Stoneville Furniture Co.

In the Matter of STONEVILLE FURNITURE COMPANY, STONEVILLE, N. C. and TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Case No. C-347.-Decided December 26, 1939 Furniture Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion- Lock-out: charges of, not sustained-Discrimination : charges of, not sustained- Complaint : dismissed. Mr. R. Reeves Hilton and Mr. Charles Y. Latimer, for the Board. Messrs. Glidewell & Glidewell, of Reidsville, N. C., for the re- spondent. Miss Edna Loeb, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by Textile Workers Organizing Commit- tee, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland) issued its complaint, dated September 20, 1937, against Stoneville Furniture Company, Stoneville, North 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 (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, Iierein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. The complaint alleged in substance (1) that the respondent closed its plant on or about May 7, 1937, for the purpose of discouraging membership in and activity on behalf of the Union; (2) that the respondent reopened its plant on or about May 27, 1937, but refused to reinstate 30 employees because they joined and assisted the Union; and (3) that the respondent by these acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 18 N. L. R. B., No. 82. 702 STONEVILLE FURNITURE COMPANY 703 On September 24, 1937, the respondent filed its answer in which it admitted the allegations of the complaint regarding the nature and scope of its business but denied that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Wentworth, North Caro- lina, on September 30, 1937, before Alvin M. Douglas, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the re- spondent 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 upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleged that 26 of the 30 designated employees had been discriminatorily denied reinstatement by the respondent. The Trial Examiner granted these motions. Counsel for the Board also moved to amend the complaint to conform to the proof. This motion was likewise granted by the Trial Examiner. The Board has reviewed these and other rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing on motions and on ob- jections to the admission of evidence and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report, dated January 3, 1938, copies of which were duly served on the parties, in which he found that the respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices by closing its plant or by refusing to reemploy three of the four remaining employees named in the complaint, namely, Bill Robertson, Doc Simmons, and Alfred McGuire, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it so alleged. The Trial, Examiner found, however, that the respondent had discriminated against the fourth employee, H. H. Ferguson, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent reinstate him with back pay. On January 14, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the In- termediate Report in so far as it concerned Ferguson. Although afforded an opportunity to do so, neither the respondent nor the Union requested a hearing before the Board for the purpose of oral argument: On January 4, 1939, the Board issued its' Orden Vacating and Setting Aside Intermediate Report and Reopening Record for the purpose of a further hearing. On October 26, 1939, the Board is- sued its order revoking the above order and reinstating the Inter- mediate Report. On November 14, 1939, the respondent filed a brief in support of its exceptions to the Intermediate Report and indicated that it did 704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not desire a hearing for the purpose of oral argument. The Board has considered the respondent's exceptions and its brief. As in- dicated by the findings, conclusion, and order below, the Board sustains the said exceptions. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent is a North Carolina corporation engaged in the manufacture and distribution of chairs and kitchen table frames. Its plant and principal place of business is located at Stoneville, North Carolina. The principal raw material used by the respondent in its manufacturing operations is raw lumber, which is purchased in North Carolina and South Carolina and shipped to the plant by railroad and truck. Approximately 99 per cent of the respond- ent's finished. products are shipped from the plant to points outside North Carolina. The respondent employs approximately 100 employees. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. It admits to membership employees of the respondent with the exception of supervisory employees. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The shut-down In the spring of 1937 the Union commenced its organizational activities among the respondent's employees, and on May 6, 1937, conducted its first meeting in Stoneville, North Carolina. Leonard Knuckles, machine-room foreman in the respondent's plant, attended this meeting. H. H. Ferguson, one of the employees named in the complaint, testified that R. S. Foley, plant manager, was also present, Foley controverted this testimony. A number of the respondent's employees signed membership application cards at the meeting and at the plant. On May 8, 1937, the respondent shut down its plant, laid off , its employees, and did not resume operations until May 24, 1937. The complaint alleges that this conduct of the respondent was prompted by its desire to discourage membership in the newly organized Union. The respondent denied that it had any such motive. In its answer 'ST^ONEVILLE FURNITURE COMPANY 705 and at the