Clinton Cotton Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1935

1 N.L.R.B. 97 (N.L.R.B. 1935)

In the Matter of CLINTON COTTON MILLS and LOCAL No. 2182, UNITED
TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-6.-Decided December 31,1935
Cotton Textile Inedirstrp-'Cornpanj/-Dontianated Union: domination or inter-
ference with formation or administration; initiation, sponsorship, participa-
tion in affairs ; financial or other support ; check-off agreement with ; closed
shop agreement with ; disestablished as agency for collective bargainingIn-
terferenec, Restraint or Coercion: surveillance of union meetings and activi-
ties-Condition of Employment: membership in company-dominated union-
Discniinnation: non-reinstatement following temporary shut-down-Reinstate.
ment Ordered-Back Pay:"awarded.
Mr. Thomas I. Emerson for the Board.
Blackwell d Wilson, by Mr. H. S. Blackwell and Mr. R. T. Wilson,
of Laurens, S. C., for respondent.
Mr. Stanley S. Surrey, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On October 15, 1935 Local Union No. 2182, United Textile Workers
of America, hereinafter referred to as the Union, filed with the Re-
gional Director of the National Labor Relations Board for the Tenth
Region a charge that the Clinton Cotton Mills had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices prohibited by the National
Labor Relations Act. On October 28, 1935 the Board issued a com-
plaint against the Clinton Cotton Mills, hereinafter referred to as
the respondent, said complaint being signed by the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region and alleging that the respondent had committed
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8, subdivisions (1), (2), (3) and (5), and Section 2, subdivisions
(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. In respect of the
unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance :
1. The respondent, through its overseers and second hands, formed
in December, 1934, an organization of its employees known as the
Clinton Friendship Association, actively solicited membership in the
Association ever since its formation, forced large numbers of its
employees to join said Association by threats and other described
conduct, and had at all times since its formation participated in,
97
98 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dominated and controlled the administration, activities and func-
tioning of the Association.
2. The respondent, through its overseers and second hands, had
consistently attempted to discourage membership in Local No. 2182
and to destroy said Union, by threats of discharge, surveillance of
Union meetings, and by its conduct in relation to the Association
and other described conduct.
3. Respondent at all times since December, 1934 had discriminated
against the Union and in favor of the Association by granting special
privileges and favors to the Association.
4. Between July 14 and July 20, 1935, respondent discharged from
thirty to forty employees for the reason that they had attended meet-
ings of the Union or had joined and assisted the Union. These
employees were later reinstated only through the efforts of a repre-
sentative of the National Textile Labor Relations Board.
5. About August 24, 1935, respondent purported to enter into a
contract with the Association whereby it agreed to employ only
persons who were members of the Association or had authorized
the Association to represent them in collective bargaining with
respondent. Since August 26, 1935 respondent has refused to
permit any employee to work in the mill, or to employ any person,
who is not a member or who has not granted such authorization.
Approximately one hundred employees who were employed by
respondent immediately prior to August 26, 1935, but who have
refused or failed to join the Association or grant such authoriza-
tion have been excluded from work in the mill since August 26, 1935.
6. About August 16 and August 23, 1935, the Union, representing
a substantial number of the employees of the mill requested con-
ferences with the respondent for the purpose of bargaining 'collec-
tively with respect to grievances, rates of pay, hours of work and
other working conditions. At said times and at all times thereafter
respondent has failed and refused to meet, discuss or bargain col-
lectively with the Union as to any matter.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were served
on October 28, 1935 on Local No. 2182 and the Clinton Cotton
Mills in accordance with National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, Series 1, Article V. By amendments of the notice
of hearing, which were duly served upon the parties, and by order
of the Board, John M. Carmody, member of the National Labor
Relations Board, was designated Trial Examiner and the hearing
postponed from November 12, 1935, to November 19, 1935, and again
to November 21, 1935.
Commencing on November 21, 1935, a hearing was held at Green-
ville, S. C., by John M. Carmody, a member of the Board, sitting as
Trial Examiner, and testimony was taken. Full opportunity to
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 99
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to both parties. The
respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on constitutional grounds,
involving the Tenth and Fifth Amendments (Respondent's Ex-
hibits 1, 1a). Upon the denial of such motion, the respondent filed
a plea to the jurisdiction, of the Board and in abatement of the
proceedings, the plea being based upon the claim that the alleged
unfair labor practices did not affect commerce within the meaning
of Section 2, subdivisions ( 6) and (7) and upon constitutional
grounds, some of which were similar to those advanced in the motion
to dismiss (Respondent's Exhibit 2). A ruling on this plea was
at first reserved, but later in the hearing the plea was denied. The
respondent moved to strike from the complaint all allegations relat-
ing to unfair labor practices prior to July 5, 1935 (Respondent's
Exhibit 3), and throughout the hearing objected to testimony relat-
ing to events prior to July 5, 1935. Both the motion and the objec-
tions were denied. Reserving its rights under the various motions
and the plea, the respondent then filed its answer to the complaint
denying all of the allegations with the exception of the allegations
in paragraph 1 respecting the incorporation and location of the
respondent and the allegations in paragraphs 12 and 13 respecting
the agreement with the Association, and participated in the hearing.
On November 29, 1935, the Board directed that the proceeding be
transferred to and continued before it, thereupon assuming jurisdic-
tion of the proceeding pursuant to Section 35, Article II of said
Rules and Regulations, Series 1.
