Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc.

In the Matter of B LUE RIDGE Sxl11T MANUFACTURING CO., INC., AND FAYETTEVILLE & LINCOLN COUNTY CHAMBER OF Coi% mIERCE and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O. Case No. 10-C-1680.-Decided August 26, 1946 Dlr. Thomas T. Pardom,, for the Board. Messrs. Joseph Higgins and Deimer Lamb, of Fayetteville, Tenn., and Mr. A. H. Roberts, Jr., of Nashville, Tenn., for the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc. Mr. Lawson H. Myers, for the respondent Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Harold S. Marthenke, of Nashville, Tenn., and Mr. Roy Mc- Cullough, of Fayetteville, Tenn., for the Union. Mr. B. E. Holman, of Fayetteville, Tenn., for the FEIU. Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER On October 22, 1945, Trial Examiner Peter F. Ward issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., herein called Blue Ridge, and the respondent Fayetteville & Lincoln County Cham- ber of Commerce, herein called the Chamber of Commerce, had en- gaged 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, the respondents and Fayetteville Em- ployees Industrial Union, Fayetteville, Tennessee, herein called the FEIU, filed exceptions 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. Blue Ridge appeared and participated in the argument; none of the other parties appeared. 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. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs filed by the respondents, and 70 N. L. R. B., No. 58. 741 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the FEIU, the arguments advanced at the oral argument, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the additions noted below : 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the respondents, Blue Ridge and Chamber of Commerce, by the acts and conduct set forth in the Intermediate Report, engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act. In excepting to this finding, the Chamber of Commerce contends that, under the holding of N. L. R. B. v. American Pearl Button Company,' its activ- ity cannot be found violative of the Act. However, we are of the opin- ion that, on the facts, the American Pearl Button case is distinguish- able from the instant case and is therefore not here controlling. In the American Pearl Button case, the named chamber of commerce pub- lished, in refutation of a claim made by the complaining union that a named employer was paying lower wages than his competitors, information as to the comparative wage rates paid by the said em- ployer and other employers engaged in similar businesses, along with a statement urging the employees involved to vote in a Board-con- ducted election. In reversing the Board's finding that the publication of these statements constituted an unfair labor practice, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stated, " . . . there is noth- ing in this advertisement that might not with impunity, under the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech, have been published in the press, preached from the pulpit, proclaimed on the public street, or shouted from the housetops of the City of Washington." 2 On the other hand, in the case before us, as revealed in the Intermediate Report, the Chamber of Commerce admittedly engaged in certain overt acts, as distinguished from mere expressions of opinion or state- ments of facts. By providing meeting places for employees of the respondent for furthering the organizational activities of the FEIU, the Chamber went further than expressing its opinion and actually contributed support to a labor organization. Moreover, it is clear that, as an integral part of its campaign against the CIO and for the organization of the FEIU, the Chamber of Commerce effectively used Plant Manager Edwards' coercive statement to Rambo, the owner of the building that housed Blue Ridge's plant, that Blue Ridge would close its plant if the CIO's organizational campaign were a success. Under all the circumstances, we are convinced and we find that the Chamber of Commerce engaged in a course of conduct which, in its 1149 F . ( 2d) 311 ( C. C. A. 8 ), enforcing as modified 52 N L. It. B. 1113. s The Court also found no warrant for the Board 's finding that the chamber of com- merce was responsible for the actions and conduct of its individual members who warned employees against voting for the union , because the minutes of the chamber of commerce meetings, which the Board introduced into evidence , did not disclose that any such action was officially sanctioned by the chamber of commerce BLUE RIDGE SHIRT MANUFACTURING Co., INC. 743 totality and especially when viewed in the light of Blue Ridge's unlaw- ful conduct, constituted interference, restraint, and coercion, and assistance to the FEIU, within the meaning of Sections 8 (1) and (2) of the Act, because it was such as "to impinge, through . . . moral, or economic fears, upon the employees' ability to make a free choice." 3 _ 2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the respondent Blue Ridge transferred Billie Cunningham from inspecting to folding, a type of work she was incapable of performing because of her crippled arm without experiencing considerable physical discomfort, and re- fused on July 7, 1945, and thereafter, to return her to her regular job as final inspector, because of her membership in and activity on behalf of the CIO, thereby discriminating in regard to her hire, tenure of employment, and conditions of employment, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. Blue Ridge contends that Cunningham was transferred to shirt folding at her own request, that she made her production quota for the short period of time she worked as a folder, and that she voluntarily ceased working at the plant because of her ill health. In our opinion, the record does not support this contention. According to Cunning- ham's testimony, which we credit, as did the Trial Examiner, she was involuntarily transferred by Plant Manager Edwards from her regu- lar inspection work to shirt folding; because of the crippled condition of her arm, which was obvious, she experienced difficulty and physical discomfort in folding; after a few weeks of unsuccessfully attempt- ing to work as a folder,4 Cunningham told Edwards that she was physically unfit to continue as a folder and requested him to trans- fer her back to her former job of inspecting; Edwards refused to grant her request but offered to assign her a machine on the upper floor of the plant; she told Edwards that she was unable to operate a machine because such work made her nervous; she also advised Ed- wards that she had been hired as an inspector only, but that she was willing to take any job in the cutting room that Edwards thought she could perform; Edwards, after failing to offer her other work, told her to leave her telephone number and that he would advise her when she was needed; shortly after leaving the plant on July 7, 1945, she and her husband returned and she was again refused reinstate- ment to her old position and, up to the date of hearing, she had not been called back to work. The inherent plausibility of Cunning- ham's testimony, and the lack of credibility in the testimony adduced by Blue Ridge to the effect that she requested a transfer to folding, 8 See the concurring opinion of Judge Johnsen in N. L. R. B. v. American Pearl Button Company, 149 F. (2d) 311. ' The respondent Blue Ridge produced no records showing that Cunningham had in fact made her production quota as a folder. 744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD are further established by Forelady Smith's own testimony that, sometime prior to the advent of the CIO, another employee was trans- ferred from inspecting to folding rather than Cunningham, because Cunningham had then indicated that her physical handicap would not permit her to perform folding work. Blue Ridge also contends that Cunningham was transferred be- cause her health required her to be habitually absent from work. As revealed in the Intermediate Report, Blue Ridge's own records with respect to Cunningham's employment refute this contention. Nor do we find any merit in Blue Ridge's contention that Edwards had no knowledge of Cunningham's union membership or activity at the time of her transfer. Although Edwards so testified, the Trial Examiner did not believe him and we cannot say that the Trial Examiner was in error. On the other hand, Edwards' admission that he had observed Cunningham outside the plant conversing with the CIO representatives who were engaged in organizing Blue Ridge's employees, and the fact that Forelady Smith, whom Edwards con- sulted before transferring Cunningham, admittedly had knowledge of Cunningham's CIO affiliation, furnish a reasonable basis for the Trial Examiner's finding, with which we agree, that Edwards knew of Cunningham's union activity. To negate any inference of discrimination in the treatment accorded Cunningham, Blue Ridge offered evidence that, after she ceased work, it continued to carry her name on its employment records and to pay her group life insurance , premium. We, however, cannot give con- trolling significance to this evidence. In the light of the positive evidence that Cunningham was a competent and efficient worker as an inspector but, because of her known disability, was unable to per- form folding work without physical discomfort and impairment of her health, we find that, for all practical purposes, her employment was terminated at the time she was first refused reinstatement to her former position. Under the circumstances, we are convinced and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Blue Ridge was discriminatory in its treatment of Cunningham. 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 : A. That the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., Fayetteville, Tennessee, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, BLUE RIDGE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 745 or encouraging membership in the Fayetteville Employees Industrial Union, also known as the Home Union, by discriminatorily discharg- ing or refusing to reinstate 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 employment; (b) Recognizing Fayetteville Employees Industrial Union, also known as the Home Union, or any successor thereto, as the represent- ative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,.to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi- ties, for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid of 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) Withhold all recognition from, and completely disestablish, Fayetteville Employees Industrial Union, also known as the Home Union, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment; (b) Offer Mrs. Billie Cunningham immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges; (c) Make whole Mrs. Billie Cunningham for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages from July 7, 1945, the date of her discriminatory discharge, to the date of the offer of reinstate- ment, less her net earnings during said period; (d) Post at its plant at Fayetteville, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report, 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 re- sporident Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., be posted by Said notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first paragraph thereof the words "Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order." 