Bear Brand Hosiery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 6, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1355 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY 1355
6,1952, can be interpreted as a modification in the termination clause of
the basic contract to remove the automatic renewal provision therein.
Under the circumstances, the contract is not a bar to a petition filed
within a reasonable time before the expiration date.4 Moreover, even
if we should not regard the last supplement as eliminating the auto-
matic renewal provision, it appears that the petition was filed within
a reasonable time prior to the automatic renewal date, and therefore, in
accordance with established Board decisions, such contract does not
constitute a bar s
4. The appropriate unit:
Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance employees
with the usual exclusions.6 Aside from the part-time janitor whom
the Petitioner would exclude and the Intervenors include, there was
virtually no disagreement as to the composition of the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Alliance, Ohio, plant, including shipping and receiving em-
ployees and the part-time janitor,? but excluding clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 Marine Optical Manufacturing Company, 92 NLRB 571.
5 Reynolds Metal Company , 85 NLRB 110 . The further contention of the UE that the
contract is a bar on the ground that despite the earlier filing of the petition , no formal
request to bargain was made until after the automatic renewal date, is equally without
merit. The Board has held that the filing of a petition is sufficient to raise a question
concerning representation without a formal request for recognition or for collective bar-
gaining. Advance Pattern Co., 80 NLRB 29. York Bank Instrument Co., 87 NLRB 1576.
6 The petition was amended at the hearing to include all production and maintenance
employees and shipping and receiving employees but excluding clerical employees , inspec-
tors with supervisory authority , guards, professional employees , and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
7 The Petitioner sought to exclude the part-time janitor on the ground that she had been
excluded from the last contract . As it appears that this employee is a regular part-time
employee she is included in the unit , in accordance with established precedents of the
Board.
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF -
AMERICA, CIO
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 9-CA-398 and 9-RC-1035. October 6,
1952
Decision , Direction , and Order
Upon February 19, 1952, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
100 NLRB No. 231.
1356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act and recommend-
ing that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8 (a) (3) ofahe Act and recommended dismissal of the complaint with
respect to such allegations. With respect to the issue of the challenged
ballot of Florence Brooks, the Trial Examiner found that she was
eligible to vote in the runoff election, i. e., that her vote was valid
and should be counted. Thereafter, the General Counsel and CIO 1
each filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report; the AFL 2 filed a
statement in support of the Intermediate Report; 3 and the Respondent
filed a reply brief to the exceptions and brief of the General Counsel.
The Board 4 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the ex-
ceptions, the statement and the briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.-9
There remain for disposition the challenges in the pending. repre-
sentation proceeding. As shown in the Intermediate Report, a runoff
election was conducted on May 8, 1951. There were no objections
to the conduct of this election or to conduct affecting the results of this
election. The CIO had submitted to the Board on April 18, 1951, a
waiver in which it agreed not to assert the unfair labor practices al-
leged in the charges filed in this case as grounds for objections to the
runoff election.
At the conclusion of the runoff election, the parties were furnished
a tally of ballots, which showed that there were 243 eligible voters, and
that 230 cast ballots, of which 111 were for the CIO, 112 for the AFL,
and 7 were challenged. The Regional Director duly investigated the
issues with respect to the challenged ballots, which were sufficient in
number to affect the outcome of the election, and on July 25, 1951,
issued his report on challenged ballots. The report recommended
I Textile Workers Union of America, CIO.
2 United Textile Workers of America, AFL.
2 The AFL also filed a motion to dismiss a portion of the CIO's exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report In view of our findings herein , it is unnecessary for us to pass upon this
motion
4 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Members Houston, Murdock,
and Styles].
5 We note particularly that the Respondent failed to file exceptions to any of the Trial
Examiner 's findings of violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and that , on the part
of the General Counsel and the CIO , no exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's
failure to find or to his adverse findings with respect to certain other conduct of the
Respondent alleged as violative of Section 8 (a) (1), of the Act.
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY 1357
that (a) the challenge to the ballot of Rudy Burris be sustained, and
that his ballot not be opened and counted, and (b), that a consolidated
hearing be conducted with respect to the remaining 6 challenges,6 of
which 5 involved the ballots of persons alleged in the complaint here-
in to have been discriminatorily discharged before the date of the
runoff election. In the absence of exceptions, the Board on August
15, 1951, adopted the report of the Regional Director and issued an
order directing hearing. The hearing in these consolidated proceed-
ings was accordingly held on various dates from September 24 to
October 25, 1951.
The issues with respect to the 7 ballots challenged in the runoff
-election have thus been resolved. As noted above, the challenge of
Rudy Burris' vote has been sustained in an earlier ruling of the
Board. It has been found herein that the discharges of Ida Mae
Jones, Faye Stone, Shelby Jones, Mary Catherine Hill, and Helen
Nunn Walker were not discriminatory. Accordingly, as they were
not employees of the Respondent at the time of the runoff election,
these individuals were ineligible to vote in such election. We shall,
therefore, sustain the challenges to their ballots, which shall not be
opened and counted. In the case of Florence Brooks, as already
noted, we agree with the Trial Examiner that she was eligible to vote
at the time of the election, particularly in view of the fact that her
status on the company records at such time was that of an employee on
temporary leave thus indicating a definite expectation of her reem-
ployment. As her vote is sufficient to affect the results of the runoff
election, we shall direct that her challenged ballot be opened and
counted.
Direction
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Bear Brand Hosiery Company,
Henderson, Kentucky, the Regional Director for the Ninth Region
shall, pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction open and
count the ballot of Florence Brooks cast in the runoff election on May
8, 1952, and cause to be served upon the parties a supplemental tally
of ballots, including therein the count of Florence Brooks' ballot.
The Regional Director is further authorized to issue a certification of
representatives should the supplemental tally of ballots indicate that
either of the contending unions has received a majority of the valid
votes cast.
6 Florence Brooks , Ida Mae Jones , Faye Stone , Shelby Jones, Mary Catherine Hill, and
Helen Nunn walker.
