Bahan Textile Machinery Co., Inc.

In the Matter of BAHAN TEXTILE MACHINERY COMPANY, INC., and UNITED ELECTRICAL RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA Case No. C-00-909.-Decided August 13, 1949 Jurisdiction: textile machinery parts and gun carrier parts manufacturing industry. .Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restraint,, and Coercion: charges of dismissed since alleged unfair labor practices were not established by the record. Practice and Procedure: complaint dismissed. Mr. William M. Pate and Mr. Thomas H. Ramsey, for the Board. Mr. D. B. Leatherwood, of Greenville, S. C., for the respondent. Mr. Harry H. Kuskin, of counsel to the'Board. DECISION AND ORDER . STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi- zations, herein called the Union, the 'National Labor Relations Board,, herein called the Board by the Acting Regional Director for the.Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint, dated April 28, 1942, .against Bahan Textile Machinery Company, Inc., Greenville, South Carolina, herein called the' respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting, commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and of notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance : (1) that since about November 27, 1941, the respondent, by .its officers and agents, has warned' its employees against talking with union organizers or representatives, has threatened its employees with discharge or other reprisals if they became members of the Union or were seen talking with union organizers or representatives; has stated .to its employees that they would not be good Americans if they joined 43 N. L. R. -B., No. 8. 97 481039-42-vol. 43-7 98 DECISIONS. OFNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Union or assisted in its organizational efforts, has made statements derogatory to the Union or. its organizers and representatives, and has advised its employees that the Union would not benefit them; and (2) .that the respondent has, by the foregoing acts, interfered with, re- sfrained,and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar: anteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent, filed an answer to the complaint on May 6; 1942, denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.. 'Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held' on May 6, 1942, before' A. Bruce Hunt, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner.. The Board and the respondent were represented by coun- sel and participated in the hearing? Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear- ing on the issues was afforded all parties.. At the close of the-hearing, the Trial Examiner granted, without objection, a motion of counsel for the Board to conform 'the pleadings to the proof in such matters as spelling and dates. During'the course of the hearing, the Trial Exam- iner made rulings on other motions and on objections to the 'admis- sion of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board and counsel for the' respondent were afforded, but declined, an opportunity to argue orally before the Trial Examiner.' Thereafter the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, dated May 30, 1942, copies of which were-duly served upon the respond- ent and the Union. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce; within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of. the Act, and ;recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. No exceptions were filed to the Intermediate Report; nor did any of the :parties • file a brief with the Board or request oral argument before the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT L. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Bahan Textile Machinery Company, Inc., a South Carolina corpo- ration with its principal office in Greenville, South Carolina, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of textile machinery parts and in the manufacture of gun. carrier parts -for the United. States. '. ' Although two of the Union' s organizers appeared and testified at the hearing, the' Union entered no formal appearance. • BAHAN, TEXTILE..MACHIN'ERY 'COMPANY, INC.., . 99 Government. The respondent operates two plants in Greenville,.. South Carolina, where it employs approximately 225, persons. The principal materials used in the respondent's manufacturing operations are iron, steel, brass, aluminum, and rubber. Approximately $100,000 worth, or 50.percent, of these materials came from outside the State of South Carolina during the year 1941. Approximately $400,000 wort;, or 50 percent, of the respondent's finished products were shipped. out- side the State of South Carolina during the same period. The., respondent admits that it-is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE ALLEGED" UNFAIR ;LABOR PRACTICES The first occasion on which efforts were made by the Union to* organize the respondent's employees was on November 27, 1941, when John R.'Kirby; a general representative of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, accompanied by Horace White, an organizer for the Textile Workers' .Union,2 arrived outside one of the respondent's plants shortly after noon, the commencement of. the lunch hour. They dis- tributed' literature, and ' engaged in conversation with some of the respondent's employees outside the gates of the plant, and thereafter entered into a discussion with a group of employees who had congre- gated across the street from the plant. Toward the close of the lunch hour, James H. Bedenbaugh, a foreman in charge of several depart- ments.' accompanied. by Charles L. Thomason, one of the respondent's employees, walked over to the group of employees gathered around Kirby and White. According to the-testimony of Kirby, which is corroborated by that of White, Bedenbaugh inquired as to why the men had congregated, was informed 'by White of the nature of the visit of both organizers, and was offered.,, but refused, organizational literature which White' was distributing among the employees.. White and Kirby testified further that Bedenbaugh, upon refusing White's offer, remarked ili,the presence of 8 • or 10 employees that."No good Americair would be putting that stuff out around here." Bedenbaugh denied having made that statement. Thomason testified to his recollection of the conversa- tion'and; although lie was' not questioned specifically about the remark attributed to.Beden:baugh by' the union representatives, his narration 2 Textile; workers','Union is not otherwise involved:in this - proceeding. The respondent concedes the supervisory status of Bedenbaugh. 100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of'the facts, as he recalled them, did not include any-such statement. Thomason also testified, without contradiction, that Bedenbaugh and the 2 union representatives discussed rates of pay and that, in that connection, Bedenbaugh commented that "A man that hasn't got sense enough to come to a man and • tell him how much he thinks he is worth be needs something like this, but .... I believe these fellows have, .sense enough to ask for a- raise if they need it."' According to the testimony of both Kirby and White, 'Bedenbaugh closed the conversa- 'tion. at about 12: 5,5 p. in. by swearing at the congregated employees and saying, in addition, "You fellows get back on the job... If I hear any of you . . . talking to these fellows :... any more, ' I will fire you." Both Bedenbaugh,and Thomason denied that Bedenbaugh made the closing remarks attributed to him by Kirby and White and both stated that Bedenbaugh looked at his watch and pointed out to the assemblage that it was 2 minutes past the lunch hour-and time for the employees to return to work.4 The Trial Examiner resolved the foregoing conflicts in the testi- 'mony of the witnesses by crediting,,on the oiie hand, the testimony,of Kirby and White that. Bedenbaugh stated that no good American would distribute organizational' literature and rejecting the denials in that respect of Bedenbaugh and Thomason, and on the other hand, by disbelieving the testimony of Kirby and White that Bedenbaugh swore at the employees and threatened them with discharge if they spoke to union organizers, thereby accepting the denial of Bedenbaugh and Thomason on that score. Although the Trial Examiner had the oppor- tunity at the hearing to-observe the witnesses, we cannot agree with his resolution of the conflicts in testimony.' The record affords no basis for believing Kirby and White, in oile.respect, when contradicted by Bedenbaugh and Thomason, and for accepting the testimony of Beden- baugh and Thomason, in another respect, when contradicted by Kirby and White. Moreover, standing. alone, the uncontradicted testimony of Thomason, that Bedenbaugh told-the respondent's employees that they did not need the assistance of a union to obtain an increase in pay, is of insufficient' probative value to support the allegations of 'the complaint. Under the circumstances, therefore, we are unable to find - that the alleged 'unfair labor practices have been established by' the record. Accordingly, we find that the respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 of the Act. We shall therefore dismiss the complaint. ' On the. basis of the' above findings of" fact and. upon. the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following ' . 4 The .respondent .'did not use a whistle or' other means of notifying . employees of the commencement of working'hou'rs. BAHAN TEXTILE 1VIACHINERY COMPANY, INC. 101 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, affiliated With the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 .(5) of the Act. 2. The operations of the respondent, Bahan Textile Machinery 'Company, Inc., occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. 3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8,(i) of the Act ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section fO (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint against Bahan Textile Machinery Company, Inc., Green Ville, South Carolina, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.