746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the respondent immediately on receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- -cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material ; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. B. That the respondent Fayetteville and Lincoln County Chamber ,of Commerce, Fayetteville, Tennessee, and its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, acting in the interest of the respondent BlueRidge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Fayette- ville Employees Industrial Union, also known as the Home Union, ,or with the formation or administration of any other labor organiza- tion of the employees of the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufactur- ing Co., Inc., and from contributing financial or other support to Fayetteville Employees Industrial Union, also known as the Home Union, or to any other labor organization of the employees of the re- spondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc.; (b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing the employees of respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organ- izations, to join -or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac- tivities, 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) Post at its office at Fayetteville, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix B." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by respondent Chamber of Com- merce's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately oil receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material; 9 Said notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first paragraph thereof the words "Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and order." BLUE RIDGE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 747 (b) Immediately send copies of the said notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B," duly signed by an authorized representative of the respondent Chamber of Commerce, through the United States Mails to all of its members and contributors, including Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc.; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis- missed, insofar as it alleges that the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., has kept the activities of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C. I. 0., and the concerted activities of its employees under surveillance. MR. JoHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Thomas T. Purdom, for the Board. Messrs. Joseph Higgins and Dczmer Lamb, of Fayetteville, Tenn., and Mr. A. H. Roberts, Jr., of Nashville, Tenn., for the Respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufac- turing Co., Inc. Mr. Lawson H. Myers, for Respondent Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Harold S. Marthenke , of Nashville , Tenn., and Mr. Roy McCullough, of Fayetteville , Tenn., for the Union. Mr. B. E. Holman, of Fayetteville, Tenn., for the Intervenor. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C I. 0, herein called the CIO, the National Labor Relations Board herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated July 28, 1945, against Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., herein called Blue Ridge, and' Fayetteville & Lincoln County Chamber of Commerce, Fayetteville, Tennessee, herein called Chamber of Commerce, the respondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3)1 and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondents, the CIO„ and Fayette- ville Employees Industrial Union, Fayetteville, Tennessee, herein called the FEIU. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged in substance: (1) that the respondent Blue Ridge and respond- ent Chamber of Commerce, herein sometimes collectively called the respondents, did on or about January 25, 1945, initiate, form, sponsor, and promote the FEIU, sometimes herein referred to as the Home Union, and from on or about February 22, 1945, to date of the complaint the respondents have assisted, dominated, con- tributed to the support of, and interfered with the administration of said FEIU; (2) that the respondent Blue Ridge, by its named officers, agents, and employees, 1 The Section 8 ( 3) allegation applies to respondent Brue Ridge only. '748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from on or about January 18, 1945, and thereafter, engaged in anti-union threats, questioning, and warned employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of the CIO ; urged, persuaded , threatened , and warned the employees to assist, become members of, and remain members of the Home Union and have kept under surveillance the activities of the CIO and the con- ,certed activities of the employees had for the purpose of self-organization and improvement of working conditions; (3) that on or about May 3, 1945, respond- ent Blue Ridge assigned Mrs. Billie Cunningham , an employee, to more arduous and less agreeable work, and did on or about July 12, 1945, discharge said Cun- ningham when she applied for reinstatement to her former or substantially egliiv- alent position, and since July 12 respondent Blue Ridge has failed and refused to reinstate said Cunningham to her former or substantially equivalent position and employment for the reason that she joined and assisted the CIO and engaged in other CIO activities; and, (4) by the acts described above the respondents -interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees of respondent Blue Ridge in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On August 10, 1945, respondent Blue Ridge and on August 8, 1945, respondent Chamber of Commerce each filed answers to the complaint denying that they had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged. During the hearing the represent- ative of the FEIU filed a petition for intervention, which was granted. Such petition entered a general denial to the allegations of the complaint insofar as the complaint alleged that the FEIU had been formed, sponsored, or domi- nated by the respondents. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Fayetteville, Tennessee, from August 14 through August 30, 1945, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial Examiner duly desig- nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent Blue Ridge, re- spondent Chamber of Commerce and the FEIU were represented by counsel and representatives appeared for the CIO. All participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro- duce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing counsel for the Board moved that the pleadings and formal papers be conformed to the proof The motion was granted. Dur- ing and at the close of the hearing counsel for respondent Blue Ridge made a motion to strike the testimony of certain witnesses. The undersigned reserved ruling thereon and now rules that the motion to strike be denied z The parties argued orally at the conclusion of the hearing. The parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the undersigned. Briefs were filed on behalf of the respondents and on behalf of the FEIU. On the entire record in the case and upon his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS (a) Respondent Blue Ridge is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Tennessee with its principal office and place of business in the City of Fayetteville, Lincoln County, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the manufacture of work shirts and related products on a cut-make-and-trim basis for the Washington Manufacturing Company of Nashville, Tennessee. The Washington Manufacturing Company purchases substantially all of the rla- 2 See footnote 29, below. BLUE RIDGE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CO.) INC. 749 terials used in manufacturing said work shirts in States of the United States other than the State of Tennessee and causes such materials to be delivered and transported interstate through the States of the United States to respondents' plant in Fayetteville, Tennessee. The materials thus purchased and trans- ported, and delivered are in excess of a quantity necessary to manufacture ap- proximately 1500 dozen work shirts each week. Finished products are shipped and delivered to the Washington Manufacturing Company, Nashville, Tennessee, for sale by the latter and substantially all of said work shirts so delivered to the Washington Manufacturing Company are transported to and through the States of the United States other than the State of Tennessee.' (h) Respondent Fayetteville and Lincoln Chamber of Commerce is a voluntary unincorporated association of corporations, partnerships, individuals, and busi- ness entities, engaged in manufacturing, production, finance, business industry, commerce and trade, and of individuals engaged in the practice of professions in the City of Fayetteville and County of Lincoln, Tennessee. It maintains an office and place of business in Fayetteville, Tennessee. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,' and Fayetteville Employees Industrial Union, un- affiliated, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Chronology of events; organization of the Home Union; interference, restraint, and coercion On or about September 1944, L. B. Edwards was installed as plant manager of the respondent Blue Ridge's Fayetteville plant. After taking over such man- agement he introduced a number of changes in the working methods theretofore used in the plant. The changes required some of the employees to learn and adopt new ways in performing their work, with the result that their production decreased and their earnings were less than before. Many of the employees be- came dissatisfied as the result of Edward's innovations. The CIO began organizing the plant early in January 1945, and by mid-January had made considerable progress. Edwards learned of the CIO's activity and on or about January 25 he called Josephine Koonce, a folder, into the cloak room and questioned her concerning her knowledge of such activity. He asked her if "any union people" had been to see her. She replied that one or two had been, and when Edwards asked her for their names she told him that she did not remember them. Edwards also asked her if she would talk to "strangers" about the union, stating that union people met in back alleys. Koonce replied that she met the CIO organizers through friends and that they came in her front door. Edwards then asked if the organizers had shown credentials and was informed that they had not.` 8 The facts found in this section are based upon a stipulation of the parties entered Into at the hearing. 4 These findings are based on Koonce's credible testimony. In this connection Ed- wards testified on direct-examination that Koonce had stopped him at the cloak room door as she was going to work "and she had a few remarks to make about the union. "I don't exactly recall what I said or what she said." On cross-examination Edwards testified that he did not remember the "questions" and "answers" in his conversation with 750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD During January, but prior to January 31, Edwards called at the office of Frank Rambo. Rambo, who was the owner of the building used by respondent Blue Ridge, and Edwards discussed the fact that the CIO was trying to organize the plant. In this connection Rambo testified, as follows : Q Do you recall-tell us about that conversation in your office, please, sir ; where it took place and what was said. A. Mr. Edwards came in the office one morning, I believe to pay a bill. And I was busy over my desk, and spoke to him. And I said, "Come in." And he came around there. I said, "What are they doing to you over there?" He said, "Nothing Not much of anything." "Well," I says.