On December 9, 1935, counsel for the respondent, pursuant to his
request, orally argued the cause upon the record before the National
Labor Relations Board, all members being present. On December
30, 1935, the Board, upon the request of the Union, permitted it to
withdraw that portion of the charge relating to the failure of the
respondent to bargain collectively with it. In view of such with-
drawal the Board has given no consideration to the question of
whether the respondent has committed an unfair labor practice by
reason of such conduct.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. CLINTON COTTON MILLS
The Clinton Cotton Mills is a South Carolina corporation which
owns and operates a mill at Clinton, South Carolina for the manu-
facture and sale of print cloth. The respondent employs approxi-
mately 670 employees when the mill is operating full time on two
shifts. Supervising the employees on each shift are five overseers,
one for each of the five departments-spinning, weaving, cloth room,
100 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shop and carding-and about eight or nine second hands, there being
two second hands each for most of the departments (one for each
shift). There is a general Superintendent for the entire mill. The
second hands supervise the work-in their respective departments and
recommend the hire or discharge of employees to the overseers ; the
latter possess the final authority to hire or discharge employees.
Such a recommendation of a second hand is generally approved by
the overseer. Most of the employees live in the mill village in houses
owned by the respondent. Textile labor is plentiful in the
community.
The mill was running full time on two shifts prior to about March
23, 1935. At that time it commenced to curtail its operations by
running only three days a week. Several months later it operated
one day a week and during the month of July was closed for two
weeks. It ran one day a week for the first two weeks in August,
closing down again on August 12. The mill reopened on Monday,
August 26, ran for three days that week, and thereafter has been
operated full time. Two shifts have been steadily operated since
the end of August, and for a period of two weeks three shifts were
operated.
The respondent purchases all of its cotton from cotton merchants,
most of the purchases being made directly by the respondent and the
rest through buying agents. The major portion of the cotton pur-
chased is grown in South Carolina, the remainder coming from
Tennessee and North Carolina. The following Table, compiled from
statistics furnished by the respondent (Board Exhibit 23) shows the
purchases from July, 1935 to November 23, 1935.
TABLE I.Cotton Purchased
Amount in dollars Bales
Month
South
Carolina
Elsewhere SouthCarolina Elsewhere
July------------------------------------------- 3, 368 35 6,526 62 49 100
August---------------------------------------- 3, 034 28 48 --------------
September-------------------------------------
October---------------------------------------
36,567 13
164,451 10
--------------
2, 034 80
603
2,702
------------35
November------------------------------------- 105,396 68 14,380 34 1,650 228
The output of the mill is handled by an exclusive selling agency
in New York City, the Stockton Commission Company. This agency
sells to various customers and directs the Clinton Cotton Mills to
ship to specified finishing mills pursuant to the customers' orders.
The agency pays the Clinton Cotton Mills for the material so shipped.
The print cloth is bleached and converted into various products
;tt the finishing and other mills before it is finally ready for sale to
the consumer. The print cloth is shipped F. 0. B. Clinton Cotton
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 101
Mills. About eighty percent of the print cloth manufactured at the
Clinton Cotton Mills is shipped to finishing mills located in states
other than South Carolina, the remainder being shipped to mills
within that state. The following Table, prepared from statistics
submitted by the respondent, shows the amount of print cloth shipped
lrom the Clinton Cotton Mills.and its destination for the period from
July 1, 1935 to November 26, 1935 (Board Exhibit 24).
TABLE II.-Print Cloth Sold
Amount in dollars Bales
Month
South
Carolina Elsewhere
South
Carolina Elsewhere
JulyI ------------------------------------------ 12, 245 93 25, 275 78 73 182August I------------------------------------- 26,422 17 78, 509 73 154 471
September ------------------------------------- 14,156 40 106,389 90 97 965
October I------------------------------------- 15,866 30 117,094 35 80 546
November------------------------------------ 20,197 11 81, 173 78 145 485
I The following rolls were shipped to States other than South Carolina
Amount in
dollars Number
July------------------------------------------------ ------------------------ 5, 494 36 46
August-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 346 50 3
October------------ --------------------------------------------------------- 3,362 10 35
The distribution of the cotton purchased and the print cloth sold
between South Carolina and other states, as shown by Tables I and
II, is typical of the operations of the respondent. The respondent
has on hand a quantity of unsold print cloth.
II. FORMATION OF CLINTON FRIENDSHIP ASSOCIATION
In April, 1934, Local No. 2182, United Textile Workers of Amer-
ica, was formed at the Clinton Mill. By the end of the year 1934 a
majority of the employees were members of this Union, the member-
ship being about 400 in December, 1934. In September, 1934 the
Union conducted a strike at the mill as part of the general textile
strike of that month. As a result of the strike the mill was closed
for about four weeks. The mill was completely shut down and no
shipments were made during this period, with the exception of an
insignificant special shipment of 13 bolts. Upon the reopening of
the mill at the close of the strike, four members of the Union, in-
cluding the President, Paul E. Dean, the Vice-President and a mem-
ber of the grievance committee, were not reinstated by the respondent.
The National Textile Labor Relations Board, after a hearing, found
that the refusal to reinstate these employees was in violation of
Section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, as incor-
.102 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
porated in the Cotton Textile Code, and ordered their reinstatement
(Board Exhibit 6 1). The respondent refused to comply with the
order and the employees were not reinstated.
