Eagle & Phenix Mills

In the Matter of EAGLE & PHENIX MILLS and TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE In the Matter of EAGLE-PHENIX MILLS and TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Cases Nos. C-944 and R-456, respectively Cotton Tevtile Industry-Interference , Restraint, and Coercion : intimidation of employees by supervisors prior to election directed by Board-Order: to cease and desist and to post appropriate notices-Investigation of Representatives- Prior Election Voided: election previously ordered , held under conditions unfavorable to a free choice of representatives , declared void-Election Or- dered: date of election and' employment date for determining eligibility to vote, to be fixed by Board when conditions favorable to a free choice of representa- tives shall appear to exist. Mr. Maurice J. Nicoson, Mr. Berdon M. Bell, Mr. Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., and Mr. Charles D. Dim mock, for the Board. Swift, Pease, Davidson & Swinson, by Mr. J. Q. Davidson and Mr. W. Edward Swinson, and Battle ct Smith, by Mr. Willis Battle, all of Columbus, Ga., for the respondent. Mr. John Abt, of New York City, for the Union. Mr Richard A. Perkins, of counsel to the Board. DECISION ORDER AND SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTION February 16, 1939 STATEMENT OF THE CASE On January 18, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Election 1 in Case No. R-456. The Direction of Election provided that an elec- tion) by secret ballot be conducted within fifteen (15) days there- from, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) among all the employees 14 N. L. R. B. 966. 11 N. L. R. B., No. 33. 361 362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Eagle & Phenix Mills,2 Columbus, Georgia, herein called the re- spondent, who were employed by the respondent during the pay-roll period next preceding September 27, 1937, excluding clerical and supervisory employees and those who had quit or been discharged for cause between such date and the date of election, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by Textile `Yorkers Organizing Committee, herein called the Union, for the purposes of collective bargaining. Pursuant to the Direction of Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on February 2, 1938, at Columbus, Georgia. Full opportunity was accorded the parties to the investigation to partici- pate in the conduct of the secret ballot and to make challenges. Thereafter, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions-Series 1, as amended, issued on February 7, 1938, an Inter- mediate Report upon the ballot, and on February 11, 1938, an amend- ment thereto, each of which was duly served upon the parties. As to the balloting and its results, the Intermediate Report upon` the ballot, as amended, stated the following : Total number eligible according to the pay roll submitted by Company-------------------------------------------- 2,069 Total number of ballots cast------------------------------ Total number votes for Textile Workers Organizing Com- 1,753 mittee ------------------------------------------------- 537 Total number votes cast against Textile Workers Organiz- ing Committee ----------------------------------------- 1,168 Total number votes challenged---------------------------- 45 Total number votes miscast------------------------------- 3 The Regional Director in his, Intermediate Report further stated that by reason of certain occurrences prior to and during said elec- tion, viz : a newspaper campaign against the Union and the Commit- tee for Industrial Organization; a doubt concerning the validity of pay rolls submitted by the respondent for the purpose of the elec- tion; interference by the Columbus, Georgia, city police, and coercive conduct on the part of the respondent's supervisory employees, the election took place under conditions which deprived the employees among whom the election was held of a free choice of representatives. The Regional Director recommended that a hearing be held in the premises. The respondent duly filed its objections to the Intermediate Re- port on the ballot, denying certain allegations of the same and as- serting the legal insufficiency of others. On April 1, 1938, the Union filed with said Regional Director charges alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en- 2 Designated as Eagle-Phenix Mills in prior proceedings in Case No. R-456. The respondent is herein designated by the style in which it appears in its pleadings. EAGLE AND PHENIX MILLS ET AL. 363 gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. On May 6, 1938, the Board issued an order reopening the record in Case No. R-456 for the purpose of a hearing upon said Intermediate Report on the ballot and upon said objections thereto, and directing that Case No. R456 be consolidated with the proceeding in respect to the alleged unfair labor practices (now Case No. C-944), for purposes of hearing. On May 7, 1938, the Regional Director, having found that the ob- jections to the Intermediate Report upon the ballot raised substan- tial and material issues with respect to the conduct of the ballot, issued a notice of hearing thereon. On the same day the Board, by said Regional Director, issued its complaint alleging that the re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Sec- tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Notices of hearing in both the com- plaint and the representation proceedings were duly served upon the respondent and upon the Union. The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent had be- tween January 18 and February 2, 1938, at various meetings of em- ployees on its premises and at other times and places advised its employees to vote against the Union in the election directed by the Board and threatened to discharge employees and shut down its mill if the Union won said election, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. On May 20, 1938, pursuant