Mylan Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of CHARLES C. BASSINE AND ARTHUR YASPAN, GENERAL PARTNERS, BEULAH BASSINE, AILEEN YASPAN, L. V. MYLES. BEULAH BASSINE, TRUSTEE AND AILEEN YASPAN, TRUSTEE, LIMITED PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF MYLAN MANUFAC- TURING COMPANY, MYLAN-SPARTA CO. INC., AND MYLAN MANUFAC- TURING CO. INC. and SPARTA-WHITE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE and M. C. WALLACE and JAMES RICHARDSON TUBB, JR. and ROBERT J. SNODGRASS and UNITED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, U. M. W, A. Case No. 40-C-1684.-Decided August 26, 1946 Mr. Thomas T. Purdom, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Board. Mr. Cecil Sims, of Nashville, Tenn., for the respondents Mylan, Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. Messrs. Malcolm C. Hill, N. S. Camp, S. T. Butler, and J. W. Camp, of Sparta, Tenn., for respondents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Tubb, and Snodgrass. Mr. Luke Ridenour, of Caryville, Tenn., and Mr. Silous Huddleston, of LaFollette, Tenn., for the Union. Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION" ANDY ORDER On April 5, 1946, Trial Examiner T. B. Smoot issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondents, Charles C. Bassine and Arthur Yaspan, General Part- ners, Beulah Bassine, Aileen Yaspan, L. V. Myles, Beulah Bassine, Trustee, and Aileen Yaspan, Trustee, Limited Partners, doing busi= ness under the name and style of Mylan Manufacturing Company, herein collectively referred to as respondent Mylan; Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc.; Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Sparta-White County Chamber of Commerce; M. C. Wallace; James Richardson Tubb, Jr.; and Robert J. Snodgrass, had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, all of the above-named respondents and counsel for the Board filed exceptions 70 N. L. R. B., No. 43. 574 MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 575 to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to notice and at the request of the respondents, on July 25, 1946, the Board heard oral argument at Washington, D. C. Each of the respondents and the Union appeared and participated in the argument. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed insofar as they are consistent with our findings, conclusions, and order set forth below. The Board has con- sidered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, the oral argument, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, save as they are inconsistent with our findings, conclusions, and order set forth below : 1. The Trial Examiner found that respondent Mylan violated Sec- tion 8 (1) of the Act by : (1) the anti-union statements of its super- visory employees Superintendent Feinstein and Forelady Hale; (2) dealing with the Labor Relations Committee of the Chamber of Com- merce for the purpose of contravening the Act; and (3) adopting and approving the antiunion activities prosecuted by the "local business- men" of Sparta, among whom were R. V. Racely, R. E. Knowles, and respondents Al. C. Wallace, Robert J. Snodgrass, and James Richard- son Tubb, Jr. With respect to the Labor Relations Committee, the Trial Exam- iner found in effect that respondent Mylan utilized the Committee to effect the reinstatement of certain discriminatorily discharged em- ployees upon the unlawful condition that they abandon the Union. We are unable to concur in this finding because it is predicated, in sub- stantial part, upon the following testimony, to which we attach no material significance. According to the testimony of discriminatorily discharged employees Bell and Hardie, over 4 months after their dis- charge they sought out the Labor Relations Committee and, after voluntarily stating that they had withdrawn from the Union and would never rejoin, requested it to obtain their reinstatement at Mylan's plant; and shortly thereafter, on July 25, 1945, at the sugges- tion of the Committee, they went to the plant and were offered rein- statement' However, as revealed in the Intermediate Report, two other discriminatorily discharged employees had approached the Com- mittee sometime before Bell and Hardie, and, so far as the record shows, without any disclosure of their union sympathies being made, the Committee also agreed to, and did, take steps which led to their reinstatement by Mylan. Thus, it appears that the Committee readily interceded in behalf of all four employees,' at their request, without regard to their union affiliation. Moreover, Hardie admitted at the i Bell accepted the offer of reinstatement and returned to work on July 25, 1945. Hardie, however, rejected the offer. 576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hearing that she had falsely represented to the Committee her anti- union attitude, that at the time she approached the Committee she had no intention of accepting reinstatement ,2 and that her only purpose in going to the Committee was to ascertain if she had been "fired over the Union." Finally, the record fails to establish to our satis- faction that respondent Mylan knew of any representation concerning the Union which Bell and Hardie may have made to the Committee, or that Mylan's offer of feinstatement to Bell and Hardie was condi- tioned upon their abandonment of the Union, especially in view of the fact that the two other employees mentioned above had been previously reinstated unconditionally. Accordingly, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner,,that on July 25, 1945, respondent Mylan offered em- ployees Bell and Hardie unconditional reinstatement, which Hardie rejected without cause. The Trial Examiner's finding as to respondent Mylan's adoption and approval of the anti-union activities of the Sparta businessmen is predicated largely on Mylan's failure to disavow and repudiate the repeated reports that it would close its plant in the event the em- ployeeq were organized by the Union. While we agree that under the circumstances of this case a neutral employer would have taken effective affirmative action to rectify the reasonable belief of its em- ployees that it was the authority for such reports, we are not prepared to find on this record that Mylan's dereliction in this respect affords per se a substantial basis for holding Mylan chargeable with all ante- cedent and subsequent anti-union activities prosecuted by the business- men. Thus, we do not hold respondent Mylan responsible, as did the Trial Examiner, for the apparently spontaneous collective action of "the businessmen's group at the home of the Justice of the Peace," which forced the union organizers involuntarily to leave the city.3 In the absence of a substantial showing of some connection between respondent Mylan and R. V. Racely, the editor and publisher of the local newspaper, we are not persuaded to find on this record, as did the Trial Examiner, that Mylan's failure to repudiate Racely's edi- torial comments constitutes an unfair labor practice. We also disa- gree with the Trial Examiner's findings with respect to the activities of Snodgrass and Tubb. In concluding that Tubb engaged in anti- union conduct, the Trial Examiner relies on the fact that Tubb was a 2 Hardie also "inconsistently testified that she refused respondent Mylan's offer of rein- statement because she did not want to return to work under the condition that she forego 1, 1 the Union. 3In attributing this conduct to respondent Mylan, the Trial Examiner also relies on his further finding that in 1942 Mylan ratified through silence the action of a group of citizens who at that time also forced a union organizer to leave town . So far as the record shows , Mylan did not instigate or actively participate in the 1942 incident. In our opinion that incident is too remote and the Trial Examiner's finding of ratification is too speculative to support a finding in the, instant case that Mylan is chargeable with the collective activities of the citizenry. MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 577 member of the Labor Relations Committee, whose activity and rela-, tionship with respondent Mylan we have heretofore found, contrary. to the Trial Examiner, to have been unobjectionable. With respect to Snodgrass, it appears that on one occasion, during the early stage of the Union's organizational campaign, he, together with Knowles, importuned two of respondent Mylan's employees to abandon the. Union. In view of the isolated nature of this incident, its timing, and the absence of a showing that Mylan had knowledge thereof, we are not convinced that it constitutes a substantial basis for an unfair labor practice finding. With respect to Wallace and Knowles, however, we agree with the Trial Examiner that they engaged in conduct violative of the Act, for which respondent Mylan is responsible. As detailed in the Inter- mediate Report, Wallace, a local businessman, on March 9, 1945,,deliv- ered an openly anti-union speech to Mylan's employees at a meeting in the plant called by Plant Manager Bassine. Among other things, Wallace told the employees about the local coal mines and the silk mill being forced to close because they had been organized by unions and warned the employees that the Mylan plant would also close in the event the Union organized it. Bassine, who had addressed the em- ployees just prior to Wallace and who had remained at the meeting throughout Wallace's speech, made no attempt to repudiate any of the' statements made by Wallace. Under the circumstances, we find that respondent Mylan, by permitting Wallace to address these anti-union remarks to its employees in its plant and by failing to repudiate them, acquiesced in and ratified Wallace's coercive remarks, made it reason- ably appear to its employees that Wallace was reflecting its views,4 and is therefore responsible for the anti-union statements made by Wallace. As found by the Trial Examiner, the record reveals Knowles as the most open and notorious combatant of the Union among the local busi- nessmen. Thus, on March 7,1945, Knowles arranged an interview with employee Herman Anderson, the leading protagonist of the Union, by having a note attached to Anderson's time card. Upon seeing the note, Anderson left the plant without checking out and was absent the entire afternoon without comment from the plant officials. On this occasion Knowles importuned Anderson to abandon the Union, warning him that the Mylan plant would close if the employees were organized by the Union. That same evening Knowles again questioned Anderson about the Union at the latter's home. On this occasion Knowles had * Contrary to the contention of respondent Alylan, we agree with the Trial Examiner that Bassine's speech reasonably permitted the employees "to infer that union organization was the only danger to the plant's continued operation "-and, in any event , we find nothing in Bassine's speech which obviated the necessity of a forthright and absolute repudiation of Wallace's subsequent coercive statements. 578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in his possession a typewritten list containing the names of Mylan's employees. He requested Anderson to indicate'on the list those em- ployees who .were advocates of the Union. Anderson refused to do this. The net evening Knowles again visited Anderson at his home and urged Anderson to name the union leaders and to stop "fooling" ,with the Union. Knowles, along with Bassine and a number of other local businessmen, attended a meeting at the home of respondent Wal- lace, where it was decided that the local businessmen would visit the Mylan plant. Knowles was among those who were present in the plant when Bassine and Wallace spoke to the assembled employees. - Knowles kept the union meeting of March 15 under close surveillance and was in the forefront of the citizens group that forced the union organizers to leave town. In view of (a) respondent Mylan's hostility toward the Union, as evidenced by the anti-union statements of Superintendent, Feinstein and Forelady Hale, (b) its knowledge of Knowles' open and notorious anti-union activity and his use of the report concerning the closing of Mylan's plant, (c) the close association between Knowles and Bassine, as evidenced by the fact that Knowles and Bassine, among others, participated in the meeting at Wallace's home and attended the meeting held in the plant at which Bassine alid Wallace spoke to the employees, (d) the fact that employee Anderson was permitted to leave the plant at Knowles' request, (e) the fact that Knowles had in his possession a list of Mylan's employees,-' and (f) the failure of respondent Mylan to repudiate Wallace's statement at the plant meet- ing that the plant would close if organized, we are convinced and find that respondent Mylan rendered assistance to Knowles in the prosecu- tion of his anti-union, activities and reasonably made it appear to its employees that Knowles was acting with its tacit approval and consent, and that therefore respondent Mylan is responsible for Knowles' anti- union conduct. Accordingly, we conclude and find that respondent Mylan, by aiding and assisting Knowles and respondent Wallace in the manner described above and by the various anti-union statements and acts of its super- visory employees, as set forth in the Intermediate Report, engaged in 'conduct which, in its totality and especially when viewed in the light of the discriminatory discharge of seven employees, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. The Trial Examiner has found, as alleged in the complaint, that, in addition to respondent Mylan, the following named respondents 5 The Trial Examiner made no finding that Knowles obtained the list from respondent Mylan because there was no affirmative evidence to that effect. However, in view of all the circumstances disclosed by the record and especially the testimony of Mylan's pay- roll supervisor that he did not know bow anyone could get such a list except from the office . of the company , we infer and find that, through the assistance and cooperation of Mylan, Knowles obtained possession of the list. MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 579 engaged in unfair labor practices, as employers, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, and recommended that an order be directed against them : M. C. Wallace, James Richardson Tubb, Jr., Robert J. Snodgrass, and the Sparta-White County Chamber of Commerce. We agree with the Trial Examiner only with respect to Wallace. - In the light of our prior findings and upon the entire record, we are convinced and find that Wallace, in making his anti-union speech to the employees at the meeting in Myllin's plant, as set forth above, was acting in the interest of respondent Mylan, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing the employees of Mylan in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act.' Inasmuch as we have found, above, that the activities of Tubb and Snodgrass were not unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of the Act, we shall dismiss the complaint as to them. In concluding that the Chamber of Commerce, acting in the inter- est of respondent Mylan, violated the Act, the Trial Examiner relies cn his findings that the Chamber of Commerce is responsible for the antiunion activities of certain of its officers and directors and that there was some unlawful connection between its Labor Relations Com- mittee and respondent Mylan in effecting the reinstatement of four discriminatorily discharged employees. Although we suspect that the Chamber of Commerce joined with Mylan in fostering the local anti-union campaign against the Union, there is no substantial evi- dence to confirm our suspicion. Thus, in our opinion, the record fails, to establish that the Chamber of Commerce officially sanctioned the activity of its officers and directors or that there is any other basis for attributing their acts to the Chamber of Commerce. Moreover, in view of our findings above with respect to the Labor Relations Com- mittee, there is no basis for the Trial Examiner's finding of complicity in connection with the reinstatement of the four employees. On all the facts, we shall also dismiss the complaint as to the Chamber of Commerce. THE REMEDY Having found that respondent Mylan and respondent Wallace en- gaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall, as recommended by the Trial Examiner, order the respondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., as successors to respondent My- lan,7 and respondent Wallace to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 8 See N. L R. B v Taylor-Colquitt Company, 140 F. (2d) 92 (C. C. A. 4) V As set forth in the Intermediate Report, in January 1946 respondent Mylan effected a reorganization of its business operation without any change in actual ownership or labor relations control ; the employing industry here involved now operates under the name- of Mylan-Sparta Co , Inc. and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc. 712344-47-vol. 70-38 580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent Mylan, by the anti-union statements of its supervisory employees, by discharging the seven most prominent advocates of the Union as a reprisal for their activities in behalf of the Union, and by utilizing respondent Wallace and R. E. Knowles to further its interests in destroying the Union, has demonstrated an "attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of the em- ployees generally." 