In December, 1934, two of the supervisory officials of the mill,
Roy Holtzclaw and Clarence Oakley, formed an organization of the
employees of the mill called the Clinton Friendship Association.
Holtzclaw was a second hand in the spinning room and Oakley had
a somewhat similar position, being in charge of the spooling and
warping departments. Oakley had obtained the by-laws of similar
associations at the mills in Goldville, South Carolina, and Lyman,
South Carolina, and from these were prepared the By-Laws of the
Friendship Association. The first meeting was held on December 1,
1934 in a church on the mill property. About 60 employees were
present at the meeting, which was presided over by J. C. Cannon, a
second hand. Overseers and second hands attended. Cannon was
elected President and Holtzclaw Secretary.
All of the overseers and second hands became members of the
Association and nearly all of them attended its meetings. Com-
mencing immediately upon the formation of the Association, the
overseers and second hands began a systematic solicitation of the
employees. Each asked the employees subject to his supervision to
join the Association. Those who refused were asked again and again
and many succumbed against their will to the persistency of the
solicitation. Second hands freely distributed the By-Laws of the
Association. An employee who joined the Association generally
gave his name to his second hand and he in turn gave the new
member a membership card. The solicitation and distribution of
the By-Laws usually took place in the mill during working hours.
Practically all of the solicitation was done by overseers and second
hands; only in rare instances did an employee ask another employee
to join the Association. Membership in the Association excluded
participation in any other labor organization, as the By-Laws pro-
vide that, "Any member hereof wishing to join any other labor or-
ganization may do so but the joining of any other labor organiza-
tion shall be considered his resignation from this Association. No
member of any labor organization shall be eligible to membership in
this Association" (Board Exhibit 18).
Many of the employees who joined the Association had been mem-
bers of the Union. Some of these testified that the sole reason for
their having left the Union to become members of the Association was
the fear of losing their jobs. True, the second hands generally did
i The respondent objected to the admission of this exhibit, which contains the decision
of the Textile Board, on the ground that it related to events occurring prior to July 5,
1935. A ruling on the objection was reserved by the Trial Examiner. As pointed out
later in this decision the objection is without merit.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 103
not use open threats; did not in so many words say , "Join the Associ-
ation or give up your job ." But the employees did not need the
spoken threat to illuminate the situation . The pressure that a super-
visory official exerts because of his position when he asks an employee
to join a labor organization is clearly felt by the employee who works
under him. Many who joined did not attend meetings for the reason
that they did not desire to join in the first instance.
The Association early received the support of the management.
Upon the request of the Association , the paymaster of the respondent
agreed to collect the dues of its members by deductions from their
wages. W. J. Bailey , president of the respondent , "endorsed" the
principles of the Association by signing a copy of its By-Laws con-
taining a clause of endorsement . Overseers and second hands solic-
ited membership during working hours, although such a privilege
was forbidden to the Union . The Union did not ask for Bailey's
endorsement , since it thought such a request would be futile in view
of Bailey's hostility. It is to be inferred that this belief also
prompted it not to ask for the check-off.
The constant solicitation by overseers and second hands had its
effect upon the Union membership . Many of the Union employees,
motivated by fear for their jobs, left that organization to join the
Association . The number of members in the Union dropped from
about four hundred in December , 1934 to between two and three
hundred in July, 1935. However, despite the drive for membership
in the Association , the Union meetings were uniformly better at-
tended than those of the Association , the attendance at the former
averaging 'about 200 as compared with about 50 to 75 for the
Association.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharges of July 14-20
The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that the respondent
after July 5, 1935 engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by
the Act. The events occurring after July 5, 1935 can be fully under-
tood only when considered in connection with the background de-
scribed above. As was said in In the Matter of Pennsylvania Grey-
hound Lines, Inc., decided December 7, 1935, "While the National
Labor Relations Act applies only to practices occurring on or after
July 5, 1935, in cases where such practices have their origins in events
prior to that date, knowledge of that background of events may be
vital to a proper evaluation of the present practices."
On July 13, 1935 a Union meeting was held and attended by about
180 to 200 members. Several of the second hands maintained sur-
veillance of this meeting, observing the only exit to the meeting
97571-36-vol i-S
104 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
place. Similar 'surveillance occurred a week later at the July 20,
1935 meeting of the Union. During the week of July 14, from thirty
to forty Union members, working in different departments and on
different shifts, were discharged-told to "hunt other jobs." The re-
spondent did not contradict the contention of the Union that these
employees were discharged solely because of their Union membership
or activity and the contention is clearly supported by the evidence.
No non-Union employees were discharged. Dover, one of the em-
ployees discharged, had left the Association on July 13 to join the
Union. On Wednesday next he was discharged. When Dover ques-
tioned his overseer as to the reason, he said, "Because you went
out of the Friendship and rejoined the Union. I am going to
turn off all of them that ain't loyal to this company." Many of
those discharged complained to Dean, President of the Union,
that the overseers and second hands had told them that because of
their attendance at Union meetings their services were no longer
needed. Rochester, another employee who was discharged, had previ-
ously in the week been questioned by his overseer as to his authorship
of a letter to the Greenville News endorsing the United Textile
Workers and the Wagner Bill and attacking friendship associations.
