Southerland's Tennessee Co., Inc.

1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC., SUCCESSOR or FRANKLIN MILLS, INC., AND TENNESSEE TRICOT MILLS, INC., SUCCESSOR OF SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. of L. Case No. 10-CA-1078. Febru- ary 10, 1953 Decision and Order On September 15, 1952, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that Respondent Tricot cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There- after, Respondent Tricot filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modi- fications : We agree with the Trial Examiner that at all times material herein the Union was the statutory bargaining representative of the em- ployees of both Respondent Southerland and Respondent Tricot. We base this finding on the fact, as set forth in the Intermediate Report, that the Union was certified as the representative of such em- ployees and that, although more than 2 years had elapsed, the pre- sumption of the Union's continued majority status has not been re- butted. As we also agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent Tricot is the successor to Respondent Southerland, the continuing effect of the previous certification is binding upon Respond- ent Tricot.2 We agree with the Trial Examiner that both Respondents refused to bargain in good faith with the Union, in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act. As to Respondent Southerland, we base our conclusion on the unilateral wage increases given to some of its employees, and the admitted delays in arranging for meetings re- quested by the Union, as fully described in the Intermediate Report. 'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson]. 2 Krantz Wire d Mfg. Co. et al., 97 NLRB 971, 985; N. L. R. B. v. Blair Quarries, Inc., 152 F. 2d 25 ( C. A. 4), enfg. 58 NLRB 1448. 102 NLRB No. 118. SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1179 As to Respondent Tricot, we base our conclusion on, as set forth in the Intermediate Report, the unilateral wage increases given to some of its employees and the refusal to recognize the Union, unless the Union's majority was proved anew. In view of the fact that King, the general manager of both Re- spondents, who questioned the Union's majority status on behalf of Respondent Tricot without advancing any valid reason therefor,s had previously on behalf of Respondent Southerland unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union, we are unable to find that Respond- ent Tricot had the requisite good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status which might have excused its refusal to bargain.4 Even if Respond?nt Tricot had not independently refused to bar- gain, we would nevertheless hold it responsible for remedying Re- spondent Southerland's unfair labor practices, as a successor who took over the business with knowledge of the latter's unlawful con- duct.5 Order Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc., Elizabethton, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall : 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Textile Workers of America, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representative of all produc- tion and maintenance employees at the Elizabethton, Tennessee, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Taking any unilateral action in derogation of the aforesaid Union's right to act as the exclusive representative of such employees, with respect to any matter properly subject to the collective bargain- ing process. (c) Interfering in any other manner with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively with it, on behalf of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, as their exclusive bargaining agent. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: 3 See Atlanta Journal Company, 82 NLRB 832 ; United States Gypsum Company, 90 NLRB 964. Cf. Celanese Corporation of America, 95 NLRB 664. 4 In view of the fact that the certification was only about 2 years old and that Respond- ent Tricot, as successor to Respondent Sutherland , continued to operate the business in question with substantially the same personnel , the mere change in ownership cannot be regarded as a valid reason for requiring the Union to reestablish its majority. 5J. E. Cote, et al., 101 NLRB 1486; The L. B. Hosiery Co., incorporated, 88 NLRB 1000. 1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Textile Workers of America, A. F. of L., as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con- ditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement (b) Post at its establishment in Elizabethton, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Ap- pendix H." 6 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. 9 This notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from line 3 thereof the words "The recommendations of a Trial Examiner " and substitute in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE The above-captioned proceeding concerns allegations that Southerland's Ten- nessee Company, Inc., herein called Respondent Southerland's, on or about March 31, 1951 , and thereafter, and that Tennessee Tricot Mills , Inc., herein referred to as Respondent Tricot, on or about February 1, 1952, and thereafter , refused to bargain with United Textile Workers of America, A. F. of L., herein called the Union . Respondents' answers deny these allegations . The issues, framed by a complaint and answers, were fully litigated at a hearing before the under- signed in Elizabethton , Tennessee, on July 21, 1952. After the close of the hearing counsel for the General Counsel submitted a memorandum of authori- ties which has been considered. Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following findings, conclusions , and recommendations : THE BUSINESS INVOLVED Franklin Mills, Inc., a Tennessee corporation , in the period from 1948 until February 1, 1950, engaged in Elizabethton , Tennessee, in the manufacture and sale of rayon acetate cloth. On or about February 1, 1950, Respondent Southerland's, a Tennessee corpo- ration, acquired the Elizabethton plant and facilities of Franklin Mills, Inc., and SOUTHERLAND' S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1181 continued, with the same personnel, the business previously conducted, In Elizabethton, Tennessee, by Franklin Mills, Inc. On or about February 1, 1952, Respondent Tricot, a Tennessee corporation, acquired the business and properties' in Elizabethton, Tennessee, formerly operated by Franklin Mills, Inc., and by Respondent Southerland's, as noted above, and continued with the same personnel the business previously conducted by the last-named corporations. The place of business in Elizabethton, Ten- nessee, of the corporations named above is herein referred to as the Elizabethton plant. Franklin Mills, Inc., and Respondent Southerland's, during the periods of their respective operation of the Elizabetbton plant, shipped annually from said plant to points and places outside Tennessee finished products valued in excess of $50,000. It was stipulated at the hearing herein that on an annual basis Respondent Tricot will ship from the