8 In view of this attitude, there is a danger that respondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., will in the future engage in conduct proscribed by the Act; and therefore, to effectuate the deterrent purposes of the Act, it is necessary that our order be as comprehensive as the threat. Limiting the order to the particular violations found herein would tend to encourage respondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., to find other and more subtle means of achieving their demon- strated purpose of defeating their employees in the exercise of their right of self-organization for the purpose of collective bargaining. This same reasoning applies with as great force to respondent Wallace. We therefore deem it necessary, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, to order respondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., and respondent Wallace to cease and desist from in any other manner interfering with the rights guaranteed to employees in Section 7 of the Act._ Inasmuch as all seven discriminatorily discharged employees have been reinstated to their former positions, we find it unnecessary to order their reinstatement now. However, we shall order that re- spondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc. make these employees whole for losses incurred because of the dis- crimination against them, by payment to each of them, except Mary Hardie, of a sum of money equal to the amount which she normally would have earned from the date of her discriminatory discharge to the date of her reinstatement, less her net earnings during said period, and by payment to Hardie of a sum of money equal to the amount which she would have earned from the date of her discriminatory dis- charge to July 25, 1945, the date she refused to accept respondent Mylan's unconditional offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during said period. 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 : A. The respondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc. and Mylan Manufac- turing Co., Inc., and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : " May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B. 326 U. S. 376. MYI:AN- MANUFACTURING COMPANY 581 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership -in United Construction Workers, U.M. W. A., or any other labor organization of its employees , by dis- 'charging or refusing to reinstate any of their employees, or by dis- criminating in any other'nianner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment; (b) Engaging in surveillance of union activities; (c) Using the assistance of R. E. Knowles, respondent M. C. Wal- lace, or any other person or groups of persons, for the purpose of violating the Act ; - (d) In any other manner interfering with; restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Construction. Workers, U. M. W. A., 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 , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. ' Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : ' '(a) Make whole Pauline Anderson, Carrie Bennett, Della Fletcher, Rebecca Bell, Nola Martin, Ora Burgess, and Mary Hardie for any loss of pay they-may have suffered by reason of their discriminatory discharge , in the manner set forth in our Decision under the Section entitled "The Remedy" ; (b) Post for a period of at least 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places at their plant in Sparta, Tennessee, copies of the notice to be prepared by respondent Wallace in accordance with the provisions of the Order directed against him ; (c) Post at their ' plant in Sparta, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the representative of respondents Mylan- Sparta Co., Inc. and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., be posted by said respondents immediately upon receipt thereof , and maintained by them 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 said respondents to insure that such =notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Order, what steps they have taken to comply herewith. - 582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The respondent M. C. Wallace, Sparta, Tennessee, and his agents, successors, and assigns shall:- 1. Cease and desist from: (a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing the employees of respondents Mylan-Sparta Co:, Inc. and Mylan Manu- facturing Co., Inc., at their Sparta plant in the exercise of the right to form, join or assist United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., 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, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2: Take the following affirmative action, which the Board -finds will effectuate the purposes of the Act : (a) Publish in the local newspaper, the Sparta Expositor, and post at the Sparta, Tennessee, plant of respondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc. and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix B." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by respondent Wallace, be posted by re- spondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc. and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., immediatey upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by respondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within ten' (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent Wallace has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed, insofar as it alleges that the respondents Sparta-White County Chamber of Commerce, James Richardson Tubb, Jr., and Robert J. Snodgrass engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of the Act. MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 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 engage in surveillance of union meetings. MY LAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 583 We will make whole the employees named below for any loss of pay suffered as a result of discrimination against them : -Pauline Anderson Rebeca Bel Mary Hardie Nola Martin Carrie Bennett Ora Burgess Della Fletcher We will not in any manner use the assistance of M. C. Wallace, R. E. Knowles, or any other persons or groups of persons for the purpose of violating the National Labor Relations Act. We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., or any other labor organization, to bar- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or any other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of mem- bership or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. MYLAN-SPARTA CO., INC., MYLAN- MANUFACTURING, CO., 'INC. Employer. By --------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated------------------------ k This notice must remain posted for sixty days from the date hereof and must not be altered , defaced; or covered by any other material. APPENDIX B 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, I hereby notify the employees of Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., that : I will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce em- ployees of Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Construction Work- ers, U. M. W. A., or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of thekr own choosing and to 584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining, or other mutual aid or protection. All employees are free to become or remain members of this union or any other labor organization. M.'C. WALLACE. Dated------------------------ This notice must remain posted for sixty days from the date hereof and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Thomas T. Purdom, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Board. Mr. Cecil Sims, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Respondents Mylan, Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. Messrs. Malcolm C. Hill, N. S. Camp, S T. Butler, and J. W. Camp of Sparta, Tenn., for Respondents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Tubb, and Snodgrass. Mr. 'Luke `Ridenour, of Caryville, Tenn., and 'Mr. Silous-H'uddleston, of La- Follette, Tenn., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated January 23, 1946, against Charles C. Bassine and Arthur Yaspan, General Partners, Beulah Bassine, Aileen Yaspan, L. V. Myles, Beulah Bassine, Trustee and Aileen Yaspan, Trustee, Limited Partners, doing business as Mylan Manufacturing Company, a partnership, herein called the respondent Mylan, Sparta-White County Chamber of Commerce, herein called the respondent Chamber of Commerce, M. C. Wallace, herein called the respondentWallace, James Richardson Tubb, Jr. herein called the respondent•Tubb, and Robert J. Snodgrass, herein called the respondent Snodgrass, and its Amendments to Complaint dated February 7, 1946 adding as parties respondent hereto Mylan-Sparta Co. Inc., a corporation, herein called respondent Mylan-Sparta, and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., a corporation, herein called Mylan Manufacturing Co., alleging that the above named respondents had engaged in and were 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, Amendments to the Complaint and Notices of Hearing were duly served upon the respondents and the Union. With respect to the unfar labor practices the Complaint and Amendments to Complaint allege in substance, (1) that-until on or about January 10, 1946 the respondent Mylan engaged in manufacture and sale of men's and boys' shirts at its plant in Sparta, Tenn., (2) that on or about January 10, 1946 respondent Mylan formed two corporations, the respondent Mylan-Sparta and the respondent Mylan Manufacturing Co., which became the successors of the respondent Mylan, (3) that the respondents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Tubb and Snodgrass have acted-in the interest of the respondent Mylan and that each said respond- ent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act (4) that the respondents Mylan, Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Tubb and Snodgrass from on or about February 7, 1945, to the date of the complaint vilified, disparaged and expressed disapproval of the Union, interrogated employees of respondent MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 585 Mylan regarding the Union, urged, persuaded, threatened and warned employees of respondent Mylan to refrain from assisting or joining the Union and ,kept under surveillance the meetings of the Union; (5) that the respondent Mylan on or about the dates set opposite their names discriminatorily discharged and thereafter discriminatorily refused to reinstate its following named employees: Pauline Anderson, Mar. 13, 1945 Mary Hardie, Mar. 16, 1945 Carrie Bennett, Mar. 16, 1945 Della Fletcher, Mar. 16, 1945 Rebecca Bell, Mar. 19, 1945 Nola Martin, Mar. 19, 1945 Ora Burgess, April 12, 1945 (6) that by these acts the respondents have interfered with, restrained and coerced the employees at the Sparta plant in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent Mylan filed an answer dated Jan. 30, 1946 which was adopted during the hearing as the answer also of the respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co , denying the commission- of any unfair labor practices. The respondents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Tubb and Snodgrass filed separate answers dated Feb. 2, 1946, denying generally in each instance the commission of unfair labor practices and specifically in each instance that the answering respondent was an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, or that it acted in the interest of the respondent Mylan. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Sparta, Tennessee, on March 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, 1946, before the undersigned, T. B. Smoot, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and respondents were represented by counsel and the Union by its representatives. All parties par- ticipated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the close of the Board's case in chief the respondents Chamber of Com- merce, Wallace, Tubb, and Snodgrass severally moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was no evidence that these respondents acted in the interest of the respondent Mylan and therefore each said respondent was not an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. These motions were renewed at the close of the hearing. On each occasion the undersigned reserved ruling. The motions are hereby denied. During the hearing the respondents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Tubb and Snodgrass moved to strike certain portions of the testimony of Silous Huddleston upon which motion ruling was reserved. The motion is hereby denied. At the close of the hearing counsel for the Board moved that all pleadings be conformed to the proof in minor particulars. The motion was granted. Following the receipt of all evidence, the parties argued orally before the undersigned. The respondents thereafter filed briefs, and the Board filed a memorandum statement regarding the discharge of Carrie Bennett. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS Or FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS, MYLAN, MYLAN-SPARTA AND MYLAN MANUFACTURING CO. The respondent Mylan, a partnership, was engaged at Sparta, Tennessee, in the manufacture, production, sale, and distribution of men's and boys' shirts 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and, during the war, produced shirts for the Armed Forces. During the year 1945, the respondent Mylan caused materials used in the manufacturing of its products of a value in excess of $1,000,000 to be purchased, delivered, and trans- ported in interstate commerce from and through States of the United States other than the State of Tennessee to its plant in Sparta, and caused a sub- stantial amount of its finished products of a value in excess of $1,000,000 to be delivered and transported in interstate commerce to and through States of the United States other than the State of Tennessee from its plant in Sparta. In January 1946, the respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. were formed as Tennessee corporations and respondent Mylan, a partnership, was terminated with its business sold and transferred to the new corporation respondents. The stock in the corporation respondents was distributed in the same proportion and to the same persons as were partners in respondent Mylan. There was no change in managerial personnel nor control. The two respondent corporations perform together the same functions formerly performed by the respondent partnership alone, i. e., the respondent Mylan Manufacturing Com- pany purchases all the raw materials except a few incidentals and furnishes them to respondent Mylan-Sparta which manufactures and produces the finished products for distribution and sale by respondent Mylan Manufacturing Company' Charles C. Bassine testified that he and Arthur Yaspan, the two general part- ners in respondent Mylan, had direction, supervision and absolute control of its operation and management and that the same situation exists now as to respond- ents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. Respondent Mylan was until January 1946, and respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., is a labor organization admitting to membership employees- of the respondents Mylan, Mylan-Sparta, and Mylan Manufacturing Co. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction Sparta is a town of about 2500 population, located in White County, Ten- nessee, in the Cumberland mountains approximately 100 miles west of Knoxville and the same distance east of Nashville In 1929, the White County Realty Company was formed and erected a building to house the Welwood Sparta Silk Mill. Theretofore no large industrial plant had been located in Sparta. The building was rented to the operators of the silk mill until early in the 1930's when it closed down. The building remained empty for several years until in November 1937 an industrial agent for the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railroad interested Mr. Charles C. Bassine in the building. He conferred with the officers of the White County Realty Company and quickly came to terms for the occupancy of the building under a leasing arrangement providing for the payment of $125 a month rental and the purchase and installation of $6000 worth of machinery by the realty company to be rented and purchased eventu- 'N. L. R.,B v Condenser Corporation of America, et at, 128 F. (2d) 67 (C. C. A. 3), . . . where in fact the production and distribution of merchandise is one enterprise, that enterprise as a whole is responsible for compliance with the Labor Relations Act regard- less of the corporate artangements among the parties themselves." See also In the Matter of Salant and Salant, Inc, 66 N. L. R. B. 24. MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 587 ally by the lessee. The lessee was the predecessor of the respondent Mylan in the present case and undertook to operate a shirt factory on the premises. Later the terms of the lease were changed to provide for a higher rental and the title- to the machinery passed into the hands of the lessee, who also erected two addi- tional buildings. The White County Realty Company pays all realty taxes on the building and premises. The plant's success exceeded its expectations, em- ployed instead of 400 employees, some 1000 employees during the war and 800 since hostilities ceased. It is by far the largest industry in Sparta, as the two or three other industrial establishments there each employ less than 100 employees. White County Realty Company has transacted no other business than with the Welwdod Sparta Silk Mill and the respondent Mylan, its predecessor and its successors, respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Company. The realty company as of January 1945 had 43 stockholders holding from one to 30 shares for a total of 301 shares of a par value of $100 a share. Respondent Tubb is president of the company and respondent Snodgrass treasurer. These two men and C. T. Mayberry, a director of the respondent Chamber of Commerce, are the largest individual stockholders but do not control a majority of the stock 2 During 1942 an Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America organizer, Ed Blair, entered Sparta with the apparent intention of organizing respondent My- lan's employees. His attempt was shortlived. Shortly after his arrival in town a group of 15 to 20 business men conferred with the Mayor of the town and then went to Mr. Blair's hotel room where he was advised to leave town immedi- ately He stated he had no money and was allowed to make one or more long distance calls for monetary help. When this failed one of the business men paid Blair's room rent and he was escorted to the county line. Respondents Wallace, Snodgrass and Tubb and Ed Knowles, who as later shown was the most outstanding spokesman in the anti-union element in Sparta, were active in the group requesting Mr. Blair's presence elsewhere. Respondent Snodgrass' testi- mony regarding the reasons behind this deprival of a citizen's liberty indicated clearly these men's interest in keeping respondent Mylan's employees from organizing into a labor union. He testified: Q What was the purpose of having him [Blair] leave town? A. Well, his activities here weren't welcome. That was the-main reason. Q By whom? A. By the citizens of Sparta. Q. What were his activities? A. I don't know whether he was a union man or not but it was stated that he might have been. I don't know as far as that is concerned. Q. Why did you have him leave town? A. Because we felt lie was interfering with our business here. Q In what manner? A. In disturbing the workers in the [Mylan] plant. Q. How was he disturbing them? - A. Well, in trying to organize the union. Respondent Mylan expressed no dissatisfaction with this manner of handling one who was attempting to organize its employees. 2 Respondent Tubb holds 31 shares, respondent Snodgrass 18 shares and C. T Mayberry 22 shares. The First National Bank, of which respondent Snodgrass is treasurer, holds 18 shares and Mylan Manufacturing Co. holds 5 shares. Sixty-one shares are held by estates of deceased persons. The remaining 146 shares are distributed among 30 towns- people, each holding from 1 to 13 shares. 588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Prior to 1945 there were two business men's associations in White County, the Rotary Club and the Civitan Club. In the middle of February 1945 a meeting was held in the local hotel to organize a Chamber of Commerce, a temporary chairman was appointed and nominating committee and by-laws, committee named. On March 2, the organization was completed with the election of offi- cers and adoption of by-laws. This organization is the respondent Chamber of Commerce herein. B. The Union's attempt to organize and its consequences 1. The attempted walk-out preceding the advent of the Union The employees in the Mylan plant are in the main paid on a piece-rate scale based on a certain production quota. In the employees' vernacular, meeting the production quota was "making production." In early January 1945 this quota was lowered so that employees theretofore earning 400 an hour would, by pro- ducing the same amount, receive 50¢ an hour. As 400 an hour was the minimum wage by law those employees who failed to meet the production quota received 400 an hour regardless. The lowering of the production quota was not adequately explained to the workers, they being told merely that if they "made production" thereafter they would receive 50¢ an hour instead of 40¢. When in the latter part of January the first pay checks since the announcement of the change were distributed, which in the case of many employees did not reflect any increase, a spontaneous walk-out commenced. Estimates as to the number of employees participating varied from 50 to 75. The group never left the factory but was stopped by Max Feinstein,, plant superintendent, who told everyone to return to work, that he would get in touch with Charles C. Bassine, manager of the plant,' who, he promised, would straighten the matter out. Bassine was notified and came to the plant the next day and spoke to the assembled employees, explaining the wage scale and advising them that actually he had voluntarily given them the equivalent of a 25-percent increase in wages. He also stated during the course of his speech that he personally had money enough to last him for many years and that he did not have to operate the plant.' \ , 2. The Union commences to organize and the anti-union campaign develops Bassine's speech did not satisfy some employees who wrote to the United Mine -Workers of America requesting help in organizing the employees of respondent Mylan. Nothing further occurred until the 1st, of March when organizers of the Union, in response to the letter, arrived in Sparta and gave 200 or 300 application cards to Herman Anderson, an employee, for distribution in the plant' The cards were distributed to the employees and soon the union drive stimulated discussions,, meetings and action in the plant and outside the plant among employees, supervisors and business men of the entire community. 3 Mr Bassine's once was in Nashville , Tennessee. ' From testimony of Charles C. Bassine, Nola Martin, Rebacca Bell, Pauline Anderson, and Maud Phillips. Employees remembered expressly these three tenets of Bassine's speech, the "voluntary" increase, the fact that he did not have to operate the plant, and the money he had. Bassine explained on the witness stand that he mentioned his wealth as an illustration in connection with a plea that employees stop absenteeism to the effect that whether they had money or not they should work hard during these "troublous times" as he did. ',They also saw the Sheriff of White County , and told him they planned to organize the Mylan plant. The Sheriff said he was with them " 100 percent." Soon the Sheriff as related hereafter was part and parcel of the anti-union drive . His change of attitude,' he later explained to Huddleston , was due to his discovery that the plant would close if organized. MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 589 ' On March 2 the respondent Chamber of Commerce completed its organization; electing Lee Baker, a local insurance agent, president. Among the directors elected were respondent R. V. Snodgrass, cashier of the local bank and secre- tary of the White County Realty Company, C. T. Mayberry, who operated a hard- ware store, R. V. Racely, editor and publisher of the town's weekly and only newspaper, the Sparta Expositor, respondent Tubb, owner of a small spoke factory and president of White County Realty Co., respondent Wallace, a local businessman, and,Charles C. Bassine, manager of respondent Mylan. A Labor Relations Committee was appointed consisting of respondent Wallace, chairman, and respondent Tubb. The date this committee was appointed is not determin- able from the record as Wallace's and Tubb's memory failed them on this point. R. E. (Ed) Knowles, a former sheriff of White County in which Sparta is located, and a member of the Chamber of Commerce, worked closely with the men above-named in the events hereinafter recorded although he was not an officer nor director of the respondent Chamber of Commerce. Soon after the Union started organizing, respondent Wallace and Ed Knowles contacted Virgie Gentry, an employee of the plant, and endeavored to obtain her services in disorganizing the Union in the factory, requesting her to do any- thing to break up the organization. When she refused they advised her to join her husband "up North" as they were going to run the union men out of town and get rid of them one way or another. She also was told that all employees who joined the Union would be fired.' On March 7 at one o'clock in the afternoon, Herman Anderson received a - note posted on his time card requesting him to see Ed Knowles at the City Hall. He did not check out of the plant and was absent all afternoon without comment from plant officials. At the City Hall, Ed Knowles, Chief of Police Hobbs and Sheriff Anderson talked with hum, Knowles being chief spokesman. Anderson was told emphatically that the plant with its $50,000 monthly pay- roll would close if it was organized, that Bassine had plenty of money and would not have any union. Knowles urged him to work against the Union and said they would get him another job if he did not like the one he had. Knowles, after discussing the matter in this tenor for an hour or so told Ander- son they wished to see employees Rebecca Bell and Mary Hardie.' Later in the same afternoon Herman Anderson met Mary Hardie and told her of the meeting with Knowles and the group's desire to meet with her. Re- spondent Snodgrass came by and unlocked the First National Bank and took Mrs. Bell, Herman Anderson and Knowles in there s Snodgrass told Hardie that the Union would tear up the town and leave the building empty if Bassine moved out and that Bassine would do so if the Union "came in." He advised Hardie and'Anderson to drop affiliation with the Union and to have no more to do with it. He or Knowles suggested that a committee be formed to deal with the business men. Hardie complained that she would be fired now and Snod- grass assured her she wouldn't if the Union were dropped. He told her that coal mines near Sparta had operated until a union came in and then closed, that the Welwood Silk Mills, predecessor occupant of the building respondent Mylan occupied, closed because of a union and that Bassine would also close 8 From the credited testimony of Virgie Gentry, undenied except that Wallace denied saying the employees joining the Union would be fired. Wallace was far from a frank witness. He remembered little except when confronted with a statement he gave prior to the hearing and often retracted portions of it His denial is not credited. Testimony of Herman Anderson regarding this meeting was undenied. " Snodgrass later testified he considered Anderson , Rebecca Bell, and Mary Hardie to be the leaders of the Union. 