Sewell Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY and AMALGAM- ATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO In the Matter Of WARREN SEWELL AND AVA SEWELL, D/B/A WARREN SEWELL CLOTHING COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO Cases Nos. 10-C-1821 and 10-C-1865, respectively .Decided January 15, 1947 Mr. Louis S. Belkin, for the Board. Mrs. Leora Barfield, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union. Mr. Shirley C. Boykin, of Carrolton, Ga., Mr. Alexander W. E. Wilson, Jr., of Atlanta, Ga., and Mr. Don B. Howe, of Tallapoosa, Ga., for the Corporation. Mr. Robert D. Tisinger, of Carrolton, Ga., and Mr. John I. Kelley, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Partnership. Mr. Paul Bisgyer, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER On August 2, 1946, Trial Examiner David Rein issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Corporation had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Corporation and counsel for the Board filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. On November 12, 1946, the Board heard oral argument at Washington, D. C., in Which both respondents partici- pated; the Union did not appear.' The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial 'The Union, however, sent a telegram to the Board requesting it to adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendations. 72 N. L. R. B., No 19. 85 86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Examiner with the modifications, additions and exceptions noted below. 1. As fully discussed in the Intermediate Report, the Trial Exam- iner overruled at the hearing the Corporation's objections to the con- solidation of the above cases and denied its motion to sever them. Pursuant to the Board's interim order issued during the hearing deny- ing the Corporation's appeal from the Trial Examiner's rulings with- out prejudice to raising the question on exceptions, the Corporation renewed its objections and motion in its Exceptions to the Intermedi- ate Report and at the oral -irgument. We have reviewed all the pro- ceedings and the record herein and find that, as the charge in Case No. 10-C-1865 alleged that the Partnership, as successor to the Corpora- tion, was responsible for certain acts of interference by the Corpora- tion, the cases were properly consolidated pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations.2 Moreover, we find that the consolidation did not create any confusion of issues, impair the Corporation's ability to defend, or otherwise prejudice its rights. Accordingly, we affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, overrule the Corporation's exceptions thereto, and deny its motion for a new hearing. 2. In its Exceptions, the Corporation generally charges the Trial Examiner with bias and prejudice and particularly excepts to his ruling denying its motion that he disqualify himself. The motion to disqualify was made for the first time after the Board had completed its case and the Corporation had put in a substantial part of its own case, and only after the Trial Examiner had denied one of the Cor- poration's motions to dismiss. In view of the charges leveled against the Trial Examiner, we have carefully scrutinized the record ; we find that the Trial Examiner con- ducted the hearing with cominendable fairness and impartiality and that there is absolutely no basis for any charge of bias or prejudice. Nor are we persuaded that there is any merit in the Corporation's motion to disqualify. Significantly, no evidence was offered, by affidavit or otherwise, to support the motion or even to make out a prima facie case for it. Moreover, a motion to disqualify must be timely made. Here, neither at the hearing nor in its Exceptions did the Corporation submit any facts to excuse its apparent lack of dili- gence in delaying its motion until the latter stages of the hearing and until after the Trial E :aminei• overruled its motion to dismiss." We, accordingly, overrule the Corporation's exceptions in this respect. 2 Article II, Section 36 (b) of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 3, as amended , since renumbered Section 203 42 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4 3 To account for the delay the Corporation merely makes the assertion in its Exceptions, without supporting facts, that "Respondent made allegation with respect to [the Trial Ex- aminer's] disqualification which it had at that time just found out on information which it believed to be true." SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 87 3. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Corporation, by vari- ous acts and statements of its supervisory employees, detailed in the Intermediate Report, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. In so doing, we adopt his finding that Supervisor Gardner engaged in surveillance of the Union's meeting hall and meetings, for which the Corporation was responsible. Unlike the Trial Examiner, however, we do not rely on similar acts of surveillance by non-supervisory employees Lewin Thompson, Lawrence Baxter, Hoyt Broadwell, and Ray Sewell, whose acts, we find, on the state of the record, are not imputable to the Corporation. As part of the Corporation's coercive conduct, the Trial Examiner properly found, in effect, that Lovvorn, the Corporation's secretary- treasurer in charge of production, reprimanded Troy Payton and another employee, Kugler, because of their protected union or con- certed activity with other employees in seeking to obtain a wage in- crease.4 Corroborating, in material respects, Troy Payton, whose credited testimony concerning this occurrence is summarized in the Intermediate Report, Supervisor Pritchard testified that Lovvorn, referring to Troy Payton's and Kugler's efforts to obtain a wage increase, told them that "they had caused a lot of disturbance on that job and other jobs and that they caused disturbance between the girls and things like that and said he didn't approve of that." Signifi- cantly, there is no evidence that either of these employees had at any time, in fact, created a disturbance. Pritchard further testified that, after Troy Payton and Kugler had retracted their previous notice that they intended to quit if no raise were forthcoming, Lov- vorn summoned two office employees to witness Troy Payton's and Kugler's reply to Lovvorn's question, "Do you want to work or do you not and go back to your machine and cause no more trouble?" We also concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that Supervisor Ivey's interrogation of employee Hr ralson concerning her member- ship in the Union was pen, se violative of the Act.5 Hence, contrary to the Corporation's contention, it is immaterial whether or not Haral- son believed herself thereby coerced. The test of interference, re- straint, and coercion under Section 8 (1) of the Act does not turn 4It has uniformly been held that concerted activity for the purpose of obtaining a wage increase is protected. See, for example, N. L. R B v. Central Steel Tube Co , 139 F (2d) 489 (C C A 8), enf'g 48 N. L R. B 604, N L. R. B. v. Condenser Corporation of America, 128 F. (2d) 67, 74-75 (C C A. 3), enf'g as modified 22 N L. R B 347, N. L. R. B. v. Tovrea Packing Co., 111 F. (2d) 626, 629 (C. C. A 9), enf'g as modified, 12 N. L. R. B. 1063, cert denied 311 U S 668 To the same effect, see N L R B v Ilymie Schwartz d/b/a Lion Brand Manufacturing Company, 146 F (2d) 773, 774 (C C A 5), enf'g 55 N L. R B 798 'It J Heinz Co v N L R B , 311 U S 514, 518, 520, P 77. Glatfelter Co v N L. R. B, 141 F (2d) 631, 6..33 (C C A 3) , N L. R B v. Cities Service Oil Co, 129 F. (2d) 933, 934 (C C A 2) 88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD upon the success or failure of the attempted coercion, but rather hinges upon whether the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reason- ably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act.' Consequently, the Trial Examiner properly excluded, on the Board attorney's objection, questions which the Cor- poration's attorney asked Haralson on cross-examination regarding her reaction to Ivey's interrogation. 4. The Trial Examiner also found that the Corporation, after re- suming operations following the economic lay-off, refused to reem- ploy Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee Payton, Lonle Summerville, Cordia Payton, James O. Lee, and Bunnie McPherson, all of whole had made timely application for work, because of their union activity, and thereby violated Section 8 (3) of the Act. We, however, only agree that the Corporation discriminated against Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee Payton and Lonie Summerville, and find that there is insufficient evidence to support the finding with respect to the remaining three complainants. As discussed in the Intermediate Report, Eppe Summerville, al- though concededly a competent employee with 14 years' experience in the Corporation's employ, was never recalled. The Corporation, how- ever, seeks to excuse its failure to rehire her solely on the ground that no work was available for her on resumption of operations, and that when an opening did subsequently arise she had another job. Yet, it does not satisfactorily explain why, about 6 weeks .before Eppe Summerville obtained other employment, the Corporation, without first offering her a position, hired for no particular work, as Secre- tary-Treasurer Lovvorn testified, "quite a number" of new and in- experienced employees whom it was obliged to train before assigning them to productive work. Moreover, Lovvorn's adinission at the hear- ing that he had made no effort to verify with Eppe Summerville whether she had other employment when work allegedly became available, and Eppe Slunmerville's uncontradicted testimony, which we credit, that during her interview for employment Lovvorn char- acterized her work as "one of the best," cast considerable doubt on, the validity of the Corporation's explanation. Viewing the Corporation's unpersuasive reason for not recalling Eppe Summerville, whose prom- inence in the union movement in the plant was well known to it,7 in the light of all facts and circumstances in the case, including its IN. L R. B v Illinois Tool Works, 153 F (2d) 811 (C. C. A. 7) ; Matter of Clark Bros. Co, Inc, 70 N L R B 802 4 Appraising Secretary-Treasurer Lovvorn's testimony in the light of all the evidence, we, like the Trial Examiner, cannot credit his denial of knowledge of Eppe Summerville' s union membership and activity, or the asserted reason for not recalling her. Similarly, we can- not credit his testimony concerning his lack of knowledge of the union membership and activity of Troy Payton and Lonic Summerville , whose