Elizabethton plant to points and places outside Tennessee products valued in excess of $50,000. The undersigned finds that during the period of its operation of the Elizabeth- ton plant Respondent Southerland' s was engaged in commerce within the meanin.; of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, and that Respondent Tricot is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Textile Workers of America , A. F. of L., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT All production and maintenance employees at the Elizabethton plant, excluding office and clerical employees, supervisors, guards, and professional employees as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act. FACTS BEARING ON CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES Since about 1938, the Elizabethton plant has been engaged in the manufacture of rayon acetate cloth. Although the plant has been operated at various times by different corporations, the type of business conducted has remained the same.' The plant, property,e equipment, manufacturing method; and working force 1 Title to sundry items such as machinery was not acquired by Respondent Tricot but such sundry items were used in the organization of said Respondent and in the operation of this business by said Respondent. 9 However, Respondent Tricot, since it began the operation of this business, has eliminated dyeing and finishing work and contract (outside ) work and ceased purchasing and reselling rayon . Respondent Tricot now manufactures only one line of cloth. ® When Respondent Tricot first began operating the Elizabethton plant it used the build- ing previously used by Respondent Southerland 's and by Franklin Mills, Inc., but since that time it has utilized a building at another location in Elizabethton , Tennessee. " When Respondent Tricot first began operating the Elizabethton plant it used some of the same machinery that had been used by its predecessors . This machinery is presently being overhauled and rebuilt . In addition, Respondent Tricot replaced some of the equipment with more modern equipment. This more modern equipment changed the method of handling yarn in the warper, and eliminated dyeing and finishing. However, the knitting operation has not been changed and the same personnel that operated the dis- carded machinery operate the more modern machinery. 1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have remained substantially the same ' and no essential attribute of the em- ployment relationship has been changed as a result of the transfers of the business. Sequence of Events On or about November 23, 1949, a consent election was conducted among all production and maintenance employees of the Elizabethton plant, excluding office and clerical employees, supervisors, guards, and professionals as defined in the Act. A majority of the valid ballots having been cast for United Textile Workers of America, A. F. of L., a certification of representatives was issued December 2, 1949' On or about December 20, 1949, the Union filed with this Board a charge alleging violations of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act by Franklin Mills, Inc.' By a written instrument, dated January 28, 1950, by and between R. N. Southerland (then owner of the Elizabethton plant) and the Union, it was agreed that the parties would execute a contract, effective for 1 year, incorporating certain specified conditions with respect to employment at the Elizabethton plant and that contingent upon the execution of such a contract the Union would, and did, thereby withdraw the charge pending before this Board. On or about February 15, 1950, Southerland's Tennessee Company, Inc., and the Union and its local executed what purports to be a collective- bargaining agreement effective "until February 15, 1952, and shall continue thereafter for yearly periods unless notice of termination is given. . . ."' Sometime prior to March 31, 1950, a dispute arose concerning the discharge of Ray McNiel. This matter was referred to a board of arbiters and there- after litigated through the State courts. A final decision was rendered in the spring of 1952. In June 1950, 2 arbiters-1 appointed by the Union and 1 appointed by the Company-heard a matter involving: (1) Interpretation of the vacation clause of the February 15, 1950, contract; (2) interpretation and application of the seniority clause; and (3) hiring of a new employee to do work formerly done by an employee in layoff status. These arbiters were unable to agree. Thereafter, on July 10, 1950, the Union, relying upon the Februray 15, 1950, contract, requested from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service a list of available arbitrators so that a third member of a board of arbitration could be selected. On July 13, 1950, the Mediation and Conciliation Service notified Respondent Southerland's of the Union's request and was informed (by letter dated July 17) that Respondent Southerland's "has not been officialy notified of the results of the arbitration heretofore had on these questions" and that Respondent Southerland's would fully advise after being "brought up to date 6 The same individual has been the general manager of the Elizabethton plant since December 1949 and the same group of 10 regular production and maintenance employees has been employed there since sometime in 1949. At times since February 1950 employ- ment reached a peak of 25 workers . However, the record infers, and the undersigned finds , that the normal complement of employees has been 10 (the 10 employed since 1949) and that the others have been temporary workers, such as seasonal employees and employees working during change of equipment. e Franklin Mills, Inc., 10-RC-778. Case No. 10-CA-924. a There is a dispute as to whether this is a valid contract since one of the signatories thereto was only the temporary president of the union local although the document indicates he signed as "President Local Union No. 2075" since it was signed before the local was formally installed and granted a charter, and since at the time the contract was, signed the local had not complied with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. A resolution of this issue does not appear necessary to determine the issues herein. Accordingly, the undersigned is not resolving this dispute. SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1183 on this matter." Respondent Southerland's reply to the Mediation and Con- ciliation Service was sent to the Union with a request for its comments. The Union by letter dated July 24, 1950, advised the Mediation and Conciliation Service that the arbitrators met in June and could come to no agreement and that the "arbitrator for the company was the company's bookkeeper, whom Mr. King [vice president and manager of Respondent Southerland's] sees every days Further, I [Dean, international representative of the Union] advised Mr King on or about July 10th in his office that I was writing for a list of arbitrators from your office. He raised no objection at that time." The Union again requested that a list of available arbitratca "be forwarded to the