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD if the Union organized the employees Hardie became tearful, inquiring whether she had violated the law and was told she hadn't. The conference lasted over an hour and after it concluded Knowles told Anderson they didn't wish to see Rebecca Bell after all as she was "so damn hot about the union " 9 The same evening the union organizers Rideneor and Huddleston visited Her- man Anderson at his home 13 miles from Sparta. Anderson spoke to them and then saw other cars approaching and advised them to move away from his house. Soon Ed Knowles and Sheriff Anderson arrived. Knowles asked Herman Ander- son if he had seen the organizers and Anderson said he had not. Knowles said that a business men's meeting was being held in Sparta and invited Anderson to attend. He declined and Knowles then showed him a typewritten list of respond- ent Mylan's,employees10 and asked him to check off the names of the leaders of the Union so they could be seen. Anderson refused to do this. Again they urged him to attend the meeting in town saying Bassine would be there. After being further importuned to point out the union leaders among to employees, Ander- son, in exasperation, said to tell Bassine to fire him, he didn't care about it and he would rather be fired than have anyone else fired 11 n Knowles and-the sheriff then left to return to the meeting in town. Herman Anderson then saw Rideneor and Huddleston and told them of his meeting with Knowles and advised them to take another road away from his house and they left. The next night, March S. Knowles and Chief of Police Hobbs visited Herman .Anderson at his home, again in Knowles' car. Knowles complained that there were still union cards being signed in the plant. Anderson disclaimed knowledge of it whereupon Knowles asked him to name the leaders and to stop "fooling" with the Union. Knowles and Hobbs were very expressive about the Union this evening, Hobbs saying he would seriously injure even his wife if she joined and Knowles saying the organizers had better "get out of White County and stay out." Hobbs, Sparta's chief law enforcement officer, echoed this, saying "if the sons of bitches knowed what was healthy for-them down here they had"better get out and stay out." With these threats they left.10 That same evening, March 8, or the next morning, Sparta's•on]y-. newspaper, the weekly Sparta Expositor, appeared with an "Open Letter" to Mylan employees, occupying two full columns on the front page signed by Robert J. Racely, editor and publisher and a director of the respondent Chamber of Commerce. This letter was concerned entirely with the Union's attempt to organize the Mylan employees and after asserting that the closing of the mines and the silk mill had occurred because of unions, stated : Events of this meeting are taken from Hardie's and Herman Anderson's creditable testimony which was not denied by Knowles or Snodgrass. 11 In an affidavit made out in front of Board employee Kover prior to the hearing, Knowles said this list of employees was given to either him or Chief of Police Hobbs by Bill Cowden, pay-roll supervisor of respondent Mylan. However, on the witness stand Knowles denied this, saying he did not know where he obtained the list. Cowden denied on the witness stand that he had given out such a list but stated he did not- know how anyone could get such a list except from the office of the company . The affidavit was received in evidence as contradicting Knowles . The Board employee . Kover did not take the stand. Therefore, although Knowles' testimony is definitely contiadicted on this point there is no affirmative evidence that the list was received from the respondent Mylan and it is not so found. Ii Bassine received this message - but never-fired Anderson . Anderson quit after his wife was fired on March 13. 11 Events of this meeting are taken from the undisputed testimony of Herman Anderson. 18 Events of this meeting again are from the uncontradicted testimony of Herman Anderson. MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 591 The writer has heard from various sources that should the Mylan Manu- facturing Company be organized the factory will close immediately follow- ing termination of government contracts, which we understand is in June. What then friends? You know the Mylan Manufacturing Company owners will do just what they say. What do you profit if you gain a few pennies a week then too soon find your factory closed? The front page of this paper was sent by Racely to employees of respondent Mylan. At no time did officials of respondent Mylan repudiate the patent inference that they had said the plant would close if organized. 3 The March 9 meetings The next day, March 9, a meeting of certain business men was held with Bassine-a-t the home, of respondent Wallace" Present besides Wallace and Bassine were respondent Snodgrass, respondent Tubb, Ray Ward, a vice presi- dent of respondent Chamber of Commerce, and Ed Knowles. All six of these men testified and all contradicted each other in practically all details, on the purpose, the discussion which occurred, and the result of the meeting. Only Knowles' testimony bears the semblance of a straightforward story and his testimony concerning this meeting is credited.1$ Knowles testified that Wallace pointed one that Bassicie told the employees after the attempted walk-out that he had plenty of money and didn't have to operate the plant and advised him that he should not have said that to his employees Somebody at the meeting, probably Wallace, Knowles testified, made the suggestion that business men be invited to the plant "for the speaking" that afternoon. The inference is clear and the undersigned finds that Bassine acquiesced in the plan to have the business men come to the plant for his meeting with employees that afternoon. Whether he decided at this time or prior thereto to hold the meeting at the plant is not clear and it is not necessary that it be determined. It is undisputed that Bassine made arrangements for a meeting of employees that afternoon at 4 o'clock by ha\ ing plant supervisors notify all the employees to be in the shipping room for the meeting and by having a rough platform built for a speaker's stand. The 5 business men at Wallace's home earlier in the clay were present at the plant and with them were 50 to 75 other business men. Obviously Wallace, Snodgrass, Knowles, Ward and Tubb had followed the "sug- gestion" made at Wallace's house to invite business men to the plant "for the speaking" as at no previous time had any business men attended a plant meeting Bassine opened the, meeting. His reasons for speaking, he testified, were to refute the rumors that the plant would close down. His actions belied this '" The date of this meeting at Wallace's and the meeting the same afternoon at the plant is in dispute Bassine could not testify as to the date of the Wallace meeting but was positive the meeting at the plant was Friday, March 9. Other witnesses not present at the Wallace meeting placed the plant meeting as held on March 13. However it is clear that the two meetings were held the same day and-from all the testimony it is clear and the undersigned finds that both meetings occurred on March 9. 21 The other versions in contradiction to his are not credited. Ward testified he remem- bered nothing about ,what occurred at the meeting. Wallace testified there was no refer- ence to a union and that Bassine had asked the business men to meet with him regarding grievances that Feinstein, superintendent of the plant had mistreated workers. He was, flatly contradicted by a statement he gave and signed prior to the hearing. Tubb testified he recalled only a discussion of some foreman kicking a:chair from under a lady. Snodgrass testified there was talk about grievances and corroborates Knowles that Bassine was warned not to repeat to his employees that he had money. Bassine said he was called to the meeting by Wallace and that it was only about grievances and that he did not invite business men to the plant to talk to employees but did invite them to the plant to hear him talk to supervisors. 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD purpose. His speech as reconstructed by him on the witness stand was a plea to the workers not to walk out and he mentioned their responsibilities to the Armed Services ; he said he had heard rumors of union organization and that the employees had a right to join a union or not to join but he coupled this with another plea not to walk out during "these troublous times." He testified that he dealt with the rumor that the plant might close by telling the employees the plant would never close by any act of his but that the plant might close "if the building burns up, if the owners of the building refuse to rent us the build- ing, and [I] said the plant would close if they walked out and refused to come in." He then testified . "I closed my statement with an appeal. I duplicate a lot, I repeat myself a lot in these speeches, for the purpose of emphasis of the impor- tant points. I closed with an appeal that they pledge with me that they would continue to work and not walk out then I said thank you and good night e' [Italics supplied.] 16 Respondent Wallace then commenced speaking . His speech was openly anti- union. He recited the story about the mines and the silk mill closing because of a union and made the statement, without contradiction 'from Bassine or any- one else present, that this plant would also close if the Union organized the employees.17 C. T. Mayberry, a director of the respondent Chamber of Commerce, then spoke, concerning himself mainly with relating the munificence of Bas- sine's gifts to the town. The meeting then adjourned. Bassine was present throughout the meeting but did not speak again. 4. Further activities I The next night, March 10, the first formal union meeting was held at Rebecca Bell's house, at which time another meeting was arranged to be held at the house of Ora Burgess on Thursday, March 15, at 5: 00 p. in. Meanwhile business men's meetings were occurring. Two or three were held at the town community building, the Memorial Hall. Only business men at- tended and those who testified were vague and evasive about the discussions at these meetings. Each witness failed to recall anyone presiding or leading the discussion, but they all agreed that the meetings were -for the sole purpose of discussing ways and means of opposing the Union and Knowles, Wallace, Tubb and Snodgrass were in attendance at one or more of these meetings. During these same two weeks, Max Feinstein, plant superintendent, was active in opposing the Union in the plant. Forelady Goodwin told employee Carrie - Bennett that "Mr. Feinstein [has] just been up here and asked me if any of my bunch is for the Union and I told him I didn't think so and he said 'if they hadn't signed that he would see that they worked if he had to call in a militia.' " 18 (83) Feinstein told Virgie Gentry, another employee, in the pres- ence of Bennett that unions were a grand thing but he had a boss over him just like he was over them and that "his boss didn't want the Union." Fein- stein told another girl who asked him for a raise "Lady I will give you a 50 raise. You are one lady, you never joined a Union and never walked out. You have a job here as long as the mill runs." Feinstein told Mary Hardie, whose job was to supply other girls with work that "if Union comes in you couldn't let .them sit without work." Feinstein asked to look in another employee's pocket- book and had her turn her coat pockets inside out to see if she carried union cards. He told Virgie Gentry that "when we get the Union in there we could - 16 It was disputed whether Bassine dismissed the employees but obviously few left. 17 On cross examination Wallace admitted making this statement. In its brief respondent Dfylan does not mention this all-important statement in its discussion of this incident. 11 Goodwin did not testify. MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 593 turn in the bundles [of work] 2 or 3 times and get by with it if we wanted to. He said that he wouldn't be the boss." 19 Another supervisor, forelady Maud Hale, told Pauline Anderson that the ones who started the Union would be fired 2° 5. The March 15 union meeting and its aftermath On Thursday, March 15, the scheduled union meeting was held at Ora Burgess' home, Feinstein being advised by an employee that the meeting would be held. It was a well-attended meeting, by employees and townspeople who listened to union organizer Huddleston speak. Thereupon, officers were nominated and elected. The officers elected were; Herman Anderson, President ; Eugene Floyd, Vice-President ; Herschell Dodson, Sergeant-at-Arms; Rebecca Bell, Sec- retary ; Addie Davis, Treasurer ; and the following committeewomen, Ora Bur- gess, Della Fletcher, Addie Davis and Nola Martin. This meeting was held in the front yard °of the Burgess home. Right outside the yard many of the business men parked their cars and stood around where they could hear and see all that was going on in the yard. Among those thus present were Ed Knowles and Chief of Police Hobbs. After the meeting, as union organizers Huddleston and Brett left, they were stopped by a person unknown to them, who com- menced questioning them about the Union's program. He was sitting at the wheel of a car and while talking, reached out through the open window of the car so that a revolver strapped under his left arm could be plainly seen by the organizers while they talked to him As the organizers drove away they saw this armed man point them out to Knowles and Hobbs, who followed them out of town and finally stopped them, arrested them for speeding and ordered them to drive back to the house of the Justice of the Peace in Sparta. Shortly after their arrival at the home of the Justice of the Peace, the business men arrived, some 20 to 25 crowding into the J. P.'s house. Those who testified admitted they had never before attended a trial before a Justice of the Peace. The trial itself lasted but a minute as Knowles merely instructed the J. P. to fine the men $5 and costs, which was immediately done. Then Knowles ad- vised the somewhat nervous organizers that the group of men was not a "mob" but merely a business men's group and asked their, what they could offer the business men. When Brett said that he had nothing to offer the business men, Knowles turned to the "group" and said "What the hell are we waiting for?" Brett then spoke up and said "What do you mean? Do you want us to leave?" Knowles answered "Yes, get the hell out." One of the organizers turned to the Chief of Police and asked for protection. Knowles interrupted, saying that they would be protected, that he would follow them out of the county. This pro- cedure was followed, with Knowles and the Chief of Police in one of the two or three cars escorting the two organizers to the White County boundary 21 There was no further attempt made to organize the plant's employees, all union organization and activities ending that night., However, the union leaders in the plant had become known for certain. The Sparta Expositor appeared the following morning with a banner headline that "UNION IS ORGANIZED. 