Trenton Mills, Inc.

In the Matter of TRENTON MILLS, INC. and RALPH KNOx Case No. C-126.-Decided April 14, 1939 Cotton Bags and Stockinettes Manufacturing Industry-Discrimination: re- fusal to reinstate or employ : because of personal animosity between former employee and employer, and not because of union activity ; charges of, not sustained-Complaint: dismissed. Mr. Mortimer Kollender, for the Board. Mr. Robert P. Adams, of Trenton, Tenn., for the respondent. Mr. C. D. Puckett, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for Ralph Knox. Mr. Robert Kramer, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by Ralph Knox, the National Labor Re- lations Board, herein called the Board, by Charles N. Feidelson, Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint, dated April 2, 1936, against -Trenton Mills, Inc., Trenton, Tennessee, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of a hearing, to be held on April 14, 1936, at Trenton, Tennessee, were duly served upon the respondent and Knox. On April 13, 1936, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon all the parties a notice that the hearing would be held on May 1, 1936, instead of April 14, 1936, as originally scheduled. In respect of the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended, alleged in substance that on or about August 11, 1933, the respondent discharged Ralph Knox, an employee of the respondent at its plant situated in Trenton, Tennessee; that on or about December 23, 1933, Ralph Knox filed a complaint against the respondent under Section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, alleging that the respondent discharged him on August 11, 1933, because of his at- -12 N. L. R. B., No. 35. 241 242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tempts to organize a union among the respondent's employees; that after a full hearing on said complaint, the old National Labor Board, in a decision dated October 30, 1934, found that the respondent in discharging Knox had violated Section 7 (a) of the National Indus- trial Recovery Act and ordered the respondent to reinstate Knox; that on or about November 19, 1934, pursuant to the aforesaid order of the old National Labor Board, the respondent reinstated Knox; that on or about May 15, 1935, the respondent laid off Knox and approximately 13 other employees at its Trenton plant, allegedly be- cause of a seasonal curtailment in the production at this plant; that during June and July, 1935, the respondent reinstated, according to their seniority status, all the employees laid off at its Trenton plant on May 15, 1935, except Knox; that the respondent at all times since May 15, 1935, has failed and refused to reinstate Knox for the reason that he had joined and assisted Local No. 2282, United Textile Workers of America, herein called Local 2282, and had engaged in concerted activities with other employees of the respondent for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; and that by its aforesaid refusal to reinstate Knox, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent filed an answer denying that it was engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. The answer also contained a motion to quash and dismiss the complaint on constitu- tional and jurisdictional grounds. Pursuant to the amended notice, a hearing was held at Trenton, Tennessee, on May 1 and 2, 1936, before Walter Wilbur, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the re- spondent were represented by counsel; Knox was represented by an organizer for United Textile Workers of America, hereinafter called the Union; and all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro- duce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all the parties. At the commencement of the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied the motion of the respondent to quash and dismiss the complaint on the asserted constitutional grounds. The ruling is hereby affirmed.' He reserved ruling on the respondent's motion to quash and dismiss the complaint on the asserted jurisdictional grounds. In his Inter- mediate Report, the Trial Examiner denied this motion. The ruling is hereby affirmed .2 The respondent also moved that a jury be im- panelled to try all issues of fact. The Trial Examiner denied this I National Labor Relations Board V . Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1 (1937). 2 See Section I, infra. l TRENTON MILLS, INC. 243 motion. The ruling is hereby affirmed.s At the close of the hearing, the respondent moved that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the evidence adduced by the Board failed to sustain the allegations of the complaint concerning the commission of unfair labor practices by the respondent. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the motion. In his Intermediate Report, he granted this motion. For reasons hereinafter set forth,4 the ruling is hereby affirmed. During the hearing, counsel for the Board reserved the right to introduce in evidence a copy of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended. After the hear- ing, counsel for the Board introduced in evidence a copy of the afore- said Rules and Regulations. Thereupon, the respondent filed objec- tions to the introduction in evidence of said Rules and Regulations. These objections are hereby overruled. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made a number of rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On July 20, 1936, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon, all the parties, finding that the respondent, by its refusal to reinstate Knox, had not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. He recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The respondent and Knox filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The Board has reviewed all the exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and finds them without merit except as they are con- sistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, a Tennessee corporation, is engaged in the manu- facture, sale, and distribution of cotton bags and stockinettes of a special type for use by meat packers. The respondent's operations include all processes from the ginning of seed cotton to the manu- facture of the finished product, which is then sold directly to the ultimate consumer. The principal office and sole manufacturing plant of the respondent is in Trenton, Tennessee. All the raw cot- ton used by the respondent, amounting to 3,100 bales annually, is grown in Tennessee. The respondent also purchases about 150,000 S See footnote 1, supra 4 See Section III, infra 169134-39-vol 12-17 244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pounds of yarn annually; 10 per cent of this yarn is shipped to the respondent's plant from points outside the State of Tennessee. About 75 cars of coal and about $100 worth of machinery are also annually shipped to the respondent's plant from, points outside the State of Tennessee. The respondent supplies about 30 per cent of the demand in this country for its products. Over 90 per cent of the respondent's products are shipped to points outside the State of Tennessee. Nor- mally the respondent employs about 225 persons at its Trenton plant, and its annual pay roll amounts to approximately $125,000. We find that the operations of the respondent, set forth in the pre- ceding paragraph, occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.6 H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Textile Workers of America, Local No. 2282, is a labor organization which, at the time of the hearing in this proceeding, was affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to mem- bership employees of the respondent. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Ralph Knox entered the employ of the respondent on June 3, 1931, as a knitter. There was no labor organization among the respond- ent's employees at that time. Shortly before August 11, 1933, Knox assumed the leadership in organizing the respondent's employees and approached several of them relative to obtaining a charter from United Textile Workers of America. On August 11, 1933, Foreman Otto McHugh laid off Knox, and subsequently Superintendent Ed Brignull informed Knox that the respondent had permanently dis- charged him. After unsuccessful attempts to secure reinstatement, Knox filed a complaint, dated December 23, 1933, against the re- spondent with the old Regional Labor Board at Atlanta, Georgia, alleging that he had been discharged because of his union activity, in violation of Section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act. From a decision by the Regional Board in favor of Knox, dated July 24, 1934, the respondent appealed to the old National Labor Board in Washington, D. C. The old Board on October 30, 1934, issued a decision confirming the decision of the Regional Board and ordering the respondent to reinstate Knox. Pursuant to the old Board's order, on November 19, 1934, the respondent reinstated Knox. In the interval between Knox's discharge and reinstatement and during his absence from Trenton, Local 2282 of the Union had been organized among the respondent's employees and duly chartered. .Cf. Santa Cruz Fruit Packting Co. v. National Labor Relations Board , 303 U. S. 453 (1938). TRENTON MILLS, INC. 245 There is nothing in the record to indicate that during this period the respondent opposed the organization of Local 2282 of the Union or interfered with its activities. On the day he was reinstated, Knox sent the following telegram to the respondent : To avoid any possible misunderstanding I am taking this op- portunity to inform you that I intend to continue my efforts to unionize the mill workers one hundred percent and as you have stated that you have no objections I want to ask your cooperation to this end. RALPH KNox. A few days later Knox joined Local 2282 of the Union and in December 1934, he became its president, an office he still held at the time of the hearing in the present proceeding. As president of Local 2282 of the Union, Knox, prior to his lay-off in May 1935, presented many employee grievances to the respondent, and was the recognized leader and most active member of Local 2282 of the Union. So far as the record shows, the respondent at this time in no way opposed or interfered with the organizing activities of either Knox or the Union. For 60 to 90 days prior to May 1935, the business of the respondent had been declining, and between April 22 and June 3, 1935, the re- spondent laid off 12 knitters at its plant because of the decline in business. Knox was the seventh knitter of, this group of 12 to be laid off, his lay-off occurring on May 9, 1935, when his foreman, McHugh, told him that the respondent would send for him when its business increased sufficiently to require his services. The evidence indicates, and Knox admitted, that his lay-off resulted solely from the decline in the respondent's business and was strictly in accordance with his seniority, Knox having been, if anything, laid off somewhat later than his seniority status justified. On May 27, 1935, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in the Sclteclater case,e declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act invalid. Superintendent Brignull immediately ordered Foreman McHugh not to reemploy Knox. The respondent did not at this time inform Knox of this decision not to reemploy him. On June 17, 1935, the respondent began rehiring the knitters pre- viously laid off, and by July 9, 1935, all of these 12 knitters except Knox and 1 other had been reinstated. The record fails to show whether the respondent recalled these knitters or reemployed them upon their application. Knox did not apply for reinstatement subse- quent to his lay-off, but the respondent admits that it would not have rehired him if he had applied. 