company and the union." By letter dated July 28, 1950, the Mediation and Conciliation Service submitted to the parties a list of available arbitrators. Thereafter, in September 1950, the Union endeavored to get Respondent Southerland's to select a third arbitrator from the list, but was unable to do so because Respondent Southerland's took the position that it "was only going to do what the courts made him [King] do and that he would not select any arbitrator." In December 1950, a dispute arose involving alleged violations of the seniority provisions of the February 15, 1950, contract. This matter was submitted to arbitration and an award was made in favor of the Union in March 1951 wherein Respondent Southerland's was directed to pay Cindy Stevens 10 hours' pay at her hourly rate of pay. Respondents have not complied with the award of the arbiters. On June 27, 1950, the Union filed the original charge herein and on Janu- ary 23, 1951, filed a first amended charge. Thereafter, on October 30, 1951, Respondent Southerland's and the Union executed a settlement agreement, which was approved by this Board's Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) on November 19, 1951, providing that Respondent Southerland's would comply with the terms and provisions of a "notice to all employees" which was to be posted in the Elizabethton plant. Such "notice to all employees" states, in substance, that Respondent Southerland's will bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance employees of the Elizabethton plant. Between November 10 and December 10, 1951, Everett F. Dean, international representative of the Union, "on a couple occasions" contacted Roy C. Nelson, attorney for Respondent Southerland's and for Respondent Tricot, and re- quested meetings with Thomas J. King, general manager of the Elizabethton plant since December 1949 and the official in charge of labor relations at said plant. Nelson undertook to arrange such meetings. On December 10, 1951, Nelson, in Dean's presence, attempted to contact, via telephone, King and arrange a meeting between King and Dean. King was not available and Nelson told Dean he (Nelson) would try to arrange a meeting and would advise Dean later. On leaving Nelson's office Dean met King on the street and asked for a meeting to discuss wages, a contract, and the McNiel matter 10 (the dispute involving the discharge of McNiel which was then pending before the State courts). King told Dean to see Nelson. Dean returned to Nelson's office, informed Nelson of the conversation with King, and requested a meeting. Nelson told Dean he (Nelson) "would see if he could get a meeting worked out." Three or four days later Dean telephoned Nelson and was told by Nelson that he (Nelson) had not been 9 In fact, the bookkeeper was the arbiter appointed by Respondent Southerland's. 10 There is conflicting evidence as to whether Dean asked for a discussion of any matter other than the McNiel case. On the basis of the entire record the undersigned finds a request for a meeting to discuss wages , a contract, and the McNiel matter was made. 1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD able to contact King but that he (Nelson) would try to do so that day. The fol- lowing day Dean again telephoned Nelson and suggested a meeting for Satur- day, December 15, 1951. Nelson told Dean that King didn't want to meet on Saturday and suggested Friday, December 21, 1951, as a meeting date. A meeting was arranged for that date (December 21, 1951). Dean appeared at the meeting place (the Elizabethton plant) at 2 p. m. on December 21, 1951, and was informed by King that the meeting had been sched- uled for 10 a. m. and that he (King) had been waiting since that time. Dean told King he (Dean) understood the meeting was for 2 o'clock and asked if King "wanted to discuss the matters" and King said, "Hell no, he had been waiting there all day and he wouldn't wait any longer; he was going home." No meeting was held. As King and Dean left the plant King accused Dean of "trying to run him out of business" and of "harassing" him. Dean responded that until King "lived up to his contract with us and treated us decently and his people decently that we would continue to be on him even if it meant running him out of business." Upon returning to the union office in Elizabethton, Dean telephoned Nelson and arranged for a meeting with King on January 9, 1952. On January 7, 1952, Dean telephoned Nelson and requested that the meeting date be changed to January 8 since he (Dean) should be in Washington on January 9, 1952. Nelson told Dean that King was out of town and that he (Nelson) did not expect him (King) back before the weekend. No meeting was held that week. On January 19, 1952, Dean sent King a letter stating: For the past two months I have attempted at various times to arrange meetings with you to discuss matters pertaining to our contract with your company with no success. I still want to meet with you to discuss these matters. I would appreciate your setting another date as soon as conveniently possible so that we can attempt to iron out some of our difficulties. Please give this your immediate attention. By letter dated January 21, 1952, Dean wrote King: I am advised that on October 30, 1951, you executed a settlement agree- ment with the National Labor Relations Board, in which you agreed to "bar- gain collectively upon request," with the United Textile Workers of America, AFL, "with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under- standing in a signed agreement." For the past two months or more, I have attempted at various times to arrange meetings with you for this purpose, with no success. I am ready to meet with you for the above purpose this week, commencing Thursday, January 24th, or on the 25th, or on the 26th. Please call my home and advise which day is agreeable. If I do not hear from you, I shall understand it is not your intention to comply with this settlement agreement and I shall thereupon notify the NLRB of your failure to meet us. Please give this your immediate attention. By letter dated January 22,1952, King advised Dean : Relative to your letter of January nineteenth in which you state "For the past two months I have attempted at various times to arrange meetings with you to discuss matters pertaining to our contract with your company with SOUTHERLAND' S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1185 no success." May I advise that on two occasions appointments had been made with you and that you failed to keep these appointments. In order to give both of us ample time to arrange our affairs, Friday, February 1st, at two p. m., at the Union Hall is suggested. On February 1, 1952, Dean went to the union hall. However, King did not appear. After waiting 30 minutes Dean telephoned the plant and was informed that King was in Philadelphia. Dean then telephoned Nelson and was told by Nelson that King was out of town and he (Nelson) didn't know just when he would be back. By letter dated February 5, 1952, mailed from Rome, Georgia, February 8, 1952, and received by King on February 9, 1952, Dean advised Kin; : I have your letter