-I asked him what they were doing to him over there And he says, "Oh, nothing " I said, "Well, are they going to organize you?" "Well," he said, "It kind of seems so." And lie said, "If they do, you'll probably have your building on your hands." That's the gist of the conversation 6 Following Edwards' statement to the effect that Rambo would have the building on his hands in the event the CIO organized the plant, certain members of the Chamber of Commerce held a meeting and discussed the matter of getting the plant employees together where the Chamber of Commerce members could talk to them. Edwards was present at the meeting and was asked what he was going to do about the matter. According to Theodore McCowan,.secretary and manager of the Chamber of Commerce, Edwards stated that his hands were "tied" and that "we can't do anything up there (at the plant)." e During January through March, the regular working hours for the Blue Ridge employees were from 7: 30 a. m. to 4: 00 p. m. with time out for lunch. During this same period however, it was customary for certain employees, the foreman and foreladies included, to work until 5: 00 p m., except on Friday night when the work week normally ended, in order to lay out and prepare work for the following day Koonce [Italics supplied ] The undersigned credits Koonce's positive testimony herein and finds that the conversation occuirred substantially as set forth above. Edwards' credibility as a witness is discussed further below 5 These findings are based on Rambo's credited testimony. As is detailed below, Rambo used the above statement in two talks at the Chamber of Commerce meetings as part of the Chamber's efforts to discourage membership in the CIO and to encourage membership in the "Home Union " Edwards did not deny having a conversation with Rambo in which the fact that CIO organizers were "working on" his employees was discussed . His version, however, was to the effect that he had told Rambo that he had heard of organizers for the union "working on" his employees, and that he did not know much about it, and that after talking further with Rambo he told the latter "it might be possible for you to get your building." Edwards further stated that he did not intend to convey the impression that if the CIO organized the plant that it would be closed. The undersigned does not credit Edwards' version of this episode, particularly in view of the fact, as is found below, that the Chamber of Commerce members effectively used Rambo's version in its attempt to dis- courage membership in the-CIO and to encourage membership in the Home Union, all of which was known to Edwards, with no disclaimer on his part. 9 Edwards denied that he attended any "meeting" of the Chamber of Commerce. He ad- mitted being present when certain Chamber of Commerce members discussed getting the employees together. He testified that he did not recall using the term "hands tied" but stated his policy in union matters was "hands off " He further testified that he told McCowan when the latter offered his "assistance" that he did not take any part in the plan to call the employees together or use his (McCowan's) assistance. In view of the above, the record, and Edwards' collaboration In encouraging the employees to attend the Jan- uary 31 and other meetings called by the Chamber of Commerce , the undersigned does not credit his disclaimer of cooperation with the Chamber of Commerce plans to get the em- ployees together, or that he refused the assistance of the Chamber of Commerce when offered by McCowan and other members, and finds that Edwards merely indicated to the group that he could take no active or ostensive part. BLUE RIDGE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 751 On the afternoon of January 31, McGowan handed out circulars' on the sidewalk in front of the plant announcing a meeting of Blue Ridge employees at the Court House at 4: 15 p. in on that day. Edwards testified that "Everybody in the build- ing knew that he (McGowan) was outside there ; saw him, and said he was out there ;" he further testified that he saw one of the circulars "when they were being passed out Some of them were brought into the office ; brought inside the factory." Also on January 31, Edwards went to Raymond Sweeney, a shirt packer who worked under Edwards' supervision and told him that he could get off to attend the Chamber of Commerce meeting held that day. Sweeney normally worked until 5:00 p. m.8 Also on January 31 Forelady Fanny Martin told employee Edith Brown, who worked under her supervision and who also normally worked until 5, 00 p. in that she could get off early that day ° While for the week ending February 3 an average of 42 and one quarter em- ployees worked after 4: 00 p. in., only two employees worked overtime on Wednes- day, January 31.1° While all the employees did not attend the meeting on January 31, the record indicates that most of them did so, including foreladies Lillian Smith, Mary McAlister, and Fanny Martin.11 There is little or no dispute as to what occurred at the January 31 meeting. Thomas Day Sugg, who is president of the Lincoln County Bank, and who was president of the Chamber of Commerce at this time, presided and called on the different speakers. Among others he called upon secretary and manager of the respondent Chamber of Commerce, Mc- Cowan, who asked if there were anyone in the room pushing for the union (CIO) ATTENTION All Employees of the Blue Ridge Shirt Plant INVITED To Attend a Meeting at the Court House at 4:15 This Afternoon, Where the Issue Now Uppermost in your minds will be discussed CITIZENS OF FAYETTEVILLE Court House Well Heated s This finding is based upon Sweeney's testimony which the undersigned credits Ed- wards testified "I told Raymond Sweeney, I think, he could go." Edwards added, that Sweeney had asked to get off and that he told him he could go either home or "any place" he wanted to The undersigned does not credit Edwards' statement that Sweeney asked to get off and finds that Edwards made the suggestion that Sweeney attend the meeting O This finding is based on Brown's credited and uncontradicted testimony. Martin, though called as a witness, was not questioned on Brown's testimony in this connection. i° The number of those working overtime for such week, other than for Wednesday, Jan- uary 31, are as follows 52 on Monday , 60 on Tuesday ; 51 on Thursday ; 10 on Friday. The respondent Blue Bidge contends in effect that the "foreladies" were not super- visory employees, since they have no power to hire, flue, promote, or demote, but are merely instructors, for whose conduct the respondent Blue Ridge is not chargeable. This con- tention is clearly without merit. The plant normally employs 170 workers There is no one exercising authority between plant manager Edwards and the foreladies and the fore- man The foreladies and the foreman are carried as such on the records and numerous witnesses testified in substance that they worked under the supervision of some one of them. The iecord discloses further that the foreladies report unsatisfactory work to Ed- wards, and along with him determine whether the employee involved shall be assigned to other work or be discharged In the eyes of the employees, such foreladies and the fore- man speak for and represent management Fiom the above and the record, the respondent Blue Ridge is char geable with the acts and conduct of the foreladies and the foreman It is so found. 752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and received no reply. The tenor of his talk was to the effect that he did not see why the Blue Ridge employees wanted a union. Sugg called on Rambo who told those assembled that he had been informed by plant manager Edwards, that if the union came in he could have his building back. Rambo advised his audience that he could use the building, and also informed them that it was rented on a monthly basis.12 Rambo added that "I just want to tell you girls about it." Ernest Reese, a member of the Chamber of Commerce and the owner of a local cotton mill, addressed the meeting and stated that his people (employees) held no secret meetings and they were satisfied. He added that "the union wasn't American- ism." Sugg also addressed the meeting and read a list of figures purporting to be the amounts earned annually by certain unnamed employees of respondent Blue Ridge," and stated that the money so received was more than most of his employees made at the Bank. He added that he felt that the Blue Ridge em- ployees should be satisfied with what they were making. The "burden" of the talks by Chamber of Commerce members was to the effect, that they were opposed to outside foreign unions, who were not interested in us so much as they were interested in what they would get out of it " It is undisputed that practically all speakers at the January 31 meeting sought to discourage the employees from joining the CIO One speaker, B. E. Holman, a Chamber of Commerce member and a local attorney, suggested that If the employees wanted a union that they should form a "Home Union" of their own. At noon on February 1, Edwards talked to employees Beatrice and Jewel Moore, sisters, and asked if they had attended the Court House meeting on the previous evening ; they replied in the negative. Edwards then said : "You should have gone, they had several good speeches over there " Edwards added, "To my way df thinking, Mr. Holman is a mighty shrewd lawyer." Jewel Moore then stated to Edwards that she and her sister were "not going out to anything by this union." Edwards then replied, "No, I think you people are too broadminded for anything like that." Edwards continued on by stating, "Mr. Rambo has told you-the union comes in and he will have the on his hands, after the union-the next day after the union comes in." Edwards further advised the Moores that the plant building was rented by the month and that Rambo wanted the building "for his farming implements." 