cases are hereinafter discussed, and the reasons for not reemploying them. SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 89 other unfair labor practices, we are of the opinion and find that the Corporation was discriminatorily motivated in denying Eppe Sum- merville reemployment." With respect to Troy Payton, the Corporation contends that it did not rehire her when it reopened its plant because it selected only the best employees to fill its initial needs and Troy Payton was generally inefficient due to her absences from her machine and carelessness. Nonetheless, notwithstanding her alleged inefficiency, the Corporation admits that it would have reemployed her after production had gotten under way had she not in the meantime acquired other employment. Although the Corporation, unless unlawfully motivated, was privi- leged to select for employment those employees it deemed best quali- fied when it resumed operations, we, like the Trial Examiner, are unable, under the circumstances herein, to attach any credence to its explanation for not recalling Troy Payton. Thus, despite the fact that Troy Payton concededly possessed sufficient competence to war- rant reemployment, the Corporation nevertheless, without first offer- ing her a job, hired new and inexperienced employees. Nor are we satisfied that the record bears out the Corporation's assertion in its Exceptions that new employees were first hired after Troy Payton obtained other employment' Even were the contrary assumed, the record still does not convincingly establish that the Corporation acted on information of Troy Payton's new employment. Thus, although Lovvorn testified that he learned from "someone" about Troy Payton's new job, there is not only no evidence of the identity of the individual who supplied this information or the date it was given, but Lovvorn admittedly never troubled to ascertain the truth of this information with Troy Payton herself. That Troy Payton's new employment was not the real reason but a mere pretext for the Corporation's failure to rehire her is further demonstrated, quite apart from her conceded qualification for reem- ployment, by the fact that Payton was a capable employee whose effi- ciency compared very favorably with that of other employees who Were rehired. According to her uncontradicted testimony, which we 8 While union activity "in itself is no bar to the discharge of an employee for legitimate reasons, it may well disclose the real motive actuating an anti-union employer in discharge- ing such 4n employee when the reasons given for the action do not ring true." Burk Bros. y 1' L IL B , 117 F ( 2d) 686 , 687 (C C. A. 3), enf'g as modified , 21 N L It. B. 1281, cert. dewed 311 U S 588 11 The record does not precisely indicate the date when the Corporation began hiring new employees Lovvorn, during the early part of his testimony , testified that a new employee was lured in November 1945, and later in his testimony stated that such employee was hired about December , "possibly a month" after the Corporation resumed operations (viz, Novem- ber 1 , 1945). It is noteworthy that, although the Corporation could have verified from its records the precise dates it hired new employees , as it had done with respect to the employment history of other employees , it failed to do so. In these circumstances, we infer and find, as did the Trial Examiner , that the Corporation hired new employees before Troy Payton obtained other employment on November 29, 1945. 90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD credit, her production exceeded the average employee quota, she had been complimented for this by her supervisor, Pritchard, and she had never been criticized for poor work. Although Troy Payton was re- quired to redo some of her work because the stitches used were too long, Pritchard admitted that other employees, some of whom were subse- quently reemployed, were similarly required to correct their work. Besides, as Troy Payton also credibly testified without contradiction, less work was returned to her for restitching than to other employees. In this connection it is significant to note that there is no evidence that Payton had ever been admonished to decrease her production and im- prove the quality of her work. As for her absences from her machine, not only did Troy Payton testify credibly that she had never been reprimanded for such conduct,10 but the record discloses that it was a common practice for employees to leave their machines and it does not appear that Troy Payton abused this privilege more than her co-workers. Also, at her interview for reemployment, Lovvorn in- stead of mentioning her alleged inefficiency or improper absences from her machine, as would be expected if such were the case, merely asked her whether she was ready to return'to work. In view of Troy Payton's recognized satisfactory service, the ab- sence of any reasonable explanation for not recalling her, and the Corporation's other unfair labor practices, we find that the Corpora- tion's true motive in not offering her employment was her membership in and activity on behalf of the Union. We, like the Trial Examiner, also find that Lonie Summerville was denied reemployment because of her known union activities, and not for the reason urged by the Corporation that her work was undesirable. In addition to her 14 years' history of satisfactory employment with the Corporation, during which time the quality of her work had not materially changed, Lonie Summerville credibly testified, without contradiction, that her normal production output was almost double the average employee requirement. No evidence was adduced that she was ever admonished to decrease production and improve the quality of her work, or that she was directed to redo more work than other 10 In this respect, we do not credit the testimony of Lanier , who was in charge of the plant in which Troy Payton was employed , that lie had spoken to her about being away from her machine probably more than once, the last time being in the spring of 1945. Not only was Troy Payton 's testimony not contradicted by her immediate supervisor, Pritchard, who, it would be expected , would have reprimanded her if Troy Payton had , in fact, been away from her machine too much , but Lanier's testimony was indefinite and unconvincing. Thus, Lanier merely testified that he was "not positive about going to her personally myself and saying a whole lot about her work but [he had] spoken to her about being away from her machine and getting up and going out before recess and leaving the machine," and that he was not positive "as to talking [ to her] more than once but in [his ] opinion [he had] spoken to her more than one time," the last occasion being in the spring of 1945. Even assuming that Lanier did speak to Troy Payton about her absences from the machine, the Corporation did not attach any significance to her purported misconduct inasmuch as it concedes that she was considered qualified for reemployment. SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 91 employees who were subsequently rehired. That the Corporation did not consider her work record inadequate for reemployment is further apparent from her undisputed testimony, which we credit, that at the time she filed her application Lovvorn asked her whether she was reach to return to work and whether she had read the Corporation's handbook. of rules and regulations. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Corporation's failure to rehire Lonie Summer- ville in preference to new and untrained employees, as it insists it would have clone in Troy Payton's case despite the latter's alleged inefficiency, was motivated by its opposition to the Union, manifested in its anti-union conduct and the other discriminatory discharges discussed above. Accordingly, we find that the Corporation, by failing to reemploy Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee Payton, and Lonie Summerville, dis- criminated against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employ- ment, thus discouraging membership in the Union in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act "l We also find that by such conduct the Corporation interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8 (1) thereof. Whether the Corporation's discriminatory conduct be viewed as a violation of Section 8 (1) or Section 8 (3) of the Act, we find that effectuation of the policies of the Act requires the remedy set forth below. Turning to the Corporation's failure to reemploy Cordia Payton, Jaines O. Lee, and Burnie McPherson, we are not convinced that the record supports the Trial Examiner's finding that the Corporation was motivated by anti-union considerations. Thus, the evidence, in our opinion, does not adequately establish that Cordia Payton and Bunnie McPherson were leaders in the union movement at the plant or that the Corporation was aware of their union membership or activities. In these circumstances the Corporation's explanation for not reemploying Cordia Payton because of the poor quality of her work and her obstinacy in not obeying orders to correct defective work, which latter fact she did not deny at the hea ring, appears to be plausible. Similarly, the Corporation appears to have acted not un- reasonably in refusing to rehire Bonnie McPherson because, as the record discloses, she was not qualified to perform any of the new operations in the plant and her age and physical condition militated against teaching her a new job. As for Lee, who was a presser, there u The fact that the Corporation also failed to rehire 59 other former employees, as Lovvorn testified, does not, under the circumstances of this case, overcome the positive evidence of discrimination against these three employees , and we so find Triplex Screw Company v N L R B, 117 F (2d) 858, 861 (C C A 6), enf'g as modified 25 N L R B, 1126; N L. R. B. v. American Mfg. Co, 106 F (2d) 61, 67-68 (C. C. A 2), onf'g as modified 5 N L R B. 443, aff'd as modified 309 U S 629 92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD is no evidence that a position was available for him or that the Cor- poration's policy of filling openings with returning veterans was, under the circumstances herein, unreasonable. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint as to these three employees. 