in which you stated that you tried to have two appoint- ments with me and that I failed to keep them. I regret that this is not a correct statement of what actually happened. You will remember that on the last occasion that we were supposed to meet, Feb. 1st at 2 P. M. at the Union Hall, you did not appear. I was there at the time. When I called your office, I was informed that you were out of town. I thereupon called your lawyer, Mr. Roy Nelson, and he also stated that you were out of town. I asked Mr. Nelson to set an immediate date for a further meeting, but I haven't heard anything from you. I am sending a copy of this letter to the National Labor Relations Board, so that they may be advised that I have been unable to meet with you since the time you executed a settlement agreement with the Board. A copy of Dean's letter of February 5, 1952, was sent to Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Atlanta, Georgia. By letter dated February 7, 1952, Hamilton requested that Nelson advise "as to the step your company has taken or is taking in compliance with the settlement agreement." (A copy of Hamilton's letter is attached hereto as Appendix A.) By letter dated February 15, 1952, Nelson acknowledged Hamilton's letter and advised that King "has tried to be present for meetings, but he has had to be out of town. To my knowledge Mr. King was out of the city on business on February 1st and Mr. Dean was so advised by this office." We are also advised Mr. Dean's letter seeking to arrange the meeting on that date was delivered several days late." 'Z (A copy of Nelson's letter of Febril- ary 15, 1952, is attached hereto as Appendix B.) By letter dated February 28, 1952, and addressed to Mr. T. J. King, vice president Southerland's Tennessee Company, Inc., Joseph Jacobs, southern director, United Textile Workers of America, advised King: Word reaches me that there has been some change in the ownership or the holders of stock in the above company.'' You are herewith put on notice that this does not, in any way, affect our charges against this com- pany, nor so far as we know, the settlement which you executed with the National Labor Relations Board. n As noted above, Dean was "so advised" by Nelson on the date of the scheduled meeting and after the time set for such meeting and after Dean had called to inquire why King did not appear for the meeting " The record herein does not reveal any letter from Dean seeking to arrange a meeting for February 1, 1952, but does reveal, as noted above, that by letter dated January 22, 1952, King suggested a meeting for February 1 11 See section above entitled "The business involved." 1186 DECISIONS 0r' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD You have continued to refuse to bargain with our union, and we are asking the Board to take such action as may be necessary to enforce the settlement. These new purchasers, owners, whoever they may be are herewith advised that we shall hold them responsible, as well as the old owners of this company, for violation of the rights of the workers whom we represent. By letter dated April 11, 1952, King, on behalf of Respondent Tricot, advised Dean : This is to advise that the undersigned is willing to meet you or a repre- sentative of your union. My offer to meet with you is made in good faith, however it is not a waiver of my previous position that the earlier contract is void." May I suggest that at your convenience you designate a date, time and place for the meeting, which is to be confirmed by this office. By letter dated April 12, 1952, Dean suggested a meeting at 10 a. in. on Tuesday, April 29, 1952, "at your [King's] office in Ehzabethton." King ap- proved this "date, place, and time for our meeting" in a letter dated April 17, 1952 (a copy of this letter is attached hereto as Appendix C) and stated that Respondent Tricot assumed the meeting was for the purpose of collective bargaining. Concerning the April 29, 1952 meeting, Dean testified credibly: When I went in Mr. King greeted me very cordially by asking what the hell I wanted, lets get it over with. I told Mr. King that the meeting had been arranged as a result of correspondence between us to arrange a meeting to discuss the contract and Mr. King replied that he had no contract, that this was the Tennessee Tricot Mills and they had never had a contract. I asked him if he wanted to bargain for the company, if he wanted to bargain for wages and if he was willing to give any sort of increase. I informed him that I had been told some of the employees were receiving a little more than others ; he told me that was his business and that he would give them all more money when he could, but he couldn't give any wage increase right at that time. So I asked then about the contract, if there were any changes that he desired in the old contract [the contract signed February 15, 1950] ; if there were, we were 'willing to try to make them with them [King and Warren, another represent- ative for Respondent Tricot] even though we felt the contract had re- newed itself 1D He stated lie wouldn't recognize any union unless he was shown a majority. I asked him on a couple occasions about going through the contract to see if there was anything we could agree on taking our [out] or anything we could agree on leaving in and about all the answer I received about it was what a good break he had given the boys and the Union and how we had done him wrong by making him pay out money for people that hadn't performed the work." 14 The contract referred to is the one executed on or about February 15, 1950, and as noted above the parties have not been in agreement as to the validity of this contract. 16 No notice to terminate the contract as provided for in the contract had been given. 16 This refers to the dispute involving alleged violations of the seniority provisions of the February 15, 1950, contract which was arbitrated in March 1951 . The arbiters gave an award in favor of the Union and directed that Cindy Stevens "be paid ten (10) hours pay at her hourly rate of pay." SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1187 On May 16, 1952, the Union filed a second amended charge herein and on that same date this Board's Regional Director withdrew the November 19, 1951, approval of the settlement "because of lack of compliance with the terms of the agreement." On June 6, 1952, the complaint herein was issued. By letter dated June 16 the Union suggested that, despite the issuance of the complaint and scheduling of a hearing herein, it might be to the best interest of all concerned to sit down and endeavor to reach an agreement and requested that Respondent Tricot meet with the Union during the week of June 23 or June 30 or "suggest alternate dates when such meeting can be held." (A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Appendix D.) By letter dated June 23, 1952, Re- spondent Tricot acknowledged the Union's letter of June 16 and indicated that if representatives of this Board desired such meeting Respondent Tricot would not object and that it had no objection to such a meeting on the dates suggested by the Union. (These