14 12 The evidence discloses however, that at the time of Rambo's talk, Blue Ridge Shirt had a lease on the building which would not expire for about two years thereafter. The record indicates that Rambo may have been under 'the impression that the lease had in fact expired. Plant Manager Edwards testified that he knew nothing of the lease at the time of Rambo's Chamber of Commerce talk. 13 Sugg, though available, was not called as a witness and the record does not disclose the source of his information. One Board witness testified that one of the amounts read by Sugg equalled the amount of her annual earnings for the time referred to. 14 These findings are based on the credited testimony of Beatrice and Jewel Moore. In this connection Edwards testified, "I don't recall having said those words" concerning the Moores not having gone to the Court House meetings or that they should have gone and "that they had some good speeches." On cross-examination with reference to the testi- mony of the Moore sisters, Edwards testified : Q. Well, do you remember what you said about the union? A. No, I don't remember what I said, the answers that I gave them. I don't remem- ber the questions or answers. Q. Either of them? A. No, sir. s ► • s s s r Q. So, then, you don't dispute either the testimony of Josephine Koonce or Jewel or Beatrice Moore, is that correct? A. I don't dispute it because I don't remember what I said to them. From the foregoing and the record the undersigned does not credit Edwards' alleged loss of memory, and is convinced and finds that he made the statements credited to him by the Moore sisters substantially as set forth above. BLUE RIDGE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 753, Edwards admitted that he had heard that Rambo had used his name in a speech, at the Chamber of Commerce January 31 meeting. He testified that within a day or two after the speech he asked Rambo "what he had said about it (Edwards" statement) and if he had used my name, and he said he did,- " Following the initial meeting of the Chamber of Commerce with the plant- employees, Forelady Smith became active in the campaign against the CIO. On, one occasion she told Ellen Carter and Leona Carter, a daughter of the former, that if the CIO came in, the plant would be moved to Nashville and that if the CIO did not come in "it would go hard on those that were for it." 1' Following the January 31 Court House meeting, Forelady Smith told Koonce, who worked under her supervision, that Rambo had said the plant would close if the CIO came in. Koonce did not attend the January 31 meeting. Smith then informed Koonce that the plant would be moved to Nashville and that those employees who had been active on behalf of the CIO would be unable to get jobs in Fayetteville 16 Following the January 31 meeting and under date of February 24, Carl F: Albrecht, Southern Director for the CIO, addressed a letter to R. 0. Chest," as president of respondent Blue Ridge and sent a carbon copy of the letter to Plant Manager Edwards at Fayetteville which the latter admitted having received. Edwards testified that he sent such carbon copy to Attorneys Roberts & Roberts at Nashville. A copy as admittedly received by Edwards stated in part as follows : We have been informed by some of our membership, who are employees of your plant in Fayetteville, Tennessee, that Mr Frank Rambolt, the owner of the building which houses your Fayetteville, Tennessee, plant, publically and openly stated in a meeting on January 31, 1945, at the Fay- etteville Courthouse, called by some of the business men of Fayetteville, that "the Company has already informed me that the day after the Union. comes into the plant, I can have my building back and I can use it." * * * * * * * Additionally, we have been informed that your Fayetteville, Tennessee, plant manager has stated to some of the plant employees and some of the townspeople that the Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Company will not operate the plant if the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C. I. 0.,, succeeds in organizing a majority of the employees of the Company. Inasmuch as a number of the business men of the City of Fayetteville. are using the statements mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this, letter to discourage membership in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, we feel that it is your duty, under the law, to either publically deny the truth of such statements or clearly state your intentions concern- ing the advent of a union in your Fayetteville, Tennessee, plant. Permitting- statements such as these to circulate in Fayetteville without any action 15 These findings are based on the credited testimony of Ellen Carter and Leona Carter. In this connection Smith testified that "I don't remember making a statement like that. I might have." She later testified that if she made the statement she did not remember or recall it. In view of the positive testimony of the Carters and further activities of Smith set forth below, the undersigned credits the testimony of the Carters and does not credit Smith's partial denial and finds that Smith made the statements substantially as set forth above. 16 These findings are based on Koonce's credited testimony. Smith testified that she dicy not remember telling Koonce that the plant would move to Nashville. The undersigned credits Koonce's testimony set out above. 17 The record indicates that "Chest" was not the president of the respondent Blue Ridge and there is no evidence that the original of the letter ever reached said respondent. 754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on your part is, in our opinion, an admission on your Company's part that such statements have some basis in fact. This, I am sure your attorneys will advise you, is a clear violation of the National Labor Relations Act, and, if true, will naturally place your Company in the position of violating a federal law. Insofar as the record discloses, no one on behalf of the respondent Blue Ridge ever took any action to refute or deny Rambo's statement above referred to. Plant Manager Edwards testified that he took no action. Following the January 31 meeting, two meetings were held in February. The parties are in dispute as to the date of particular meetings, but there is no substantial dispute as to what occurred at them. Esther Baldwin, one of the two active rank-and-file organizers of the Home Union, testified on the question- ing by Holman : A. I believe you were at home, and you told me that if we were interested and wanted to, for us to, get together, and come to your office and you would talk the matter over with us; and so there were several of us-I don't know just how many but it was quite (t. g) oup of its went to your office one after- noon. We didn't keep these dates because we were not thinking of having all this to retell. So at that meeting at your office, after we talked it over, we suggested that you draw up a constitution and by-laws and meet here at the Court House, and we calve to the Court House and we tried to notify those throughout the plant about it so they would come, . . (Emphasis added.) There is no doubt that this meeting was held sometime during the month of February and the undersigned believes that it was actually held on Feb- ruary 22nd, and that was the reason why the overtime workeis were allowed to leave early on that day so that they might have an opportunity of attenduig this meeting1' At the opening of the meeting in the County Court House at the time the proposed constitution was submitted, Holman asked all those not in- terested in organizing a home union to leave the room Nobody left the room. The record discloses that a considerable number of CIO adherents were present and remained during most of the meeting. Temporary officers were elected. Among the employees present was Forelady Lillian Smith. Frank Rambo was also among those present and when one of the employees present suggested that respondent Blue Ridge might close if the Home Union came in just the same as they had threatened to do in the event that CIO came in, Rambo made a further statement to the effect that Edwards had told him that if the CIO came in he would have the building on his hands, but he added that Edwards "might have been talking through his hat " Also at this meeting Holman expressed the 18 The intervening Home Union denies that any meeting was held on Febiuary 27 and contends that but one meeting was held in February and that was on February 22. From the record in its entirety the undersigned is of the opinion that two meetings were held in February, one on February 22 and one on February 27 The time cards of employees dis- close that on February.22 only 6 employees worked overtime on- that (lay, whereas the time cards show that 47 employees worked after 4 o'clock on February 19, 20, and 21, and that' 32 employees worked after 4 o'clock on Friday, February 23. The time cards with refer- ence to the following week disclose that only 3 em plocees worked overtime on Tuesday, Feb- ruary 27, whereas on Monday preceding 49 employees, on Wednesday, 29 employees, on Thursday, 31 employees, on Friday, March 2, 12 employees worked overtime and after 4 o'clock On the above and the record the undersigned finds that respondent Chamber of Commerce held meetings with the Blue Ridge employees on both February 22 and Feb- ruary 27. Since there is no material dispute as to what occurred at one February Court House meeting, the undersigned is of the opinion that the meeting of February 22 was in fact held at Attorney Holman's office where action preliminary to the adoption of the Home Union constitution on February 27 was taken at the Court House meeting BLUE RIDGE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 755 opinion that the plant would not close down or move away no matter which union came in. On the day of this meeting Foreman Virgil McAlister informed Dalton McMillin, a spreader who normally worked until 5: 00 p. in., that he could get off at 4: 00 p. In. if lie and his co-workers wanted to ; that they were going to have a meeting at the Court House "to read the constitution of the local (Home) Union." McMillin and three others working with him under McAlister's super- vision attended such meeting." Following the February 27 meeting of the Chamber of Commerce group with the Blue Ridge employees, a further meeting was held,at the Court House on March 6 at 4:15 p. m. and efforts at organization were continued. The record discloses that for the week ending March 10, 172 workers were employed, that on Tuesday March 6 only 5 employees worked until 5:00 p. in., while on Monday there were 39; on Wednesday 57; on Thursday 53; and on Friday 14 employees who worked overtime and until 5: 00 p. m.20 It is undisputed that after the Chamber of Commerce began holding CIO and pro-Home Union meetings at the Court House, a Chamber of Commerce.committee headed by President Sugg and Secretary-Manager McCowan visited the plant and were escorted through it by Plant Manager Edwards. The committee mem- bers did not discuss organizational matters with the employees while on this tour. 2' On March 9 the.Chanmber of Commerce called and advertised H a mass meeting to he held .!t the Court House at 8 00 o'clock p in. with a "special invitation extended to slim t plant workcis." The mass meeting was largely attended by citizens and employees including a number of adherents of the C10. Anti-CIO speeches were made by Attorney Holnian, Raymond Moyer and "Andy" Largen, a part-time preacher who also conducted a number of business enterprises. Other members of the Chamber of Commerce were called upon and delivered speeches in opposition to an outside or "foreign" union. 11 This finding is based on the credited and uncontradicted testimony of McMillin. McAlister, although not shown to be unavailable, was not called as a witness 21 These findings are based upon a stipulation of the parties entered into at the hearing as a result of an off-the-record examination of the employees' time cards. 21 Witnesses for both respondents testified that it was not unusual for local business men to tour the plant. In view of the "timing" of the visit above referred to, under the then existing circumstances, the undersigned finds below that the "tour" was a part of the joint collaboration of the respondents to discourage CIO membership and encourage membership in the Home Union 22 WHAT ABOUT FAYETTEVILLE'S FUTURE IF A C. I . 