5. We have also considered the Board attorney's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's recommendation that the allegations of the amended complaint, that the Partnership discriminated against James 0. Lee and Hobart Entrekin, be dismissed, and we find the exceptions to be without merit.12 Accordingly, we shall overrule these exceptions. The Remedy We have found that the Corporation violated the Act by, among other things, interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliation and the identity of members of the Union, threatening to discontinue operations if the Union succeeded in its organizational campaign, reprimanding employees for their concerted or union activities in seeking a wage increase, and keeping the Union's meeting hall and meetings under surveillance. In addition, the Corporation actually penalized three employees involved herein for their organiza- tional and concerted, activities, by discriminatorily refusing them re- employment after it reopened its plant following an economic lay-oft. Such discrimination, in the language of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, "goes to the very heart of the Act." 13 Upon the entire record, we infer and find that the Corporation's illegal activities, mentioned above, disclose an intent to defeat self- organization and its objects, and an attitude of opposition to the pur- poses of the Act. Because of the Corporation's unlawful conduct and the underlying purposes manifested thereby, we are convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and that danger of commission in the future of any or all of the unfair labor practices defined in the Act is to be anticipated from the Corporation's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is co-extensive with the threat.'4 In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the 12 Although in our opinion there ii merit in the Board attorney 's contention that the amended complaint may reasonably be construed as alleging that the partneiship inde- pendently violated Section 8 (3) of the Act in refusing to hire Lee and Entrekin, we find that the i ecoi d does not support such a finding i' N L. R B. v Entwistle Manufacturing Co , 120 F. ( 2d) 532, 536 (C C A 4) See also N L R B v Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co, 116 F (2d) 350, 353 (C C A 7) i'N L R B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U S 426 , Mail Department Stores Co v. N L R B„ 326 U 8 376 SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 93 Act, we shall order the Corporation to cease and desist, not only from the unfair labor practices herein found, but also from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Laving found that the Corporation discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee Pay- ton, and Lonie Stulunerville, we shall order the Corporation to offer these employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their senior- ity or other rights and privileges, and to make them whole for any loss of pay they ivay have suffered by reason of the discruination against then by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which she normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discriniinatlon against her to the date of the Corporation's offer of reemployment, less her net earnings during said period. In- asinu_h as it is impossible to determine the exact date on which these employees would have been recalled to work had they not been dis- cruninated against, we shall fix the date of discrimination as the date on which the first female employee, not previously employed by the Corporation. was hired. lire also expressly reserve the right to modify the back-pay and ieinstatemneiit provisions if made necessary by a change of conditions in the future, and to make such supplements thereto as may hereafter become necessary in order to define or clarify their application to a specific set of circumstances not now apparent.15 ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Sewell Manufacturing Com- pany, Bremen, Georgia, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, by refusing to reemploy 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; Matter of Faumoot Cireamelil Company/, 64 N L it B 824 ; of N L. R 13 v New Yorl Nerchandls +na Co , 134 P ( 2d) 949 (C C A 2 ) International Un,on v Eagle Pieher Mining & Smelting Co 65 S Ct 1166 94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union member- ship, activities, or sympathies, or the identity of members of the above- named union or any other labor organization; (c) Warning its employees that it will close its plant or take other economic reprisals if the above-named union or any other labor or- ganization succeeds in organizing its plant; (d) Reprimanding its employees for engaging in concerted or union activities; (e) Engaging in surveillance of the meeting hall or meetings of the above-nailed union or any other labor organization; (f) 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, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee Payton, and Lonie Sum- merville immediate and full reinstatement to their former or suro- stautially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges ; (b) Make whole Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee Payton, and Lonie Summerville for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Corporation's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sure of money equal to the amount which she normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against her, as determined in the remedy section of our Decision, to the date of the Corporation's offer of reemployment, less her net earn- im,s during such period; (c) Post at its plant at Bremen, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 16 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Corporation's representative, be posted by the Corporation immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days, thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Corporation to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within ten (10) clays from the date of this Order, what steps the Cor- poration has taken to comply herewith. ',rn the event that this Order is enfoieed h, a dreiev of a Cn(nit Coint of A"seals, there shall be msrrtrd, before the words "A Decision and Ordei" the words ` A Decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals Enfoi eing SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 95 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis- missed, insofar as it alleges that the respondent, Sewell Manufactur- ing Company, has discriminated against Cordia Payton, James O. Lee, Bunnie McPherson, Hobart Entrekin, W. B. Rabun and Will W. Barger ; AND IT is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the respondents, Warren Sewell and Ava Sewell, doing business as Warren Sewell Clothing Company, engaged in unfair labor prac- tices, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. APPENDIX A NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : We will not discourage membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization by refusing to reemploy any of our employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of em- ployment, or any term or condition of employment. We will not interrogate our employees concerning their union affiliation, activities, or sympathies, or the identity of members of the above-named union, or any other labor organization. We will not threaten our employees to close our plant or take other economic reprisals if the above-named union or any other labor organization succeeded in organizing our plant. We will not reprimand our employees for engaging in con- certed or union activities. We will not engage in surveillance of the meeting hall or meet- ings of the above-named union or any other labor organization. We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination : Eppe Summerville Troy Lee Payton Louie Summerville We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, 731242-47-vo] 72-S 96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to form labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Cloth- ing 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 bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate iii regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of member- ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor o rganization. --------------------------------- -- (Employer) By ---------------------- ------------ (Representa tive ) ( Title) Date ---------------------------- NOTE : This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Cllr. Louis S. Belkoi, for the Board nibs Leora Barfield, of Atlanta , Ga., for the Union Messrs Shiley C Boilkiii, of Car:olt•n. Ga , 4lexandei 1V E. Wilson. Ji , elf Atlanta, Ga, and Don B Howe, of Tallapoosa , Ga, for the Corporation Messrs. Robert D . Tisvngei, of Cariolton , Ga, and .Jolin I Kelley, of Atlanta, Ga, for the Partnership. STATEMENT OF TSIE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (C10), herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated May 10, 1946, against Sewell Manufacturing Company, herein called the Corporation, alleging that the Corporation had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section S (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act Theieatter, charges were filed by the Union against Warren Sewell and Ava ,Sewell, d/b/a Wai ren Sewell Clothing Company and the two cases were con- solidated by an order of the Board dated May 29. 1946 Thereafter, the com- -plamt ironed against the Corporation was withdrawn, and the Board, by its Regional Director issued its complaint on the consolidated cases dated May 31, 1946. against the Corporation and the Partnership alleging that both had en- gaged in and were engaging in unfair labor piactices aftecting commerce within the meaning of Section S (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the Corporation, the Partnership, and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the Corporation had inteifered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by urging, per- SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 97 suading and warning its employees to refrain from joining or retaining member- ship In the Union; keeping under surveillance the activities, meetings, and meeting places of the Union; inquiring of its employees whether they were members of the Union ; and holding out its attorney, Clifford R Wheeless, to be an impartial neutral observer, not paid for his services, and providing said Wheeless with company time and property for the purpose of restraining eur- ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 The complaint further alleged that the Partnership was a successor to the Corporation and as such responsible for the unfair labor practices of the Corporatioi set forth above The complaint fun they alleged that the Corporation had discharged or laid off and thereafter failed or refused to reemploy Troy Lee Payton, Cordia Payton, Eppe Summerville, Lonie Suniuerville, Bunnie D. McPherson, J 0 Lee,' W B. Rabun, Will W Barger, and Hobart Entrekin, because the said em- ployees