letters are attached hereto as Appendix E and Appendix F.) By letter dated June 26, 1952, the Union acknowledged the letters from Respondent Tricot and stated that "our Mr. Dean will contact Mr. King" to arrange a conference of the parties. (The Union's letter of June 26 is attached as Appendix G.) On or about July 7, 1952, Dean contacted King and arranged for a meeting on July 11, 1952. Concerning the July 11 meeting Dean testified, credibly : I went to the mill and walked in and went in the office and I asked Mr. King if I could have Mr. Herbert Ritchie 17 present for the meeting. He said, "Hell, let's get them all present," and he went out and motioned for the other employees to come in. The other employees shut the machines down and came in. I think about five or six [all of the employees present at the plant that day]. I told Mr. King that we wanted to bargain on wages and conditions of the contract and he asked me to show my credentials as a Union representative. I showed him my credentials and he said, "Oh, you are going to show them to me this time; you wouldn't show them to me last time." I told him that he had not asked me for them at any previous time. He took the credentials and looked at them and said, "but this doesn't say you represent a majority of the employees." I said, "Mr. King, we have a certification from the National Labor Relations Board saying that we represent the employees." He said, "not these employees" ; he said, "this is the Tennessee Tricot Mills and you wouldn't have any cer- tification that you represent them. I told Mr. King if that were his position I would see him at the court house on July 21st and left 18 At the hearing herein King testified he is willing to bargain with the Union providing he is shown "proper credentials regarding the union membership." Wage Increases During the period that Respondent Southerland's operated the Elizabethton plant it unilaterally (without consulting or advising the Union) raised the wages of some of the employees at the Elizabethton plant and Respondent Tricot during the period of its operation of said plant also unilaterally raised the wages of some of these employees. The record herein does not reflect the dates these increases were granted. 17 President of the Union Local. 18 The hearing herein was scheduled for, and was held on, July 21, 1952. 1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Checkoff The contract executed February 15, 1950 , provides, inter alia: Article 16 Union Security-Checkoff Section 1. The employer agrees to deduct from the pay of any employee the sum of $2.00 per month , each month upon written request of such em- ployee. Money so deducted shall be paid to the Secretary-Treasurer of Local No. 207, by the 10th of each month. Authorization cards signed and pre- sented to the employer for deduction , shall be effective for the duration of this agreement, or one (1) year, whichever is sooner. Section 2. Any employee who has signed , or who may hereafter sign an authorization card, shall have the right to revoke the same during the ten days preceding the termination of this contract or renewal hereof, upon written notice to the company and the Union by registered mail . Only one name shall be recognized in each registered letter. Shortly after the execution of the contract , the Union gave Respondent Southerland's certain cards (number not revealed by this record ) authorizing deductions in accordance with the contract. Thereafter and until about the middle of February 1952 union dues were deducted from the wages due em- ployees and forwarded to the Union. At the time of the cessation of this pro- cedure ( in February 1952 ) all of the production and maintenance employees at the Elizabethton plant were having their dues deducted. Conclusions As noted elsewhere herein, although there have been changes of ownership of the business now operated by Respondent Tricot in Elizabethton , Tennessee, Re- spondent Tricot now operates substantially the same business that was operated by its predecessors (Respondent Southerland's and Franklin Mills, Inc.) and said changes of ownership did not change the essential attributes of the em- ployment relationship. Furthermore, throughout these changes of ownership the same individuals have been employed as regular production and maintenance employees . Moreover, as noted above, Respondent Southerland's acquired the business of its predecessor with knowledge of the pendency of an unfair labor practice proceeding against its predecessor , and Respondent Tricot acquired the business with similar knowledge. It is evident from the above-outlined facts and the entire record herein that Respondent Southerland's was the successor- employer to Franklin Mills, Inc., and that Respondent Tricot is the successor- employer to Respondent Southerland's's and that these Respondents were obliged to bargain in good faith if in the "employing agency" the Union's majority status continued or if the settlement agreements continued Respondents' obli- gations to bargain. On or about December 2, 1949, the Union was certified by this Board as the representative of a majority of the production and maintenance employees of the Elizabethton plant. Thereafter, and after the filing of an unfair labor prac- tice charge, Respondent Southerland's acquired this business and with knowledge of the foregoing proceedings executed a written instrument (contract of Febru- ary 15, 1950) wherein it recognized the Union as the "sole bargaining agency" 19 See N L R B v. Arthur J. Colton et al., 105 F. 2d 179 ; Autopart Manufacturing Company, 91 NLRB 80, Stonewall Cotton Mills , 80 NLRB 325 , The Alexander Milburn Company, 78 NLRB 747; and The Northwest Glove Co. Inc., 74 NLRB 1697. SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1189 for said employees and agreed to certain specified conditions of employment. In effect Respondent Southerland's agreed to asaume the obligation of its prede- cessor to bargain with the Union. After several disputes, a statement (in Sep- tember 1950) that Respondent "was only going to do what the Courts made" it do, a refusal to select an arbitrator (in September 1950) despite the terms of its agreement of February 15, 1950, and a failure to comply with an award by an arbitration panel (after March 1951), Respondent Southerland's again agreed (in order to settle unfair labor practice charges filed June 27, 1950, and Janu- ary 23, 1951), on October 30, 1951, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the production and maintenance employees of the Elizabethton plant. Throughout the period that Respondent Southerland's operated this plant it deducted, monthly, union dues and remitted the total deductions to the Union and at no time throughout the period of its operation of this business did Respondent Southerland's question the Union's status as the exclusive representative of the production and maintenance employees. On or about February 1, 1952, Respondent Tricot, with full knowledge of all of the fore- going, acquired the business involved and thereafter continued until the middle of February 1952 to deduct union dues and remit same to