On July 17, Dean wrote to President Bailey of the respondent
requesting a meeting for the purpose of discussing the discharges.
Receiving no answer, Dean and a committee next contacted Mr.
Barnard, a representative of the National Textile Labor Relations
Board. Barnard was able to arrange a conference with Bailey for
July 21, at one o'clock. However, all of the discharged employees
were reinstated on the morning of July 21, so that when Barnard
and Dean arrived for the conference the matter had been satisfac-
torily adjusted.
B. The closed shop agreement and consequent discharges
The attendance at subsequent Union meetings became smaller as
many Union members, with the memory of the recent discharges fresh
in their minds, were afraid to attend. This and other grievances
led to the selection on August 13 of a shop committee to confer with
Bailey in regard to the grievances arising out of the discriminatory
acts of the respondent. The shop committee on August 16 wrote to
Bailey requesting a conference and in the letter referred to the
National Labor Relations Act. Receiving no answer the committee
wrote again on August 23. This letter was likewise unanswered
by Bailey. On the next day, August 24, Bailey signed a "closed
shop" contract with the Friendship Association, described in the con-
tract as the representative organization of the employees for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations
Act. The signing of this contract, after the refusal of the respondent
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 105
even to confer with the Union, and the events preceding it merit
detailed discussion in view of the consequences following upon its
execution.
On August 17, Elbert Dillard, an attorney who had been retained
by the Friendship Association on August 12 or 15, addressed a meet-
ing of the Association on the subject of the Wagner Act and a pro-
posed contract with the respondent. The Association was not un-
familiar with this Act, since on July 13, H. T. Wilson, attorney for
the respondent, in a short address to it had discussed the same measure
and had confidently predicted that it would be declared unconstitu-
tional by the Supreme Court. Dillard, after explaining that the
majority had the power of collective bargaining to the exclusion of
the minority, stated that a contract would be presented for approval
in a few days. In the preparation of this contract, Dillard first
saw Bailey and procured his assent to a closed shop agreement. He
then submitted a tentative contract to Wilson, who inserted a clause
reserving the constitutional rights of the respondent. Next, the con-
tract, which in addition to a closed shop clause provided for a forty
hour week and the N. R. A. wage scale, was submitted to the Associa-
tion at its meeting of August 22. A motion, made by Cannon, a
second hand, and seconded by Sanders, an overseer, that the Execu-
tive Committee be given power to sign a contract for the Association
was adopted. Dillard then showed the contract to Bailey who ob-
jected to the wage and hour clause on the ground that it would de-
prive the employees of the right of collective bargaining. Bailey
stated that wages and hours were proper subjects of collective bar-
gaining and that a clause freezing the present wages and hours
would prevent the Association from bargaining for an increase in
the future-"there would be nothing to bargain about if you stipulate
the amount." Dillard, concluding "that Mr. Bailey was smarter"
than he was, struck out the disputed clause. Adopting Bailey's ar-
gument that the clause "would destroy the very object of the Act,
the collective bargaining", Dillard secured the approval of the
Executive Committee to the change.
In the meantime, a special meeting of the officers of the Associa-
tion and the overseers and second hands was held on August 20. A
few employees attended. Terry, an employee who was the President
at the time, appointed about twenty-four committees to canvass the
employees. In most cases a second hand or overseer and two em-
ployees to assist him constituted the committee. The object of the
drive was to obtain a majority backing for the Association by either
enlisting additional employees as members or by obtaining their sig-
natures to powers of attorney authorizing the Association to repre-
sent the signatory in collective bargaining with the respondent under
the National Labor Relations Act. The committees in the next few
106 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
days thoroughly canvassed the employees in a house to house cam-
paign, the second hands and overseers attempting to contact the
employees in their departments. They stated to the employees that
the Association wanted a majority in order to start the mill. The
mill, it will be remembered, had been shut down since August 12.
The drive was successful. On August 24, Dillard and the Exec-
utive Committee presented the contract to Bailey for his signature.
When questioned by him as to whether the Association represented a
majority they showed him a statement of the Secretary to the effect
that the Association had 485 actual members and some powers of
attorney which brought the total to about 511 out of a payroll of
672. Bailey without further questioning as to their representation
then signed the contract. The meeting took about five or ten min-
utes; in view of the previous conferences between Bailey and Dillard
it was just a "formality". The contract (Board Exhibit 11) stated
that the Association had been designated as the representative or-
ganization of the employees to bargain with the respondent under
the National Labor Relations Act. It provided for a closed shop
for one year limited to members of the Association or the signatories
of powers of attorney authorizing representation by the Association.
The contract contained no other provision.
Pursuant to the contract the following notice, prepared by Dillard
and under the letterhead of the Association, was posted in the mill
village on August 24 (Board Exhibit 10)
"NOTICE
Pursuant to a contract this day entered into by and between
the Clinton Cotton Mills and the Clinton Friendship Associa-
tion, only members of the Clinton Friendship Association will
be employed in said Clinton Cotton Mills after this date,
August 24, 1935. All seeking employment in said mills will be
required to exhibit membership cards in' said association, unless
he or she shall exhibit a power of attorney authorizing said
association to represent him or her in all matters pertaining to
collective bargaining.
J. P. TERRY, President
Roy HOLTZCLAW, V.-Pres.
ALFRED ASHLING, Sec'y.
C. W. WINDSOR, Treas.
Executive Committee."