1358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Bear Brand Hosiery Com-
pany, Henderson, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their membership in
and activities on behalf of Textile Workers Union of America, CIO,
or United Textile Workers of America, AFL, or any other labor
organization, or threatening its employees with reprisals because of
their union activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named
labor organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of
such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant in Henderson, Kentucky, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix A."' Copies of such notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, shall
after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director of the Ninth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that
the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, be, and the
same is, hereby dismissed.
IIn the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order"
the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an
Order."
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
1359
Pursuant to a Decision and Order -of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their sym-
pathies toward and activities on behalf of TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, CIO; UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL; or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals because of
their union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the
above-named labor organizations, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activity for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activity, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated-------------- ------ By------------------- ------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Textile Workers Union of America, CIO,
herein called the CIO, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, respectively called herein the General Counsel and the Board, by the
Regional Director of the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued a complaint
dated August 22, 1951, against Bear Brand Hosiery Company, herein called the
Respondent, alleging that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called
the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges that the
Respondent: (1) From on or about October 1, 1950, engaged in certain acts of
interference, restraint, and coercion; (2) discharged the following employees on
1360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or about the dates set forth after their respective names because of their sym-
pathy for, membership in, and activities on behalf of the CIO:
Mona Shelton December 9, 1950
Serena Gibson March 13, 1951
Iona Cole March 13, 1951
Ida May Jones March 13, 1951
Faye Stone March 13, 1951
Shelby Jones March 13, 1951
Mary Catherine Hill March 13, 1951
Helen (Nunn) Walker March 13, 1951
and (3) at all times since said discharges has failed and refused to reinstate
any of said employees other than Gibson and Cole who were offered reinstatement
on or about April 5, 1951.
On August 15, 1951, the Board issued an order in which it directed a hearing
in Case No 9-RC-1035. The Regional Director consolidated Cases Nos. 9-RC-
1035 and 9-CA-398 by order dated August 22, 1951.
The Respondent filed an answer on about September 29, 1951, in which it
admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, but denied the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Henderson, Kentucky, commencing
on September 24, 19.;1, and ending on October 25, 1951, before the undersigned
Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented
by counsel and the CIO by its i epresentative United Textile Workers of
America, AFL, herein called the AFL, also appeared at the hearing through its
representatives. Upon objection of the General Counsel, the Trial Examiner
limited the AFL's participation in the hearing to Case No. 9-RC-1035. Other-
wise, 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
close of the General Counsel's case and at the close of the whole case, the
Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. Ruling was reserved. The motion
to dismiss is disposed of as hereinafter indicated. The General Counsel moved
to conform the pleadings to the proof, as to names, dates, and other minor
variances. The motion was granted without objection.
After the close of the hearing the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the
AFL filed briefs with the Trial Examiner' -
Both from the entire record in the case and from his observation of the
witnesses, the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is an Illinois corporation which is engaged in the business
of manufacturing and distributing hosiery at Henderson, Kentucky, and else-
where. Within a given period of 1 year, the Respondent purchases raw materials
having a value in excess of $100,000, and consisting of cotton, nylon, and wool.
In excess of 50 percent of said raw materials has a source outside the State
of Kentucky or Illinois. During the same period the Respondent sells finished
products valued in excess of $150,000, in excess of 50 percent of which is sold
to sources outside the State of Kentucky or Illinois.
I At the Respondent's request the time for filing briefs was extended to January 14, 1952.
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
1361
Textile WorkersUnion of America, CIO, and the United Textile Workers of
America, AFL, are labor organizations which admit to membership employees
of the Respondent.
III. THE STATUS OF FLORENCE BROOKS
On October 27, 1950, the CIO filed a petition for certification The Board
issued a Decision and Direction of Election, dated February 7, 1951. Pursuant
thereto an election was conducted by the Board among the Respondent's em-
ployees on February 27, 1951. The ballot provided for a selection between the
CIO, the AFL, and "no union " The results of the election were not' conclusive,
inasmuch as none of the choices on the ballot received a majority of the votes
cast.
The orginal charge in the complaint case was filed by the CIO on March 28,
1951. This charge was amended on April 9, 19512 On April 18, 1951, the CIO
signed a waiver, and a runoff election was conducted on May 8, 1951. The
ballot provided for a choice between the CIO and the AFL. Of 243 eligible
voters, 111 votes were cast for the CIO, and 112 were cast for the AFL. No
ballots were voided. Seven ballots were challenged, one of which was that of
Florence Brooks' No objections to the conduct of the election or to conduct
affecting the results of the election were filed.
Brooks was employed by the Respondent as a looper for about 41/, years.
During about the summer of 1950, she was on a leave of absence for 2 weeks due
to nervousness. On April 7, 1951, she asked Alvin J. Kruse, superintendent of
the Respondent's plant, for another leave of absence. She told him, in substance,
that she did not feel like working as she had been very "nervous," that the
medicine she had been taking did not seem to do her much good when she was
working, and that she thought she would feel better if she did not work "for a
while." Kruse granted Brooks' request, and told her to keep him informed as
to how she was feeling. Brooks started her leave of absence on Monday, April
9, 1951.`
During her absence, Brooks called or reported to Kruse several times. On
about April 19, she told him that she had developed a cold ; and he told her
to take off another 2 weeks.' While she as on leave, Cooksey, Respondent's
office manager, went to see her a number of times. He inquired about her
health and urged her to return to work.' As related above, Brooks voted in
the election held on May 8, and her ballot was challenged by the CIO. After
sending notice to Kruse, she returned to work on May 15. She worked for
about an hour and a half and then quit. She called Kruse the following day
and told him that she would have to quit her job as she was "just too nervous."
In accordance with her statement to Kruse, Brooks' employment was terminated
by the Respondent on May 16, 1951. She was not paid the wages due her for
work on May 15 until the next payday.
s The CIO filed a second amended charge on May 21, 1951.
The ballots of Shelby Jones, Ida May Jones, Helen (Nunn) Walker, Mary Catherine
Hill, Faye Stone, and Rudy Burris also were challenged. The second amended charge
alleges that Burris was discharged discriminatorily on about April 6, 1951. However, this
employee is not named in the complaint As related above, the complaint alleges that the
other five employees were discharged discriminatorily on or about March 13, 1951.