11 From credited testimony of Carrie Bennett, Virgie Gentry, Myrtle Bussell, Mary Hardie, and Nola Martin . Feinstein denied all these statements . He was an evasive , unreliable witness who from his demeanor on the stand and all his testimony was obviously trying to please respondent Mylan and justify his innocence as to any occurrence for which he might be blamed . His denials are not credited 20 Credited testimony of Pauline Anderson . Forelady Hale did not testify. 21 The arrest , trial and events following are from the uncontradicted testimony of Huddieston 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OFFICERS ELECTED " The first paragraph of the two-column story written by Racely, stated that a meeting was held at Ora Burgess' house and it listed the officers and committeewomen elected. Racely closed his article as follows : It was restated this week that should the factory be organized it will definitely be closed at the termination of the present government schedules. There is one decent thing to do. Why don't you do it? 22 This edition of the newspaper appeared Friday morning, March 16. Prior to the Burgess meeting the union leaders in the plant had not actually been known as Herman Anderson had refused to point them out on Knowles' list of employees. Now, on March 16, since the election of officers in the presence of Knowles and many others they were known and their names were published prominently by" the newspaper. This day Mary Hardie, Carrie Bennett, and Della Fletcher, all prominent in the Union and all named in Racely's article in the paper as officers of the Union, were discharged by respondent Mylan. Saturday, March 17, the plant worked only a few employees. ^ Rebecca Bell, also elected committeewoman to the Union and so reported in the local news- paper, did not work on Saturday but when she came to work Monday she was handed her separation notice dated Saturday, March 17, and on the same day Nola Martin, also a committeewoman, was discharged. Eugene Floyd, who was elected to office in the Union at the Burgess meeting, immediately upon seeing his name in the paper contacted his foreman and told him that it was all a mistake and that his name should be, marked off the union list, and Addie Davis, elected Treasurer of the Union and committeewoman, recanted to Superintendent Feinstein." They were not discharged. Herschell Dodson, elected Sergeant-at-Arms, was laid off.2d Herman Anderson, president of the Union, who had theretofore asked that he. be fired and whose wife was the first union employee discharged, quit his employment on April 10 as he did not feel that with his wife not working he could afford to drive alone the 26 miles a day from his home to work. Ora Burgess, at whose home the last union meet- ing was held, was not discharged immediately but shortly after the meeting she requested time off to go to Nashville with her brother, and was given per- mission. Upon her return she saw Robert Frazier who stated that Feinstein had told the pay-roll supervisor, William Cowden, to discharge her but Frazier stated that he would not do so as she had- advised him she was going to Nash- ville and she was allowed to return to work, but on-April 11 she went home for a half day and when she returned the following day her separation slip was handed her. By this time, all union organization had disappeared. All of those elected to office who had not repudiated the Union to respondent blyl'an were out of employment. The union organizers had been forced to leave town and the organizing campaign was over. 6. The Labor Relations Committee - The Chamber of Commerce had set up a Labor Relations Committee sometime' theretofore with respondents Wallace and Tubb as the members thereof, for the purpose, as testified by Wallace, of serving as a medium between the public and 'labor "of any organization," particularly if labor troubles occurred, and to serve as a link between employees and the employer and to encourage employees to 22 Again respondent Mylan made no effort to repudiate the Inference-in Racely's 'paper that it was the authority for the statement that the plant would close if organized. 23 Credited testimony of Maude Phillips. 24 Dodson -was,nbt alleged to have been laid off discriminatorily. MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 595 bring their problems 'to the .committee so it could straighten them out 2e In Jun' 1945 Nola Martin and Della Fletcher saw Lee Baker, president of the Chamber of Commerce, and the Labor Relations Committee, Tubb and Wallace, about getting their jobs back at the Mylan plant, and this was arranged, Fletcher being reinstated June 5 and Martin on June 10, 1945.26 Mary Hardie and Rebecca Bell heard about Fletcher and Martin being reem- ployed through the offices of the,Labor Relations Committee and decided to proceed through the same channels to obtain reinstatement. They saw President Baker of,the Chamber of Commerce, advising him that they had been fired because of the Union and that they would "be finished with it" if he would help them get, their jobs back Baker said that they "had a right to repent" and sent them- to see the Labor Relations committeemen Wallace and Tubb They attempted to see Tubb, who was out of town, and then conferred with Wallace, advising him also that they had been fired because of the Union and would have no more to do with it if he would have them reemployed, and advised him that'they had heard about Fletcher and Martin 's reinstatement . Wallace lectured them on the evils of unionism, even taking pencil and paper 4 and figuring, according to the hours they had lost, that the Union had cost them each over $400. He queried them about what they would do if a union came in again and they assured him they would be against it. He then said he would see Mr Bassine and warned them there would never lie a union in this plant, that "guns w8uld be used if necessary." 'Wallace told them to come back the following Monday. 13e11 did so and Wallace said he had not been able to see Bassine, who was out of town, and for them to return to him on the following Monday. Bell,at that time called Wallace on the phope and he said he still had not been able to see Bassine. About an hour later, Bell was notified that_there was a message for her to call Wallace.- On telephoning him Wallace told her to get in touch with Hardie and for them to "go to the factory that afternoon at 3 o'clock." This was done and Feinstein was seen at that time, who told them he was sorry they had been fired like they had been "but that lie was employed there just like we were." Feinstein expressed' surprise when they said they had seen Wallace and asked them' why they had seen himz: They did not answer, as Bell testified, because they didn't want to bring the Union up at that time. Bell was reemployed July 25, 1945 at her former job. Hardie was told that her job had hepn filled but that she would be given a better job which- she eventually turned down I 25 Wallace, when he first took the witness stand, denied that he was chairman of,the Labor Relatibns Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, but on being confronted with his written statement given prior to the hearing, admitted his position on the committee and its purpose. o 26 Tubb testified he contacted Bassine about obtaining their reinstatement. The girls testified that when they reported to Feinstein they told him they supposed he knew how they felt as they had been to Baker, Wallace and Tubb, and-that Feinstein said "yea they had,told him." Bassine denied he had talked to Tubb about this and Feinstein denied making the statement to the girls . Tubb did not make the admission until he-had been confronted with a statement he gave prior to the hearing . From the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand and all their testimony the undersigned credits Tubb's, Martin's and Fletcher's version of this incident and does not credit Bassine 's and Feinstein's denial, and finds that the reinstatements were effected at the instance of the .Labor Relations Committee. 24 Wallace, Feinstein and Bassine denied seeing each other about Bell 's and Hardie's reemployment but Wallace did not deny the remainder of Bell's and Hardie's testimony on this point . From all the testimony and particularly the reasons Wallace gave Bell and Hardie for not getting quicker action, the inference is clear that Wallace did contact plant officials and obtain their reemployment on the conditions set forth by him and it is so fopnd, and it is equally plain ,that Feinstein 's "surprise" was simulated. 712344-47-vol. 70-39 59Q DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. Conclusions as to the various respondents ' responsibility for the anti-union drive - o 1. Respondent Mylan All the respondents contend that the evidence establishes no connection -between respondent Mylan and the anti-union drive in Sparta on the theory that the con- duct of the business men•of Sparta was conduct in their own or the community's' interest. This contention ignores the respondent Mylan's ratification through' silence of the lynch-law tactics of the business men's group in forcing the union -organizer to leave town in 1942, which set the pattern for the same happening in 1945. It ignores the fact that the hitherto parallel lines of conduct of the business men and respondent Mylan joined in the 1945 campaign at the meeting at re-' spondent Wallace's home on March 9 It ignores also the known hostility of re- . spondent Mylan to union 'Organization," and the dominant economic position of the Mylan plant in the'life of the. town which made business men and city and county law enforcement officers extremely responsive to the slightest suggestion' that the plant might close. Only. a hint to this effect was heeded to enlist the aid of the business men in achieving respondent Mylan's desire to'rid itself of 'the Union. . During the week March 1-to March 8, rumors flew fast and furious in Sparta that the Mylan plant would'olose,if it were organized. A word from the manage.- ment that this was not true would have scotched the',runiors Such word was not given. Instead, the day after the weekly newspaper 'carried a categorical statement that the owners would close the Mylan plant if it were organized, Bassine met with five officers of the Chamber of Commerce, and Ed Knowles and arranged for the meeting at the plant tliiat same afternoon There -in front of all his employees, who were forced to attend, and 50 to 75 business men who attended voluntarily, Bassine had the perfect forum to allay all rumors that he would close the plant if the union organized it. Every leader in the anti-union campaign was present'including the editor of the local paper. In fact, Bassine testified that the purpose of the meeting was to halt these rumors. But in his own. speech as sum- marized by him on the witness stand, it is apparent that by stressing time and time again his plea that a walk-out not occur, by his affirmatively listing situations which would cause him to close, naming besides a walk-out only fire and a refusal by the business men to rent the building to him, and by his final appeal'for the' employees to pledge not to walk out, Bassine caused his listeners to infer that union organization was the only danger to the plant's continued operation " This speech alone could not fail to give official authentication to the rumors that the plant would close and give authority to the assertion in the local newspaper to this effect. But Bassine did not stop at this point ; he permitted respondent Wallace to tell the assemblage of employees and business men in unequivocal language that the plant would close if the Union continued-organizing.30 Nowthe '" Snodgrass , Mayberry , and Tubb all testified they knew Bassine, was opposed to the Union. - 29 Two foremen of respondent Mylan, W Payne and N L Bromme, testified that all they remembered of the speeches that day was that they were to keep the Union from organizing so the plant wouldn't close. $0 Wallace in a signed statement given to a Board employee prior to the hearing said Bassine told him about the Union organizing his employees and that if organization con- tinued he might not be able to continue operating . On the witness stand Wallace d enied' this occurrence The written statement was admitted in evidence as contradicting Wallace's testimony. However, the Board employee who took the statement did not testify. There- fore, although Wallace's testimony is definitely contradicted , there is ' no affirmative evi= dente that Bassine made these statements to Wallace and it is not so found. 1VIYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1 597 business men and employees had positive word that the plant would close if it were organized by the Union . Subsequent developments proceeded naturally from' this premise • The business men, actuated by the fear of losing the plant 's pay -roll ; knowing that "mob" action in 1942 had not been\objected to by Bassine, logically! and to them reasonably , thought that again organization- could be stopped by re--s moving what they considered the cause , the organizers . The anti-union campaign directed to the employees intensified and culminated after the open union meeting in the Burgess yard in "deporting" the union organizers from the county. The respondent Mylan directly condoned and approved the actions of the business men, as narrated heretofore occurring prior to March 9, and inspired the further anti- union activities of the same persons occurring thereafter , and nothing in the ,evidence negated its complete responsibility therefor.3' 3t Nor did respondent Mylan halt its ranking supervisor in Sparta , Feinstein, °nor Forelady Hale, in their anti-union activities an the plant itself . Feinstein throughout the Union campaign interested himself in Union membership and made numerous statements disparaging the Union and its members, searched one member for Union cards and gave another employee a raise because he thought she had refrained from joining the Union , while Hale advised Pauline Anderson the Union leaders would be fired. This condnctowas never disavowed by Bassine although lie testified he told his supervisory staff to refrain from interference in union affairs . Such instructions , never conveyed to the employees as a body, cannot absolve respondent Mylan of responsibility for these anti-moon statements and actions • R. E. (Ed )'Knowles was not named a party iespoudeii nor was lie'an oflicei nor a director of respondent Chamber of Commerce. although he 'was a member thereof, yet he was in the forefront of the anti-union campaign , always in col- laboration with city and county officials . or with the, directors of respondent Chamber of Commerce , respondents Snodgrass , Tubb and . Wallace or Mylan, speaking iri the company of one or all of them at, one time or other during the 2 weeks which marked the beginning and end of union organization in the Mylan plant. He, with Wallace, warned and threatened Virgie Gentry ; with the Chief of Police and Sheriff importuned Herman Anderson ; with Snodgrass urged Hardie to fight the Union ; with representatives of all respondents at Wallace 's home ; at the Mylan plant when Bassine, Mayberry and Wallace