The mill opened on August 26. Friendship Association officers
and members including Holtzclaw, a second hand, and the gate
watchman, turned away all applicants who did not have the requisite
membership card or power of attorney. About 125-130 employees
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 107
on the first shift and about 137 on the second were thus refused ad-
mission. By resolution of the Association adopted August 24, and
as stated in a notice posted August 29, such employees were given
until August 31 to become members or sign powers of attorney.
About 133 employees took advantage of the opportunity, became
members or were reinstated to membership in the Association, and
were given employment. At present all employees are members of
the Association or have authorized it to represent them, and those
seeking employment must comply with such condition of employment.
C. Conclusions
Ninety-six persons regularly employed when the mill closed on
August 12 and who still desire employment at the mill had not been
reinstated at the time of the hearing because.they had refused to
join the Association or sign the power of attorney (Board Exhibit
13 Z). By establishing as a condition of employment membership in
the Association or authorization of it as a representative for collec-
tive bargaining, the respondent has obviously discriminated in favor
of the Association, its membe_-s and those who desire to be represented
by it. Such discrimination just as obviously encourages membership
in the Association, and by virtue of the exclusive nature of such mem-
bership, discourages membership in any other labor organization.
The discrimination was clearly directed against members of the
Union and its effect was to discourage membership in the Union. In
addition, it is an interference with the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed employees in Section 7 of the Act and coerces them into conduct
preferred by the respondent. Such discrimination is thus an unfair
labor practice proscribed by Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3) of
the National Labor Relations Act unless it is covered by the proviso
of subdivision (3). That proviso is as follows:
"That nothing in this Act . . . shall preclude an employer
from making an agreement with a labor organization (not es-
tablished, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in this
Act as an unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of
employment membership therein, if such labor organization
is the representative of the employees as provided in Section
9 (a), in the appropriate collective bargaining unit covered by
such agreement when made."
The respondent relies on this proviso, claiming that the discrim-
ination was the result of a closed shop agreement with the Associa-
tion. The Clinton Friendship Association is a labor organization
2 Board Exhibit 13 contains 98 names. One of the employees listed returned to work
on September 17 at a reduced Rage, while another returned October 14.
108 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5), for employees par-
ticipate in it and it exists in part for the purpose of dealing with the
respondent concerning wages and working conditions (Constitution
and By-Laws, Purpose (1), Membership, Board Exhibit 18). To
ascertain whether it is the type of labor organization which may enter
into an agreement that will be given affect under the proviso, it is
necessary to inquire whether, in the language of the proviso, it is
one not established, maintained or assisted by any action defined in
the Act as an unfair labor practice. In making such an examination,
it must be remembe_ ed that the parenthetical clause in the proviso
is not limited to the unfair labor practices prohibited by Section 8,
subdivision (2), but extends to all of the practices forbidden by Sec-
tion S. Nor is it limited to conduct after July 5, 1935, for it includes,
for example, a labor organization established prior to July 5, 1935
by conduct or means characterized as unfair by Section 8. Otherwise
an employer could perpetuate an organization of his creation prior
to July 5, 1935 by entering into a closed shop agreement with it after
July 5, 1935, thus enabling it to thrive on the support afforded by
the agreement and permitting it to dispense with the constant assist-
ance obtained from company domination and support which would
otherwise be necessary.
The Clinton Friendship Association, as shown above, was estab-
lished by the respondent through its overseers and second hands.
They were the organizers at the start, called its first meeting, prepared
its By-Laws and became its first principal officers. The nucleus
started by them was kept alive and strengthened by their constant
solicitation of employees and by the aid lent the Association through
the check-off and the endorsement by the President of the respondent.
While the check-off is ordinarily a legitimate method of collecting
union dues with the assistance of the employer, when it is used as
merely one device among many whereby the employer fosters and
supports a management-controlled organization, it comes within the
ban of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (2). The tainted origin of the
Association thus prevents the respondent from using its agreement
with the Association as a shield behind which it may operate in a
manner forbidden by the Act.
The Clinton Friendship Association is today maintained by the
respondent. The overseers and second hands are still the driving
force in the organization. All are members and many attend its
meetings. The announcement of the July 16 meeting ended with
the following: "Every overseer is requested to be present at this
meeting" (Board Exhibit 17a). The By-Laws permit overseers and
second hands to be officers and a second hand is the present Vice-
President. Overseers and second hands have not ceased their solici-
tations; on the contrary, as described above, they conducted a sys-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 109
tematic campaign on behalf of the Association in the month of
August. Membership cards are still handled by overseers and sec-
ond hands. The Association still has the privilege of the check-off
and solicitation during working hours. The support of the over-
ieers and second hands is clearly necessary. Employee participation
in the affairs of the Association is small. A special notice of the
Association posted on October 28, 1935 commences as follows : "To
whom it may concern : The Association is holding its meetings every
Saturday night in the Academy School Auditorium and it is a shame
to see what few members attend these meetings-about 50 out of
750 members. It is the duty of every member to attend at least
2 out of 4 of these meetings. For the past 3 or 4 weeks we have had
bad attendance" (Board Exhibit 21). The conduct on the part of
the respondent described above constitutes domination of and inter-
ference with the administration of the Association and contribution
of support to it within the prohibition of Section 8, subdivision (2).