4 The testimony of both Brooks and Kruse concerning the above conversation is sub-
stantially the same
Kruse testified credibly and without contradiction to the above conversation
s Brooks testified that Cooksey "came just about every day . . . all the time I was off
on leave of absence "
1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While Brooks was in the Respondent's employ, she also worked for a restaurant
about 2 nights each week and on Saturday and Sunday. During her leave of
absence from work at Respondent's plant, her hours of work at the restaurant
increased. At first she worked when other employees of the restaurant were
absent, later she worked full time when one of the employees quit her job.
Several witnesses for the General Counsel testified to the effect that Brooks
told them that she had quit or was going to quit her job. Brooks denied that
she made such statements to anyone. Marie Humpston testified that about 3
weeks after Brooks started her leave of absence she met Brooks one night and
asked her if she was going to return to work and that Brooks replied, "No, I quit
that place; I am glad to get out of it." Mattie Newman testified that on the
morning of May 15 she had a conversation with Brooks as they entered the
plant. Concerning this conversation, Newman testified as follows:
Well, she was asking me if Pauline Parrish had come back to work and I
told her she wasn't working, and she told me that she wasn't aiming to come
back but the Company had kept wanting her to come back and she had
told them that she had quit and they insisted that she come back, so she
was going to come back and work maybe 30 minutes and then get up and go
home.
Humpston and Newman impressed the undersigned as reliable and credible
witnesses. Accordingly, their testimony in this connection is credited.
The AFL claims that the uncontradicted evidence shows that Brooks was on a
leave of absence from April 9 until May 15, and that her employment was not
terminated until May 16. Accordingly, the AFL contends in its brief that
Brooks was entitled to vote in the election on May 8 and that her challenged
ballot should be opened and counted. The CIO apparently contends otherwise?
I am convinced and find that Brooks' leave of absence from April 9 to May
15, 1951, was bona fide, and that her employment was not terminated until May
16, 1951. In my opinion, the evidence adduced by the CIO is not sufficient to
warrant any other finding. Brooks' statements to Humpston and Newman are
not conclusive. So far as the Respondent knew, Brooks had asked for and re-
ceived a leave of absence on April 7 and planned- to return to work. From
Brooks' own testimony it is apparent that the Respondent, through Cooksey,
urged her to return to work. However, it is undisputed that she had a good
record as an employee. This may have been the reason for the Respondent's
action. Any finding to the effect that the Respondent was motivated solely by
reason of Brooks' challenged ballot would be in the realm of speculation and
could not be based on any reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence in
the case.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint , and coercion
As related above, elections at Respondent's Henderson plant were conducted
by the Board on February 27 and May 8, 1951. Both the CIO and the AFL en-
gaged in extensive campaigning before each election. Numerous handbills were
distributed to the employees by the unions. The Respondent also took part in
the campaign. It distributed letters to the employees which were signed by
Henry Pope, Jr., Respondent's president. These letters denounced the CIO.
The General Counsel contends that certain of the letters constitute interference
T The undisputed evidence discloses that Brooks' ballot was challenged by a representa-
tive of the CIO.
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY 1363,
since they, "contain subtle threats to close the plant if the CIO was successful -i i
its campaign."
It would unduly burden this report to set forth all of the letters specilfigd b'
the General Counsel. Accordingly, the following letter, dated Decembpzz 28;
1950, has been selected as an example :
Dear Employee :
I am very sorry that, at this time, Bear Brand officials and Bear Brand
employees are being subjected to the campaign of the C. I. O. to destroy our
confidence in each other,-but our confidence in you is unshaken, and I am
confident that Bear Brand employees will not be misled by the Communist-
like methods of half truths, pretense, and general destructiveness, that the
C. I. O. Textile Workers Union is using.
May I urge you, at this time, to consider very carefully what these methods
have led to over the world wherever they have been successfully used by
"organizers" who come filled with empty promises,-who destroy confidence
in what one has,-who then "organize" those who have been confused by
false methods,-who then leave them in charge of "local leaders" to hold
them in line and to remit the monthly dues, and who then go on to "organize"
the next group.
The C. I. O. "organizers" do not call themselves Reds and, so far as I
know, they are not members of the Communist Party,-but they act like
Reds,-first toward the employers and then, when they are once " organized",
toward the employees.
The C. 1.,0. organizers who have come to Henderson to "organize" you,-
are here for one and only one purpose,-to fix things so that you will pay
them some of your money every month during the rest of your lives. If
you can find any other reason why they have come here, what is it? Do
you think they are unselfish evangelists sent here by Heaven to do you
good? Don't be fooled.
They have no jobs, no payroll,-nothing to offer,-except trouble and loss
and expense for you.
They are bad eggs.
So much for the Reds,-C. I. O.,-and the C. I. O. "organizers",-and their
methods.
The C. I. O. can, and if it wins the election at Bear Brand it will, we
believe, make it impossible for us to operate in Henderson.
I can assure you that, except insofar as our efforts are destroyed by the
C. I. O.,-Bear Brand will succeed again in maintaining steady employ-
ment, good pay, and good working conditions throughout 1951.
I find that the last two paragraphs of the above letter constitute interference,
restraint, and coercion, since there is a clear threat that the plant would-close if
the CIO won the election.
On about October 25, 1950, employee Dorothy Hancock had a conversation with
Superintendent Kruse. -He told her, "I have a paper with the girls' names on
it . . . I want you on your end [looper line] and I will get a girl on the other end
to mark whether they are for the CIO or against it . . . I have got to have some-
body I can trust." When Hancock refused his request, Kruse told her not to
"tell anyone about it.". At sometime during November 1950, Kruse summoned
employee Pauline Drury to the office and made a request similar to that made of
Hancock. He told Drury that he wanted her to indicate on the list of names
those employees who "would vote for a union and against a union and doubtful."
When Drury agreed to do this, Kruse told her that the Respondent was "going
227260-53-vol . 100-87
1364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to try to keep that Union out ... if they got in the Henderson plant, ... [ Re-
spondent] couldn't keep up both plants, Gary or Henderson, one would have to
close." 8 With the help of employee Marie Humpston, Drury marked the list of
names as requested and returned it to Kruse.