0. UNION Is FORMED HERE? We have many workers and Fayetteville is prosperous, but if workers are jobless, mercantile establishmehts close their doors and business falls off when the people are without money. Fayetteville citizens are interested in seeing their workers get the best out of their work, their money and their lives If Unionized by. C I 0., workers will be allowed to work when some Communistic Union Leader thinks best. Fayette- ville will be afflicted with a labor condition kin to leprosy, FOR WHICH THERE IS NO CURE. Decatur, Copperlull, Huntsville and South Pittsburg all had trouble and serious it was Rockwood' s mills and furnaces rotted down, riots took place and many were lulled. They know what foreign Unions do to the whole people. Shelbyville arose as one man and said "NO C. I. 0. HERE." Shelbyville workers are prosperous. All are satisfied Where does your money go that is paid to unions such as C. I O 9 Workers will never know Their C. I. 0 leaders have big salaries and who are they? They-are Communists, Fascists and Nazis, but NOT AMERICANS. Common sense should rule. 712344-47-vol 70-49 756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On or about February 17, the plant employees were required to sign their names and addresses on the back of their time cards. Shortly thereafter the employees began to receive through the mails free copies of an anti-union and a particularly anti-CIO paper entitled "Militant Truth" 23 On or about March 8 Smith approached Koonce during working hours at the latter's place of work and offered her a copy of the Militant Truth 2' Koonce re- fused to accept a copy and informed Smith that she had burned her own copy. Smith then said that when Koonce did so she "burned the Bible " 25 On March 24 the respondent Chamber of Commerce gave a banquet in honor of the members of the Home Union. President Sugg of the Chamber of Commerce presided and along with "Andy" Largen both delivered speeches. C. A. Edwards president of Blue Ridge and Claude Glenn" of Nashville and Plant Manager Edwards also attended the banquet None of the three delivered talks. No mention of unions was made at the banquet except that Esther Baldwin as presi- dent and Effie Richardson as secretary of the Home Union were introduced to those assembled Neither of them addressed the gathering. While respondent Blue Ridge is a dues paying member of the Chamber of Commrc non of its officials are listed as members or pay dues as individuals. On or about May and after the Chamber of Commerce began organizing the Blue Ridge employees, the CIO mailed a circular to the employees in which it" was stated among other things and in substance that the Home Union was "or- ganized for the benefit of the Blue Ridge Shirt Company".28 That is a good town. No hatred here. We are unified. Not divided We can keep what we make, work when and where we please and be slaves to nothing WE WANT NO RACKETEERS OR GANGSTERS to meet workers at the gate and tell them what to do We want to be in a position to invite other industries to come and to employ our free labor. WHAT ARE You GOING To Do ABOUT IT MASS MEETING AT THE COURT HOUSE FRIDAY NIGHT, MARCH 9TH, 8. 00 O'CLOCK Special Invitation Extended to Shirt Plant Workers to be Present FAYETTEVILLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE [Italics added] 23 Both respondents and the intervenor disclaim knowledge or responsibility for circula- tion of the sheet in question The record contains no evidence as to who was in fact respon- sible for such circulation and the undersigned, notwithstanding that it is apparent that the editor of the sheet must have procured a mailing list of the employees from some source, makes no finding on this point. 24 Since it is found herein that forelady Smith circulated such sheet in the plant the undersigned finds that respondent Blue Ridge is chargeable for Smith's conduct in this connection 25 This finding is based upon Koonce's credited testimony. Smith testified that she did not "remember" giving Koonce a copy of Militant Truth, but did "remember" giving her "a little old circular teasing her about it." Smith subsequently admitted saying that when Koonce burned her copy of such paper she had "burned the Bible" because it "had scriptures there from the Bible." On the foregoing and the record, as it applied to Smith, the under- signed finds that Smith attempted to circulate the sheet, Militant Truth, in the plant during working hours and offered a copy to Koonce 28 President Edwards and Plant Manager Edwards are not related 24 Glenn was described as a Blue Ridge official by several witnesses, but his title was not given. Witnesses for respondent Blue Ridge did not dispute the claim that Glenn was a Blue Ridge official, nor did they further identify him. 28 This finding is based upon the contents of respondent Chamber of Commerce's circular which purports to answer such charge. The Union's circular was not offered in evidence BLUE - RIDGE SHIRT -MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 757 Respondent Chamber of Commerce put out a mimeographed answer to the CIO's .circular, reading as follows: To Employees of the Blue Ridge Shirt Company: Our attention has just been called by one of your workers to a portion of a printed circular being mailed to you by the C. I. 0. Organizers still trying to organize your plant, to the effect that it is the policy of the Government to encourage the organization of Labor Unions We have never taken the position that you do not have the i ight to organize-you do have such right. But we have been against the coininuntstic practices of the C. I. 0. WE ARE AGAINST THE SIT DOWN ^STR KE-AGAINST THE SLOW DOWN STRIKE-AGAINST SABOTAGE. AGAINST VIOLENCE: AGAINST COERCION AND INTIMIDATION-FOP ALL OF WHICH IT STANDS. We do believe in orderly collective bargaining. For this reason we have believed you should organize your own Union, and you have done so. The people of Fayetteville, the Chamber of Commerce who were in- strumental in bringing the shirt making industry to Fayetteville, and who have not one cent's interest in the plant for which you work, did so to pro- vide employment for Fayetteville people, are interested in seeing that you have continuous work and in getting the best wages and working conditions possible. YOU HAVE ORGANIZED YOUR OWN UNION THROUGH WHICH BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS ARE IN No WAY INTERESTED IN YOUR EMPLOYER, Cu -1SECURE THE BEST POSSIBLE The tactics of the C. I 0. trying to oigaiize your plant is that of coercion and intimidation. There is no LAW that REQUIRES you to join the C. I. 0. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO JOIN THE UNION OF YOUR CHOICE. The C. I. 0. knowing that your local Union now has a large majority of your workers as members, and the right to recognition as your bargaining agent, in order to prevent its recognition has made the false and trumped up charges that it is a Union organized for the benefit of the Blue Ridge Shirt Company. THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF FAYETTEVILLE IS INTERESTED ONLY IN YOUR BEHALF AND OF FAYETTEVILLE. WE BELIEVE YOUR OWN UNION CAN DO MORE FOR YOU AND WILL Do MORE FOR You THAN ANY OUT-OF-TOWN BUNCH WHO ARE INTERESTED ONLY IN THE FEES AND DUES COLLECTED FROM YOU. IF YOU WILL STICK By YOUR OWN UNION THE C. I. 0. CAN Do NOTHING AND WHEN THE FALSE CHARGES OF THE C. I. 0. ORGANIZERS ARE DISPOSED OF YOUR UNION WITH THE HELP OF YOUR FAYETTEVILLE FRIENDS WILL BE ABLE TO SECURE FOR You ALL THAT ANY UNION POSSIBLY CAN. STICK BY YOUR GUNS ! STICK BY YOUR RIGHTS To JOIN THE UNION OF YOUR CHOICE ! FAYETTEVILLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (Emphasis in original. Employee Frankie Tucker first joined the CIO and subsequently, at the solici- tation of Esther Baldwin, president of the Home Union, who was a non-supervisory employee, she joined the Home Union. Baldwin told Tucker that all employees would probably be out of a job if the CIO "came in." Baldwin testified that she never had said the plant would close, but that in soliciting members for the Home Union she did say that she "believed it would close if the C. I. 0. came in." Bald- 758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD win further testified that she made such statement for the reason that she did not believe that respondent Blue Ridge would stand for "what all them (C. I. 0.) would do-," because "it was unreasonable." Effie Richardson, secretary of the Home Union, testified that she too, told employees that she "thought" the plant would close if the CIO came in, and that she made such statements because "it was the general talk in the plant that it would. I had no authority whatever to say it." ° By mid-April approximately 100 employees had been induced to join the Home Union 90 On April 17 respondent Blue Ridge's attorney A. H. Roberts, Jr., wrote Attorney Holman as follows : DEAR MR. HOLMAN : re: Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Company. Not having heard from you since I was in Shelbyville, a few days ago, I thought I would write and see if any difficulty has developed in this matter. I believe that you were to make a written demand of the company to bargain collectively and exclusively with the union you represent, and also to request a list of the employees in order that the National Labor Relations Board in Atlanta might check your union cards against this list so as to determine whether you have a majority. If any trouble has arisen we would be very glad indeed to do what we can to help you iron it out , and desire to express our appreciation of the splendid efforts of you and the other gentlemen which bid fair to be successful. (Italics added On May 2nd, Attorney Roberts instructed respondent Blue Ridge to deliver to Holman a list of employees of the Blue Ridge Company in order that Holman could forward such a list along with Home Union membership cards to the Board's Atlanta Office. This instruction was complied with. After a list of employees had been furnished to the Home Union, Roy McCul- lough, CIO organizer, informed employee Anna Owens that he had learned that such a list had been furnished to the Home Union, and sent her to Edwards with a request that a copy of the pay-rolf list be furnished to the CIO. Edwards refused to furnish such a list 31 0 21 Several witnesses , in addition to Tucker, testified in substance to the effect that Baldwin and Richards had made statements to them such as the ones outlined above. The re- spondents and the intervener objected to the testimony and respondent Blue Ridge moved to strike the answers for the reason that neither Baldwin nor Richardson was a supervisory employee The undersigned reserved ruling and has herein denied the motions to strike, not, however, for the reason that Baldwin and Richaidson are or were supervisory em- ployees, but for the reason that it has been found herein that Plant Manager Edwards is directly responsible for such statement having been published by Rambo ; has had knowl- edge that the statement was being widely circulated ; and has never informed or advised employees that such statement was false . His refusal to deny or retract such statement would and did lead many employees to the belief that the plant would close if the CIO came in. 31 Among those so joining were employees who had first joined the CIO, Madeline Ham- mons, Omilaa Chest, Willyma Clayton, and Basha Carter ; each testified and the undersigned finds that they had joined the CIO before signing up with the Home Union 31 Respondent Blue Ridge, while contending that it was neutral as between the two or- ganizations, not only replied to correspondence received from the Home Union , but as set out above , wrote an encouraging letter ( not in response to any letter ), offering to "do what we can to help you iron" out any trouble and expressing appreciation of the efforts of Hol- man "and the other gentlemen which bid fair to be successful " On the other hand when it received letters from the CIO no reply or acknowledgment was made BLUE RIDGE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 759 Contentions of the patties a. Respondent Blue Ridge contends in substance and effect : (1) that it had no part in the formation of the Home Union and that none of the acts that were taken by respondent Chamber of Commerce were authorized or assisted by it ; (2) that it has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees nor