engaged in concerted activities and joined and assisted the Union In addition, the complaint alleged that the Partnership, as the successor to the Corporation, and while continuing the employer-employee relationship previously established by the Corporation refused to hire or reemploy J O. Lee, because the said Lee engaged in concerted activities with other employees and joined and assisted the Union In their answers, both the Corporation and the Partnership admitted the allegations as to commerce, but each denied that it had engaged in and unfair labor practices, and that the Partnership was a successor to the Corporation 1'tirsuant no notice, a hearing was held from June 10 to 13, 1946, both dates inclusive, at Buchanan, Georgia,' before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Boaid, the Corporation, and the Partnership were represented by counsel, and the Union by a repre- sentative Full eppoitunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties At the opening of the hearing, both the Corporation and the Partnership moved to sever the cases, arguing, among other things, that the Board order consolidating the cases had been made without notice to them and hearing thereon These motions were denied by the undersigned The undeisigned also denied requests to hear evidence on the motion to sever before taking other evidence, and to postpone the hearing, in order to allow an appeal to the Board. Counsel for the Corporation thereafter dispatched a telegram to the Board appealing from these itihngs and requesting a hearing on the question of consolidation The Board, by telegraphic order dated June 13, 1946, denied the request for special appeal, without prejudice to renewal of the question on exceptions to the Intermediate Report Also at the opening of the hearing, counsel for the Partnership moved to make the complaint more specific. This motion was granted in part and denied in part During the hearing, counsel for the Corporation moved to dismiss the allegation in the complaint that the Corporation had discriminatorily discharged and there- after refused to reinstate Hobart Entrekin, on the ground that Entrekin's name was not included in the charge filed against the Corporation although it was in- 'This name appeared in the complaint as J C Lee, but at the hearing counsel for the Board stated that the correct name was J 0 Lee 2 On the first day of the hearing, the Trial Examiner of dered, that for the convenience of the parties , the hearing reconvene in the schoolhouse at firemen, Georgia During the luncheon recess, the school authorities withdrew the permission previously granted to hold the hearing there, and, accordingly, the hearing reconvened at Buchanan when the hear- ing was reconvened, counsel for the Board moved that the heal fug be moved to Atlanta, Georgia Upon objection by counsel for the Corporation, this motion was denied 98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD eluded in the charge filed against the Partnership The motion was denied by the undersigned.' At the close of the Board's case, the Corporation and the Partnership renewed their motions to sever which were denied by the undersigned The Corporation also moved to dismiss paragraph 5 (d) of the complaint with regard to the activi- ties of one ii'heeless, and both the Corporation and the Partnership moved to dis- miss the entire complaint All of these motions were denied Counsel for the Corporation also moved to dismiss the allegation of the complaint that the Union was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the-Act The undersigned, in denying this motion, stated for the record that the reference to Section 2 (6) of the Act in the complaint was obviously a clerical error, since it is Section 2 (5) of the Act that defines the term labor organization } Toward the end of the third day of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to amend the complaint to allege that the Partnership, as a successor to the Corpo- ration, had discrimmatoi•ily refused to hire or reemploy Hobart Entrekin. This amendment was allowed over the objections of both the Partnership and the Cor- poration s The Partnership and the Corporation thereupon renewed their motions to sever, counsel for the Corporation placing his motion on the ground that the cases were originally consolidated "to allow this man [the Board attorney] to go on a fishing expedition"' These motions were denied by the undersigned. Coun- sel for the Corporation then moved to dismiss the complaint. on the ground that by allowance of the amendment against the Partnership the Corporation had been denied due process of law Upon denial of this motion by the undersigned, counsel for the Corporation moved to disqualify the undersigned.' The undei- signed denied this motion without comment Since, however, counsel for the Cor- poration renewed this motion in their memorandum brief to the undersigned, it would be desirable, at this point, to comment briefly on the reasons for the denial of the motion. In the first place, the undersigned denied the motion because it was not timely made A motion to disqualify an Examiner on the ground that he,is biased or partisan is a serious matter. Any attorney who has within his possession facts which justify such a motion, owes it to his client and the Board to present such facts at the outset of the hearing in order to prevent a miscar- riage of justice It is liiiidly propel, however, ton an attorney to withhold knowl- edge of such facts and reveal them, only after the hearing is more than half completed, and because the Examinee has denied a motion of his or ruled against him on said point. To allow such a procedure would make it impossible to con- a That every single clement in a complaint issued by the Board need not be covered by a charge filed with the Board has been expressly decided by the Supreme Court National Licorice Co v N L. R B , 309 U S 350 See also Matter of The Halls Brothers Company, 67 N L It B 1249 At the time the representative for the Union moved to amend the charge Since the Board Rules and Regulations do not pros ide for the filing of charges with a Trial Exanunci, this motion was denied 4It should be noted that Mr Wilson, counsel for the Corporation on having his attention directed to this clerical error, made a claim of "surprise " 5 -Mr Wilson, counsel for the Corpoiation, stated shat although "at first blush" it would appear that the Corpoiation was not affected by this amendment, lie nevertheless believed the interests of the Corporation might in some manner be involved It should also be noted that after the allowing of the ansendinent none of the pasties asked for a continuance '' Der Wilson, for the Corporation, added the additional ground that he was "outr.iged 7 This followed a request that the undervgned take the stand, which request was denied Mr Wilson, for the Corporation, then stated lie could prove that the undersigned was "one of the founders of a union of employees of the NLRB and that as such , [ he] at- tempted to amalgamate that union to the CIO." SEWELL MAN I FACTL; PING COMPANY 99 duct orderly hearings Moreover, such conduct on the part of the attorney in- volved reflects not an attempt to secure justice for his client but rather 'an eftort to intimidate the presiding officer. Secondly, the undersigned does not consider that the statement made by counsel for the Corporation, assuming for this purpose that the statement is supported by evidence,' would constitute a basis for disqualification. The Partnership, at the close of the Corporation's case, again moved to dismiss the complaint, which motion was denied. At the close of the hearing, the Partner- ship again renewed this motion, and the Corporation renewed its motions made during the hearing These motions were taken under advisement, and aie dis- posed of by the findings and conclusions of this Intermediate Report Although afforded an opportunity to do so, none of the parties argued orally. The Corporation and the Partnership filed memorandum briefs with the undersigned. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the unden signed makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE CORPORATION AND THE PARTNERSHIP Sewell DIanutacttuing Corporation is a Georgia corporation with its prin- cipal place of business at Bremen, Georgia. During the year prior to September, 1945, the Corporation purchased a substantial amount of cloth and trimmings for men's clothing, a major portion of which was shipped to its plants at Bremen and Bowden, Georgia, from points outside the State of Georgia During the same period, the Corporation manufactured, produced, and sold a substantial amount of men's clothing, of which a major portion was shipped outside the State of Georgia. Since September 20, 1945, the Corporation purchased a substantial amount of cloth and trimmings for men's clothing, of which a major portion was shipped to its plant at Bremen, Georgia, from points outside the State of Georgia. During the same period, the Corporation manufactured, produced and sold at its Bremen plant a substantial amount of men's clothing, a major portion of which was shipped outside the State of Georgia. Warren Sewell and Ava Sewell, doing business as Warren Sewell Clothing Company, is a partnership established in the Site of Georgia and engaged in the business of manufacturing men's clothing at Bremen and Bowden, Georgia. In the 6 months prior to the hearing, it received raw materials in excess of 50 percent of its total intake of raw materials from points outside the State of Georgia. During the same period, it shipped finished products in excess of 50 percent of its total production to points outside the State of Georgia. At the hearing, both the Corporation and the Partnership conceded that they were engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. II THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Corporation and the Partnership. 