spoke ; with Chief of Police Hobbs kept under surveillance the March 15 union meeting at Ora Burgess' home when the employees elected union officers ; and at the home of the Justice of the Peace when he determined the fine to be levied on the organizers; and in the forefront of-the "group" which forced the latter to leave town. Respondent Mylan, through Bassine, sponsored and adopted the anti-union campaign by authenticating the rumor that the plant would close if organized ; it cannot now disclaim responsibility for Knowles' open and notorious part therein. The un- dersigned finds that Knowles was acting in the interest, of- respondent Mylan at all times herein mentioned and this respondent is responsible for Knowles' activities. Bassine testified that several weeks later he spoke at a Civitan Club meeting and also a Rotary Club meeting wherein he stated the plant would not close if organized No one else testified as to this This is immaterial, the union campaign had been smashed by that time He admittedly did not say so during the course of the union campaign nor did he deny the statements made in the Expositor nor ask that correction be made 22 N L. R B. v. Elkland Leather Co., 114 F. (2d) 221 (C C A 3) , in the Matter of Mani Ale Jenckes Corporation, 30 N L 'R. B. 382; N L. R B v Northwestern Mutual Fire Association, 142 F (2d) 866 (C C A 9), cert den 323 U S 726; in the Matter of Brown. Sloe Co, Inc; 1 N L R. B 803 31 In the Matter of Bird Machine Conwamy, 65 N L RtiB 311 0 598 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, As heretofore found,, respondent Mylan, on the instigation of the Labor Rela- tions Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, offered reemployment to four of its discharged employees. This de facto recognition of this committee sanc- tioned its objectives and respondent Mylan by thus bestowing authority on it became liable for its activities. - , , The undersigned finds that by the above-described anti-union activities, includ- ing among others, the.adoption and approval of the anti-union campaign carried on by the local business men, through- the Wallace meeting where preparations were made for the plant meeting March 9, and the plant meeting, where the rumors of the plant closing if organized were confirmed, the ratification through silence of Racely's written 'statements about the plant closing if, organized, the surveillance by Knowles of the March 15 union meeting where the leaders of the Union became known through the election of officers, and by the subsequent "mob" action of the business men's group at the home of the Justice of the 0 Peace, patterned on the 1942 episode, by Feinstein's and Hale's statements and conduct in the plant, 'by Knowles' activity and conduct shown above, by dealing with the Labor Relations Committee as a grievance committee, the respondent Mylan has interfered with, restrained, and cberced its employees in the ,exercise - of the rights guaranteed in-Section 7 of-the Act. - 2. Respondent Chamber of Commerce . Respondent Chamber of Commerce was organized tentatively before the union -drive in Sparta commenced and completed, its organization the day after the Union openly began organizing in thee Mylan plant. There is no proof that this respondent was organized for 'the purpose, of-combatting the union drive. Min- utes were not kept of its meetings and there is no evidence of its instructing its officers, directors or members to participate in the anti-union campaign. How- ever, prominently featured on the front page of the same edition of the Sparta Expositor which carried Editor Racely's "open letter" to Mylan employees was a story setting forth the names of the officers-and directors of the Chamber of Commerce which included Baker, Mayberry, Snodgrass, Wallace, Racely and ' Tubb, who were the spearhead of the campaign to rid Sparta of'the Union. Bas- sine, the sponsor, adopter and'beneficiary of their campaign, was also named on, the Board of Directors. 'To say these men were acting in their -individual capacity and not as officers of this, respondent is to indulge in a technical dichot- _omy totally without a -basis in reality. Had a single spokesman for this re- spondent, during the union drive, denied that these men were acting in their official capacity there might be some foundation for upholding this respondent's contention that it as an organization was not involved, but no such spokes- man appeared and the employees of respondent Mylan could only know that these men, known to them as newly elected officers of the newly formed Chamber of Commerce,' were in the forefront combatting the Union's attempt to organize among them. It could only- be assumed that these officers were backed, by the power engendered by the banding together of 145 business men into the Chamber of Commerce. With all the evidence' of these officers' participation in the anti-union cam- paign and with the appointment of a Labor Relations Committee, which func- tioned as a grievance committee dealing with respondent Mylan in obtaining reemployment of discharged employees ; some upon their promise to refrain from ' The, front page of the edition of the Sparta Expositor carrying the story of the Cham- ber of Commerce formation and election of officers and the "Open Letter to Mylan Em- ployees" was mailed to respondent Mylan's employees'by Editor Racely. 0 MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 599 union activities, the undersigned is compelled to infer and therefore finds that the Chamber of Commerce through its officers and directors was acting in the interest of the employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, it being only "reasonable to hold that the interpretation of the Act makes one who aids the immediate employer in contravening the statute an employer also."; The undersigned finds that by the anti-union activities of its officers and direc- tors, heretofore described, including among others, participation in the impor- tuning of Virgie Gentry, Herman Anderson and Mary Hardie to repudiate and oppose the Union, participation in the meetings at Wallace's home, 'and at the plant on March 9, in the meeting at the home of the Justice of the Peace where the union organizers were compelled to leave town, and by the activities of its Labor Relations Committee, the respondent Chamber of Commerce has interfered with, restrained and coerced the employees of respondent Mylan in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 3. The individual respondents Respondents Wallace, Tubb and Snodgrass were directors of the Chamber of Commerce and Tubb and Snodgrass were officers of the White County Realty Co, lessor of the premises occupied by respondent Mylan. Whether these re- spondents were acting in their own interest, the interest of the Chamber of Com- merce, the White County Realty Co., or other persons or organizations is imma- terial inasmuch as they were simultaneously acting throughout in the interest of respondent Myl'an and in concert with that employer in violating the Act. The undersigned finds that in so aiding and abetting respondent Mylan in its unlawful activities each of these three respondents became an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act and interfered with, restrained and coerced respond- ent Mylan's employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. D. Individual discharges. Six of the most" prominent union protagonists and officials were discharged almost immediately following their election to office in the Union. One employee was discharged shortly prior to the election. It is impossible to consider the discharge of these seven persons as if in a vacuum completely apart from the activities of the business men and'plant officials. All the evidence, including the coincidence of six of the discharges occurring as the coupe de grace of the Union's effort to organize the Mylan plant, and the defenses set forth by re- spondent Mylan must be considered in determining the motivating factor for each discharge. 1. Pauline Anderson Pauline Anderson had worked in the plant prior to 1945 as a pocket stitcher in the stitching department and as a sleeve staclier in the cutting department. January 23, 1945, she was rehired and placed .trimming shirts. She only re- mained on this operation until January 30 when she was transferred to trim- ming sleeve facings." There is ample proof that Anderson's husband, Herman, 36 N L R B. v. Taylor-Colguitt Company, at al., 140 F ( 2d) 92 (C C A 4) ; Consumers Lumber & Veneer Company , 63 N. L R. B 17. se Respondent Mylan proved at the hearing that Mrs. Anderson did not "make produc- tion" on the shirt trimming operation and averred her transfer was for that reason. How- ever she had not worked for sometime and hadn't before ,Norked on that operation and she was not told of any reason for her transfer nor was her work criticized . Many others also failed to "make production" on this operation . The sleeve facing operation was an emergency one created by errors in the cutting room which required that someone be put on that work. The inference is plain that the transfer was not because she failed to make production but due to the necessity of someone clipping sleeve facings and it is so found. i 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was the leading proponent of the Union, most active in its organization, and that in disgust at the continued pressure to quit such activities he requested discharge and that this message was received by Bassine. Pauline Anderson herself distributed union application cards in the plant and obtained signatures thereto and on March 7, the day her husband was called out of the plant to be importuned by Ed Knowles and city officials, she was told by her forelady that the ones who started the Union would be discharged 87 - Respondent Mylan averred in its answer 3R that Anderson "was employed as a sleeve facing trimmer and that her employment was.terminated because there was no work available of the type in which she was experienced." Respondent wholly failed to sustain these allegations, proving in fact that she was not hired as a sleeve facing trimmer and offering no proof that there was no work avail- able in which she was experienced. It was shown that 76 employees were hired in March 1945 and respondents' officials admitted their manpower needs were great during this period and that many of the persons hired were totally inexpe- rienced ' The only proof offered by respondent as to the termination of Pauline Anderson was that the errors in the cutting room which resulted in the neces- sity of an employee cutting sleeve facings were'corrected and that this work ran out March 13 and respondent averred that caused her lay-off. This is not logical in view of Anderson's experience, respondent's manpower needs and their re- liance on wholly inexperienced employees. Therefore the real reason for An- derson's termination must be sought elsewhere. Her and her husband's out- standing work on behalf of the Union remains the only rational basis for her discharge and the undersigned finds that Pauline Anderson was discharged be- cause of their activities on behalf of the Union. 2. Carrie Bennett Carrie Bennett worked for respondent Mylan from sometime in 1941 until October 1942, and returned to their employment February 13, 1945, as a shirt trimmer, and worked until her discharge on March 16, 1945 She joined the Union the day Bassine, Wallace and Mayberry spoke in the plant and was ad- vised the same day by her forelady that Feinstein had just been to see her about whether her group of employees were in the Union. She was with Virgie Gentry when the latter was told by Feinstein that Bassine did not want the Union in the plant. She obtained signatures to application cards and attended the March 15 Burgess meeting where she became a charter member of the Union, being one of seven persons listed on the, charter' She worked the day after the meeting at Burgess' but the following morning, Saturday, her card was not in place and William Cowden, pay-roll supervisor, told her that Feinstein said her production was too low. She protested and asked Feinstein to compare her record with others in the department, which he refused to do. Respondent's' answer averred that although she was a "throughly experienced employee" she, "failed to make the volume of production of which she was easily capable" and for that reason was discharged. No one complained to her of her failure to make production "of which she was easily capable" and in her department the production levels were set too high for the majority of the workers and Bennett actually produced more than the majority of the workers on the same operation. Thus respondent is contending that with the majority failing to make production 37 Credible testimony of Pauline Anderson. Her forelady did not testify. 58 Respondent Mylan's answer was adopted by respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. ' 39 Testimony of Cowden, pay-roll supervisor for respondent Mylan 40 However, Bennett's name wao not carried in the Sparta Expositor MYLAN MANUFACTURING ' COMPANY 601 in this department , and with its necessity to ' use totally inexperienced 'em- ployees, Bennett alone was discharged for failing to make production "of which she was easily capable" with the discharge occurring a day after the union meeting, which attracted the attention of all the townspeople , and at which she had been named a charter member. It is evident that the failure to, make production "of which she was easily capable" was but the pretext used by re- spondent or rid itself of-this union leader and the undersigned finds that Carrie Bennett was discharged because of her union activities. 3 Della Fletcher Della Fletcher was employed February 4, 1939, and worked until her dis- charge March ' 16, 1945. Shortly after the attempted - walk-out in January 1945, Feinstein berated her for participating in it. She protested that she hadn't been involved and was substantiated by her forelady , whereupon Fein- stein patted her upon the shoulder and told her to go back to work. She joined the Union March 6 and shortly thereafter while some persons were signing union cards in the washroom , Feinstein accused her of repeatedly going to the washroom and also criticized her because employees stopped at her machine and talked to her. She attended the Burgess meeting and was named a committeewoman and her name was carried in the Sparta Expositor as such the next clay , Friday, March 16, when she was laid off . The respond- ent Mylan averred in its answer that her lay -off w ,as a temporary lay-off caused by lack of work on her particular operation, that of hemming pockets. However , it was admitted that another person was placed on this operation when Fletcher was laid off and that Fletcher had been regularly on that operation for a long time. Feinstein belied respondent Mylan's answer by testifying that Fletcher had not been laid off but had quit, and no other testimony was offered by respondent . The undersigned does not credit Fein- stein's testimony °' and from all the evidence it is clear that Fletcher was dis- charged and with respondent offering no reason for her discharge and ample proof being shown that she was active in the Union and of respondent's bias against the Union, the undersigned finds that Della Fletcher was discharged because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union . She was ,reemployed June 5, 1945 , through the offices of the Labor Relations Committee of respondent Chamber of Commerce as related heretofore but was forced, to lay off after working only a half day due to illness and has since then been unable to work because of her health. 