Young- blood to go and see Bomar. Youngblood left and upon his return, he told Allen that Bomar had acquiesced in an agreement that when a grievance arose he, Youngblood, could take care of it immediately. Allen then went to see Bomar again, and told him what Youngblood had said Bomar denied that there was any such agreement. Allen went back to the packing floor and told Youngblood that he had better see Bomar again. Youngblood left but soon returned and requested Allen to give him his time Allen then took Youngblood to Sid Pow- ers, the head miller, and Youngblood got his time Allen had been instructed by management that employees leaving their work without permission, at times other than the rest periods, were automatically discharged Allen did not know that Youngblood was a member of the union grievance committee n Youngblood testified that that was the first giievanee which had ever been brought to his attention. Bomar testified that on March 19, 1945, Foreman Allen informed him that Youngblood had left his work after requesting Allen to cut off his flour chute and telling him that he, Youngblood, had other business to attend to, and that he understood employees were to be discharged if they left their work in that manner ; that he told Allen to discharge Youngblood ; that Youngblood then came to see him. Bomar's testimony, in part, reads as follows : Yes ; Youngblood came in to see me a little later and said he understood he was laid off, and I told him yes • that he was fired for leaving his job and I told him that he was presuming to take on some of the-some parts that management was vitally interested in and that he had not proceeded 23 Richardson did not testify at the instant hearing "The record shows that prior to the rest periods which were established in the plant In January 1945 , it was customary for the employees to leave them woik during the mornings and afternoons for coffee and other refreshments In January 1945, the Respondent estab- lished rest periods of 15 minutes in the morning and afternoon for the employees to relax and get refreshments After this became effective , all of the employees were informed by management that if an employee left his work at any other time during the work shift, except in case of emergency, without permission from his foreman , he would be subject to discharge. Youngblood testified that he was cognizant of this rule xa The Union had not supplied the Respondent with the names of the members of the grievance committee. BEWLEY MILLS 205 in the proper way to handle the thing and he admitted to me that he had not handled it properly and I told him I was sorry the thing occurred but that I didn't see anything for him to do but to get his time 28 Bomar denied that he made a statement to Youngblood to the effect that he was going to show him that the Union could not run his business and that a good way to show him was to fire him. He also denied having mentioned the Union at all to Youngblood Bomar further testified that he had never received any communication from the Union, stating the names of employees who were on the grievance committee ; and that he understood from the Union's letter to him of March 26, 1945, that the employees mentioned therein, viz: Richardson, Nelson, and Lofton, constituted a committee foi the purpose of negotiating a contract and handling grievances, as the letter stated that these employees had "been elected as the committee to represent the Union in negotiations " [Italics supplied.] The undersigned accepts the testimony of President Bomar and Foreman Allen in respect to the discharge of Youngblood. His discharge occurred nearly one month after the election, which was won by the Union, and while the Union and the Respondent were in the process of collective bargaining for a contract. It is hardly reasonable to believe that the Respondent would have discharged Youngblood at that time for the reasons alleged in the complaint. It may be true that Youngblood was president of Local 1421 and a member of the grievance committee at the time of his discharge, but these facts had not been brought to the attention of the Respondent, and the Respondent had not entered into any agreement with the Union in respect to the members of the grievance committee leaving their work without permission. The Respondent gratuitously gave the employees 30 minutes time off each day, with pay, in order to break up the habit of their going out for coffee and refreshments as they had been doing previously, and the employees were notified that they must have permission if they left their work at any other time. Youngblood testified that he was aware of that rule. As stated by Bomar, the fact that Youngblood virtually ordered Foreman Allen to cut off his flour chute, as he had business elsewhere, accounted for his statement to Youngblood that he had assumed too much authority in the plant. Youngblood had violated a reasonable rule of the Re- spondent which carried with it the penalty of discharge, and Youngblood knew it The Respondent, in order to maintain discipline in the plant, had no alternative but to discharge Youngblood, especially as another employee, Dessie Lee Jones, had been discharged that very day for the same offense 24 The Respondent's records show that Youngblood