It is found that the above actions and statements of Kruse constitute inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion.
At sometime during about December 1950, Kruse approached employee Marie
Raley and told her not to let anybody talk her into joining the CIO ; and that if
she did join, she would be "out of work." a It is found that Kruse's statement to
Raley constitutes interference since it contains a threat of reprisal. _
Charles Latta was employed by the Respondent as a mechanic or fixer for the
knitting machines.10 At sometime during about September 1950, Latta and some
other employees were listening to a speech being made on the radio by Paul
Swaity, a representative of the CIO. Otto Schoepflin, the knitting foreman, also
was present. Schoepflin told the employees that Pope would not work with the
CIO ; and that if the CIO organized it, the plant would "close down." Also during
about September 1950, while Latta was visiting at Kruse's home, Kruse told him
that Pope "wouldn't work with the CIO" and that the plant would close if the
CIO succeeded in organizing it 11
No findings are made on the above statements of Schoepflin and Kruse since
the original charge in the case was not filed until March 28, 1951. Under Sec-
tion 10 (b) of the Act, the General Counsel had the burden of proving that the
alleged violations occurred within the 6-month period of limitation. While
Latta at first testified that he talked to Kruse at his home at about the. time
of the first election, he later testified that the conversation took place in September
1950. His testimony is too vague, as to dates, for a finding that any of the
above conversations took place after September.
At about 8 a. m. on February 27, 1951, the day of the first election, Pope made
a speech to the employees in the plant's cafeteria. It appears that he talked
for the most part about strikes in which the CIO was involved. He also men-
tioned a company that would have to close its plant because it gave "too much"
in its contract with the union ; and said that if the demands on Respondent were
"too high," he would be forced to close the plant.31
Pope's speech is not found to be violative of the Act. His reference to the
possible closing of the plant is not a threat of reprisal because of the employees'
union activities. It is clear that he referred to economic demands of the union,
as was not the case in his letter of December 28, 1950, set forth above.
On about March 6, 1951, Kruse asked employee Norma Moss to come to his
office. Concerning her conversation with Kruse in his office, Moss was ques-
tioned and testified as follows :
8 Hancock and Drury testified credibly to the above conversations with K ruse. Em-
ployees Dolois Denton and Charles Latta testified without contradiction that Kruse made
similar requests of them. Kruse admitted Drury's testimony concerning the list of
names, but denied the other statements attributed to him by her. His denial is not
credited.
8 Raley testified credibly to the above. Kruse denied that be made such a statement.
His denial is not credited.
10 It is not claimed by any of the parties that fixers are supervisory employees.
11 Latta testified credibly to the above conversations Schoepfiln did not appear as a
witness. Latta also testified that during August 1950, he and Kruse were standing in the
plant and watching employees on the outside who were distributing CIO handbills ; and
that Kruse stated that the "CIO sympathizers were making it hard on themselves."
12 Pope made a similar speech to the employees on May 8, 1951.
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY 1365
Q. Now will you just tell us what he said' to you and you said 'to him
at that time?
A. Well, when I got down there, he met me at the door and he said, "Did
you get your aspirin?" I said, "No, I didn't need any." So he said, "Sit
down, I want to talk to you." So I sat down and so he asked me questions
then, wanted to know my personal feelings toward the Union, which is the
CIO, what I expected from it. And I told him I said, "Well, seniority and
just things like that, that you get when you have a Union." And he said
he would have to be making trips into Chicago, and I told him about our
trip to Kankakee to see what kind of AFL Union they had, and about they
didn't have anything according to what the people we talked to.
Q. Kankakee, the Company has another plant there?
A. Kankakee, Illinois, that is another Bear Brand plant, and they have
an AFL Union. And we talked to some of those people when we made that
trip.
Mr. SMITH : That would be a conversation, may I ask?
Q. (By Mr. Buckner) Is this what you told Mr. Kruse?
A. Yes, I was telling him that ; that we made this trip to Kankakee and
talked to some of those people that worked at Bear Brand there, and the
way they talked to us they didn't have anything, and they were scared to
talk. And I had their names and took notes while I was there, and I had
them in a book, a little memorandum book and he asked me for the names
and I told him I couldn't let him have them because I promised these people
that I wouldn't tell their names. And he asked. me, he says, "Well, I want
you to go back upstairs and talk to all the girls up there and bring them
down." He said, "Don't make an issue of this, we will just see how they
feel, bring them all down here." And I said, "0. K." And then after
we talked a while he says, "No, I think it would be better just to bring
them down gradually." He said, "Go on and talk to them and bring them
down one at a time, gradually."
Kruse admitted that he had a conversation with Moss on the day in question ;
but testified, in substance, that his questions and remarks were confined to "the
lack of efficiency" in the looping department.
The undersigned believes that Moss was the more reliable witness in this
connection, and therefore credits her version of the above conversation. It is
found that Kruse's interrogation of Moss constitutes interference, restraint, and
coercion.
On about March 7, 1951, the Respondent posted a notice in its plant which
prohibited union activities during working hours. It is undisputed that at
about the same time Kruse spoke to a number of employees and warned them
that they were subject to discharge if they engaged in union activities during
working hours. Neither the rule nor Kruse's warnings are found to be violative
of the Act since there is no proof that the rule was enforced discriminatorily.
The evidence shows that for a number of years it had been the custom to
permit the female employees in the looping department to work less than
the regular plant hours when their children were attending school. The prac-
tice was discontinued in September 1951. The General Counsel apparently con-
tends that this was stopped by the Respondent in reprisal for the employees' mem-
bership in and activities on behalf of the CIO. The Respondent's action in this
connection is not found to be violative of the Act since the evidence conclusively
shows that there was no discrimination against CIO adherents.
1366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about September 19. 1951, employee Eunice Briscoe had a telephone con-
versation with Evelyn Kruse, a former employee of Respondent and daughter of
Superintendent Kruse. Concerning the conversation , Briscoe was questioned
and testified as follows :
Q. (By Mr. Bruckner) Now will you tell the Court in your own words, if
you can, what, if anything, was said with respect to whom you were eating
with at the Company cafeteria?