8 Although it is unnecessary for a ruling on the motion to disqualify to determine the truth or falsity of Mr. Wilson's allegation, nevertheless, to clear the record on this point, the undersigned wishes to take this opportunity to state that the accusations upon which Mr. Wilson based his motion to disqualify, set forth in footnote 7, supra, are not true. 100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coetcion 1 In general In 1944 the Corporation was manufacturing clothing at three plants, two in Bremen, Georgia and one in Bowden, Georgia In the spring of 1944, the Union began an organizing drive among the Corporation's employees, and starting with June, 1944, the Union held regular monthly meetings at a union hall in Bremen. The oigamzi ng activities were carried on openly in the plant and in town, and knowledge of the Union's campaign was widespread throughout the town and the plant. The Board introduced testimony to show acts of interference, restraint and coercion by the Corporation's officers and supervisors after the commencement of the organizational campaign Substantially all of this testimony was denied by witnesses for the Corporation. It is accordingly, necessary, to review all of these incidents and make findings based on ci ed ability in each case Three of the Board witnesses ° testified about a speech made to the assembled employees of the Brennen plant in August, 1944, by A. R Lovvorn, secretary- treasuier of the Corporation and in charge of production According to their testimony, Lovvorn in his speech spoke "about how Bremen had prospered during the time the plant has been there without outside help and they didn't need outside interference to keep on." Lovvorn admitted making this speech, although lie placed the time at about December, 1944 He testified, however, that lie was referring to the problem created by employees leaving to work in munitions and airplane factories in the vicinity. The undersigned cannot credit this testimony that Lovvorn would refer to the efforts to hire away his employees as "outside help" and finds that Lovvoin was in fact referring to the oiganizational campaign. This finding is fns then supported by the credited testimony of Troy Lee Payton, that Lovvorn did not in this speech say anything about employees leaving the plant, as well as by the incidents recounted) below. In July or August, 1944, several of the employees working on canvass, gave not ice that because of the Corporation's refusal to give them a raise, they would quit. According to Troy Lee Payton, Lovvorn called in the two employees most active in organizing this movement, Troy Payton and Betty J. Kugler, "and he said he had tried to get us a raise and that it looked like we was trying to cause trouble and he said it looked like we was trying to tell him what he could or couldn't do and nobody could tell him what he should or shouldn't do and that was his place and no union could tell him what he could or couldn't do " In the version of Flora Pritchard, Payton's supervisor, Lovvorn made substantially all of these statements but did not mention the Union Lovvorn gave a somewhat different version of the incident but also denied that he mentioned the Union. The undersigned finds Troy Lee Payton's version of- this incident to be the most credible and finds that the conversation occurred as testified to by her10 Troy Lee Payton testified further that in July, 1944. her supervisor Flora Pritchard, while seated next to Payton at her machine. began a conversation ° Eppo Summerville, Troy Lee Payton, and Lucille Shockley 10 This finding makes it unnecessary to pass on the question, whether under Pritchard's vei Sion of the incident, Lovvorn's conduct, in the absence of any mention of the Union, con- stituted an mterfei ence with concerted activity Cf. N. L R. B. v. Mackay Radio d- Tele- graph Co. 304 U S 333, 344, N L R, B v. Hymic Schioartz, 146 F. (2d) 773, 774 (C C A. 5) , Carter Carburetor Corp v N L R B, 140 F (2d) 714, 717-718 (C C A. 8) ; Firth Carpet Co v N L R B, 129 F (2d) 633, 636 (C C A 2) , Matter of Rockingham Poultry Marketing Cooperative, Inc, 59 N L R B. 486 SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 101 about the Union "and said MYlr Warren Sewell said he wouldn't run the shop under a union and she was talking on and asked me what I thought about it." Later in July, according to Payton, Pritchard told her that she, Pritchard, "was surprised at me at belonging to the Union " Flora Pritchard was somewhat evasive in hei testimony on these incidents She testified that in the fall of 1944, Payton asked her if she would feel any different toward any of her "hands" who had "signed a card." that she replied, "No." that Payton then asked her if she had lieai'd that lllr Warren Sewell said "that he would not run under a union?" and that she, Pritchard, ieplied. "Yes, I heard that, but Mr Warren did not tell me that " Pi itcliard l'ui thei testified that "it was generally talked over the shop" that ".Air W u':en Sewell said that he would not run under a union." The undersigned credits Troy Lee l',ayton's testimony and finds that the incidents occurred as testified to by her lima Lee tesufied that Paul Joiies, foreman of the pressers in Plant 1, and in charge of the piessuig machines in all plants, came by her machine one day when she had "spine unio,i pipers lying on the table "" According to her testi- mony, Jones 'picked one la Union paper l up and asked me what the news was anti I sand. 'Good news', and lie picked it up and says, `it is a moon paper and I don't call that good news and if you knew anything, about the union you wouldn't get in it', and he pounded his fist on the table and said `They are a bunch of Jews and crooks and Sewell will not operate under a union'." This testimony was corroborated by Lucille Shockley Jones denied making these remarks. His version of the incident, was as follows: Well, I came by the machine she was reading the paper and I asked her what is the news and she just held the paper tip and I said, "That is no news " Q What was the paper do you recall? A I don't know, I couldn't tell you what it was Q Do you recall who put the paper out, or what masthead it hall? A No, I don't know Jones was an evasive witness. Further, his version of this incident that he asked to look at the paper could not recall seeing anything in the paper, but nevertheless made the comment, "That is no news," is not credible to the under- signed. Accordingly, the undersigned credits Irma Lee's testimony and finds that this incident occurred as testified to by her. James 0. Lee testified that in March or April, 1945, Paul Jones was in the piessing room of Plant No 2 when the men in the room told Jones about the Union and Jones "said that they would close our shop down before they would let the Union come in" Jones denied this conversation The undersigned has already found that Jones was not a credible witness. The conversation, how- ever, was also denied by witnesses Witcher, Daniel, and Johnson, all three of whom, according to Lee, were present at the time of the conversation's The undersigned was especially impressed with the credibility of James Lee, and the manner in which he testified to this incident. Nor is it likely, in the opinion of the undersigned, that if Lee were in fact giving false testimony, that he would list as present at this conversation three employees whom he had no reason to believe would support such testimony. Further, it has already been found that Jones made a similar remark on another occasion, and Lee's testimony is con- sistent with the other findings in this report. For all of these reasons, the 11 No (late for this incident is given in the record 1' Itav Sewell also denied that this conversation took place in ]its presence, but Lee did not testify that Sewell was present at the time 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD undersigned credits James Lee's testimony and finds that the incident occuiied as testified to by him. Eppe Summerville testified that on several different occasions about March, 1945, her supervisor, Ivey, came to her at her machine and Ivey "would ask me how many more members we would have to have enough to have an election and probably who some of them were. She named some personally and wanted to know if they were union members." Clemmie Haralson testified that in May, 1945, Ivey came to her machine "and asked me if I belonged to the Union and I asked her who wanted to know and she said Mr. Gardner" Gardner was in charge of Plant No. 2. According to Summerville, shortly after this incident, Ivey "came by my machine and said she was sorry she asked Clemie [sic] if she was a union member but Mr. Gardner told her to ask and it was her under- standing he was trying to find out and trace who belonged to the union for Air Lovvorn." Ivey denied the testimony of both Summerville and Haralson. The undersigned, however, was impressed with the credibility of Summerville and Haralson, and accordingly credits their testimony and finds that the incidents set out above occurred as testified to by them. The undersigned finds that by the above conduct of its supervisors, the Cor- poration interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Other testimony was introduced into the record by the Board to show anti- union remarks and actions by supervisors Strickland, Bradley and Entrekin, by Ray Sewell, a nephew of the president and vice-president of the Corporation, and by one Hoyt Broadwell. The undersigned makes no finding of unfair labor practices on the basis of this testimony for the Board, because he either credits the denials of this testimony by witnesses for the Corporation, or he finds that this testimony for the Board even if credited does not constitute interference, restraint and coercion. 2. Activities of Clifford R. Wheeless The complaint alleges that the Corporation held out its attorney, one Clifford R. Wheeless, to be an "impartial neutral" observer and not paid by the Corpora- tion, although the Corporation in fact did pay for his services, and that the Corporation provided the said Wheeless with company time and property for the purpose of threatening, coercing, intimidating and restraining employees. The record shows that Wheeless was employed by the Coiporation to come to the plant and talk to the Corporation supervisors about their responsibilities under the Act While lie was at the plant, the employees were told by supervisors that lie was available to give advice to the non-supervisory employees as well, and several of the employees in this category went to see him Only one such employee, however, testified as to the substance of a conversation with Wheeless This employee, Troy Lee Payton, testified as follows : I asked Mr. Wheless (sic) if lie thought a union would help us get a raise and he said, "No, it wouldn't." And I asked him if they would close after the union came in and he said, "No, not on account of a union but there could be a shortage in materials and other things " Q Did Mr. Wheless explain to you in any way how he happened to be on company property? A He said-explained he was not on the Sewell pay roll-never had been and never would be. Wheeless did not testify. It would appear to be hardly proper for the Corpora- tion to employ an attorney to give its employees advice on union matters Fur- SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 103 ther, Wheeless' conduct in iendernig advice to both employer and employee on union matters and falsely stating to the employees that lie was not in the employ of the Corporation is certainly open