au- thorized such action by any of its supervisory employees. As to the first contention the record discloses, as is found and detailed herein- before, that when Plant Manager Edwards learned that the CIO was attempting to organize the plant he discussed the situation with Frank Rambo, the owner of the plant building, and informed him that if the CIO came in he would have his building on his hands ; that Edwards was present with a group of Chamber of Commerce members when the matter of getting the employees together was discussed and while he did say that his hands were "tied" he did nothing to discourage the Chamber of Commerce group from seeking to get the employees together in order to discourage them from joining the CIO. On the contrary, on the day of the first meeting, January 31, Edwards excused all but two em- ployees of a group ranging from 10 to 60, who normally worked overtime and until 5: 00 p. m. In order that they could attend the January 31 meeting. Also as found above, Edwards excused a large majority of the overtime workers on February 22 and 27 and on March 6, in order that they might attend Chamber of Commerce and Home Union meetings.82 Also as found above, following the January 31 meeting, at which Rambo-informed the employees that Edwards had stated if the CIO came in lie would have his building on his hands, Edwards escorted a Chamber of Commerce committee headed by President Sugg and Secretary-Manager McCowan through the plant and thereby, in effect, served notice on the employees that he approved of the Chamber of Commerce activity in discouraging membership in the CIO. By informing the Moore sisters, as found above, that they had missed good speeches by not attending the January 31 meeting and calling their attention to the fact that Rambo had stated that if the CIO came in he would have his building back, thus disclosing his knowledge of Rambo's talk and his approval thereof, and also by telling the Moore sisters "to my way of thinking Mr Holman is a mighty shrewd lawyer" he thereby gave tacit approval to Holman's idea of a home union. Also as found above, respondent Blue Ridge showed its further approval of the Chamber of Commerce and Home Union activities by having its president, C. A. Edwards and Plant Manager Edwards attend the Chamber of Commerce banquet on March 24. By the acts above described, respondent Blue Ridge ratified, adopted, and accepted the benefits of the Chamber of Commerce activity. Contention one is without merit. As to the second contention, as found and detailed above, Plant Manager Ed- wards sought to discourage Josephine Koonce from joining the CIO by questioning her concerning her union activity ; by referring to the CIO organizers as "strang- ers" who met in "back alleys" ; and by seeking to learn the names of the organizers and whether or not they had shown credentials. By Edwards' action in sug- gesting to Raymond Sweeney that he attend the January 31 meeting ; by the action of Forelady Martin in suggesting to Edith Brown that she should likewise s'+ The number of overtime workers excused on the occasions referred to above is dis- closed by the time card records of the Blue Ridge employees. The record herein does not disclose that there were any other occasions, other than those on which the Chamber of Commerce and/or Home Union meetings were held, that a great proportion of the overtime workers were excused at 4: 00 o'clock. 760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD attend the January 31 meeting ; by the action of Forelady Smith in telling Koonce that the plant would move to Nashville and those employees who had been active in behalf of the CIO would be unable to get jobs in Fayetteville in the event the CIO organized the plant ; by the acts of Forelady Smith in dis- tributing copies of the anti-CIO sheet "Militant Truth" in the plant and telling Koonce that when the latter burned a copy of the sheet she had "burned the Bible" ; by the action of Foreman Virgil McAlister in suggesting to Dalton McMillin and three other employees working'under McAlister's supervision that they attend the February Chamber of Commerce-Home Union meeting at which a constitution was adopted ; by the acts of Baldwin and Richardson in telling employees that they believed that the plant would close in the event the CIO came in, which belief arose out of the fact that Edwards had started the story that if the CIO came in Rambo would have his building on his hands, which story Edwards, although so requested by the CIO representatives refused to either deny or retract ; and by adopting and accepting benefits of the activities of the Chamber of Commerce, which included the distribution of circulars describ- ing the CIO as Communists, Fascists, Nazis, not Americans, the respondent Blue Ridge interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees and authorized such action by its supervisory employees. This contention is without merit. - b. Respondent Chamber of Commerce contends in substance and effect: (1) that while it took certain actions in connection with the employees of Blue Ridge as a Chamber of Commerce, when it did so "it only exercised its rights fo discuss and inform people concerning the advantages and disadvantages of unions and joining them, in the use of free speech and as a part of free assembly ; (2) denied that it is an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act; and (3) denied that it interfered with, restrained, or coerced Blue Ridge employees in violation of the Act. As to the first contention the record discloses, as is found above, that as soon as the Chamber of Commerce learned from Frank Rambo that Edwards had in effect threatened to close the plant if the CIO came in, a group of the Chamber of Commerce members met and determined to call a meeting of the Blue Ridge employees for the purpose of disciiuraging them from joining the CIO; they consulted with Edwards and were advised in effect that he could take no active or ostensive part: they then proceeded to hold the meeting on January 31 at which was delivered a number of anti-CIO talks and, as found above, formation of the Dome Union was finally suggested ; that thereafter Chamber of Com- merce members met with Holman at his office where a meeting of some of the employees was held and formation of the Home Union was discussed and en- couraged; that members of the Chamber of Commerce met with employees on February 22 and 27 and on March 6; that Chamber of Commerce issued mimeographed circulars in opposition to claims made by the CIO; that on March 9 it issued a scurrilous circular, set out above, advertising a mass meet- ing to be held that evening at which time members of the Chamber and others delivered anti-CIO speeches, and finally, as found above, the Chamber gave a banquet in honor of the Home Union membership, all of which action as is disclosed by the record was taken in the interests of respondent Blue Ridge for the purpose of keeping the CIO from organizing the plant. This contention is without merit. As to the second contention, respondent Chamber of Commerce contends that it is not an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act because it has no part of the management of Blue Ridge plant; no authority to hire or fire and is not in a position to threaten reprisals. It has been found above that the respondent Chamber of Commerce conducted its campaign to keep the CIO out of the plant in the interests of respondent Blue Ridge. In this case re- BLUE RIDGE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 761 spondent Blue Ridge has tacitly made respondent Chamber of Commerce its agent and the latter is, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, an employer : It is obvious and it is reasonable to hold that the interpretation of the Act makes one who aids the immediate employer in contravening this statute an employer also. N. L R. B. v. Grower Shipper Vegetable Ass'n, 122 F. (2d) 368 (C. C. A. 9) ; N. L. R. B. v. Taylor-Colquitt Co., et at., 140 Fed. (2d) 92 (C. C. A. 4) From the above and the record it appears that respondent Chamber of Commerce is an employer within the meaning of the Act. It is so found. This contention is without merit. As to the third contention the record discloses, as found and detailed above, that respondent Chamber of Commerce, by the anti-CIO speeches of its members, by the publication and distribution of circulars, and by giving publicity to Plant Manager Edwards' statement made to Rambo to the effect that if the CIO came in the plant building would be vacated, respondent Chamber of Commerce aided and assisted in convincing a considerable portion of the Blue Ridge em- ployees that the plant would close and they would lose their jobs in the event CIO organized the plant and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in violation of the Act. c. Intervenor,PEIU or Home Union contends in substance and effect: (1) that neither of the respondents had or took any part in the formation of the Home Union; that respondent Chamber of Commerce sought not only to keep the CIO union out of the plant, but sought to keep any union out of the plant, and that the proposition to organize the Home Union was proposed by Attorney Holman on his own responsibility without the prior knowledge or consent or either respondent; and (2) that the employees who joined the Home Union did so of their own free will and without coercion from either of the respondents. As to the first contention, as found above, it is true that the Chamber of Com- merce at the outset sought tc keep any union out of the plant and also, as it found above, the Home Union was proposed as the means of doing this very thing It is nevertheless clear that the Chamber of Commerce collaborated in and joined in the effort to organize the Home union, as is evidenced by the fact that after the Home Union oiganization got under way it called the mass meeting described above for the purpose of discouraging membership in the CIO and subsequently gave the banquet, above referred to, in honor of the Home Union employees. This contention is without merit. As to the second cou.tention, the intervening Home Union contends that the employees who joined it did so of their own free will and without coercion from either respondent. It is found above, and the record clearly discloses, that as a result of the activities of both respondents a great portion of the employees became convinced that if the CIO organized the plant it would either be closed or moved elsewhere. This is particularly evidenced by the fact that President Baldwin and Secretary Richardson of the Home Union admitted that they believed that such was the fact and conveyed such belief to the employees they contacted in an effort to gain their membership. This contention is without merit d Final conclusions (a) From the above and the record it appears and the undersigned finds that respondent Blue Ridge was determined to keep the CIO from organizing its plant; that Plant Manager Edwards informed Rambo that if the CIO got into the plant, Rambo as owner of the plant building would have a vacant building on his hands ; that respondent Chamber of Commerce, with Rambo's assistance, gave wide 762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD publicity to Edwards' threat to close the plant; that the CIO requested respond- ent Blue Ridge to either deny or retract Edwards' threat without avail; that under the circumstances , described above, the respondent Blue Ridge should, in all fairness to its employees , have assured the latter that Edwards' threat did not meet with its approval ; that, having failed to do so and by its ratification, adoption , and' acceptance of the benefits of the illegal activities of respondent, Chamber of Commerce , described above, both respondents jointly and severally interfered with, restrained , and coerced the employees of respondent , Blue Ridge, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. (b) From the above and the record it further appears and it is found that both respondents , jointly and severally , have assisted , dominated , contributed to the support of, and, interfered with the administration of the Fayetteville Em- ployees Industrial Union and thereby interfered with, restrained , and coerced the employees of the respondent , Blue Ridge, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and each of them has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 2) of the Act. B. The, discriminatory discharge of Mrs. Billie Cunningham. 