was discharged because he "left job without permission." The undersigned concludes and finds that the evidence does not support the contention of the Board that Youngblood was discharged by the Respondent and thereafter refused reinstatement, for the reasons alleged in the complaint. Girtha Mae Gilbert began working for the Respondent on January 19, 1945, as a packer in the feed mill under Foreman Emmett Foust. She joined the Union within 2 dais after going to work, and distributed some union authoriza- tion cards; otherwise she was not active in the union's campaign. In the latter part of February she became a member of the union grievance committee z Bomar testified that he told Youngblood that by ordering Foreman Allen to shut of his flour chute and by leaving his work, he was assuming some of the prerogatives of management. 27 It is significant that the complaint does not allege that the Respondent violated the Act by discharging Dessle Lee Jones . The Respondent's records show that Dessie Lee Jones was discharged because she was "absent without leave." 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD According to the credible and undenied testimony of Foreman Foust, on Monday, March 19, 1945, employee Dessie Lee Jones," who worked as a packer with Gilbert, did not immediately return to work after the morning rest period of 1,-^ minutes, but went down town without getting permission and was gone about 40 minutes. When Jones returned, Foust questioned her about her absence, and she told him that she had secured permission from F. E. (Slim) Russell, assistant superintendent of the feed mill Foust then spoke to Russell and the latter denied having given Jones permission to be absent Foust then told Jones what Russell had said and Jones made no reply. Foust went back to Russell and told him that he wanted Jones' time as he had discharged her Russell said that it was all right and gave Foust her time Foust came down to the next floor and found Youngblood, Gilbert, and Jones standing together. He offered Jones her time, but Youngblood told her not to accept it. Youngblood then said to Foust, "now there's a right way of doing this and there's wrong way, and we want it done right " Youngblood then said to Gilbert and Jones "come on" and all three walked away. Superintendent Brashear, who was standing nearby, called Foust and told hint to get Gilbert's time also. Foust secured Gilbert's time and returned to the packing room and offered Jones and Gilbert their time slips but they refused to accept them. Jones and Gilbert then went to the ladies' dressing room. According to the credible testinion, of Superintendent Brashear, he instructed Foreman Foust to give Gilbert her time because Gilbert had left her work On the day of Gilbert's discharge. Brashear was standing near Gilbert's uiaclime and he saw Dessie Lee Jones come by in a hurry and beckon to Gilbert to follow her Gilbert left her work immediately and went with Jones Thinking that they had gone to the drinking fountain, Brashear said nothing, but after waiting a while he went in search of there He met Russell, his assistant, and told him that Gilbert had walked off the job, and he asked Russell it he allowed employees to leave their work when they got ready, except in cases of necessity. Russell replied in the negative. Brashear said that it had happened and lie saw it About that time, Gilbert came up, and Brashear told Foreman Foust to get her time Gilbert said to Brashear, "What ain I being fired for?" Brashear replied, "for leaving your job without permission " Gilbert said, "Well, Mr. Youngblood sent for me." Brashear replied, `Well, I was standing there; you are not working for Mr. Youngblood ; you are working for me You could easily have asked me and maybe I could have made arrangements, or went and seen what lie wanted. This is tvNice my production has stopped and I have only got tell or twenty-five or thirty sacks of mash in the last 30 minutes We can't tolerate that kind of thing We will go ahead ri ith the proceedings I have just started Gilbert's testimony in respect to her discharge reads, in part, as follows: Dessie Lee Jones got permission from Mr. Slim Resell to go to town.io After she gotten back, she came and told me that Mr, Youngblood wanted to see me. I asked her what for. She said to settle her discharge in the mill Mr. Youngblood, E T. Richards," Dessie Lee Jones and myself, went upstairs to see Mr. Slim Russell who, we didn't find After I came hack down stairs, Mr. "Red Mashear" and Mr. Emmet," another foreman there, and I asked RS Jones was not a complainant and did not testify at the instant hearing. ^ Russell denied that he had given her permission to leave her work His denial is accepted by the undersigned. da No doubt Gilbert was referring to employee E P. Richardson . who was a member of the union grievance committee "' Gilbert was referring to E L ( Red) Brashear , superintendent of the feed mill, and Foieman Emmett Foust. BEWLEY MILLS 207 Mr. . . . Mr Red told Mr. Mashear-told Mr. Emmet to give that girl her damn time I said "Time for What?" He [Braslear ] said I couldn't get permission front Mr Youngblood to settle grievances there . I walked on off from him and I went into the flour part where Mr. Lee and E. T. Richards was