to sei sous criticism Nevertheless, the record does show that the Corporation did not require its non-supervisory em- plo^ees to consult with Wheeless Those who (lid consult with him slid so on their own volition Under these circumstances, the undersigned does not believe that this one conversation testified to by Troy Lee Payton is suthcient to sustain the allegation in the complaint that Wheeless was employed by the Corporation for the purpose of interfering with the rights of the employees as guaranteed in the Act, and the undersigned so finds 3 Suivcillance of the Union's meeting place The Board in its complaint alleged that the Coiporation kept under sur- veilhuiee the actniti^s, meetings, and ineet:n; laic-,s of the Union In support of this allegation the Board presented the iolloiv ing testimony Union meetings were held about once a week at night, commencing with June 6, 1944 They were held in a union hall situated on Buchanan Street in the town of Bremen On the occasion of these meetings, according to Board witnesses, there were present outside the union hail, either standing or seated in a car, Gardner, supervisor of Plant No-2, Lewin Thompson. and Lawrence Baxter, shipping clerks," Hoyt Bioadwell, a salesman for the Corporation but during this period working as a shipping clerk,' and hay Sewell, who was employed in pressing work, and was a nephew of the president and vice president of the Corporation On one occasion, according to Board witnesses, Lewin Thompson, Lawrence Baxter, and Ray Sewell were parked in a ear across from the union hall, when Eppe Summerville went up to the car and "asked them if they wanted to know what was going on in the union hall and if they did, why didn't they come up " All of these individuals denied that they loitered about the union hall or spied on union meetings. The testimony of the Board witnesses, however, received corroboration in the testimony of two of the Corporation's witnesses, Vella Richie and Cora Kung In addition, the undeisigned has found above, that the Corporation exhibited a considerable interest in union affairs and inquired into union membership. Further, the undersigned was impressed with the credibility of the chief witness for the Board on this point, Eppe Summerville. For all these reasons, the undersigned credits the testimony of the Board witnesses as set out above. The undersigned is further convinced and finds that the purpose of these men in watching the union hall was to spy on the union meetings for the Corporation. No other explanation appears in the record for their con- tinued and constant presence outside union meetings. In addition, the findings set out above with regard to the Corporation's anti-union attitude and inquiries into union affairs support this conclusion The undersigned finds that the Corporation kept under surveillance the meet- ings and meeting places of the Union, and by such acts interfered with, re- strained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The Board also presented testimony to show that Lanier, in charge of Plant No 1 under Lovvorn, passed by the union hall nearly every clay during a period 1l Lewin Thompson on ned a few shares of stock in the Corporation 11 There was testimony that at this period Broadwell exercised snpeivisory authority over one other shipping cleik The undersigned finds, however, that although Bioadwell' s posi- tion at the time was somewhat ambiguous, since he apparently was working as a shipping clerk for the Corpoiation moic or less merely to tide the Corporation over a difficult period, the recoid, never theless, does not justify a finding that lie was a supervisor 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD when union meetings were held during the noon hour Lanier did not deny this, but explained that the union hall lay on the route from the plant to his home, and he thus passed by the union hall on his way to and from lunch Some testimony was presented to the effect that prior to the organization of the Union Lanier employed another route from his home to the plant But the record does not indicate that the route past the union hall was an unusual one The under- signed credits Lanier's testimony and finds that he (lid not spy on or keep under surveillance union meetings. B The discitmmattons In June of 1945, the Corporation ceased operating its plants because of lack of materials 15 During the period of the shut-down, the Corporation sold to the Partnership its plant in Bowden, Georgia, and Plant No 2 in Bremen.1° Sub- stantially all of the machinery from these plants was moved to the Corpoi ation's remaining plant in Bremen. This plant was opened and commenced operations on about November 1, 1945 Operations were started on it limited scale, and full operation was not reached until approximately 4 months later The complaint alleged that the Corporation failed to reemploy nine employees because of their union activities The Corporation denied this allegation Its position was that each of these employees was rejected for a specific reason, after review of his or her application. In general, the Corporation's position is that a considerable revision was made in the methods of work, that the officers of the Corporation resolved, before reopening the plant, that they wanted a con- siderable improvement in the quality of the garment produced, and that for this reason wished to reemploy, at least at the beginning of operations, only the best employees. Lovvorn and his supervisors testified that applications for employ- ment were received on about October 15, that the supervisors classified the employees. Lovvorn and his supervisors testified that appli cations for employ- performed, that the cards were then submitted to Lovvorn, who alone made the actual selection of the employees to be rehired. In order to determine this issue, it will be necessary to examine each case separately. In considering each case, however, it should be borne in mind that the cases are reasonably considered against the background of unfair labor practices set out above in this report. Further, it is clear from the findings above, and the undersigned finds, that the Corporation had knowledge of the activities of the leading union members. This is evident from the conversations between the Corporation's supervisors and some of these active members, set out above from the evidence that the Corporation's supervisors inquired into union membership and activity from the evidence that union activity was wide- spread and open in the plant, and lastly from the evidence that the Corporation kept union meetings and meeting places under surveillance. Eppe Summerville began to work for the Corporation in 1931. She was em- ployed on the pants line joining flys under Foielady Gladys Ivey She was complimented on her work on several different occasions, and according to Ivey, her forelady, was a good worker. Eppe was among the most active if not the most active union employee, and it is evident from the findings above that her supervisor, Ivey, and the officers of the Corporation had. knowledge of her union activities. Lovvorn testified that when the plant reopened in November, 1945, the process of making and joining flys had been combined. Only two employees were needed 15 Some work continued on an Army contract until August 1945 16 The question of the Partnership as a successor is discussed infra. SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 105 for this process, so he decided to rehire two employees who had formerly been ,employed at making flys since this was the more difficult process A third person was taken on at this job in March of 1946. Lovvorn testified that Eppe would have been employed at this time, had it not been for the fact that she had, in the .meantime, received a jot) at Bremen Mills and it was against Lovvorn's policy to hire employees who were workiii at other plants The record shows that Eppe began to work tot Bremen Mills on January 14, 1946 Lovvorn's testimony reveals that as early as the middle of November, 1945, the Corporation began to hire new employees who had never worked for the Corporation before Lovvorn did not explain- why he failed to offer to Eppe any of these jobs which lie gave to new employees Lo',vorn slid testify that ,although lie did not follow any seniority policy, lie gave some consideration to 'experience, and Eppe's supervisor testified that Eppe could "operate a plain sewing machine most anywhere." Thus, even if Lovvoin's testimony as to his failure to offer Eppe a position on the pants line be accepted, there is still no explanation in the record for the Corporation's failure to offer her another job which she was admittedly competent to perform, and which the Corporation offered instead to new, inexperienced personnel In addition, it appears from .the record that the Corporation offered to other old employees whose jobs had been eliminated, other jobs in the plant. In view of the Corporation's failure to explain this refusal to employ Eppe :Summerville, and in the light of the unfair labor practices found above, the undersigned finds that the Corporation refused to reemploy Eppe Summerville because of her union activities. Troy Lee Payton began to work for the Corporation in May, 1939. She was employed on canvas under Forelady Flora Pritchaid. According to Pritchard, 'Troy Lee did excellent work but was frequently away from her machine, and an her attempt to make up lost time did poor work on these occasions. Next to Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee was the most active union employee, and it is evident from the findings above that her supervisor, Pritchard, and the officers of the Corporation had knowledge of her union activities. Lovvorn testified that, in accordance with the Corporation's policy of hiring the best operators to begin with, Troy Lee was not employed when the plant first opened because of the poor quality of her work. He further testified that she was not employed later when production increased because she was then em- ployed at Bremen Mills and "I do not hire other people's help." Troy Lee went to work at Bremen Mills on November 29, 1945. The Corporation, however, did not contend that Troy Lee's work was of such poor quality as-to -warrant her not being hired at all, and indeed, Troy Lee's supervisor, Pritchard, testified that in her opinion, Troy Lee should have been rehired "around the first of December." The Corporation's explanation for its failure \to reemploy Troy Lee does not ,explain all the facts. Under the Corporation's explanation that it wished to reemploy the better employees first, it could show that it therefore did not re- employ Troy Lee until other employees with better performance had been reem- ployed. But, as in the case of