A. She asked me who I was eating with and I told her.
Q. What did you say?
A. I told her I ate with Dorothy Hancock, Marie Humpston, and Norma
Moss, and she said, "What do you want to eat with them for", I believe is
what she-said, the exact words. And I said, "Well, they have been friends
of mine for several years and I always did eat with them." And she says,
"Well, take a little friendly advice and don't eat with them." And I asked
why. I said, "Marie told me yesterday morning when she asked me to eat
with her that I may get fired, but I thought she was teasing because I didn't
know anything about any of the Union trouble or anything." And I said,
"She told me one girl got fired because of that, that ate with them." And I
told her, I says, "Well, I don't want to get fired," and she says, "You may."
Q Was anything said about your having five children and being off a lot,
do J on know?
A. Well, yes, but I told you yesterday I don't know that I said it, or she
said it, but somehow in the conversation, me or her one, said that I had five
children and didn 't waht to get fired.
Q. I see.
A. I think whoever said it, the other one agreed to it. And I took it as
a friendly warning because she was a friend of mine. I didn't know any-
thing about the trouble or anything.
Evelyn Kruse testified that Briscoe told her the names of her luncheon com-
panions ; but denied that she questioned her in this respect or that she warned
her that she might lose her job. It is undisputed that Briscoe and Kruse were
friends for a number of years and that Briscoe called Kruse on the day in ques-
tion . The undersigned credits Briscoe's version of the above conversation.
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent is responsible for the state-
ments of Evelyn Kruse since she is the daughter of Superintendent Kruse. I do
not agree . There is not sufficient evidence, in my opinion , to hold that she was
acting as the agent of the Respondent.
B. The discharges
Mona Shelton was, employed as a looper by the Respondent from June 1946
until August 1947 and from July 1949 until her discharge on December 8, 1950.
Shortly after the start of her second period of employment Shelton had trouble
with her eyes. She told Kruse that looping work was too hard on her eyes and
he suggested that she get glasses. About a month later, or during about August
or September 1949, she asked Kruse for a transfer to another department. She
told him that her doctor had told her that looping was ruining her eyes. Kruse
told her that he did not have an opening in another department.
About September or October 1950 Shelton became an active adherent of the
CIO. She distributed CIO handbills in front of the plant on an average of about
twice each week . Kruse saw her so engaged on a number of occasions. About
the end of October 1950 she again asked Kruse for a transfer . She told him that
she was having difficulty making production because of her eyes . Kruse refused
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY 1367
her request, saying that he never transferred the employees to different depart-
ments and that if she could not loop she could not do anything. When Shelton•
remarked that employee Peggy Carter had been transferred, Kruse replied, "I had
my reasons for transferring Peggy Carter."
On November 14, 1950, Kruse conferred with Respondent's officers in Chicago
concerning poor production at the Henderson plant. At the conclusion of the
conference, Pope instructed Kruse to "warn a group of his girls that they must
do better or they would be discharged and to warn another group of his girls-
that if they had any more minimum make-up pay, they would be discharged." 13
Some few days after the above conference, Kruse warned Shelton about her fail-
ure to make production. She told him that she was having trouble making
production "because the machine broke so many times." He replied that that
was "no excuse for falling under production." "
Kruse discharged Shelton on December 8, 1950. He told her at the time of dis-
charge, "You didn't get out production. ... It isn't a matter of how much you,
lacked ; you just didn't meet it." Shelton asked Kruse if he had an opening for,
her in some other department, saying, "If I can't loop, I would like to have some-
thing else." Kruse told her, "No, there is no place in this mill." Shelton
stated that she was being discharged because of her union activities. Kruse did
not make any reply.
I find that Shelton was discharged by the Respondent for cause. The record
discloses that she made production in only 4 payroll periods out of 26 during
1950, and that she failed to make production during her last payroll period. It
is undisputed that the Respondent discharged another looper for poor produc-,
tion on the same day as Shelton and that 9 other loopers were discharged after,
November 14 and before January 1, 1951, because of the quality or quantity of
their work. None of these employees are named in the complaint.
Serena Gibson was employed by the Respondent for periods of time from
October 1943 until March 13, 1951. Her last period of employment started on
December 1, 1949, when she was reemployed as a boarder. Her foreman was
George Burns.
At the time of the first election on February 27, 1951, Gibson wore in the plant
a "T-shirt" bearing the letters "TWUA, CIO." She also wore CIO buttons at
that time and until her discharge. She was one of a number of employees who
signed a CIO handbill which was distributed at the plant 1° On about March 7
Kruse warned Gibson against union activity during working time.
About 2 weeks before her discharge Kruse told Gibson that her production was
"low." She explained to him that her poor production was caused by "cold"
forms and mixed sizes of socks in the same bundles.'g He replied that he could
not do anything about it as "the rate was set."
is John Zimmerman , assistant secretary of the Respondent , testified credibly concerning
the above conference.
14 It is undisputed that Kruse warned a number of other employees concerning their
low production at about the same time. Shelton had been assigned to a new Sotco
Machine during 1950. Respondent's piece rates were increased during September 1950.
'a It is undisputed that all of the employees who are named in the complaint were
active adherents of the CIO. The record conclusively shows and it is found that the
Respondent had knowledge of their union activities. Accordingly, such evidence will
not be discussed in detail hereinafter.
' 16 Burns, who impressed the undersigned as a reliable and credible witness, testified
to the effect that forms at times become cold by reason of steam condensation ; that
when this occurred, the boarder was supposed to notify the bundle boy so that he could
drain the water from the form ; and that when a boarder received a batch of mixed
sizes, she got an "hourly allowance," provided that she notified the bundle boy so that
she could receive credit "to that amount that she would have lost in boarding"
1368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At about 2: 30 p. in. on March 13 and while grading the boarder's work, Burns
pointed out to Gibson her "good work" and her "poor work" and called attention
to the fact that she had failed to make the required production" Burns dis-
charged Gibson at about 3 p. in. that same day.
