Alabama Hosiery Mills, Inc.

In the Matter of ALABAMA HOSIERY Muds, INO.l and AMERIOAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS Case No. C-990.-Decided September 16, 1939 Hosiery Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: charges of, not sustained-Discrimirn.ation: charges of, not sustained-Coan- plaint: dismissed. Mr. Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., for the Board. Eyster cli Eyster, by Mr. Charles H. Eyster, of Decatur, Ala., and .Mr. Benjamin T. Ward, of Greensboro, N. C., for the respondent. . Mr. W. J. Frazier, and Mr. Herbert G. B. King, both of Chatta- nooga, Tenn., for the Union. Mr. F. Hamilton Seeley, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by American Feder- ation of Hosiery Workers, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its com- plaint, dated June 16, 1938, against Alabama Hosiery Mills, Inc., Decatur, Alabama, 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 hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent terminated the employment of and refused to reinstate two employees, named Jeff Landers and .Frank Barnes, because they joined,and assisted the Union and engaged in ' Incorrectly designated "Alabama Hosiery Mills" In the charge and the complaint. This was corrected by motion at the hearing. 15 N. L. R. B., No. 45. 443 444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection ; and that the respondent, by the above-mentioned activities, and by urging, persuading, and warn- ing its employees, to refrain 'from becoming members of the Union, and by threatening its employees with discharge and other reprisals if they became and remained members of the Union, and by other acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the-rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On July 13, 1938, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint in which it admitted the allegations concerning its corporate struc- ture, but denied the allegations concerning the nature of its business and the allegations concerning the unfair labor practices. . Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on July. 18, 19, 20, and 21, 1938, at Decatur, Alabama, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial, Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Union was repre- sented by its representative ; 2 the respondent and the Board by counsel. All parties participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence. bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for the Board was permitted to amend the complaint by striking that portion pertaining to Frank Barnes. Counsel for the respondent was thereupon permitted to refile the answer to the complaint as amended and to make certain motions to dismiss upon the ground that the Board had no jurisdic- tion in. the premises. The Trial Examiner did not make any ruling on these motions either at the hearing or in his Intermediate 'Report. The motions are hereby denied. At the close of the hearing counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint because of in- sufficient evidence. This motion was denied by the Trial Examiner. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made numerous other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam- iner, and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On October 20, 1938, the Trial Examiner .filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties. He found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but had not engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act as alleged in the com- plaint. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from 2 Although the Union was not represented by counsel at the hearing, counsel subse- quently filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report on its behalf. ALABAMA HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 445 the unfair labor practices so found and post notices in its plant of its intention to comply with the Act. He further recommended that the allegations of the complaint be dismissed in regard to the discharge of Jeff Landers. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a request for oral argument were filed by the Union on November 14, 1938, and by the respondent on December 5, 1938. On the same date, the respondent filed its motion to strike the Union's exceptions. Pursuant to notice duly served upon all parties, a hearing was held on June 9, 1939, at Washington, D. C., before the Board, for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent was represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. The Union was not repre- sented. Counsel for the respondent also filed a brief. The Board has reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report filed by the Union and finds them to be without merit. The Board has considered the respondent's exceptions to the Intermediate Report, the brief and argument in support thereof and, save as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, sustains them. The respondent's motion to strike the Union's exceptions is hereby denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE RESPONDENT Alabama Hosiery Mills, Inc., an Alabama corporation with its principal office and place of business in Decatur, Alabama, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of women's unfinished full-fashioned silk hosiery. The principal raw materials used by the respondent are thrown silk and cotton yarn. The respondent uses approximately 1,700 pounds of thrown silk monthly, all of which is purchased from the Mock-Judson-Voehringer Company, Inc., an affiliated company located at Greensboro, North Carolina. Approximately 1,600 pounds of cotton yarn is used monthly, all of which is purchased from the Southern Mercerizing Company, at Tryon, North Carolina. The annual volume of products sold-is- approximately 303,350 dozens with an approximate value of $1,470,000. The entire output of the mill is sold in the State of New York. All products are shipped from origin by railway express and delivered in trucks. Approximately 540 employees are on the pay roll which amounts to approximately $45,000 monthly. We find that the above-described operations constitute a continuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States. 446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organiza- tion, formerly affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and, since March 1937, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Or- ganization, through . the Textile Workers Organizing Committee, admitting to membership all production and maintenance employees of the respondent, excluding "fixers" having the right to hire or dis- charge employees, and clerical and supervisory personnel. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion During April and May, 1937, the Union conducted an active cam- paign for members among the respondent's employees. This cam- paign met with some success and a number of the employees signed union application cards. On May 14, 1937, L. L. Lively, the respond- ent's general manager, called a meeting of the employees to be held on May 15, 1937, in the basement of the plant. Several days in advance of the meeting a notice was posted by the respondent which advised the employees of the discontinuance of certain penalties which had been causing,some dissatisfaction among the employees. The respondent contends that the purpose of the meeting was to explain and amplify the notice. The meeting was attended by 15 or 20 employees, the general manager, and several other officials. Jeff Landers, one of the employees present at this meeting, testified that! Lively stated to the employees : "that he had heard that there was some C. I. O. Union in the mill and they didn't want that. If the boys and girls joined the Union, that they would close the mill down; in fact, he had orders to do so." This testimony of Landers is unsupported by any convincing evi- dence. It is specifically. denied by Lively and by a number of employees who were present at the meeting. Lively testified that the only time that unionism was mentioned was when he replied to a question concerning unionism, with the statement : "I am not inter- ested in that at all." Upon the basis of the evidence before us, we conclude that the statement made - by Lively was such as testified to by him. Several days after the meeting on May 15, 1937, there was a second meeting of the employees in the basement of the plant. There were no supervisory officials present at this meeting. Roy Poteet, an employee in the knitting department, was nominated as chairman by Landers. The purpose of this meeting was to form an. "inside" or "company union." Poteet and another employee had previously ALABAMA HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 447 consulted a local attorney and obtained a petition form from him. Seven copies of this petition were circulated among the employees at the meeting, and, subsequently, at the plant. Apparently no attempt was made to conceal these petitions since they were left openly upon the work benches where they could be, and were, seen by a supervisor. At this meeting a committee of three employees, including Poteet, was appointed to meet with Lively and' to present certain requests. Immediately after the meeting, the committee had an interview with Lively and they requested him to post on the bulletin board a state- ment of his position in regard to the formation of an employees' association. Lively refused to make a statement of any kind because "it would be a violation of the Wagner Act." Lively said, "I am not going to encourage or discourage our employees to join anything whatsoever." The committee then asked him if he would recognize them as the bargaining agency for the employees if they formed an employees' association. Lively replied, "Well, you don't have any- thing to recognize now. Under the Wagner Act, we have to recog- nize any kind of a Union, national, local, or anything, and we have to deal with it in collective bargaining." After the committee had reported the results of the interview to the other employees, approximately 339 employees signed the peti- tions. Thereafter different signers began erasing or withdrawing their names from the petitions. About 15 signers did erase or with- draw their names. This withdrawal caused some disturbance around Poteet's machine. A fellow employee, who had assisted Poteet, advised him that they had not proceeded properly in organizing the employees' association because the petitions should not have been circulated within the plant or on company time. Poteet then destroyed the petitions. Apparently no further attempt was made to form an employees' association. It appears that Poteet was promoted temporarily to the position of supervisor in March 1938. We do not believe that this fact, standing alone, warrants the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Poteet's efforts to form an employees' association were made at the request of the respondent. Upon the above evidence, we find that the respondent did not interfere, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act: Accordingly, we will dismiss the allegations of the complaint in this respect. B. The allegedly discriminatory discharge of Jeff Landers The complaint alleges that the respondent discharged Jeff Landers on February 7, 1938, because he joined and assisted the Union, and engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain- ing and other mutual aid and protection. The respondent's answer 448 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD denies that it discharged Landers because of his union activity, and sets out the affirmative defense that it discharged Landers for viola- tion of known rules of the respondent. In his Intermediate Repoi t, the Trial Examiner recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to Jeff Landers. The Union excepted to this recommendation. Landers started work for the present owners in December 1933, and worked continuously as a "legger" until his final discharge on February 7, 1938. On August 10, 1937, Landers joined the Union and thereafter became active in soliciting employees for membership in the Union. In the early part of September 1937, Landers was discharged for alleged negligence in oiling his machine, but was im- mediately reinstated and given "another chance." On February 7, 1938, Landers was discharged by the night superintendent allegedly because he had violated a company rule. . The evidence concerning the September discharge is not clear. It .is significant that Landers did not at that time attribute his discharge to his union activity but based his plea to the superintendent for rein- statement upon the need of his wife and child, and the fact that he would lose his automobile and furniture unless he regained employment. Landers' final discharge on February 7, 1938, followed his violation of a company rule against cutting tip a defective stocking. This rule was apparently well known to the employees prior to January 7, 1938. On or about that date, the respondent posted a notice upon the plant bulletin board stating, in substance, that any employee caught cutting up a stocking would be discharged. Landers admitted seeing this notice and knowing of the rule. It is unquestioned that Landers did cut up a stocking. On the night of February 7, 1938, Phelps, the night superintendent, returned to the plant about an hour earlier than was his custom. Phelps testified that he saw Landers cut up a stocking and that'he immediately called Landers into his office, and requested James Warren, a supervisor, to accompany them as a witness. In the office, Phelps asked Landers if he knew the company rule, which Landers admitted. Phelps then told Landers, "You know I have discharged others for this same offense. I am going to have to let you go too." Landers replied, "It is a God damned frame up. You are not dis- charging me for cutting up that stocking; you are discharging me because I belong to the Union." Phelps denied that he was influenced by Landers' union membership and testified that the sole reason for discharging Landers was the violation of the company rule. The record indicates that at least two employees were discharged before, and two after, Landers for like offenses. In view of the un- questioned violation of the company rule by Landers, the discharge ALABAMA HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 449 of other employees for a like offense, and in the absence of any sub- stantial evidence tending to show that the violation of the rule was merely a pretext for his discharge, we are not convinced that the r.gspoi^dent .discriminated against Landers .because of his union activity. Since none of the allegations of unfair labor practices contained in the complaint have been found to be supported by the evidence, we will dismiss the complaint in its entirety. V Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and.upon the entire record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 1. The operations of the respondent, Alabama Hosiery Mills, Inc., Decatur, Alabama, occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. 2. American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor, organiza- tion, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The respondent has not discouraged membership in a labor or- ga;nnization by discrimination in regard to the hire or tenure of em- ployment of Jeff Landers, within the meaning of Section 8 (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 Alabama Hosiery Mills, Inc., Decatur, Alabama, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.