Eppe Summerville, this in no way explains why completely new and inexperienced employees were taken on before Troy Lee was offered employment, and, as the record shows, before Troy Lee secured employ- ment at Bremen Mills." - 11 One of these new inexperienced employees who was taken on by the Corporation before Troy Lee secured employment at Bremen Mills was later put to work on canvas, which had been Troy Lee's operation 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The undersigned , accordingly , cannot credit the reasons advanced by the Cor- poration for its refusal to reemploy Troy Lee Payton , and in view of the unfair labor practices found above, finds that the Corporation refused to reemploy Troy Lee Payton because of her union activities Lonie Summerville began to work for the Corporation in 1931 At the time of the shut-down in June , 1945, her job was tacking coat collars under the super- vision of Forelady Entrekin . She was among the most active union members ; and it is evident from the record and the undersigned finds that her forelady, Entrekin , and the officers of the Corporation had knowledge of her union mem- bership and activity Lovvorn testified that "Mrs Lonie Summerville was not employed for one i eason , that of poor quality work " The Corporation , how ever, did not, in the opinion of the undersigned , present any evidence which supports this assertion of Lovvorn Louie's forelady, Entrekin, although critical of her work, did not testify that her work was of so poor a nature as to warrant Lonie 's dismissal, or the refusal to reemploy her Entrekin testified that Lonie "was capable of doing good work but she didn't put the right amount of time in on her work." She also testified that she, on occasion , complained to Lamer and Lovvorn about Lonie's work But she admitted that she reported others for bad work as well as Lonie, and that the quality of the work that Lonie (lid in the period before the shut-down was not very different from what she had done prior to that period 18 Lonie had been employed by the Corporation for 14 years Clearly, if she had been a consistently poor worker during all of this period, she should have been discharged or laid off long before the shut -down of 1945 Witnesses for the Cor- poration did testify that a number of unsatisfactory employees were retained during the war period because of the difficulty in securing help at that time But this does not explain the Corporation 's retention of Lonie for the many years prior to the war. The Corporation certainly makes no sufficient showing of poor work that would serve to rebut this work record of 14 years . There is merely an assertion by Lovvorn of poor work , testimony by Entrekin that Lonie had been criticized , but apparently not to a much greater extent than other employees, and an admission by Entrekin that Lonie's work prior to the shut-down was about the same as it had been before that time The undersigned , accordingly. cannot credit the reasons given by the Corpo- ration for its refusal to reemploy Louie Summerville , and in view of the unfair labor practices found above , the undersigned finds that the Corporation refused to employ Lonie Summerville because of her union activities. Cord r-a Payton, Troy Lee l'ayton 's mother , began to work for the Corporation in 1931 At the time of the shut-clown in June, 1945, she was sewing side seams and joining shoulder seams under Forelady Mary Bradley . She was among the most active union members. It is evident from the record and the under- signed finds that her forelady , Bradley, and the officers of the Corporation had knowledge of her union membership and activity . Cordia testified that Lovvorn on several occasions told her that her work was very good. According to Lovvorn . Cordia was not reemployed because of poor quality work and because she was very obstinate about doing her work over and had a very bad disposition Cordia's forelady , Bradley , also testified that Cordia's work was unsatisfactory. But Cordia had a work history of 14 years with the Corporation . There is no explanation for her retention during this long period of time if both her work and her disposition were unsatisfactory The testi- mony that the Corporation did not wish to dismiss employees during the war 18 This testimony of El ntrekin' s is in direct conflict with that of Lovvorn' s, which the undersigned does not credit, to the effect that in the period prior to the shut-down Lonie Summerville did "an even worse job than she formerly did." SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 107 period, does not explain it, retention of Cordia during the long period prior to the war Viewing the entire record, the undersigned cannot ciedit the reasons given by the Corporation for the failure to reemploy Cordia Payton, and in the light of the unfair labor practices found above, the undersigned finds that the Corpora- tion refused to reemploy Coi dia Payton because of her union activities James O Lee went to work for the Corporation in June, 1943. He was a presser at the time of the shut-down Lee was au active member of the Union. He carried union literature around the shop and spoke about the Union in the plant It is evident from the record and the undersigned finds that the ofhceis of the Corporation had knowledge of his union membership and activities. When asked why he was not reemployed, Lovvorn testified as follows : James O. Lee came to our plant in 19,13 after a number of our boys had gone into the Service We had 74 or 75 of them Some of them were already returning. I realized that with a smaller production that it would be im- possible to use all of the employees we had from the men's standpoint in June and also the men returning from the Service. It is a fair inference from this testimony that the Corporation did not rehire Lee because it reemployed, among men, only returning service men and men who had been employed in June 1945 at the time of the shut-down But at a later point in his testimony, Lovvorn stated that after the plant reopened in November he hired new male employees who had never before been in the employ of the Corporation He mentioned two such employees specifically, and stated that the Corporation might have hired other new employees Obviously, Lovvorn's testimony that Lee was not reemployed because all jobs were taken by returning service men cannot be credited if, in fact, entirely new male employees were hired by the Corporation. Accoiduigly, the undersigned does not ciedit Lovvorn's testimony as to the reasons for the Corporation's refusal to reemploy Lee. and finds, in view of the unfair labor practices set out above, that the Corporation refused to reemploy Lee because of his union activities Bennie McPherson went to work for the Corporation in 1933 At the tune of the shut-down, she was basting lapels under Forelady Entrekin She was an active union member She talked about the Union and put out union literature in the shop It is evident from the record and the undersigned finds that the officers of the Corporation had knowledge of her union membership and actin i ties McPherson was 56 years of age at the time of the hearing According to Lovvorn, McPherson was not reemployed because her job was eliminated, and because of her age he did not wish to break her in on it new operation. But the Corporation made no showing that it had decided, upon reopening the plant, to enforce a general policy of retiring people because of old age. Mrs Keever, who worked oil the same job as McPherson. was about 53 years of age at the time of the shut-down, but was nevertheless transferred to another job Farther, the Corporation presented no testimony to show that any other employee, aside from McPherson, had not been reemployed because of his or her ago Not only is there no evidence that the Corporation had any policy of retiring or refusing to rehire employees at a certain age, but there is in addition no evidence to indicate that McPherson's age was reflected in poor or inefficient work. Oil the contrary, McPherson's forelady, Entreknr, testified that she would not say that McPherson's work was poor, or that Dlcl'herson had been unduly criticized for errors in her work.'° i'J Despite this Entrek .n testified that a new operation would require "the work of steady lingers which I don 't think Mrs McPherson has" Entiekin , however , stated no facts m evper'reuce which would support this opinion 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the absence of some showing that the Corporation had a general policy regarding the retiring or rehiring of employees at a certain age, or put into effect such a policy on the reopening of the plant or else sonic evidence that McPherson's age had rendered her inefficient at work, the undersigned cannot credit the G.iporation's reasons for the refusal to reemploy McPherson. The undersigned tiods, in view of the unfair labor practices set out above, that the Corporation refused to reemploy McPherson because of her union activities Hobart Entrekm began to work for the Corporation in December, 1941. At the time of the shut-down, he was a recutter. He was an active union member Lovvorn testified that the recutting job was eliminated ashen the plant was ieopened in November, and that this work was done by cutters All of the employees engaged in that job appear to have at least as much seniority as Entrekin, and many of them were returning service wren The undersigned finds that the Corporation's failure to reemploy Rntrekin was not due to his union activities W B. Rabun began to work for the Corporation in September, 1942 He was a presser at the time of the shut-down in June, 1945 He was an active union member. Lovvorn testified that Rabun was not reemployed "hecause of his moral character as far as I was concerned. By that I mean continuous drinking, by doing certain things, tanning in his time that was irregular and by his con- teniptuous attitude towards my supervisors " There is festimoray, in the record, which the undersigned ci edits, to support these assertions of Lovvorn The undersigned accordingly finds that the Corporation's failure to reemploy Itabun was not due to his union activities. Will Barger began to work for the Corporation in March, 1943 He was a seam presser at the time of the shut-down. Barger was a member of the Union, but was not especially active. Lovvorn testified that Barger was not reemployed because he "was just not totally competent to learn to do a job." There is testimony in the record, whicht the undersigned credits, to support this assertion of Lovvorn The undersigned accordingly finds that the Corporation's failure to reemploy Barger was not due to his union activities. Conclusions The undersigned finds that the Corporation discriminated