Se-Ling Hosiery Mills, Inc.

In the Matter of SE-LINO HOSIERY MILLS, INC. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS Case No. C-1007.-Decided August 12, 1939 Hosiery. Manvufact'uring Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion: charges of, not sustained-Discrimination : charges . of, not sustained-Conz plaint: dismissed. Mr. Charles D. Diimnwc/e, for the Board. Mr. C. P. Hatcher and Mr. William Waller, of Nashville, Tenn., -for the respondent. Mr. James Rutherford, of Nashville, Tenn., and Mr. Herbert G. B. King, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Union. Mr. Theodore W. Kheel, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by American Fed- -eration of Hosiery Workers on behalf of Branch No. 55, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Charles N. Feidelson, Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued and duly served its complaint dated June 29, 1938, against Se-Ling Hosiery Mills, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee, 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 (3) and Section 2. (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint alleged in substance (1)' that the respondent had since June 18, 1937, discouraged membership in the Union and had attempted to destroy 'the Union by exhibiting open hostility to it, by discriminating against its members, and by other forms of intimidation and coercion, and (2) that the respondent discharged Gordon Dedmon on December 17, 1937, for joining and assisting the Union. On July 8, 1938, the respondent filed its answer to 14 N. L. R. B., No. 37. 4R5 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the complaint denying that it had engaged in the unfair practices alleged therein. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Nashville, Tennessee, on July 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1938, before Harlow Hurley, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respond- ent, and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent moved to -strike certain portions of the complaint as indefinite and uncertain. The Trial Examiner denied this motion but advised the respondent that he would entertain a motion during the hearing to strike any surprise evidence for which the respondent could not properly pre- pare its defense or cross-examination. During the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to amend the complaint to date the, com- mencement of the unfair labor practices from May 1, 1936, instead of from June 18, 1937. The Trial Examiner granted the motion with the understanding of counsel for the Board that evidence introduced under the amendment would constitute "labor history." At the conclusion of the Board's case, counsel for the Board moved to conform the pleadings to the proof. This motion-was granted. The Trial Examiner denied the respondent's motion to strike ' from the record proof pertaining to acts alleged to have occurred after the date on which the amended charge was filed. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and on objection to the admission of evidence. The Board has re- viewed these and the foregoing rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. His rulings are hereby affirmed. On October 26, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report in which he found that the respondent had" -not engaged in .unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act and recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The respondent and the Union filed briefs and exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report all of which have been duly considered.' Except as they are, consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set `forth below, we find the exceptions to be without merit. Although oral argument before the Board in Washington, D. C., was requested, On December, 23, 1938, the Union moved to include in the record an order. dismissing an injunction suit commenced by the respondent. against the Union. The respondent, however, has admitted in its brief that it had voluntarily discontinued saiqr injunction suit. This admission makes unnecessary the inclusion of this evidence and the Union's motion is hereby denied. SE-LING HOSIERY DMILLS, INCORPORATED 487" thereafter it was waived by agreement between the respondent and- the Union. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:- FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent manufactures ladies' full-fashioned silk hosiery at its plant in Nashville;' Tennessee. All --its "raw- materials, and. about one-half of its supplies are obtained outside the'State of Tennessee.. During 1937 approximately 90 per cent of its finished products were- shipped to points outside the State of Tennessee. The respondent. maintains salesmen in New York, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina,- South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama., Mississippi, Tennessee,, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana,._ Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Colo- - rado. It employs approximately 333 persons for its operations in Nashville, Tennessee. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED American Federation of Hosiery Workers, Branch No. 55, is a labor organization affiliated with the Textile Workers Organizing- Comin , i,t-t-ee which, in turn , is affiliated with the Congress of Indus- 'trial Organizations. It- admits to membership all production and- maintenance employees of the respondent , excluding . clerical and supervisory. employees. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion On April 16, 1937, shortly after the Act had been declared consti- tutional by the Supreme Court, Maclin Davis, the respondent's presi- dent,posted a letter to•employees of the respondent discussing certain provisions of the Act, the rights of employees thereunder, and the policy that the respondent would pursue in compliance with the Act. This letter was followed by another letter on June 18, 1937, giving- further expression to the views held: by Davis on the matters pre- viously discussed. Under the circumstances of this case, neither the-, statements contained in the letters nor the manner in which they were posted interfered with or had the effect of interfering with the employees 'in the exercise of their rights under the Act. 