the Union. At the time of the cessation of deductions of union dues all of the production and main- tenance employees of the Elizabethton plant were having their dues deducted. Thereafter, on April 29, 1952, July 11, 1952, and at the hearing herein, Respond- ent Tricot refused to bargain unless shown proof of majority representation. Neither in its dealings with the Union nor in the record herein did Respondent Tricot offer any evidence of a good-faith doubt of the Union's status as the repre- sentative of the majority of the employees involved. Respondents rely upon the age of the certification issued December 2, 1949, and the changes of ownership of the plant involved. The law is well settled that where a union has been certified by the Board its majority status is presumed to continue until circumstances appear which rebut that presumption and justify a refusal to bargain 20 In the opinion of the under- signed no such circumstances exist herein. As noted above, throughout the period involved herein the normal complement of employees has remained sub- stantially constant and throughout this period some, if not all, of these employees have had their union dues deducted and as late as February 1952 all of the employees were having such deductions. Respondents were well aware of this situation and raised no claim that less than a majority of the employees were having their union dues deducted and neither Respondents nor the employees invoked the processes of this Board to eliminate the Union as bargaining agent. In addition, by virtue of the settlement agreements (especially the one executed October 30, 1951) Respondents' were bound to bargain in good faith with the Union for a reasonable period of time after such agreement, without questioning the Union's majority status. The settlement agreements (especially the one dated October 30, 1951) constituted a basis for future liability and bound Respondents to bargain in good faith for a reasonable period of time, even if, as was not the case here, the Union clearly did not represent a majority of the 20 See Medo Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 678 ; Franks Bros. v. N. L R. B., 321 U. S. 702 ; and N. L. R B. v. Tower Hosiery Mills, 180 F 2d 701, 706 and cases cited therein. 21 Any contention that Respondent Tricot was not bound by the terms of the settlement agreement of October 30, 1951, must be, and hereby is, rejected by the undersigned See N. L. R. B v. Arthur J. Colton et at. d/b/a Kiddie Kover Mfg. Co., 105 F 2d 179; Krimm Lumber, 97 NLRB 1574; Indianapolis Wire-Bound Boa Company, 93 NLRB 875; Autopart Mfg. Co, 91 NLRB 80; L B. Hosiery Company, Inc., 88 NLRB 1000. enforced in 187 F. 2d 335,; Stonewall Cotton, 80 NLRB 325, 328 ; and Alexander Milburn Company, 78 NLRB 747. 250983-vol. 102-53-76 1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees. See Poole Foundry and Machine Company, 192 F. 2d 740, cert. den. 342 U. S. 954. As hereinafter noted the undersigned believes Respondents' refusals to bargain occurred prior to April 29, 1952, when King stated "he wouldn't recognize any union unless he was shown a majority." 22 However, assuming, arguendo, that the refusal to bargain dates from April 29, 1952, it appears, and the undersigned finds, that a "reasonable period of time after the settlement agreement" of Octo- ber 30, 1951, had not elapsed and that, under the circumstances revealed by this record, Respondents should not be permitted, within 6 months after the agree- ment, to refuse to bargain. The record is clear that Respondents did meet with the Union on various occasions but such conduct does not necessarily satisfy the bargaining obliga- tion, for the obligation of the Act requires that bargaining shall be conducted in complete good faith. It is believed that Respondents have not complied with this requirement. While no one fact is necessarily determinative of Respond- ents' good faith and all elements must be examined and appraised , it is believed that Respondents' lack of good faith is evidenced, inter alia , by the following: 1. The contract provides for adjustment of grievances at successive stages culminating in arbitration. In accordance therewith 2 arbiters-1 appointed by the Union and 1 by the Employer-heard a dispute in June 1950 but were not able to agree upon a proper resolution of this matter 23 Thereafter the Union sought to process this matter further and, in accordance with the contract, sought a third arbiter from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Although aware of the results of the arbitration proceedings before the two arbiters, Respondent Southerland's advised the Mediation and Conciliation Service that it was not so advised and requested to be "brought up to date on this matter." Upon being "brought up to date" Respondent Southerland's, in September 1950, nevertheless refused to "select any arbitrator" and thus foreclosed the use of the final stage of the grievance procedure. Also since March 1951 Respondents have failed to honor an arbitration award made concerning another disputed matter. In the opinion of the undersigned Respondents' treatment of these grievances manifested less than wholehearted cooperation with the Union and in the light of the entire record is an indication of lack of good faith in bar- gaining. See Alexander Milburn Co., 62 NLRB 482; George E. Carroll, 56 NLRB 935; N. L. R. B. v. Seifer, d/b/a Ideal Leather Novelty Co., 145 F. 2d 237 enforcing 54 NLRB 761; and Louis Hornick & Co. Inc., 2 NLRB 983. 22 It has long been the policy of the Board to honor settlement agreements reached with the approval of an agent of the Board , unless the agreement has been breached or unless the alleged unfair labor practices have been continued in such a way that it seems neces- sary to go behind the agreement in order to effectuate the policies of the Act Wooster Brags Company , 80 NLRB 1633, 1634 , and cases cited. And see The Wallace Corporation v. N. L. R. B , 323 U S. 248, 254-5: Poole Foundry f Machine Co v. N L. R B , 192 F. 2d 740 (C. A. 4) ; N. L. R. B. v. May Department Stores Company, 154 F. 2d 533, 539 (C. A. 8). The Board's practice in such a case is not to consider as evidence of unfair labor practices conduct of a Respondent antedating the settlement , unless the Respondent has failed to comply with the agreement or has engaged in independent unfair labor prac- tices since the settlement. Larrance Tank Corporation, 94 NLRB 352; Rice-Stir of Arkansas, Inc., 79 NLRB 1333, 1334, and cases cited It is contended herein that Respond- ents have not complied fully with the settlement agreement approved by the Board's Regional Director on November 19, 1951, and that since the settlement independent unfair labor practices have occurred . For reasons hereinafter noted, the undersigned finds these contentions have merit. Attention is directed primarily to the unilateral wage increases granted after the settlement and to the refusals to bargain on and after April 29, 1952. 