4. Mary Hardie Mary Hardie worked as floorlady, a non-supervisory position, from 1942 until her discharge on March 16, 1945" She participated in the attempted/walk-out in the latter part of January and thereafter became very active in the Union. Respondent Snodgrass testified that he considered her one of the three union leaders, and' she was urged by Snodgrass and Ed Knowles at the meeting in the First Natidnal Bank to drop the Union and help break it up as heretofore related. At the l union meeting held at Mrs. Burgess' home, Hardie was nom- inated for every office and declined all of them, but was named a ^ commit- teewoman and her name was carried in the Sparta Expositor the next 'day, March 16. On March 16, Supervisor Honig and Superintendent Feinstein 0 " See footnote 19, regarding Feinstein 's credibility. '' Respondent Mylan's answer alleged Hardie to have been discharged March 15 but it was stipulated at the hearing that March 16 was the correct date of the discharge. 6 602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD watched Hardie all day-so much so that another employee accosted Hardie and asked why she was being watched so closely. At the end of the day her time card was not in its accustomed place and she was told to see the pay-roll supervisor, who advised her that "Mr. Feinstein says he can't use you any longer." Her separation slip stated that she was discharged because her work was unsatisfactory. No one had complained abouf her work and no explanation was given her. Respondent Mylan averred in its answer that Hardie was discharged "due to her constant and recurring inattention to her duties and interference with the production of other employees, based upon complaints made by such other employees." There was no testimony that other employees complained about Mrs Hardie and no'evidence offered that she interfered with the production of other employees. , In fact, Feinstein testified vaguely that she had gone to the washroom too often and that he discharged her for that reason Respond- ent Mylan needed employees at this time and there is no showing that Hardie in her 3 years of employment was- not a completely satisfactory employee except Feinstein's vague statement about Hardie's trip to the washroom. Feinstein's testimony is not credited and from all of the testimony the inference is clear and the undersigned finds that Mary Hardie was discharged because of her membership in and.activities on behalf of the Union. As related heretofore, Mrs. Hardie was offered reemployment on July 25, 1945, after she cleared through the respondent Chamber of Commerce's Labor Relations Committee. The reemployment offered was not to her former job but was to a position at least its equivalent, monetarily, and certainly was not a lesser position. She admitted`on cross-examination that she had no intention of taking any position' offered her when she went through the Chamber of Commerce channels with Rebecca Bell saying that she was merely attempting to help Bell obtain reemployment. When Hardie was told to report to work by Feinstein she reported and told him that she had canning to do and could not report until some time later. She admitted this-to be false, that at that time she intended not to return, her reason being that she did not want to return under the propise she had made respondent Wallace to refrain from any union activities in the future. The undersigned has found that the Labor Relations Committee of the Chamber of Commerce did obtain the reemployment of Bell and the offer to Hardie upon their promise not to engage in union activities and it is plain that- this committee was acting in the interest of respondent Mylan in so-obtaining these offers of reemployment, and that respondent Mylan was thus, in effect, offering reemployment on the basis set forth by respondent Chamber of Com- merce. It is clear that the offer of reemployment to Hardie under such terms is not, in law, an unconditional offer of reinstatement and the undersigned so finds and Hardie's deception during her conferences with the Chamber of Com- merce and respondent Mylan, while certainly not commendable, does not make the offer legal. 5. Rebecca Bell Rebecca Bell commenced working for respondent Mylan in' October 1942 and worked until her discharge March 17, 1945. The operation she performed was that of stitching collars. She was one of the first to sign a union membership apptication and the first union meeting was held at her hone. Bell attended the union meeting at the Burgess house and was elected Secretary of the Union, and her name was so carried in the Sparta Expositor the next day. The day fol- lowing- this union, meeting and the day the newspaper appeared, Feinstein watched Bell's work closely but did not say anything to her. On Saturday,'she d MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 603 did not work and on Monday, her card was out of the rack and Supervisor Honig told her that he didn't have a card for her because she had stayed out Saturday and that therefore she was-discharged and her separation notice dated Saturday, March 17, was handed to her. It is not denied that she had actually been dis- charged on that day. She testified that she had not been requested to work that Saturday. Respondent Mylan's answer averred that she had been discharged because she failed to report to work on Saturday without reason. Bell testified that many times before she had stayed out on Saturday when 10 or 11 had been told to come in and only 2 would show up and that no one was disciplined. Owen Kinnard, an assistant to Mr. Feinstein, testified that in regard to work on Satur- days, Feinstein would give him the names of those to work and he would notify the employees named He testified "I have told lots to come in on Saturday and they have failed to come in," and "we don't fire them for not coming in on Saturday even when they have been told and wilfully stay out." Walter Payne, a supervisor, testified that Honig or Robert Frazier, another assis- tant of Mr. Feinstein, would advise him the employees wanted on any particular Saturday and he would tell the employees and that sometimes as high as 50 per- cent would fail to appear and no one would be disciplined. Nannie Lee Bromme, a supervisor in one department, testified that she had often advised employees to come in on Saturday who failed to do so, and that no one was ever disciplined for this: The evidence is overwhelming and the undersigned finds that whether or not Rebecca Bell was told to report to work Saturday, March 17, her absence. from work on that day was not the reason for her discharge but was merely a pre- text seized upon by respondent Mylan to rid itself of this active union proponent and official. The undersigned finds that Rebecca Bell was discharged because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. Bell was reemployed July 25, 1945, after clearance through the Labor Relations Committee of the Chamber of Commerce upon her promise not to engage again in union activities. 6. Nola Martin ' Nola Martin was employed by respondent Mylan from December 1937 until March 19, 1945, when she was discharged. Martin was one of the, oldest em- ployees of respondent Mylan in point of service and has performed many opera- tions, her last operation being that of making pockets. • She was one of the first to join the Union and obtained signatures to union application cards. She attended the first union meeting at the Bell home and shortly thereafter while at work saw two girls who worked in Feinstein's office watching her as she was about to hand union application cards to two workers so she told the two em- ployees who had asked for the cards to follow her into the washroom. This was done and the two girls from Feinstein's office also came in the washroom and saw Martin take the cards out of her pocketbook. Later that day Feinstein told her she was fired because she was bothering his people and demanded to look into her pocketbook. She told him she didn't have her pocketbook with her and he demanded that she turn open her coat pockets, which she did, and which were found to be empty. Feinstein then told her that she was'not discharged and she continuedworking.'a She attended the union meeting at Ora Burgess' house and was elected a Committeewoman and her name was so carried in the-Sparta Ex- positor tLe next day, Friday, March 16. She worked Friday the 16th and on "The inference is plain and the undersigned finds that Feinstein's office held told him Martin had union application cards in her pocketbook and, that he was looking for them. Actually by that time she was hiding the cards in the bosom of her dress. Feinstein's denial that this 'conduct occurred is not credited for reasons set forth heretofore. Martin's testimony was straightforward and is credited. - 604 V DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Monday: the, 19th until 3: 30 in the afternoon when her operation ran out and she and two other employees were told they were temporarily laid off. The other two employees were called back to work 2 days later. Martin was not. . , Respondent Mylan averred in its answer that Martin was merely temporarily laid off but Feinstein testified that she quit, admitting that two other `persons were - put to work making pockets when, she left. Obviously this operation was not discontinued for more than one day, if for that time, and respondent could easily have done as it had before, placed Martin on another operation until the work of making pockets increased , particularly in view of her long experience on many operations . Respondent , however, did not do so, nor did it recall her ,when the operation of making pockets picked up. The evidence is plain that she was not temporarily laid off and that she did not quit as Feinstein must have known. The evidence is overwhelming and the undersigned finds that Nola Martin was discharged because of her activities on, behalf of the Union . Martin was reemployed by respondent Mylan on June 10, 1945, after clearance with the Labor Relations Committee of the Chamber of Commerce , as related heretofore. 7. Ora Burgess Ora Burgess was last employed from October or November 1944 until her dis- charge on April 12, 1945. She advised Mannie Honig at the time of her reem- ployment that she could only work 3 days a week , in which arrangement Robert Frazier and Max Feinstein acquiesced . Burgess was very active in the Union and the second and last meeting was held in 'her home ,where she was elected a Committeewoman . Both the fact that the meeting was held at her home and that she was elected to office were reported in the Sparta Expositor the next day. From,the time of the first union meeting until the one at her home, she was very active in handing out application cards and had been seen doing so by Supervisor Mannie Honig. Shortly after the meeting at. her home she told Frazier-that she was going .to Nashville . When she returned , her card was out of the rack and she was told by Frazier that Feinstein had said to discharge her but Frazier did not do so since -,she had obtained permission from him to leave, and she •worked until April 11. On that day at noon, she told Honig that she had to go home to do some work. The next day her check and separation slip were awaiting her when she arrived at the plant, the separation slip saying "but without excuse." Honig would not talk with her and Feinstein claimed that he didn't know anything about the matter. She admitted that Honig had told her to see Feinstein when she left the day before but that she had said she wouldn't see anybody. Respondent Mylan avers in its answer that they "requested this employee to notify the respondent's officials if she intended to be absent from work so arrange- ments could be made for someone to take her place and she declined to do so and stated that she intended to continue her plan [of working for short periods of time] • without notice and respondent therefore was required in the interest of business and other employees to terminate her services ." Respondent Mylan, at the hearing, made nb attempt to prove these allegations in its answer and it was admitted that when Burgess returned to work in the fall of 1944 she made arrangements to work only 3 days a week and it is admitted that later on she worked more than 3 days a week when she could . Supervisor Honig ,testified that she refused to talk to Feinstein on her last day of employment and that because he didn't give her permission to leave . she quit her employment. , Fein- stein admitted that the three-day arrangement had been made but said the understanding was that it was only to be for a short time. He never testified as to the reason for her employment being terminated . Regardless , of whether MYLAN MANUFACTURING 'COMPANY 605 she had permission to work only 3 days a week, in view of Burgess' outstanding union activities and the knowledge of them by respondent Mylan, the failure of respondent Mylan to submit proof in support of the allegations in its answer regarding Burgess, and the only testimony submitted by the respondent being that she voluntarily quit, which is not credited as it contradicts the separation slip given her when she was terminated and this respondent's desire to find a pretext for discharging her as shown by the Nashville incident, the conclusion is -inescapable that she was actually discharged because of her activities and of3icer- ship in the Union, and the undersigned so finds. 8. Conclusions regarding the discharges, The 'undersigned finds that by discharging Pauline Anderson, Mary Hardie, Carrie-Bennett, Della Fletcher, Rebecca Bell, Nola Martin and Ora Burgess because of their activities on behalf of the Union and in the case of Pauline Anderson also because of her husband's activities in.the Union, respondent Dly- lan discriminated in respect to their hire and tenure of employment thereby dis- couraging membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining and coerc- ing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRAOTICES ON COMMERCE The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operation of the respondent's business described in Section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce ainong the ,:('veral 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 various respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices the undersigned will recommend that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. - t Respondent Mylan by its participation in the aggressive anti-union campaign, its utilization of the Chamber of Commerce, the individual respondents, and It. E Knowles, to further its interests in destroying the Union, and its discharge of the seven most prominent union leaders as a reprisal for their union activities, convinces the undersigned that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices, hereinafter proscribed and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from respondent Mylan's conduct herein set forth" The deterrent purposes of the Act will be defeated if the order is not as comprehensive as the threat. -Limiting the order to the particular violations found herein would encourage respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Company in finding other and more subtle means of achieving its demonstrated purpose of defeating its employees in the exercise of their rights of self-organization for the purpose of collective bargaining. This same reasoning applies with as great force to the respondents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Snodgrass and Tubb. In order therefore to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the policies of the Act it is recommended 44 See N. L. R. B. v Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426 , and May Department Stores, 326 U S. 376. 