6 A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Co. V. United States, 295 U. S. 495 ( 1935). 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On January 6, 1936, Knox filed with the Regional Director the charges upon which the complaint in the instant proceeding is based. Late in February 1936 Knox, accompanied by C. D. Puckett, a repre- sentative of the Union, for the first time since his lay-off applied for his former position in the employ of the respondent, and was refused employment. There is some indication that at this time the respondent was decreasing rather than increasing the number of employees at its plant, but at the hearing the respondent's officers testified that Knox would not have been hired even if there had been work available for him in the plant. The respondent admits that Knox's conduct and work subsequent to his reinstatement on November 19, 1934, were entirely satisfactory. Nor is there the slightest evidence that the respondent in any manner opposed or interfered with Knox's unconcealed and intense activity on behalf of Local 2282 of the Union among its employees, after his reinstatement in November 1934. The respondent's officers frankly stated at the hearing, and the evidence fully supports their state- ments, that, after his reinstatement in November 1934, the respondent had no intention of employing Knox any longer than it considered itself under compulsion to do so; that during the entire period be- tween Knox's reinstatement in November 1934, and Brignull's orders to McHugh not to reemploy Knox, Knox was predestined for dis- charge not because of any occurrences during this period but because of events antedating his reinstatement; and that ever since the invali- dation of the National Industrial Recovery Act the respondent has refused to reinstate or employ Knox solely because of events ante- dating his reinstatement in November 1934. During the hearing in the instant proceeding, the respondent sharply questioned the finding of the old National Labor Board that it had discharged Knox in August 1933, because of his union activity. However, in view of our subsequent findings, we find it unnecessary for the purposes of the present proceeding to determine whether Knox was discharged in August 1933 for union activity, as the old Board found, or for other reasons, as the respondent asserts. During the interval between Knox's discharge in August 1933, and his reinstatement in November 1934, he made known in derisive and offensive terms, both in letters to, and conversations with, indi- vidual employees of the respondent and individual inhabitants of Trenton his intense animosity toward, and contempt for W. Sherman Harder, president of the respondent. Thus at the hearing in the instant proceeding Knox admitted characterizing Harder with such epithets as : "hoodlum;" "four-flusher;" "Tory;" "slave-driver;" and "Yankee blue-bellied son of a bitch." Knox also admitted that he had written of Harder: "I would like to see that lousy bum in hell"; TRENTON MILLS, INC. 247 and, "that four-flusher came to Trenton to get cheap help; I can tie his rump in ten thousand knots." Harder testified, and the evidence shows, that the remarks and epithets of Knox reached the ears of Harder, who deeply resented them. Indeed, by the time of the hear- ing before the old Regional Board in Atlanta in July 1934, so bitter had become the feeling between Knox and Harder, as a result of Knox's constant derogatory references concerning the latter, that the Regional Board took cognizance of the greatly strained personal rela- tions between the two men and stated in its order : The Board recognizes the fact that a great deal of personal animosity has developed between Knox and the management of Trenton Mills and that it probably would be much better for everyone concerned if work could be found for Knox in some other place. Nor did time diminish the deep-seated hatred of the two men for each other, as their testimony at the hearing in the instant proceed- ing clearly reveals. Thus Knox testified on cross-examination : Q. Do you deny referring to him [Harder] as a hoodlum? A. Do you know that he is not a hoodlum .. . Q. And you never have called him [Harder] a four-flusher? A. I have never heard anyone claim that he was not. Harder, who so far as the record shows had had no part personally in the discharge of Knox in August 1933, but who assumed sole re- sponsibility for the respondent's refusal to reinstate or employ Knox after the effective date of the Act, gave as his reasons for his refusal : I don't think anyone would expect an employer to engage or hire for their service such a man as I believe the reputation and character of Knox is. To begin with, a man that calls me un- couth names . . . his language is not to his credit-he is not a desirable character and I don't want him in my organization. When Knox, accompanied by Puckett, sought reemployment with the respondent in February 1936, he saw Brignull, who referred him to Harder, who in turn referred him to Robert Adams, the respond- ent's attorney. Knox, himself, testified as follows concerning his interview with Adams : [Adams said] that Mr. Sherman Harder was peeved about something, and when he got over his peeve he might send for me ... and I told him [Adams] . . . if I had said anything I wanted to apologize to him [Harder], and he [Adams] sug- gested that I wait and he would try to smooth it over . . . He [Adams] said that Mr. Harder was sort of peeved at me .. . 