21 It is noted that this dispute arose and was processed after a prior arbitration board had rejected Respondent Southerland 's contention that the February 15, 1950 , contract is void. SOUTHERLAND' S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1191 2. Respondents' unilateral action in increasing the pay of employees while maintaining at meetings with the Union inability to grant wage increases is per se violative of Respondents' duty to bargain with the chosen representative of the employees. (See Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 678; N. L. R. B. v. Crompton-Highland Mills, Inc., 337 U. S. 217; Dixie Culvert Mfg. Co., 87 NLRB 554; and Shannon and Simpson Casket Company, 99 NLRB 430.) 3. Respondents' delays in arranging for meetings requested by the Union and Respondent Southerland's failure to appear, and to give the Union timely notice of its intentions not to appear, for scheduled conferences suggests an intention to delay and impede the bargaining process and is not compatible with a good- faith effort to reach agreement by compromise. 4. Respondent Tricot's refusal to recognize the Union on and after April 29, 1952, unless shown proof of majority was clearly violative of the obligation to bargain absent circumstances justifying such a position. As noted above the undersigned believes no such circumstances existed and that on these dates Respondent Tricot was required by law to bargain in good faith with the Union. 5. The general tenor of the evidence is that Respondents took a somewhat casual approach toward their obligation to bargain and that they went through some of the motions of collective bargaining without any intention to facilite an early and successful agreement by compromise, but merely to preserve the appearance of bargaining. ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS In view of the foregoing and upon consideration of the entire record herein, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law : 1. During the period of its operation of the Elizabethton plant Respondent Southerland's was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and Respondent Tricot is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act. 2. United Textile Workers of America, A. F. of L., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Elizabethton plant, ex- cluding office and clerical employees, supervisors, guards, and professional em- ployees as defined in the Act. 4. At all times since December 2, 1949, the Union has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforementioned unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, and other conditions of employment. 5. On or about July 10, 1950, and at all times thereafter Respondents unlaw- fully refused and have continued to refuse to bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate. 6. The aforesaid conduct of Respondents constitutes unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that Respondents by illegal acts violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act, it is recommended that the action hereinafter specified be taken in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since the record herein reveals that Respondent Tricot now operates the Elizabethton plant as successor- 1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employer to Respondent Southerland's and that Respondent Southerland's does not now actively participate in the operation of said plant , it is believed that the policies of the Act will be adequately effectuated if Respondent Tricot, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns take the action hereinafter specified. (Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] Appendix A NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, TENTH REGION Room 537, Peachtree-Seventh Building 50 Seventh Street, Northeast Atlanta 5 , Georgia Mr. Roy C. Nelson, Attorney-at-Law, 609 Elk Avenue, Elizabethton, Tennessee February 7, 1952. RE : Southerland's Tennessee Company, Inc. Case No. 10-CA-1078 Dear Mr. Nelson : You will recall that I talked with you on January 9, 1952, relative to the status of the above-entitled case and requested that you keep this office advised as to any developments and you stated that you would do so. I have received from Joseph Jacobs , Southern Director of the Union, a let- ter to which was attached copies of correspondence between the Company and the Union, the last letter from the Union being dated February 5, 1952. I am attaching copies of this correspondence. It is requested that you immediately advise this office as to the steps your Company has taken or is taking in compliance with the Settlement Agree- ment. In the event compliance is not shown in the immediate future it will be necessary for me to recommend that the Settlement be set aside and an Order of the Board be sought. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Yours very truly, /s/ Frank E. Hamilton, Jr. FRANK E. HAMILTON, Jr., Attorney. Enclosures cc : Mr. T. J. King, Vice-President Southerland's Tennessee Company, Inc., 300 West Elk Avenue, Elizabethton, Tennessee. Joseph Jacobs, Southern Director United Textile Workers of America, AFL Wigwam Building, 160 Central Avenue, S. W., Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Everett F. Dean International Representative, UTWA-AFL 404 West Pine Street, Johnson City, Tennessee. SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, Appendix B ROY C. NELSON, Attorney and Counsellor at Law Elizabethton , Tennessee JOHN L. BOWERS, JR. Associate Mr. Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Tenth Region, Room 537 Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street, Northeast, Atlanta 5, Georgia Dear Mr. Hamilton : INC. 1193 February 15, 1952. Re: Southerland's Tennessee Co., Inc. Case No. 10-CA-1078 This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 7th. I think Mr. King has tried to be present for meetings, but he has had to be out of Town. To my knowledge Mr. King was out of the City on business on February 1st and Mr . Dean was so advised by this office. We are also advised Mr. Dean 's letter seeking to arrange the meeting on that date was delivered several days late. We are advised of a very astounding situation by Mr. King. He states he did not receive the letter, a copy of which you sent us dated February 5th, until February 9th, 1952. The letter was then mailed or post marked "Rome, Georgia". We do not feel this is fair for these people to send out letters like that and withhold mailing as alleged by Mr. King. Very truly yours, /s/ Roy C. Nelson Roy C. NEr.soN RCN/bb CC : Mr. Thomas J. King, Vice-President, Southerland's Tennessee Co., Inc., Elk Avenue, Elizabethton, Tennessee. Appendix C TENNESSEE TRICOT MILLS, INC. 309 W. Elk Ave. Elizabethton, Tenn. April 17, 1952 Registered Mail Mr. Everett Dean, Int. Rep. P. O. Box 812, Johnson City, Tenn. Dear Mr. Dean : This is to advice that the date, place and time for our meeting specified in your letter of April 12, 1952, meets with our approval. 