Moreover, the respondent has not been content with simply estab-
lishing and controlling the Association. By affirmative acts directed
against the Union, it has sought to secure the members of the Union
for the Association. The surveillance of Union meetings, the 'dis-
charge of employees for Union membership or activity, the threat of
discharge inherent in constant solicitation by overseers and second
hands, are unfair labor practices forbidden by Section 8, subdivision
(1) and, in the case of the discharges, subdivision (3).
In his oral argument before the Board on this phase of the case,
counsel for the respondent placed great stress on the fact that the
second hands are the leaders of the employees in a mill village. He
stated that there was a dividing line between the second hands and
the overseers, although it should be noted that both types of super-
visory employees participated in the Association. Consequently, he
argued, the part of the second hands in the formation, development
and conduct of the Association was no more than an expression in
this field of the general leadership exercised by them in all affairs
of the mill village. However, it must be remembered that overseers
and second hands are directly responsible to the management for
production efficiency, labor costs, quality of work and discipline.
Coupled with this responsibility placed upon then as supervisory
officials is the delegation to the overseers of the authority to hire and
discharge employees and to the second hands of the authority to
recommend such action. Thus, on the basis of duties and authority
they are a part of management. Moreover, they are that part of
management that has the closest and most direct contact with the
employees. Under the circumstances of this case, these employees
attempting to engage in concerted activities to advance their own
interests cannot do so freely under the surveillance and active leader-
110 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ship of management, no matter how friendly the personalities who
compose that management may be outside the mill walls. Finally,
the leadership of the second hand in the mill village, to which counsel
pointed, is simply the consequence of his dominant position in the
most important part of a mill village-the mill itself.
The Association is thus presently maintained and, assisted by con-
duct on the part of the respondent constituting unfair labor prac-
tices as defined in the Act. Consequently, as regards both its estab-
lishment, and current existence, it is not a labor organization whose
closed shop agreement is entitled to recognition under Section 8,
subdivision (3). The proviso of that subdivision is therefore not
applicable.
The proviso is inapplicable for another reason. It is limited solely
to the requirement of membership in a stated labor organization
as a condition of employment. Other discriminatory conditions of
employment are not protected by the proviso. Consequently, the
requirement of a power of attorney authorizing the labor organization
to represent the signatory for the purpose of collective bargaining
is not within the proviso. The closed shop is a method of achieving;
stability of organization and consequently of relations between em-
ployer and employees. It connotes a well-organized labor organiza-
tion with regular membership. A power of attorney which leaves
the signatory a non-member of the organization authorized to rep-
resent him is not conducive to such stability for its very existence
evidences a distinct lack of entire faith in the organization. There-
fore, by permitting the employees of the respondent a choice between
membership in the Association or authorizing it to represent them
through a power of attorney and thus presenting alternative condi-
tions of employment, one of which is not of the prescribed type, the
parties to the agreement have not brought themselves within the
proviso.
Since the proviso is not applicable, the discriminatory conduct of
the respondent is reached by Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3).
None of the 96 employees has obtained any other employment. By
virtue of Section 10, subdivision (c) the Board has the authority
to order the respondent to offer immediate reinstatement to these
employees. It is possible that the jobs of many of these employees
have been filled since the refusal to permit them to work on August
26, as the present number of employees on the payroll of the mill is
about equal to that of August 12 when it temporarily closed down.
If such is the case, the respondent must have employed new em-
ployees or persons previously in its employ but not working for it
on August 26. Since the respondent has committed unfair labor
practices in the refusal to reinstate these employees, and since such
affirmative action is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act,
the Board will enter an order requiring the respondent to offer
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 111
immediate reinstatement to these employees . If to comply with this
order the respondent finds it necessary to dismiss some persons
presently employed by it, dismissals for such a purpose must be
limited to employees employed after August 26, 1935. Pursuant to
Section 10, subdivision ( c) the offer of reinstatement should be
coupled with payment of back pay from the date of discharge, less
sums earned elsewhere in the meantime as stated in the list of
employees appended hereto, which is stipulated to be correct (Board
Exhibit 13). One of the employees , J. L. Mathis, refused reinstate-
ment on August 26, has been employed at the mill since September
17 at a reduced wage. Since the circumstances of the reduction were
not presented to the Board, it cannot be considered by it. In addition
to J. L. Mathis, another of the employees refused reinstatement on
August 26, S. A. Owens , is now working at the mill, having been
employed on October 14. In the case of these two employees, the
payment of back pay will cover the period from August 26 to the
respective dates of reinstatement.
As stated above, the participation of the respondent in the Associa-
tion constitutes unfair labor practices forbidden by Section 8,
subdivision ( 2). In, this case the respondent has gone further and
established the Association as the exclusive representative of all of
its employees for the purpose of collective bargaining . While the
Association may now have as members a majority of the employees,
the manner in which such membership was obtained makes it clear
that large numbers of its members have never freely chosen the
Association . From the start the membership was obtained practi-
cally entirely by solicitation of overseers and second hands. After
July the threat of discharge implicit in such solicitation was made
more concrete by the discharge of Union members . And in August,
by manipulation of its puppet , the respondent stripped the situation
of its appearance of voluntary choice and presented its employees
with the clean -cut choice of the Association or their jobs . The closed
shop contract and the purported "collective bargaining" by the As-
sociation were the result of concerted action on the part of the
attorneys for the respondent and the Association , the President of
the respondent and the overseers and second hands who controlled
the Association . The employee members of the Association were
utterly ignorant of the meaning of collective bargaining and left the
entire matter to their officers . Their officers were equally uninformed
and so they in turn left everything in the hands of their attorney.