248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. [By Adams.] And didn't I further say to you that time healed all feelings, and that my suggestion would be to let the matter rock along, that Mr. Harder's personal animosity towards you and yours toward him might be changed-didn't I tell you that? A. You said something like that in substance. Knox did not ever apologize to Harder, but his offer to Adams to do so indicates that he realized the very strained nature of the relations between him and Harder and that this strained relationship was a real obstacle to his being employed by the respondent. Puckett also testified concerning this interview as follows : ... Mr. Adams said that Mr. Knox had never made any apol- ogy to the management for some of these things, and he thought he was due an apology, and I said, I don't know whether he did or he did not, but if he did not I certainly did not approve of it, and I think he is due Mr. Harder an apology if he made these statements, and I believe Mr. Knox at that time got up and said that he had stated them, said them, and that he would make an apology ... Mr. Adams said he would take the matter up with Mr. Harder ... that it had been lingering a long time, and it was a sore spot between these two, and wouldn't I be sore if any- thing like that had been said about me . . Q. [By Adams.] And I said, "Now Mr. Knox ... these rumors and these names that you have called Mr. Harder came back to him and he is hurt about that ... it is a pretty delicate thing for me to say to a man "take back an employee," a man who has called him a son of a bitch, didn't I say that? A. That is true ... Q. And Mr. Knox at that time did not deny having used those words about Mr. Harder ... A. I don't think he denied it ... I inquired and told him he was due an apology, if he had done it, and he said he was willing to make it ... The Trial Examiner, before whom both Knox and Harder testified, and who thus had an opportunity to observe closely the personalities of both men, said in his Intermediate Report : Knox himself is an unusually dynamic personality, highly articulate and exceptionally free of inhibitions. His language is fluent and unguarded and consistently provocative, and he has a strong flair for picturesque and derisive epithets. Without a trace of personal malice he delights in being mischievously of- fensive. Even on the witness stand this impulse was all but uncontrollable .. . TRENTON MILLS, INC. 249 Harder gives the impression, too, of having a certain formal and unbending dignity that would make him particularly vulner- able to Knox's barbs. There can be no doubt that after his discharge in 1933 Knox re- peatedly referred to Harder in derisive and insulting terms which came to Harder's attention. There can be no question that Harder was deeply offended and that his resentment at the liberties Knox had taken did not readily, if ever, subside. In fact, it was the central theme of the discussion between Knox, Adams, and Puckett when Knox sought reemployment in February 1936. Moreover, the very strength of Knox's unusual personality and his "flair for picturesque and derisive epithets" and also for insulting and abusive language in- vested his remarks with a sting and a power to offend that are absent in the ordinary loose talk of an aggrieved employee. And Harder, as observed by the Trial Examiner, possessed a formal and unbending dignity making him especially vulnerable to, and resentful of, Knox's barbed and abusive tongue. The clash of personalities as sharply contrasting as those of Harder and Knox was natural and almost inevitable. The human plausibility of the resentment expressed by the former over the latter's biting attacks on him must be admitted. We attach much importance also to the findings of the Trial Examiner who personally observed the demeanor of both men. Finally, there is no evidence that the respondent, after August 11, 1933, either resisted the organization of Local 2282+ of the Union in its plant or interfered with its activities in any manner. In view of all these circumstances, we are of the opinion that whatever may have been the reasons for Knox's discharge by McHugh and Brignull in August 1933, by the time of Knox's reinstatement in November 1934, such reasons had been completely obscured by the personal animosity between Knox and Harder, and that this personal animosity between Knox and Harder, and not Knox's labor activities, was the cause of Harder's refusal to reinstate or employ Knox after the passage of the Act. Under all the circumstances of this case, we find that the record does not support the allegations of the amended complaint in regard to the commission of unfair labor practices by the respondent, and we will, therefore, dismiss the complaint. Upon the basis of the above 'findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLusIONs OF LAW 1. The operations of the respondent, Trenton Mills, Inc., occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. 2. United Textile Workers of America, Local No. 2282, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. By refusing to reinstate or employ Ralph Knox, the respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing 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 com- plaint against Trenton Mills, Inc., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.