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 by the statements contained in those letters. 488 DECISIONS OF NATIO NAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the early part of April 1938, Davis announced a wage reduction for certain employees effective on April 11, 1938. Two days before the reduction was put into effect, the Union called it meeting to con- sider steps to be taken in protest against the reduction. On the same day, Davis secured, ex party, from the Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, a temporary injunction restraining, in general terms, the Union and 12 named officers and members thereof, from engaging in various forms of unlawful conduct in connection with its protest against the wage reduction. This injunction was served on the Union and the individual party defendants during the course of their meeting. Its service disrupted the meeting and caused many members to leave. On Monday morning, April 11, 1938, the wage reduction was put into effect, apparently without protest on the part of the Union. The Union and the individual defendants filed a joint answer to the complaint on April 29, 1938. Shortly thereafter, Davis sum- moned to his office those defendants who were employees of the respondent, and berated them for certain derogatory statements con- cerning him which they had made in their answer. It was not con- tended nor do we find that Davis in any manner mentioned at this time the Union or the union activities of these employees. We conclude that the facts set forth above as established by the record do not constitute unfair labor practices. We find accordingly that the respondent did not thereby interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.' B. The alleged discriminator j discharge Gordon Dedlnon joined the Union when it was organized at the -respondent's plant in 1933. At the time of his discharge on December 17, 1937, Dedmon was operating a footing machine. The respondent contends that it discharged Dedmon because he had entrusted his machine to his helper while it was in operation and left the premises .of the mill in violation of the respondent's rules and it previous warning which he had received. Dedmon admitted that he had left his machine in operation all- -though he denied that lie had gone from the premises of the mill. He testified that at about 11 o'clock in the morning he decided to -place a special order for lunch with the restaurant keeper across the z Evidence was introduced during the hearing concerning alleged unfair labor practices occurring prior to June 18, 1937. For the reason hereinbefore stated, we have considered -such evidence only as "labor history." We do, not find therein any explanation of the matters related above. We have therefore omitted any discussion of this evidence from -our decision. SE-LING HOSIERY ' MILLS, IN CORPORATED 489 street from the mill. Entrusting his machine to his helper, he walked to the employees' entrance of the mill and signaled his order. Shortly ,.after he returned to his machine, he was approached by his foreman,. .Bernard Seydak, who inquired where lie had been. After Dedmon explained his mission, Seydak discharged him. Dedmon operated a full-fashioned footing hosiery machine. This machine, extremely delicate and easily damaged, requires the constant .attention of its operator. About every 12 or 15 minutes, it comes to a dead stop during which the operator may take time to go to the lavatory or drinking fountain. Although there was testimony that operators occasionally left their machines, only one witness, Dedmon's brother, testified that he had heard of operators leaving footing machines in operation. It is reasonable to believe that if footer operators did leave their machines, they availed, themselves of the time during which the machines were not in operation. While-it appears-to have been a.current practice among the em- ployees of the respondent to cross from one department to another ,.without permission, it is clear that they were not permitted to leave the mill.. Dedmon appreciated the force of this 'rule. for he con- tended that he had not left the premises of the mill on the day he was discharged. He argued that he had remained on the inner side of the threshold. In this respect, he is not supported by the evidence which indicates that Dedmon did, in fact, step outside of the mill. The following facts were offered to buttress the contention that Dedmon was discharged for union activity. Davis knew that Ded- mon was a member of the Union since he had served on several com- mittees which met with Davis. Dedmon was active in soliciting members for the Union and had protested to Seydak the day before his discharge against a proposed wage reduction. His wife testified that when she had applied for a job with the respondent, Lorraine Lineville, a forelady, advised her that she did not get one because of her husband's activity in the Union. This incident was denied by Lineville. Moreover, shortly thereafter Mrs. Dedmon was given a job by the respondent. From all the evidence, we are not satisfied that Dedmon's discharge had any connection with his membership or activity in the Union. We find that the respondent did not discharge Gordon Dedmon because of his membership and activity in the Union. Upon the basis of the foregoing 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, Se-Ling Hosiery Mills, Inc., occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, Branch No. 55, is a: labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire or. tenure of employment or any condition of employment of Gordon- Dedmon, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 4. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of: the Act, within the, meaning of Section 8 (1) 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 the respondent, Se-Ling Hosiery Mills, Inc., Nashville,. Tennessee, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the- -above Decision. and Order.