On the basis of his own testimony he likewise was not very familiar
with the subject , so that the President of the respondent and his
attorney are left as the informed actors.
In order to remedy its unlawful conduct in this case , the respond-
ent must withdraw all recognition from the Association as an or-
112 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ganization representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing
with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment and conditions of work. In addi-
tion to such complete disestablishment of the Association as the rep-
resentative of the employees, the respondent must cease requiring as
a condition of employment that employees be members of the Asso-
ciation or sign powers of attorney authorizing the Association to
represent them for collective bargaining. Such abandonment of the
condition of employment established by the closed shop contract
will tend to correct the result of respondent's unlawful conduct in
entering into such contract with the Association. Besides taking the
above affirmative action, the respondent must also cease and desist
from its violation of Section 8, subdivision (2). Since the respond-
ent's control of the Association is achieved mainly by means of the
participation of its overseers and second hands in its affairs, the
respondent must consequently cease permitting them so to partici-
pate. One of the purposes of the Friendship Association was to
provide relief for those of its members who because of illness or
similar circumstances required aid, and a large part of its dues were
utilized for that purpose. It is quite possible that some of its mem-
bers, perhaps not conscious of the management's control of its activi-
ties as a labor organization, voluntarily joined the Association be-
cause they were in sympathy with its benevolent aims. While ail
Association dedicated to such a purpose is not within the terms of
the Act and participation of overseers and second hands may be
desirable, in this case the Friendship Association is also a labor
organization which is management-controlled in violation of the Act.
The management and the Association have combined to use the Asso-
ciation for unlawful ends and consequently the existence of worthy
purposes, which standing alone would be without the scope of the
Act, cannot alter such violation.
For the sake of completeness, it is necessary to discuss briefly two
contentions advanced by the respondent to prove that the Association
is an organization truly representative of the employees and freely
chosen by them. The first of these involves an attempt by the re-
spondent to reduce wages in the mill. About two weeks before the
hearing in this case, notices were posted that wages would be re-
duced. The employees apparently became aroused and asked the
officers of the Association to see the management. They in turn
placed the entire matter in the hands of Dillard, their attorney. He
conferred with Bailey, the respondent's President, and arranged an
evening conference which was attended by Dillard, Bailey, Hill (the
Superintendent), Terry, Holtzclaw (a second hand), and Ashling,
the last three being officers of the Association. Bailey claimed the
reduction was necessitated by higher costs, but Dillard pointed out
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 113
that the wages paid at Clinton were no higher,, than those at the
other mill involved in the comparison, so that it was unfair to penalize
the employees for high costs due to factors other than wages. Bailey
postponed decision until the next day, when he then informed Terry
and Holtzclaw that the question of a reduction would be deferred
until January.
The second contention concerns 642 mimeographed statements
signed by employees at the mill on November 19 and 20, 1935, after
the complaint had been issued in this case. These statements are of
three types. One group, 308 in number, is to the general effect that
the undersigned is an employee of the Clinton Cotton Mills and a
member of the Friendship Association, that he desires the Associa-
tion to represent him for collective bargaining, that lie was not forced
to join the Association by threats or fear, and that he did not join
the Union because he thought. and still believes that his interests
could be better served by the 'Association. In the second group of-
287 the signatory states that he is an employee of the Mills, and a
member of the Association, which he believed could best serve his
interests, that the Union had rendered no service but instead had
caused suffering, that he was not forced to join by threats or induce-
ments, and that he is willing to testify to the above. The third
group of 47 is somewhat similar to the first, except that the signatory
states he was formerly a member of the Union but withdrew of his
own free will to become a member of the Association (Respondent's
Exhibit 5).
The statements were prepared by Dillard. Terry, President of the
Association, caused them to be signed by the employees during work-
ing hours. Two crews of two witnesses each, evenly divided between
employees and outsiders, went from workroom to workroom, establish-
ing themselves in each workroom at the second hand's or overseer's
desk. The second hand or Terry would send the employees to the
desk in groups. Terry would hand each a statement and tell them
to sign if they were willing, but that they were not obliged to sign.
Three or four refused to sign and are still working. Apparently
Terry controlled the type of statement which an employee would sign,
since there is no evidence in the record indicating that they were
permitted to choose between the three forms.
Neither of these contentions has the effect claimed for them by re-
spondent. The fact that the members of a management-controlled
Association on one occasion assert their own wishes does not remove
the stigma of the domination. An organization which is normally
entirely under the control of the employer may well get out of hand
if a wage reduction is proposed. The Association is still dominated
by the respondent and it is that domination which the Act declares
an unfair labor practice. The signed statements are of no value. The
114 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
method by which they were procured is in itself sufficient to cast doubt
upon the genuineness of the signatories' belief in the statements signed.
Moreover, as far as the employees could judge, refusal to sign might
mean the loss of their jobs. Each contained the assertion that the
undersigned was a member of the Association. Since the Association
was the beneficiary of the closed shop agreement that was still in
force, a refusal to sign, indicating non-membership in the Association,
might be considered as the equivalent of failure to comply with the
condition of employment in that contract.