Upon advice of counsel, the Respondent offered reinstatement to Gibson on
about April 6. She returned to work on April 9.
I find that the Respondent discharged Gibson for cause. The undisputed
evidence discloses that she had considerable make-up pay during 1951, par-
ticularly for the last three payroll periods before her discharge. She had been,
warned about her production by Kruse 2 weeks before her discharge. Further,
the record shows that two other boarders also were discharged for unsatisfactory
work during March 1950. Another boarder, who is not named in the complaint,
was discharged on February 16, 1951, for the same reason . This evidence tends
to substantiate Respondent's claim that it was making an effort to improve the
quality and quantity of work at the Henderson plant and that it was not acting
discriminatorily.
Iona Cole was employed as a boarder by the Respondent from June 1947
until December 1948, and from March 1950 until her discharge on March 13,
1951. Burns was her foreman.
Shortly after the first election, Cole was warned by Kruse that she would be
discharged if she engaged in union activities during working hours. She was
wearing a CIO T-shirt at the time.
Cole was unable to make the required production. About a week before her
discharge, she complained to Burns about cold forms and mixed sizes. Burns
told her, "Just go ahead and board them, and do the best you can." 19
Cole was discharged by Burns on March 13. He told her at the time that her
discharge was because of her "poor" production. On or about April 7 the Re-
spondent offered reinstatement to Cole. She did not return to work.
I find that Cole was not discharged discriminatorily. During 1951 she re-
ceived make-up pay for four out of the six payroll periods. She received make-up
amounting to $3.85 for the last complete payroll period of her employment.
While it appears that her production was not as low as that of Gibson or boarder
Faye Stone, whose case will be discussed hereinafter, I am unable to differentiate
between the cases. _
Faye Stone was employed as a boarder by the Respondent frpm October 1947
until January 1948 and from October 10, 1950, until her discharge on March 13,
1951. She worked under Foreman Burns.20
"Gibson testified that Burns told her that her work was "good." Burns testified
to the conversation as related above. I believe Burns to be the more reliable and
credible witness in this connection. From all the evidence it appears that the quality
of Gibson's work was good, but her production was poor.
11 Burns testified that both he and Kruse made the decision to discharge Gibson.
Kruse testified that he consulted with Burns but that he (Kruse) made the final
decision.
19 Cole testified that Burns told her that she was a "perfect boarder" the day before
her discharge ; that he "always" told her that she was a "perfect boarder" ; and that
"he got so he would come by every day and examine my work, and he would tell me
every day he came by that I was doing good work." As in the case of Gibson, Burns
testified to the effect that he complimented Cole and other employees when their work
was good, and that he also pointed out to them their poor work, both as to quality and
quantity. He denied that he told Cole that she was a perfect boarder. The undersigned
believes Burns to be the more reliable and credible witness in this connection.
20 Stone testified that Burns "always" told her that she was "doing fine" and that he
so complimented her about a week before her discharge. See footnote 19, supra.
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY 1369
On or about March 7, 1951, Kruse warned Stone not to engage in union activity
on company time." She was discharged on March 13 by Burns who gave her the
reason .as. "pn account of poor work."
I find' that the Respondent discharged Stone for cause. The record discloses
that she received make-up pay for five of the six payroll periods during 1951,
and that her make-up amounted to $8.43 for the last complete period of her
employment. The conclusions reached in the cases of Gibson and Cole, related
above, also apply to Stone.
Ida May Jones was employed by the Respondent from September 1948, until
her discharge on March 13, 1951. From May 1949, she worked as a "unit boxer"
under Foreman Burns.
On or about March 7, 1951, Kruse warned Jones that she would be discharged
if she engaged in union activity on company time. She was wearing a CIO T-
shirt and button at the time.
About a week before her discharge, Burns asked her to try to "speed up"
her productionRZ He discharged her on March 13, giving as the reason her
"low" production.
Concerning her discharge and the reasons for her poor production, Jones
was questioned and testified as follows :
Q. Tell us what happened, in your own words.
A. Well, he came by and-he came by with the production chart and he
said the production chart showed "that your production has been low since
January," and I said "George, I have made production during part of that
time," and I says "You know why my production is low ; it's because my
work has been mixed up." I worked on one type part of the day and
another type another part, and maybe another type another part of the
day ; and I said "We just can't make our production come out under
those circumstances," and the work is kind of short at times, too, and we
have to stand and wait for work.
I remember one day I waited for 20 minutes till eleven, and that was
before lunch, and I didn't have any work when we had to go to lunch ; and
I still didn't have any work at 20 minutes till two, and I went and told
George I still-didn't have any work, and I had been out since before eleven
o'clock.
Q. When was this first time?
A. That was after the first election.
Q. What'did he say when you told him?
A. He said "I'll see what I can do about it," and I don't know how long
I waited until I got work.
Q. Let's go back to the conversation you had with Burns, at the time
you were fired. What else did he say to you, and what did you say to him?
A. After he told me my production was low, he said-he came back, and
informed me I was fired.
The documentary evidence in the case refutes Jones' claim to the effect that
she worked on different styles of socks each day. With the exception of 1 day,
she worked exclusively on "Penny work socks long" from January 29, 1951,
23 Stone testified that Kruse spoke to her the day after the first election. However, the
evidence conclusively shows that Kruse warned the employees on or about March 7, the
day the Respondent's rule was posted, as related above.
as Jones testified to the above. Burns testified that he spoke to Jones "more than one
time about her poor work" and that he asked her to speed up her production "many
times."
1370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
until March 6. On March 6 she was transferred to another style on which
she worked exclusively until her discharge. During the period from January
29 until February 21, her daily production of dozens amounted to 303 as a
low and 400 as a high. On February 21 her production dropped to 134. From
that date until her transfer on March 6, her production did not exceed 215
and dropped as low as 100. -
During 1950, Jones received make-up pay for every payroll period beginning
on April 22 and ending on September 23, ranging from a low of $1.15 to a high
of $13.73. On September 25 the Respondent increased its piece rate by approx-
imately 10 percent. Jones made the required production for three of the next
four payroll periods. Thereafter she received make-up pay amounting to
$7.02, $10.45, $10.20, and $13.66, the last amount being for the payroll period
ending on January 13, 1951. On January 15 the Respondent again increased
the piece rate for the style of sock on which Jones was working. Her make-up
pay dropped to $1.62 and 40 cents for the next two payroll periods ending on
February 10. For the last two complete periods she received make-up pay
amounting to $12 35 and $22.67.