against Eppe Sum- merville, Troy Lee Payton, Lonie Summerville, Cordia Payton, James 0 Lee, and Bunnie McPherson, in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union. The undersigned further finds that the Corporation did not discriminate against Hobart Entrekin. W B Rabun, or Will Barger because of their union activities C. The responsibility of the Partnership The complaint alleged that the Partnership was a successor to the Corporation and as such responsible for the acts of the Corporation. The undisputed facts are as follows After the slut-down in June, 1945, Warren Sewell. president of the Corporation, sold all of his stock to the Corporation for cash Shortly thereafter, he, together mth his wife, organized the Partnership The Partner- ship purchased from the Corporation, the Corporation's plant in Bowden, Georgia, and plant No 2 in Brennen. The purchase included only the plant buildings Substantially all of the machinery from both buildings was removed to the Corporation's other plant in Bremen, and the Partnership, before it commenced operations, purchased entirely new machinery for this purpose There was no SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 109 arrangement or discussion between the Corporation and the Partnership with regard to the employees who had worked at the various plants. The record shows that the Partnership lined two supervisors and one salesman who had previously worked for the Corporation Both the Corporation and the Partnership are now engaged in the manufacture and sale of men's clothing Theie is no evidence as to any arrangement between them on the questions of customers, suppliers, or any other matter. On the contrary. it appeais cleat ttoni the record that they are competing enterprises In the opinion of the undersigned these facts do not warrant a finding of succeswrship In no sense has the Partnership succeeded to the Corporation as a business enterprise. Indeed the Corporation has neither in whole nor in part discontinued its operations The transaction between the Corporation and the Partnership appeais, on this record, to have been nothing more than a sale of real estate The undersigned accordingly finds that the Partnership is not :i successor to the Corporation.=° IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Corporation found to be unfair labor practices In Section III, above, occui ring in connection with the operations of the Corporation described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade. traffic, and commerce aniong the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce, V THE REMEDY The undersigned finds that the Corporation by the anti-union statements and actions of its officials and supervisors and the discrimination against the six most active union members, engaged in a campaign designed to defeat the self- oiganization of its employees The statements and actions of the Corporation's officials and supeivisors evince a clear attitude of opposition to the Union and the purpose of the Act, and it determination generally to interfere with the rights guaranteed in Section 7 Because of the unlawful conduct of the Corpo- ration and since there appears to be an underlying attitude of opposition to the purpose of the Act, the undei signed finds that the danger of the commission of unfair labor practices geneially is to be anticipated from the Corporation's conduct in the past The undersigned will accordingly recommend that the Corporation cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section.7 of the Act.ii The undersigned has found that the Corporation discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee Payton, Lonie Summerville, Cordia Payton, James O. Lee and Bunnie McPherson, thereby discouraging membership in the Union It will accordingly be recom- mended that the Corporation otter these employees immediate and tull rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, displacing, if pecessary, any employee kited by the Corporation for the first time after November 1, 1945, J0 Since the allegation in the complaint that the Partnership iliscrhninated against Lee and Entrekin iested squaiely in the allegation of suecessoiship, it is not necessary to discuss their Cases as against the Partnership A different question might have been presented if the complaint had alleged disciimination by the Psitnership against these two on the theory of iefusal to hire even in the absence of successorship Cf Phelps Dodge Coop v N L, R B, 313U S 177 21 See N L If B v Express Publishing Company, 312 U S 426 , May Departpient Stores Company i N L R B , a26 U S 376 110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the date the plant reopened, and that the Corporation make whole these em- ployees for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimina- tion against them by payment to each of the employees of a sum of money equal to that which he or she normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against him or her, to the (late of the offer of reinstatement, less his or her net earnings 22 during that period For this purpose, since it may be impossible to determine the exact date on which these employees would have gone back to work, had they not been discriminated againt, the under- signed will fix the date of discrimination, in the case of the female employees, the date on which the first female employee, not previously employed by the Corporation, was hired, and in the case of Lee, the date on which the first male employee, not previously employed by the Corporation, was hired. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCT.USiONS OF LAW 1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Corporation has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Eppe Summerville, Troy Lee Payton, Louie Summerville, James O. Lee, Cordia Payton and Bunnie McPherson, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the Corporation has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (0) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Net. 5. The Corporation did not discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Hobart Entrekin, W B. Rabun, and Will Barger 6. The Partnership is not a successor to the Corporation, and is not responsible for the unfair labor practices of the Corpoiation 7. The Partnership has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed hereby recommends that Sewell Manufacturing Company, its agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1 Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workeis of America, CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminatorily dis- charging employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment ; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor orgamza- ze By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the conse- quent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N L R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings. See Re- public Steel Corporation v. N L R B , 311 U. S. 7. SEWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 111 tions, 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 col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (.a) Offer to Eppe Somerville, Troy Lee Payton, Lonie Summerville, Cordia Payton, James O. Lee and Bunnie McPherson immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges as set forth in the Remedy and make said employees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money computed as set forth in the Remedy ; (b) Post at its plant in Bremen, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A " Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Corporation, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Corporation to insure that said notices are not altered, detaced or covered by other material; (c)' File with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region on or before ten (10) days from the date of the icceipt of this Intermediate Report a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the Corporation has complied with the foregoing recommendations. It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed so far as it alleges that the Corporation engaged in unfair labor practices through the activities of one Clifford Wheeless, and that the Corporation discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Hobart Entrekin, W. B. Rabun, and Will Barger, thereby discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO. It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed so far as it alleges that Warren Sewell and Ava Sewell, doing business as Warien Sewell Clothing Company, is a successor to Sewell Manufacturing Company, or that the said Warren Sewell Clothing Company engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act. It is further recommened that unless on or before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Corporation notifies said Regional Director that it has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Corporation to take the action aforesaid.' As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 27, 1945, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing, setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such mtate- 731242-47-vol 72-9 112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ment of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board , request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10 ) days from the date of the of der transferring the case to the Board Any party desiring to submit a brief in support of the Intermediate Report shall do so within fifteen ( 15) (lays from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, by filing with the Board an original and four copies thereof, and by immediately serving a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and the Regional Director. DAVID REIN, Trial Examiner. Dated August 2, 1946. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: We will not in any manner interfere with. restrain, or coerce our employees in the exec cise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Woikers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively thioumu representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without piejudice to any seniority of other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pad suffeied as a result of the discrimination. Eppe Summerville Cordia Pa}ton T.oy Lee Payton James 0 Lee Lonie Summerville Bunmie McPherson All our employees are free to become or remain inenibea s of the above-named union or any other labor organization We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. SEW'FLL M.INUFACTUR!NG COMPANY 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 ac- cordance 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.