606 DECISIONS - OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that all the-respondents except respondent Mylan'a be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in relation to respondent Mylan's employees The size of Sparta. the dominant economic position of respondents Mylan- Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Company in the community, and the fact that only one newspaper serves the county have all heretofore been noted In view of these facts- it will be recommended that respondents Chamber of Com- merce, Wallace, Snodgrass, and Tubb shall, besides posting a notice at respondent Mylan's plant, also jointly publish in the local newspaper, the Sparta Expositor, exact copies of the said notices'6 As shown heretofore Carrie Bennett was reinstated on June 10, 1945, and Della Fletcher on June 5, 1945, to their former positions, while Rebecca Bell was reinstated July 25, 1945, on her promise not to engage in Union" activities in the future After complaint was issued in this niatter the evidence discloses Pauline Anderson, Nola Martin, Ora Burgess and Mary Hardie were also reinstated. In view of these facts recommending that respondent Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Company reinstate these, employees would be a futile gesture and it will not be recommended However, it will be recommended that respond- ents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co notify Rebecca Bell in writing' that she is not bound by her promise not to engage in union activities and that her position with respoudent,is n6t conditioned on such a, promise It will also be recommended that respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manu- facturing Co make these discharged employees whole for losses incgrred be- cause of the discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which each of them would normally have earned from the date of their discriminatory discharge to the date of their actual reinstate- ment" less in each case their net earnings during the said period .48 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the-following: CoNcr.usloNs of Law 1. United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act 2 The Sparta-White County Chamber of Commerce, M. C. Wallace, James Richardson Tubb, Jr., and Robert J' Snodgrass are employers within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Pauline Anderson, Mary Hardie, Carrie Bennett, Della Fletcher,' Rebecca Bell, Nola Martin, and Ora Burgess, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the respondent Mylan has engaged in and respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. - 15 The existence of respondent Mylan has been terminated and it has been succeeded by respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. 96 In the Matter of Salant & Salant, Inc , et al , 66 N. L. R. B 24 47 It has been heretofore found that the offer of reinstatement made to Mary Hardie in July 1945 was not an unconditional offer and her back pay therefore runs with the others until her actual reinstatement. 44 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 than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for. his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company , 8 N L R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal , or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R . B., 311 U. S. T. MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 607 4. (a) The respondents Mylan, Mylan-Sparta, Mylan Manufacturing, Co., Chan\ber of Commerce, Wallace, 'Snodgrass, an-d Tubb by interfering with, re- straining,. and coercing employees of the respondents Mylan, Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co have engaged in and respondents Mylan-Sparta, Mylan Manufacturing Co., Chamber A Commerce, Wallace, Snodgrass and'Tubb are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. - ' (b) The respondent Mylan by the acts set forth above in Sections 3 and 4 (a), and by causingiand attempting to cause business men of Sparta to interfere with, restrain and coerce the employees of respondent Mylan has engaged in, and respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. are engaging in, unfair labor practice's within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning'of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that A. The respondents Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc. and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., or any other labor organization of its employees by discharging or refusing to rein- state any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employ- ment ; (b) Engaging in surveillance of union activities; (c) Recognizing the Labor Relations Committee of the Sparta-White County Chamber of Commerce as representative of their employees covering grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours-of employment, or other conditions of employment ; (d) Using the assistance of respondents Chamber of 'Commerce, Wallace, Snodgrass and Tubb, or R. E. Knowles or any other person or group of persons, for the purpose of violating the Act ; (e) Using the assistance of respondents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Snodgrass and Tubbs, or R. E. Knowles, or any other person or group of persons, to force representatives of United Construction Workers or any other labor ,to to leave the town of Sparta, Tennessee , for the purpose of dis- couraging membership in the United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., or any other labor organization ; (f) In any manner interfering with, restraining or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section,7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole Pauline Anderson, Mary Hardie, Carrie Bennett, Della Pletcher, Rebecca Bell, Nola Martin and Ora Burgess in the manner set forth in the'section .of this Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of pay them may have suffered ; 608 DECISIONS , QI NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD (b) Notify Rebecca Bell in writing that she is not bound by her promise not to engage in union activities and that her position with, respondent is note con- ditioned on such a promise; (c) - Post fora period,of at least 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places at their plant in Sparta, Tennessee, copies ofithe notice to be prepared by the respond- ents Chamber of Commerce, Wallace, Snodgrass'and Tubb, in accordance with the provisions of these recommendations directed• to them ; (d) Post at their plant in Sparta, Tennessee, 'copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A. Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by respond- ents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co.'s representative, be posted by said respondents immediately on receipt thereof, and maintained by them 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 respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan•Manufacturing Co. to insure that ,such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; .. (e) File with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region on or before 10 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing setting forth in .detail the manner and form in which the respondent has complied with the fore- going recommendations. ° B. The respondent Chamber of Commerce, its officers, directors, and agents shall : , - 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Holding out its Labor Relations Committee as a committee to serve as a link between respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. and their employees concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours- of employment, or other conditions of. employment ; , - - (b) In any manner interfering with, restraining or coercing the employees of respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. at their Sparta plant in the,exercise of the right to form, join, or assist United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., 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, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. . J , - - 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will effectuate the purposes of the Act: ' - , - (a) Publish in the local newspaper '41 the Sparta, Expositor, and have posted at the respondents' Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. plant in Sparta, Tennessee, copies of the notice, attached hereto marked "Appendix B." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent Chamber of Commerce's representa- tive, be posted by the respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are 'customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondents Mylan- Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing, Co. to insure , that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ; (b) File with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region on or before 10 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent Chamber of Com- merce has complied with the foregoing recommendations. ' • - 4s The undersigned does not mean to foreclose respondent Chamber of Commerce,, and respondents Snodgrass , Wallace and Tubb from publishing this notice as a joint notice if they so desire. MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 609 C. The respondents, M. C. Wallace, Robert J. Snodgrass and James Richard- son Tubb, Jr., and each of them shall : 1. Cease and desist from (a) In any manner interfering with, restraining or coercing the employees of respondents Mylan.Sliarta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. at its Sparta plant in' he exercise of the right to form, join or assist United Construction Workers, U. M. W. A., 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 as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the purposes of the Act : (a) Publish in the local newspaper; ° the Sparta Expositor, and have posted at the respondents' Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing Co. plant in Sparta, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by these respondents, be posted-by the respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan, Manufacturing Co immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintainetl by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondents Mylan-Sparta and Mylan Manufacturing • Co. to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; - (b) Each file with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region on or before 10 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with the fore- going recommendations. It is further recommended that unless on or before 10 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondents notify said Regional Director in writing that they will comply with the foregoing recommendations the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondents to take the action aforesaid. - As provided in Section.33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as'amended, effective November 27, 1945, 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 Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations file with the Board,. Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four' copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions'to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or-objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such state- ment 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 within ten (10) days from the date of the order trans- ferring the case to the Board. T. B. Smoar Trial Examiner. Dated April-5,1946. See footnote 49, supra. e 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 wfll not engage in surveillance of union, meetings:- We will make whole the employees named below for any loss of pay suf- fered as a result of discrimination against them : Pauline Anderson Rebecca Bell Mary Hardie Nola Martin - Carrie Bennett'- Ora Burgess Della Fletcher We will not in any manner use the assistance of the Sparta-White County Chamber of Commerce, M C• Wallace, James Richardson Tubb, Jr., Robert J. Snodgrass, R. E. Knowles, or any other persons or groups of persons for the purpose of violating the National Labor Relations Act. -We will not recognize the Labor Relations Committee of the Sparta-White County Chamber of Commerce as representatives of our employees concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment. We will notify Rebecca Bell, in writing, that she is not bound by her promise not to engage in union activities and that her position with us is not conditioned on such a promise. We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Construction' Workers, U. M. W. A., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or any other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named, union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership or activity on behalf of any such labor -organization. MYLAN -SPARTA CO., INC., MYLAN MANUFACTURING CO., INC. Employer. By -------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) Dated -------------------- NoTE.-Any of the (above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted sixty days from the date hereof and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. A MYLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY _ 611 APPENDIX B 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 the employees of Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co., Inc., that : We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees of Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., and Mylan Manufacturing Co, Inc., in. the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Construction Workers, U. M W. A, 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 employees are free to become or remain members of this union or any other labor organization. SPARTA-WHITE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, By------------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) M. C. WALLACE, ROBERT J. SNODGRASS, JAMES RICHARDSON TUBB, JR. Dated ------------------ This notice must remain posted for sixty days from the date hereof and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. 712344-47-vol. 70-40 I