standing, talking , and I asked where was Mr. Youngblood , and Mr Lee Carpenter replied Mr . Youngblood was upstairs , though I didn 't go upstairs, and so Mr E. T Richards walked off from Mr. Lee, and Mr. Lee said "That's what I get for fooling around with the CIO. . . " After Mr. Mashear told me I was discharged , I left the mill and went over to the flour part where Mr Lee Carpenter works to talk to Mr Youngblood , and I didn't talk to him. I left some time later and went home Gilbert admitted that she left her work without peimission of het foreman or any other supervisor, and that she knew, that it was against the Respondent's rule Gilbert further testified that this was the first grievance she had ever attempted to settle, and that site had never told her foreman or any supervisor that she was a member of the grievance committee The Respondent's records show that Gilbert was discharged because she left her job without permission 32 The record is clear and the undersigned finds that Gilbert was discharged by the Respondent on March 19, 1945, because she left her work without permission, which was the same reason for the discharge of Youngblood and Dessie Lee Jones on the same day, and that Gilbert was not discharged for the reasons alleged in the complaint Conclusions In summary, the undersigned concludes and finds from the entire record in the case, that the terminations of employment of Willie Duty on January 2G, 1945; C. L. Green on January 27. 19-15; Irvin R Youngblood and Girtha Mae Gilbert on March 19 , 1945, by the Respondent , were for reasons other than those alleged in the complaint and that the Respondent, by such termination, has not Engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR LABOR PRACTICES Ui'O_N 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 Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, within the meaning of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies 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 : 32 Supei intencient Brashear testified that no action was taken by him in respect to Rich- ardson , because no charge had been made that Richardson had left his work without per- mission Richardson did not testify at the instant hearing 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Congress of Industrial Organizations, and United Flour and Feed Workers, Local No. 1421, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. 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. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 4 The Respondent, Bewley Mills, Fort Worth, Texas, has not engaged in un- fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed recommends that the Respondent, Bewley Mills, Fort Worth, Texas, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : - (a) In any 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 Congress of Industrial Organizations, and United Flour and Feed Workers, Local No. 1421, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at its plant at Fort Worth, Texas, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Re- spondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immqdiately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive (lays thereafter in con- spicuous 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; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region on or before ten (10) days from the date 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 date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda- tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respond- ent to take the action aforesaid. It is further recommended that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent, by discharging Willie Duty on January 26, 1945; laying off C. L. Green on January 27, 1945; and by discharging Irvin Youngblood and Girtha Mae Gilbert on March 19, 1945, has dis&riniinated against them in regard to the hire i,r tenure of their employment or any term or condition of their employment, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, he dismissed. BEWLEY MILLS 209 It is also recommended that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the Re- spondent has engaged in surveillance of the union meetings or other union activities of its employees, be dismissed. As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Sec- tion 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rocham- beau 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 lie relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, 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. As further provided in said Section 33, 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 the order transferring the case to the Board. W. P. WEBS, Trial Examiner. Dated July 31, 1945. APPENDIX A NOTICE To ALL EDirLoTEEs 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 employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist Congress of Industrial Organizations, and United Flour and Feed Workers, Local No. 1421, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 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. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization. BEwLEY MILLS, Employer. Dated-------------------- 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. 692148-46-vol 67-15