hearing it maintained that it had stored in its plant an accumulation of manufactured products which it had been unable to sell; that its insurance company had complained that the goods were stacked so high that they interfered with the fire-prevention apparatus there; and that the respondent had therefore been forced to discontinue its manufacturing operations until it could find a market for its surplus goods. Foley testified that the insurance company made its semi-annual inspection of the plant on April 15, 1937, and on April 29, 1937, wrote the respondent a letter regarding the overcrowded state of the storeroom. Joseph Perloff, secretary- treasurer of the respondent, testified further that if the respondent had continued to manufacture chairs for another full day it would not have had space in which to store them. On the other hand, Doe Simmons, one of the employees named in the complaint, tes- tified that the storeroom was only about two-thirds full and that he had seen it as full as that before. The Trial Examiner found that the shut-down was occasioned by insufficient warehouse space, and the Union filed no exceptions to his finding. Although Simmons' testimony and the fact that the shut-down so closely followed the first meeting of the Union give rise to a suspicion that the respondent temporarily discontinued its operations for the reason alleged in the complaint, in our opinion the evidence as a whole does not warrant a finding to that effect. We find that by closing its plant on May 8, 1937, the respondent did not interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. The alleged discrimination after the reopening of the plant On or about May 22, 1937, the respondent decided to reopen the plant with a reduced force and to give substantial weight to efficiency in selecting persons for reinstatement. The plant reopened on May 24 with between 60 and 70 employees. The respondent informed various employees that additional persons would be reemployed as soon as business permitted, and a number of employees were rein- stated subsequent to May 24. At least one new employee was hired after the plant reopened. The complaint alleges that subsequent to the reopening of the plant the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of H. H. Ferguson, Bill Robertson, Doc Simmons, and Alfred McGuire, by refusing to reinstate them. H. H. Ferguson was employed by the respondent in the latter part of October or the first part of November 1936 in its machine department. He had charge of the operation of two saws and was 706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD assisted by several helpers. He directed the work of the helpers to some extent but had no power to hire or discharge them. He at- tended the union meeting on May 6, 1937, joined the Union on that date, and solicited and secured other members for the organiza- tion. Ferguson was laid off at the time of the shut-down. Subse- quent to May 24 he made several applications for reinstatement. He was reinstated to the position of helper on July 9 and was discharged on July 29. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had discriminated against Ferguson. The respondent takes exception to this finding. Foley testified that he did not reinstate Ferguson prior to July 9 because he learned from Knuckles, Ferguson's foreman, that Fergu- son had cut materials to the wrong dimensions prior to the shut- down. Although at the hearing Ferguson denied that he made this mistake, we cannot conclude on the basis of the whole record that the respondent discriminated against Ferguson prior to July 9. Foley, Ferguson, and R. M. Clark, yard foreman, gave. somewhat contradictory testimony with respect to the events leading to Fergu- son's discharge on July 29. From their testimony and other evi- dence in the record, it appears that on the day of Ferguson's dis- charge he bored holes on the wrong side of a number of chair posts, and during working hours went into another department of the plant and there told an employee, "You fellows out here better do something about the C. I. 0." While the quality of Foley's testi- mony gives rise to the suspicion that Ferguson's discharge was dis- criminatory, in our opinion the evidence as a whole does not warrant finding to that effect. Bill Robertson, Doe Simim,ons, and Alfred McGuire were laid off when the plant closed down and were not reinstated upon or after its reopening. We have analyzed the evidence with respect to these employees and find that it does not sustain the allegations of the complaint that the respondent discriminatorily refused to reinstate them. We therefore concur in the Trial Examiner's recommenda- tion in his Intermediate Report that such allegations be dismissed. Since the Union filed no exceptions to the Intermediate Report, we shall not discuss in detail the evidence with respect to these allegations. We find that the respondent did not discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of H. H. Ferguson, Bill Robertson, Doc Simmons, and Alfred McGuire, thereby discouraging member- ship in a labor organization, or interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 'STONEVILLE FU'RNITURE COMPANY 707 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 and business of the respondent constitute a continuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. 2. Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, 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 Rela- tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint against the respondent, Stoneville Furniture Company, Stoneville, North Carolina, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Mx. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.