to an extension of time granted by the Regional Director for that purpose, the respondent filed answers in both the complaint and the representation proceedings, together with a motion to require the allegations of the complaint to be made more definite and certain. On May 27, 1938, the respondent filed with the Regional Director a motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 31, 1938, the Regional Director denied the motion without prejudice to the respondent's right to renew the same at the hearing. On May 27, 1938, the respondent applied for the issuance of sub- penas requiring the attendance and testimony of four of the Board's agents and one other person. On May 28, 1938, the Regional Di- rector issued an order denying the request for subpenas for the Board's agents and granting the request for subpena for the other person. This ruling denying the subpenas is hereby affirmed. The testimony sought to be obtained from the Board's agents related to paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Intermediate Report on the ballot, which were later abandoned. 364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On June 2, 1938, the Regional Director issued an amendment to the complaint so as more particularly to specify the nature of the un- fair labor practices which the respondent was alleged to have com- mitted. The complaint, as amended, alleged that the respondent had by its supervisory employees advised other employees to vote against the Union in the election directed by the Board, caused the publication of propaganda against the Union in the Columbus, Georgia, newspapers, and inspired civic organizations of Columbus, Georgia, to express opposition to the Union. Pursuant to notice and amended notice, a hearing was begun on June 6, 1938, at Columbus, Georgia, before Walter Wilbur, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the beginning of the hearing the respondent renewed its motions to dismiss the complaint and to make the same more definite and certain. The Trial Examiner ruled that the complaint, as amended, was sufficient. The respond- ent moved to dismiss the representation proceeding. The Trial Examiner overruled the motion, and the respondent filed an answer to the Intermediate Report on the ballot. The respondent filed objec- tions to the order of May 6, 1938, consolidating the complaint and the representation proceedings and reopening the record in the latter case for taking further testimony. The Trial Examiner overruled the objections. On motion of the respondent the Trial Examiner adjourned the hearing until June 13, 1938, when it resumed and con- tinued until June 21. On June 10, 1938, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint as amended. At the close of the Board's case the Trial Examiner allowed a motion by counsel for the Board to dismiss those allegations of the complaint relating to alleged unfair labor practices committed through the instrumentality of newspapers and civic organizations. The Trial Examiner overruled a motion by the respondent to dismiss the remaining allegations of the complaint. At the close of the hearing the respondent renewed its several motions, all of which the Trial Examiner denied save the motions to dismiss the complaint proceeding on the merits. These he took under advisement. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to exam- ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial er- rors were committed. The only ruling which requires attention here is the ruling sustaining the order for consolidation of the cases and reopening the record in the representation proceeding. The respond- ent objected to the procedure adopted on the ground that the order of EAGLE AND PHENIX MILLS ET AL. 365 consolidation was issued without notice to the respondent prior to the opening of the hearing before the Trial Examiner, that the notices of hearing did not specify that the hearing would relate to a consoli- dated proceeding, and that the Rules and Regulations contained no provision for reopening the record in a representation proceeding. It is to be noted that the subject matter of both the representation and complaint cases was similar; that the notices in both cases pro- vided for a hearing at the same time and place; and that a copy of the order of consolidation was introduced as an exhibit on the first day of the hearing, which was continued 1 week before any testi- mony was taken. It is clear that the respondent was not preju- diced by any lack of notice of the order of consolidation or by the form of such order or of the notices of hearing. The record in a. representation proceeding remains open until the investigation insti- tuted by the Board is concluded, and the Rules and Regulations spe- cifically provided in Article III, Section 9, for consideration of an Intermediate Report on a ballot and objections thereto as an inci- dent to any proceeding for the investigation and certification of rep- resentatives. We conclude that the record in Case No. R-456 re- mained open for further proceedings after the election of February 2, 1938. Consequently the respondent's objection based on the alleged absence of authority of the Board to reopen a representation case need not be considered. The rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing are affirmed. On August 25, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Re- port, copies of which were duly served on the parties, in which he denied the respondent's motions to dismiss the complaint, 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 re- spondent cease and desist, therefrom and post notice of compliance. On October 1, 1938, pursuant to an extension of time granted for that purpose, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report of the Trial Examiner and a motion to strike the Regional Director's Intermediate Report upon the secret ballot and to have the result of the election of February 2, 1938, declared official. The respondent also requested an opportunity to argue orally before the Board. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board on December 8, 1938, in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of such oral argument. The respondent and the Union were represented by counsel and participated, the former filing a brief in both the repre- sentation and complaint proceedings. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report and the motions directed against the Regional Director's Intermediate Report on the ballot of February 2, 1938, and 366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD except as consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order herein, finds such exceptions and motions to be without merit, and they are hereby overruled. Upon the entire records in both cases, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, a Georgia corporation, operates a single manufac- turing plant at Columbus, Georgia, devoted chiefly to the pro- duction of cotton goods, including flannel, crochet thread, ball thread, and rope. Cotton comprises approximately 99 per cent, in value, of the raw materials used. The respondent buys all of its cotton in Columbus, Georgia, and hauls it to the mill by truck. The respondent used 32,015 bales in the year ending August 31, 1937. The respondent's president testified at the hearing of November 26, 1937,3 that the cotton might come from various States, depending on the season and the crop. The respondent uses each month about 20 tons of coal shipped by rail from Alabama mines. Dyestuffs are obtained from the duPont Company and are shipped to the mill from a duPont branch in Charlotte, North Carolina. The principal processes carried on at the mill are picking, carding, spinning, weaving, sanforizing, finishing, and dyeing. The respond- ent manufactured 15,000,000 pounds of goods in the year ending August 31, 1937, and during this period sold 13,800,000 pounds. Approximately 90 per cent of the products sold by the respondent are shipped outside of Georgia, principally to customers in New York City, Chicago, and Baltimore. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES During the week preceding the election of February 2, 1938, the respondent prepared and distributed sample ballots on which ap- peared an announcement of the date and hour of the election, instruc- tions how to mark the ballot for or against the Union, and the admonition "Every employee should vote. The mill urges every employee to vote." During the same period the respondent's over- 3 At the hearing of June 6-21, 1938, it was stipulated between counsel for the Board and the respondent that the testimony previously taken in Case No R-456 should be made a part of the record in Case No. X-C-390 ( now Case No . C-944). EAGLE AND PHENIX MILLS ET AL. 367 seei s and second hands called a number of meetings of employees in the mill at which the election was-discussed . Many witnesses testified for the Board and for the respondent concerning the nature of these discussions and considerable conflict exists in the testimony. What appears to be conflicting testimony may be due, in part, however, to the fact that witnesses were testifying with respect to discussions at different meetings . It suffices to say that the findings below are based upon uncontradicted testimony and upon admissions by witnesses for the respondent. The statements made at the meetings are to be understood with reference to conditions prevailing at some localities in the region where the respondent's mill is situated . The Meritas mill in Colum- bus, Georgia, and certain textile mills in Huntsville , Alabama, were shut down during the period immediately preceding the election here in question . Some persons in Columbus believed that the formation ,of unions at those mills was the cause of the shut-downs. The Co- lumbus Ledger, a daily newspaper published in Columbus , Georgia, carried a news story on February 1, 1938, relating to the election set for the next day and closing with a reference to Huntsville , Alabama, where 4,000 textile workers were said to be unemployed , stating, "The operatives, formerly affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, are now connected with the C. I. O." * According to Charles Joiner, testifying for the respondent , the newspapers said that the Huntsville mills had "closed down on account of the union." There is no con- nection between the respondent and the Meritas or Huntsville mills so far as the record shows and there is nothing to fix any responsibility upon the respondent for the original publication of the statements concerning the Meritas or Huntsville shut-downs. The conditions pre- vailing at those mills are not relevant here ; our only interest in the matter is to note the context in which certain equivocal statements were made. It should also be noted that during the period immediately pre- ceding the election the respondent 's mill was operating on a part-time basis. W. G. Huguley, Jr., overseer of the spinning room and in charge ,of about 430 employees, addressed about 350 employees prior to the election in about 30 groups. He explained the sample ballot and announced the time and place of the election. When employees in- quired why the respondent's mill was running on short time he re- plied that a number of the respondent's customers in the North had had their plants shut down due to strikes. When employees asked him how they should vote he said "how they voted wasn't any of my business ; that they knew what conditions were all over the country, and that they should look at what had occurred in other places, and 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Huntsville and Meritas here in town, and formulate their own opin- ion." He mentioned that the Huntsville and Meritas mills were shut down. Huguley's first reference to the Huntsville and Meritas mills was evoked by a question from an employee, he said; after that be brought up the subject on his own initiative