The evidence shows that no other unit boxer with experience comparable to
that of Jones had as bad a production or make-up record. During the payroll
periods discussed above there were three of such boxers, Dorothy McManns,
Elizabeth Oglesby, and Martha Hope. Oglesby received no make-up pay.
Hope received a total of approximately $11 in make-up pay for the payroll
periods in question and McManns received approximately $45. During 1951,
alone, Jones received a total of make-up pay amounting to $52.24.
For all of the reasons set forth above, I am convinced and find that the
Respondenf on March 13, 1951, discharged Ida Mae Jones for cause.
Mary Catherine Hill was employed as a looper by the Respondent from May
1947 until November 1949 and from February 1950 until her discharge on
March 19, 1951.
Shortly after the first election, Hill's looping machine broke down. As was
the custom, she "hung up a sock" on the machine in order to attract the
attention of the mechanic, Ralph Jacobs. After waiting for about half an hour
for Jacobs to fix her machine, Hill complained to Kruse. Jacobs then fixed the
machine za
Concerning her discharge, Hill was questioned and testified as follows :
Q. Tell us about the day you were fired.
A. Well, all week I had been turning in all those holes, and Mr. Kruse
came up with a piece of paper, showing the holes I turned in during the
week, and he told me that was too many flaws, and he didn't need me any
more ; and to go down at 3: 30 and get my check.
Q. Do I understand you to say "piece of paper," and the piece of paper he
showed you was the record of holes you had made during the week?
A Just the week. It wasn't a record ; it was just a piece of paper.
Q. Do you recall what else he said to you, if anything?
A. Well, I had told him whenever he told me about-I was laid off ; I told
him the machine had broke down, and I told him about it, and he said "That's
no excuse."
28 Hill testified that her machine broke down again on the same day, that she had trouble
with it thereafter, and that it caused flaws by making "holes in looping on the sock."
From the testimony of employee Dorothy Hancock, it appears that Hill was more con-
cerned about lost production than the flaws. Hancock testified, in substance, that on
March 13 she and some other CIO adherents met with Kruse ; that she asked Kruse if it
was true that he had told Hill that she would be discharged if she did not make her pro-
duction ; and that he replied, "Well, yes, I have to tell them that."
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY 1371
Undisputed evidence in the case shows that Hill's percentage of flaws during
the 4-week period prior to her discharge, amounted to 13.96 percent. The loop-
ing department's average during the same period amounted to 2.33 percent 24
Other evidence discloses that Hill had the worst flaw record of any of the
loopers. During 1 week her flaws amounted to 18.8 percent. The next highest
weekly record was that of employee Caton with 10.1 percent for the week end-
ing April 252' During May employee Thomas had a flaw record for 1 day of
24.6 percent. However, Thomas was discharged on May 25 for unsatisfactory
work. So fttr as the documentary evidence in the case is concerned, none of the
other loopers had a weekly percentage of flaws half as bad as that of Hill.
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent discharged Hill for cause.
Shelby Jones was employed by the Respondent as a "bag boy" in the inspect-
ing department from November 27, 1950, until March 12, 1951. His duties were
to distribute socks to the inspectors and the menders, to cut waste, and to keep
the floor clean in the department. He worked under Bessie Barron, supervisor
of the inspecting department.
Jones received a wage increase of 5 cents per hour on January 15, 1951. Kruse
told Jones at the time that he was "doing good work so far in the plant," that he
would "have to work hard to keep it up," and that he (Kruse) thought that
Jones had "a future."
During January and February, Jones was active on behalf of the CIO. He
was one of the employees who signed a CIO handbill and he distributed hand-
bills a number of times in front of the plant. He wore a CIO button in the plant
"once or twice" at about the time of the first election.
'oncerning his discharge, Jones testified that on Friday, March 9, he told
Barron that he wanted the afternoon off as he was sick ; that she excused him
"for the evening" ; that he returned to work the following Tuesday or Wednes-
day ; and that Kruse told him that he was discharged because his "work wasn't
satisfactory."
Kruse testified that Jones did not keep the floor clean ; that he failed to dis-
tribute the work to the other employees ; that he was behind in cutting waste ;
that on three or four occasions during about the early part of February he -saw
Jones lying down while separating socks ; that he told Barron to "put him
![Jones] on his feet" ; that for "a month or six weeks" after he was employed,
,Jones "went along all right with the job, and it just gradually got worse as he
went along" ; and that he discharged Jones because he failed to perform his
,duties and because of his absenteeism and tardylstd. Barron testified credibly
that Jones worked "quite well" until he received his raise; that thereafter "he
started fooling around the place and killing a lot of time visiting with the girls
and trying to avoid cutting his waste" ; that she spoke to Jones "a number of
times" about his shortcomings ; that at the time of Jones' discharge "ten to
twelve baskets" of waste had accumulated ; 26 that one time she caught Jones
"lying down in the basket" and told him "to get on his feet and get up to the
cutter and start cutting waste" ; 21 that on another occasion she found him help-
ing employees in another department and told him "he had plenty of work to
24 Zimmerman testified to the effect that a drop of 1 percent in the average of looper
flaws would be a yearly saving to the Respondent of from $8,000 to $10,000. At the time
of the hearing the average had been lowered to 1.4 percent.
24 Caton had experience as a Iooper for only 2 weeks before the week In question. Her
record improved each week until it was lowered to 1.2 percent for the week ending
June 13.
24 Jones admitted that there was "a pile" of uncut waste at the time of his discharge.
21 Jones at first testified that no one had ever criticized his work, but later admitted
that about a month before his discharge , Barron "told me to get on my feet."