1. Events leading up to her discharge Cunningham was employed by respondent Blue Ridge on or . about July 1943 until on or about July 7, 1945, at which time she was , as is described below, dis- charged. The complaint alleges and the answer denies that she was discharged for CIO activities. She was hired as a final inspector of shirts and performed no other work until she became ill. Prior to the advent of Edwards as plant manager , she and .osephine Koonce both worked as inspectors . Cunningham at that time was provided with a stool and was able to do her work sitting down. After Edwards arrived one final inspector was assigned to the job and it wa$ necessary for Cunningham or Koonce to take over a folding job. Koonce was assigned to the folding job. In this connection Forelady Smith testified: Q. Why did you put Josephine ( Koonce ) on folding then instead of Cun- ningham? A. Mrs. Cunningham , she claimed she didn't think she could do it, and Josephine agreed to take it. Cunningham continued final inspection thereafter until, as is described below, on or about April 26, 1945. Cunningham joined the CIO in February and became a member of the organizing committee and actively solicited membership in the CIO. On one occasion while she was talking to the CIO organizers in front of the plant , Edwards passed by and admittedly noticed that she was thus engaged. On an occasion when Cunningham attended a CIO meeting over Kuhn's,5 & 10 cent store on the "Square" in Fayetteville , Forelady Smith was on the sidewalk as Cunningham came out. During the latter part of April, Cunningham had occasion to call on her doctor who examined her and advised her that she had varicose veins. She had re- ceived Edwards' permission to call on the doctor. The doctor advised her to take some time off and at Cunningham's request wrote a note to Edwards to the effect that she should be let off for a few days . On or about April 26 she showed the note to Edwards and he asked when she wanted to get off. She replied that she would work the rest of the week so that Edwards could get someone in her place, since she was tj e-only inspector there. When she left she informed Fore- lady Smith that she would be off the following Monday and return on the follow- ing Thursday. - BLUE RIDGE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 763 Cunningham returned, as she stated she would, on Thursday and went to her usual place of work and found one Nora Weir doing the inspecting. Edwards called her into the cutting room and said he did not know she was coming back to work that morning, and in Smith's presence Cunningham told Edwards that she had informed Smith that she would be back on that day. Cun- ningham offered to check out and go home at that time if Edwards did not need her. Edwards however told her to go to her table and help Weir, with inspecting. Shortly thereafter Edwards called Cunningham again and said that he and Smith had decided to let her fold and were going to keep Weir on the inspection job. Cunningham then informed Edwards that she had never folded ; preferred her own job ; and stated that that was all she had ever done in the plant. Edwards then informed her that the "new arrangement" stood ; that she could not make her "task" at inspecting; and that he thought folding would be better for her. Cun- ningham continued to work with Weir on inspecting for a number of days and then was assigned to folding, which she attempted to do. Cunningham had a crippled left arm which had been injured from childhood and on which a number of operations had been performed. The crippled arm interfered and prevented her from continuing folding. Cunningham, shortly after being assigned to folding, went to Edwards and told him that she "couldn't take it any more" ; that she could not fold and requested her old job back. Edwards offered her a machine on the upper floor of the plant, which she could not take because it made her nervous and informed Edwards that she had been hired as an inspector only. Cunningham stated that she would take anything that Edwards thought she could do in the cutting room or at her same job. She was then advised by Edwards to leave her phone number and that he would call when they needed her She left the plant on July 7. She was never called back. Shortly thereafter she went to the plant in the company of her husband and re- quested reinstatement to her old position which was refused. 2 Respondent Blue Ridge's contention as to the discharge Edwards testified that Cunningham was dissatisfied with her work and wanted something whereby she could do better and make more money : And the job she was on required one to be on the job every day, and she was out sick quite a lot. In this same connection, Forelady Smith testified in substance that Cunning- ham asked for the folding job and that she had told Edwards that Cunningham wanted such job "and Bill (Cunningham) was out of work a lot . . . we really had to have someone on that job to keep it up." In this connection Smith testified : Q. Which is the harder job, folding or inspecting? A. Folding. Edwards testified that lie knew nothing about Cunningham's CIO activities; that she was still on the pay roll ; and was still covered under the group insurance policy carried by respondent Blue Ridge. He further testified that she had bor- rowed $50.00 from respondent Blue Ridge on her preferred stock. 3 Conclusions as to the discharge The undersigned does not credit the contention that Cunningham was assigned as a folder because she had requested it, in view of the fact that she had a crippled arm which interfered with her work as a folder ; because folding was harder work than inspecting ; and because it appears from Smith's own testimony that at the 764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD time it was necessary that either Cunningham or Koonce transfer from inspecting to folding Cunningham informed Smith, as detailed above, that she did not think she could do it. Neither does the undersigned credit the testimony of either Edwards or Smith to the effect that Cunningham was out sick a "lot." Cunningham 's time cards disclosed that from January until on or about April 28, Cunningham had been absent on but four occasions , which included the 3 days that she took off at the advice of her doctor during which time Weir replaced her. The undersigned does not credit the contention of Edwards that he did not know that Cunningham was a member of, or active in, the CIO. As found above , he admitted that he saw her talking with CIO organizers . He also testified that he consulted with Smith before determining to replace Cunningham in her inspection position with Weir. The record discloses that Weir is a member of the Home Union. In addition to all of which Forelady Smith testified as follows: Q. Now, talking about Mrs. Cunningham . you said after this Amalgamated (CIO) came up and Billie was in it you knew she was a member of the Amal- gamated, didn't you? A. I should have. That is about all I could hear. Q. About all you could hear from who? A. Mrs. Cunningham and Josephine Koonce, and I think, about the worse ones talking about it all the time. In view of the circumstances described above, it is reasonable to infer and the undersigned finds, that both Edwards and Smith were aware of Cunningham's CIO activity. Both Edwards and Smith testified to the effect that Cunningham did not keep up her work as inspector The credible testimony in the record is to the effect that she always kept up with her work and was not able to make her "task" for the reason that not enough shirts came through , with the result that it was necessary for her to check in late on some occasions and on other occasions to check out early. Several witnesses testified that she was a faster inspector than her successor Weir. This was not disputed by Edwards or Smith, who testified however that Weir had "now " become a competent inspector. Edwards also testified that : Q. What has been your practice , Mr. Edwards , about trying to keep an employee rather than get rid of them ; are they hard to get? A. Yes sir. We always try when we have got a person on the job that they are unable to do, we try to find a job that they can do, because we have done that at quite a great deal of expense-training them-training the girl on the job. If we find out she can't do it, we try her on another job. We spend a great deal of time trying to teach people and find out what work they can do best. In the case of Weir, she had been on Cunningham 's job for three days when Cun- ningham returned from her sick leave. Weir had had no previous experience at inspecting while Cunningham had done nothing else for two years. Cunningham was doing the job in a satisfactory fashion ; Weir had to learn it from the begin- ning. Cunningham was an obvious misfit as a folder because of her physical in- firmity, but at the same time the record is replete with testimony which clearly indicates that her injury did not affect the quality of her work as an inspector. If Edwards is to be taken at his word then, it must be presumed that unless he had an excellent reason for placing Cunningham in a job that she could not handle physically, at the same time replacing her in her old job with a person on whom he must lavish "a great deal of time" in - teaching her the job, he would not have done so. The above and the record lead to the reasonable conclusion and the BLUE RIDGE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 765 undersigned finds, that on July 7 respondent Blue Ridge refused to return Cun- ningham^ to her regular job as final inspector and has since that date refused, notwithstanding the promise to recall Cunningham , to reinstate her to her former or to a substantially equivalent position and thereby discharged her by reason of her activity in the CIO. The undersigned further finds that such action dis- couraged membership in the CIO and encouraged membership in the Home Union. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that respondent Blue Ridge "kept under surveillance the activities " of the CIO and the concerted activities of the em- ployees. While the record discloses that Forelady Smith and Nina Stevens, a non- supervisory employee, were present on the street at a time a CIO meeting dis- banded and were in a position to see those leaving the meeting, it is insufficient to support a finding of surveillance . Such portion of the complaint will be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III, above , occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent Blue Ridge described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the respondent Blue Ridge and the respondent Chamber of Commerce have dominated and interfered with the formation and adminis- tration of, and contributed support to , the Home Union . Its continued existence is a consequent violation of the Act, thwarting the purposes of the Act and would render ineffective a mere order to cease the unfair labor practices . This is true even though the respondent Blue Ridge has not formally recognized the Home Union as the collective bargaining agency of any of its employees . In order to effectuate the policies of the Act and free the employees from such domination and interference and the effects thereof which constitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed them by the Act, it will be recommended that the respondent Blue Ridge refrain from recognizing the Home Union and withhold all recognition from the Home Union as the repre- sentative of the employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent Blue Ridge concerning grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em- ployment and conditions of work, and to disestablish it as such representative. The undersigned has found that the respondent Blue Ridge discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Mrs. Billie Cunningham, thereby discouraging concerted activities by its employees . In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, it is recommended that the said respondent offer her im- mediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and that the respondent Blue Ridge make here whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equivalent to that which she normally would have earned as wages 766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from July 7, 1945, the date of her discriminatory discharge, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings" during said period. The undersigned has found that the respondent Chamber of Commerce is an employer under Section 2 (2) of the Act and has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of and contributed support to the Home Union, all in collaboration with, and as an agent for, respondent Blue Ridge. It will be recommended below that respondent Chamber of Commerce send notices in writing through the United States mail to all of its members and contributors, including the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., and to all employees of the respondent Blue Ridge, stating that it will cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing the employees of re- spondent Blue Ridge, in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining for their mutual aid and protection as guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the 'following : ^ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations and Fayetteville Employees Industrial Union, sometimes referred to as the "Home Union," unaffiliated, 'are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2 Fayetteville & Lincoln County Chamber of Commerce, Fayetteville, Tennes- see, is an employer of the respondent Blue Ridge employees, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. P 3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of Fayetteville Employees Industrial Union, also known as Home Union, and by contributing support to it the respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 4 By discriminating in the hire and tenure of employment of Mrs. Billie Cunningham, thereby encouraging membership in the Fayetteville Employees Industrial Union, sometimes, known as the Home Union, and discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manu- facturing Co , Inc., has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing the Blue Ridge Shirt Manu- facturing Co, Inc., employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 7. The respondent Blue Ridge has not kept the activities of the CIO and the concerted activities of the employees under surveillance. 31 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, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440 Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L R B., 311 U. S. 7. BLUE RIDGE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. RECOMMENDATIONS 767 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed recommends : A. That the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., Fayetteville, Tennessee, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or encouraging membership in the Fayetteville Employees Industrial Union, also known as the Home Union, by discriminatorily discharging and refusing to reinstate, any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment ; (b) Recognizing Fayetteville Employees Industrial Union, also known as the Home Union, or any successor thereto as the representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- ment, or other conditions of employment ; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employ- ees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection. as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withhold all recognition from Fayetteville Employees Industrial Union also known as the Home Union, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., concerning grievances , labor disputes, rates of pay , wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish Fayetteville Industrial Union, also known as the Home Union, as such representa- tive ; (b) Offer Mrs. Billie Cunningham immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges ; (c) Make whole the said Mrs. Billie Cunningham for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of discrimination against hei, by the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co, Inc., by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount which she would normally have earned as wages but for the discrimination against her, by respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., in the manner set forth in the Section entitled "The remedy" ; (d) Post at its plant at Fayetteville, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, after being duly signed by the respond- ent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc 's, representative, shall be posted by the said respondent immediately on receipt thereof and maintained for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter , in conspicious places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps should be taken by the said respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material ; 768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing withip ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the said respondent has taken to comply therewith. It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it - alleges that respondent Blue Ridge has kept the activities of the CIO and the concerted activities of the employees under surveillance. B. That the respondent Fayetteville & Lincoln County Chamber of Commerce, Fayetteville , Tennessee, and its officers , agents, successors , and assigns acting in the interest of the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., shall : (a) Cease, and desist from dominating , or interfering with the administration of Fayetteville Employees Industrial Union, also known as the Home Union, or with the formation and administration of any other labor organization of the employees of the respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., and from contributing financial or other support to Fayetteville Employees Indus- trial Union , also known as the Home Union, or to any other labor organization of respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc. ; (b) Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing the employees of respondent Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing `Yorkers of America, CIO , 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 for their mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at its office at Fayetteville, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by Regional Director for the Tenth Region, after being duly signed by respondent Chamber of Commerce's representative, shall be posted by said respondent immediately on receipt thereof and maintained for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are cus- tomarily posted. Reasonable steps should be taken by said respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material; (b) Immediately send copies of the said notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix B" duly signed by an authorized representative of the respondent Chamber of Commerce, through the United States Mails to all of its members and contributors , including Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co, Inc., and to all employees of the Blue Ridge Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Intermediate Report, what steps the respond- ent, Fayetteville and Lincoln County Chamber of Commerce, Fayetteville, Ten- nessee, has taken to comply herewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10 ) days from the` date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Blue Ridge Shirt Manufac- turing Co, Inc., and Fayetteville & Lincoln County Chamber of Commerce notify said Regional Director in writing that they will comply with the fore- going recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring them to take the action aforesaid. I As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rule's and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended , effective July 12, 1944, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date of BLUE RIDGE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 769 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, Rochambean Build- ing, 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 proceedings ( 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 statement of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same, shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director . As further pro- vided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. PETER F. WARD, Trial Examiner. Dated October 22, 1945. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re- lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : We hereby disestablish Fayetteville Employees industrial Union, also known as the Home Union, as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions-of employment, and we will not recognize it nor any successor thereto for any of the above purposes. We will not dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it. We will offer to the employee named below immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. Mrs. Billie Cunningham 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 Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. 11 BLUE RIDGE SHIRT MANUFACTURING CO, INC. Dated-------------------- By--------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO FAYEITEVILLE AND LINCOLN COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND TO THE BLUE RIDGE MANUFACTURING CO., INC., AND TO ALL OF ITS EMPLOYEES Pursuant to 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 members and contributors of said Chamber of Commerce, the Blue Ridge Manufacturing Co, Inc., and its employees that: We will not dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization ,or contribute financial or other support to it. We will not in any manner interfere with, restian, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization to form labor organizations, to join or assist AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, 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 other mutual aid or protection. FAYETTEVILE AND LINCOLN COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. Dated -------------------- By --------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.