at from five to eight meetings. In various of the meetings as well as on several other occasions in the mill employees asked Huguley "what they were voting for." He defined collective bargaining as "a proposition in which an individ- ual or, a group of individuals could sit down and discuss any issue or grievance with the management," and stated that "no agreement had to be reached in order for it to be considered collective bargain- ing." He said that "in view of the fact that we already had collective bargaining, in one sense of the word, the issue was whether they wanted to continue as it was at present or to have the T. W. 0. C. represent them as collective bargaining agent." Here it should he mentioned that the record indicates the presence of no labor organiza- tion and no attempt at collective bargaining prior to the advent of the Union, and that the respondent had never bargained collectively with the Union. At two of the meetings Huguley read an extract from a labor pub- lication, apparently quoted in *a trade journal, and told the employees that the distribution of such literature had incited a disturbance be- tween white and colored workers at the Bibb cotton mill in Columbus. Huguley claimed to have read this material first at the request of an employee who had seen it lying on Huguley's desk, and at a second meeting at the request of an employee who had heard of the previous reading. S. A. McCosh, overseer in charge of the carding, opening, waste, and spinning departments, including about 420 employees, discussed the election with about 18 or 20 groups, each including about 18 or 20 persons, prior to the election. In four or five meetings when em- ployees inquired about the Huntsville and Meritas shut-downs, he replied "Read your own papers and see for yourself." He also ex- plained the ballot, announced the time and place of the election, and urged all employees to vote. A large number of witnesses for the Board testified to other state- ments said to have been made by McCosh, Huguley, and other super- visors. Many employees testifying for the respondent denied having heard these other statements although they claimed in many instances to have attended the same meetings as those concerning which the Board's witnesses testified. Several of the respondent's witnesses testified to having heard references by supervisors to the Huntsville, Meritas, and Bibb mills and the "collective bargaining" which Hugu- EAGLE AND PHENIX MILLS ET AL. 369 ley asserted already existed in the respondent's mill. Nine employees testifying for the respondent stated on cross-examination that over- seers or second hands (minor supervisory employees) instructed them how to vote "yes" for the Union or "no" for the mill. It is clear that the overseers endorsed the prevailing opinion con- cerning the Huntsville and Meritas shut-downs as reported in the press and recommended those examples to the consideration of em- ployees before voting, thereby implying that the respondent might shut down its mill to retaliate against union activity. Huguley brought out information tending to accuse unions of fomenting race discord. He also gave a, misleading account of collective bargaining which limited it to the presentation of grievances and stated that it already existed in the mill, thereby implying that the Union could offer no new procedure. He dwelt on the negative aspect of collective bargaining as not requiring any contract. In addition to all this, the instructions given by the supervisors were such as to indicate to some employees that a vote "no" was a vote for the mill, thus placing the respondent and the Union in opposition on the ballot, although the matter was merely one of choosing or not choosing a bargaining representative for the employees. It is not here necessary to consider whether the holding by an employer of meetings of employees merely to advise employees of the time and place of an election, to instruct them how they may express their choice, and to advise them to vote, in itself constitutes an unfair labor practice within the meaning of the Act. The dangers inherent in such practice are, however, apparent. Such activity on the part of an employer might not unreasonably be construed by employees as indicative of opposition to collective bargaining, and this is particularly true where, as in the instant case, only one labor organization is involved. The danger of employer meddling in Board elections is illustrated in this case. Even adopting the respondent's contention that the discussions of the Meritas and Huntsville shut-downs, the Bibb mill disturbance, and the nature of collective bargaining were initiated by employees in the various groups, it is yet apparent that the re- spondent's action in calling the meetings naturally resulted in bring- ing up those subjects; the employees might well be expected to speak what was on their minds.4 The respondent also asserts as a defense that the supervisors whose activity is in question all announced to the employees that the election On the question whether employers are exonerated from responsibility for supervisors' statements when such statements are made in answer to employees ' questions , see Matter of Ingram Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 5 N. L R. B. 908; Matter of Western Garment Manufacturing Co. et al. and Paul M. Peterson, President, Utah State Federation of Labor, 10 N. L. R. B. 567. 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION S BOARD was by secret ballot and that employees were free to vote as they chose. It is true that the secrecy of the voting would protect in- dividual employees against. discrimination by reason of any disclosure of their votes, but it would not protect them against a shut-down or general lay-off occasioned by the success of the Union at the polls. It was to the latter peril that employees referred when they inquired of supervisors concerning the Huntsville and Meritas mills. And in any event, a general statement concerning employees' freedom of choice would hardly be sufficient to neutralize accompanying state- ments such as have been noted above. We find that the respondent has by the foregoing acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. In order to remedy the effect of the unfair labor practices we shall require the respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to post appropriate notices to that effect. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond- ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate , and sub- stantial relation to trade, traffic, and -commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING In his Intermediate Report upon the secret ballot, the Regional Director stated his opinion that the election of February 2, 1938, took place under conditions which deprived the employees of a free choice of representatives. His statement was based in part upon the activities of the respondent which we have considered in Section III above, and which were in issue at the hearing as regards both the complaint and the representation proceedings . The respondent con- tended that such activities did not affect the result of the election and hence that the election should not be set aside . In connection with that contention, the respondent sought to inquire of the employees testifying for the Board as to whether they voted as they wished. The Trial Examiner sustained an objection of counsel for the Board to such inquiry . The respondent then offered to prove by all the employees other than those testifying on behalf of the Board that they heard no statement by any supervisor concerning the election. The Trial Examiner sustained an objection by counsel for the Board to such testimony. We find the rulings of the Trial Examiner to be correct. The probative value of testimony by employees , particularly EAGLE AND PHENIX MILLS ET AL. 371 upon questioning by counsel for the respondent, as to whether their free choice was affected by the respondent's activities is so slight and untrustworthy as to be disregarded. The fact that certain of the employees might testify that they had not heard any statement by supervisors concerning the election does not militate against the existence of interference by the respondent affecting a free choice by the employees. In the instant case, we think the only relevant inquiry concerns whether or not the respondent engaged in the acts discussed in Section III above. We have found that it did so. Under the circumstances, we find that the election of February 2, 1938, was inconclusive for a determination as to whether or not the employees within the appropriate unit desired the Union to repre- sent them as bargaining representative. We shall direct that a second election be held at such time as the Board shall in the future specify and when conditions favorable to a free choice shall appear to exist. We shall also at such time specify the pay-roll period to be used in determining eligibility to vote in the election. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in both cases, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Textile Workers Organizing Committee 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 by Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The election of February 2, 1938, is null, void, and of no effect. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Eagle & Phenix Mills, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, and assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action which, the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post immediately notices to its employees throughout its mills, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) con- secutive days from the date of posting, stating that the respondent will cease and desist as aforesaid ; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writ- ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Eagle & Phenix Mills, Columbus, Georgia, a new election by secret ballot be conducted at such time as the Board will in the future direct, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, acting in this matter as agent of the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sec- tion 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all employees of Eagle & Phenix Mills who were employed by the respondent during a pay-roll period to be determined by the Board in the future, ex- cluding clerical and supervisory employees and those who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Textile Workers Organizing Committee for the purposes of collective bargaining. [ SAME TITLE] AMENDMENT TO SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTION March 25, 1939 On February 16, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a Decision, Order, and Second Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, directing that an election be held at such time as the Board would in the future direct, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), among all employees of Eagle & Phenix Mills, Columbus, Georgia, herein called the respondent, who were em- EAGLE AND PIIENIX MILLS E, T AL. 373 ployed by the respondent during a pay-roll period to be determined by the Board in the future, excluding clerical and supervisory em- ployees and those who had since quit or had been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by Textile Workers Organizing Committee for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Board hereby amends its Second Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding by striking therefrom the words "at such time as the Board will in the future direct" and substituting theref or the words "within twenty, (20) days from March 24, 1939," and by striking therefrom the words "during a pay-roll period to be deter- mined by the Board in the future" and substituting therefor the words "during the pay-roll period next preceding March 24, 1939." 11 N. L. R. B., No. 33a. 164275-39-vol xi---25