1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Please be further advised that Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc., assumes that you request this meeting for the purpose of bargaining collectively with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment and other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, will embody such under- standing in a signed contract. Yours very truly, TENNESSEE TRICOT MILLS, INC. /s/ T. J. King T. J. KING TJK/pc CC : Mr. Frank Hamilton, Attorney at Law, National Labor Relations Board, Atlanta, Ga. Appendix D The Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc., Elizabethton, Tennessee June 16, 1952. Re : Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc., Etc. Case No. 10-CA-1078 Gentlemen : Even though the National Labor Relations Board issued its complaint in the above matter, and has set same down for a hearing on July 21, 1952, it occurs to me that if we can, through arranging a bargaining session, sit down and endeavor to reach an agreement between your company and the United Textile Workers of America, AFL, that it might be to the best interest of all concerned. I am, therefore, writing to ask if your company would be willing to arrange such meeting, at any time during the week of June 23 or June 30, with repre- sentatives of our Union and the Local Negotiating Committee. As I understand it, the certification of our union is still in full force and effect, and applies to your company. Will you please be good enough to advise me whether this suggestion for a meeting meets with your approval, and would you suggest alternate dates when such meeting can be held. Yours very truly, /s/ Joseph Jacobs JOSEPH JACOBS, Southern Director, UTWA-AFL. JJ: ss cc : Mr. Roy C. Nelson, Attorney, 609 Elk Avenue, Elizabethton, Tenn. Mr. Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., National Labor Relations Board, Atlanta Mr. Everett Dean, P. O. Box 812, Johnson City, Tennessee SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1195 Appendix E ROY C. NELSON Attorney At Law 609 Elk Avenue Elizabethton, Tennessee Telephone 8811 Mr. Joseph Jacobs, Southern Director United Textile Workers of America, AFL, Wigwam Building, 160 Central Avenue, S. W., Atlanta 3, Georgia June 23, 1952. Dear Mr. Jacobs : Re : Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc. Case No. 10-CA-1078 It is certainly a surprise to this office to receive a copy of your letter dated June 16th, addressed to Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc., suggesting we set a date for a meeting in which to sit down and endeavor to reach an agreement. We have made all manner of efforts to set a date which would be agreeable. We presume Mr. King will reply to your letter. Very truly yours, /s/ Roy C. Nelson Roy C. NELSON RCN/bb CC: Mr. Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., National Labor Relations Board, Atlanta, Georgia Mr. Everett Dean, P. O. Box 812, Johnson City, Tennessee Mr. Thomas J. King, Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc., Elizabethton, Tennessee 1196 Appendix F Tel. Elizabethton 2-7673 TENNESSEE TRICOT MILLS, Inc. 309 WEST ELK AVENUE, ELIZABETHTON, TENN. June 23, 1952. Mr. Joseph Jacobs, Southern Director, United Textile Workers of America, AFL, Wigwam Building, 160 Central Avenue, S. W., Atlanta 3, Georgia Dear Mr. Jacobs : Re : Tennessee Tricot Mills, Inc., etc. Case No. 10-CA-1078 This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 16, 1952. We do not exactly understand your request. In as much as you have had the Na- tional Labor Relations Board cite this Company under proceedings now pending before that Board we are of the opinion that all matters should be taken up through the representative of the National Labor Relations Board. It is the contention of the Tricot Mills that they have, in no way, violated any laws, contracts, and agreements of any kind. They are ready, at all times, to comply with all laws, rules, regulations and proper requests. Therefore, I am sending a copy of this letter to our attorney, and I am sure that if this matter is properly brought to the attention of the represent- atives of the National Labor Relations Board or representatives of the same a time and place can be arranged when we can discuss the matters in question. We can see no objection to a meeting on the dates suggested by you. May it be distinctly understood that we reserve such rights as we may now have or may later ascertain and reserve, at all times, the rights of the Tricot Mills. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Very truly yours, TENNESSEE TRICOT MILLS, INC. By : /s/ T. J. King CC : Mr. Roy C. Nelson Mr. Frank E. Hamilton, Jr. Mr. Everett Dean Mr. Roy C. Nelson Attorney at Law Elizabethton, Tennessee Appendix G June 26, 1952. Re : Tennessee Tricot Mills Dear Mr. Nelson : This office received a letter from you on yesterday with reference to the above matter and another one today. I regret that we cannot agree that this company has made efforts to set a date to reach an agreement. There is a difference between being willing to meet, and being willing to bargain in good faith. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SOUTHERLAND'S TENNESSEE COMPANY, INC. 1197 Your response to my letter of June 16 coming at this time makes it im- possible for us to set a conference this week, since the week is half over. I also have a letter of the 23rd signed by Mr. King which patently reads like an effort to bolster the company's position in an NLRB hearing rather than to arrange to meet and bargain with our Union for a contract. It is obvious that we are in disagreement as to prior events. It is our purpose and intent however, if we can arrange a conference to enter same with an open mind and with the view of endeavoring to reach a collective bargaining agreement. Our Mr. Dean will contact Mr. King for such purpose. Yours very truly, JOSEPH JACOBS, SOUTHERN DIRECTOR, UTWA-AFL. JJ : ss cc : Mr. Everett Dean Mr. Thomas King, Tennessee Tri-cot Mills, Elizabethton, Tenn. Mr. Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., NLRB, Atlanta, Georgia Appendix H NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Rela- tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL, upon request, bargain with UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMER- ICA, A. F. OF L., as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bar- gaining unit is : All production and maintenance employees at our Elizabethton, Ten- nessee establishment, excluding office and clerical employees, supervisors, guards, and professional employees as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT take any unilateral action in derogation of the above-named union's right to act as the exclusive representative of our employees in the above-described unit, with respect to any matter properly subject to the collective-bargaining process. WE WILL NOT interfere, in any other manner, with the efforts of the union to bargain collectively with us in regard to the above-mentioned matters, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the appropriate unit described above. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming mem- bers of the above-named union or any other labor organization. TENNESSEE TRICOT MILLS, INC., Employer. By -------------------------------------------- Dated -------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.