1372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
do in his own department and for him to come back over there and get on the job
and stay in that department because that was where he was needed" ; and that
she complained to Kruse that Jones "would not stay on the job and work steady
and that I needed somebody back there at all times to distribute the work and
in order to keep up production for the inspectors and menders, and he wasn't
there half the time to do it, and I needed someone I could depend on"; and
that finally she recommended to Kruse that Jones be discharged.
The undisputed evidence in the case shows that during the 15 weeks of his
'employment Jones was late for work on 13 days and absent 9 days or parts
thereof. Further, from all the evidence it appears that he was remiss in his
duties. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent's discharge of Jones was not
violative of the Act.
Helen (Nunn) Walker was employed by the Respondent from September 12,
1950, until her discharge on March 12, 1951. Except for a short period of time
when she performed "clipping" work, she worked as an argyle knitter.
At about the time of the first 'election, Walker wore a blouse in the plant
which had the letters "TWUA" on its front. On about March 7, Kruse warned
Walker and some other employees they "could be fired for having union activity
inside the mill during working hours." When asked if that included the CIO
blouses and buttons, he replied, "Possibly."
Walker was discharged by Kruse on March 12. Concerning her conversation
with him at the time, Walker testified that he told her that she was a "poor
worker" and that there were flaws in her socks ; and that she reminded him
that he had complimented her work and that she was not the only employee
who had flaws 28 Kruse testified that he gave Walker the following reason for
her discharge:
I told Helen Nunn Walker that we were going to operate the argyle ma-
chines as we had planned, with four operators, two on each shift, and since
her attendance record showed she wasn't reliable to be an operator on the
machines, she was the one to be discharged 2°
Zimmerman testified at length concerning the reason for Walker's discharge.
A summary of this testimony and of the Respondent's contentions is set forth
in its brief as follows :
Argyle style socks have predominated in the men's hosiery industry since
the last war. Up until 1950 they were manufactured by knitting separate
squares which were then sewn together. In 1950 a new Hemphill knitting
machine was developed which would permit the knitting of an argyle in
one operation.
Bear Brand Hosiery bought twenty-three of these new machines and in-
stalled them in Henderson, the first being delivered in August, 1950, and the
last in January, 1951.
The manufacturer of the new machines advised that one operator could
operate between thirteen and twenty machines and the Company ascertained
that other manufacturers were making such job assignments. As the ma-
chines were put into operation, however, the Company set a piece work
rate on the job on the basis of one operator to eleven machines.
28 Walker testified that Kruse complimented her on her work "three or four times a
week" before the first election, but "not as often" thereafter. She also testified that
Kruse criticized her "quite a few times" for "cutting strings too short" and for flaws, and
that he warned her "maybe once or twice" after the first election for making too many
flaws.
29 Before March 12, the Respondent employed six knitters for the argyle machines.
BEAR BRAND -HOSIERY COMPANY 1373
During the fall of 1950, the Company hired and began training six
operators for this new knitting machine ( of whom Walker was one) and
by the end of 1950 had three trainees on each of the day and night shifts.
In February, 1951, the employment of two of these trainees was terminated
and replaced by two others.
By March 9, 1951 the Company felt that it had enough experience with the
machines to put them on a piece work operation and decided to cut back
from six operators to four or two on each shift operating eleven machines
each-the basis on which the piece-work rate had been established in the
Fall of 1950. The Company did not follow the manufacturer 's recommenda-
tion of one operator to thirteen to twenty -three machines because it desired
high quality work and the yarn going into the sock was extremely expensive.
In the process of reducing the number of argyle knitters from six to four,
one of those terminated was Walker.
Respondent 's Exhibit 22 is an analysis of the hours worked between
January 1st and March 9, 1951 by the six argyle knitters who were on that
job on March 9th, when the Company put the job on piece work and reduced
the number of such knitters from six to four as heretofore described.
It shows that during this period
(a) Helen Nunn Walker worked 80% of her scheduled work hours.
(b) Ruth Gaines worked 88 .4% of her scheduled work hours . ( Gaines
was laid off for one week and an unfair labor practice charge was immedi-
ately filed by the C. I. 0. but later withdrawn.
(c) Beatrice Stanley worked 97% out of her scheduled work hours.
(d) Betty Cox worked 93% of her scheduled'work hours.
(e) I'eail Betourne, who replaced one of the terminated argyle knitters
in February, worked 100% of her scheduled work hours.
(f) Elizabeth Carter, the other February replacement, worked 100% of her
scheduled hours. _
To recapitulate, the poorest worker of the six was Walker who was
discharged and is involved in the Complaint-and the next poorest worker,
Gaines was laid off for a week-and of the four who were kept two had
perfect records and the other two were 93.7% and 97% perfect.
As testified by Zimmerman the new argyle sold at the highest price of any
Bear Brand sock and the loss in high cost production of a high selling price
article attributable to absenteeism, where there are only two knitters op-
erating only eleven expensive new machines each per shift , could not be
tolerated . This was something quite different than the loss of a day's
production from any of the Company 's many hundreds of smaller machines
used to manufacture a lower cost and lower selling price article.
The evidence shows that Betty Williams, another argyle knitter, was dis-
charged on February 9, 1951, because she "did not apply self at work."
I believe and find that the Respondent did not discharge Helen Nunn Walker
discriminatorily . In so finding I credit the testimony of Kruse concerning his
conversation with Walker at the time of discharge and of Zimmerman with
respect to the Respondent's reasons for the discharge. It is noteworthy that
the Respondent discharged Williams and laid off Gaines at about the time in
question . Neither of these employees are named in the complaint . The evidence
shows that the attendance record of each was poor; and indicates that Williams
also had a poor quality record, since argyle knitters were not working on piece
rate at the time of her discharge . In my opinion , these facts show that the
Respondent was concerned over the quality of the work and reliability of the
knitters , and support its contentions with respect to Walker.
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section IV, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close , intimate , and substantial 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.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, and United Textile Workers of
America, AFL, are labor organizations 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 in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY and RADIO & TELEVISION BROADCAST
ENGINEERS UNION, LOCAL 1212, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. R -RC-4378.
October 6,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sidney Danielson, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
'ployees of the Employer.
100 NLRB No. 225.