CONCLUDING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In addition to the above findings of fact, upon the record in the
case, the stenographic transcript of the hearing, and all the evidence,
including oral testimony, documentary and other evidence offered and
received at the hearing, the following concluding findings of fact are
made by the Board :
1. The respondent, Clinton Cotton Mills, is a South Carolina Cor-
poration which owns and operates at Clinton, South Carolina, a mill
for the manufacture and sale of print cloth. The respondent normally
employs about 670 employees.
2. The respondent purchases and obtains in the State of South
Carolina most of the cotton used in its manufacturing operations, the
remainder coming from Tennessee and North Carolina. About eighty
percent of the print cloth manufactured at the mill is shipped by
the respondent to mills located in states other than the State of South
Carolina for finishing at said mills. The remaining twenty percent
is shipped to mills located in the State of South Carolina for similar
finishing by said mills. The cloth is shipped F. 0. B. Clinton Cotton
Mills and the respondent has no interest in the mills to which it is
consigned.
3. The operations of the respondent, as described above, constitute
a continuous flow of trade, traffic and commerce among the several
states.
4. The respondent, through its officers and agents, while engaged
in the operations described above, on July 13, 1935 and July 20, 1935
maintained surveillance of the meetings and meeting places of a labor
organization known as Local Union No. 2182, United Textile Workers
of America.
5. In the week of July 14, 1935, the respondent, through its officers
and agents, while engaged in the operations described above, dis-
charged from thirty to forty employees, all of whom were engaged in
operations at the mill. These employees were reinstated on July
21, 1935 only through the efforts of a representative of the Textile
Labor Relations Board.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 115
6. Each of the employees so discharged, as stated in paragraph
5 above, was discharged for the reason that each was a member of a
labor organization known as Local Union No. 2182, United Textile
Workers of America and had attended its meetings or assisted said
Union.
7. The respondent, by its officers and agents, in December, 1934,
while engaged in the operations described above, formed, established
and sponsored a labor organization of its employees known as the
Clinton Friendship Association. Overseers and second hands of the
respondent organized the first meeting of the Association, prepared
its By-Laws and became its first principal officers. The Association
was endorsed by the President of the respondent and accorded the
privilege of having its dues collected by the respondent from the
wages of its members. Immediately after such formation, the over-
seers and second hands of the respondent actively and constantly
solicited the employees of the respondent so as to obtain their mem-
bership in said Association. By reason of such solicitation and the
fear for their jobs induced by it, many employees became members
of said Association, some resigning their membership in the labor
organization known as Local Union No. 2182, United Textile Workers
of America.
8. The respondent, by its officers and agents, while engaged in the
operations described above, is dominating and interfering with the
administration of a labor organization of its employees known as the
Clinton Friendship Association, by reason of membership of its
overseers and second hands in such Association ; their attendance at
its meetings ; their activity, including the holding of an office, in
the affairs of the Association; and their solicitation of the employees
of the respondent to become members of said Association; and under
the circumstances of this case is contributing support to said Associa-
tion by according to it the privilege of having the dues of said Asso-
ciation deducted by respondent from the wages of members of said
Association and paid over by respondent to said Association and the
privilege of soliciting membership in said Association during work-
ing hours and on mill property.
9. In the latter part of the week of August 18, 1935, overseers
and second hands of the respondent solicited the employees of the
respondent in an intensive house to house campaign to secure their
membership in the Clinton Friendship Association or their signatures
to powers of attorney authorizing said Association to represent them
for the purpose of collective bargaining with the respondent under
the National Labor Relations Act.
• 10. On August 24, 1935, respondent signed an agreement with a
labor organization of its employees known as the Clinton Friendship
Association, said Association claiming to represent the employees
116 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the respondent for collective bargaining with it, whereby mem-
bership in said Association or the signing of a power of attorney
authorizing said Association to represent the signatory in collective
bargaining with the respondent was made a condition of employ-
ment in the respondent's mill.
11. By reason of the enforcement by the respondent of the terms
of the contract described above in paragraph 10, and the establish-
ment of the stated condition of employment, a large number of re-
spondent's employees have been forced against their will to become
members of said Association or sign such powers of attorney in order
to retain their employment at respondent's mill.
12. Ninety-six employees of the respondent regularly employed by
it prior to August 26, 1935, and who desire employment with it,
have since been refused employment by respondent and to date are
excluded from working in its mill solely because of respondent's en-
forcement of the terms of the contract described above in paragraph
10 and their refusal to become members of a labor organization of
respondent's employees known as the Clinton Friendship Association
or to sign powers of attorney authorizing said Association to repre-
sent them in collective bargaining with the respondent under the
National Labor Relations Act. None of these ninety-six employees
has obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employ-
ment. The names of these employees, the wage rates at which they
were paid prior to respondent's refusal to employ them and the
amounts they have since earned through employment elsewhere, as
of the date of hearing, are shown in Appendix A to these findings.
On Appendix A there is also shown the status of J. L. Mathis and
S. A. Owens, two additional employees who were similarly refused
employment by respondent but who are now employed by it.
13. By reason of respondent's acts of intimidation and coercion
described in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 above, and the constant solicita-
tion by its overseers and second hands of membership in a labor
organization known as the Clinton Friendship Association, which
have prevented a large number of employees from joining, assisting
or remaining members of the labor organization known as Local
No. 2182, United Textile Workers of America and have forced a
large number of employees to become members of said Association
against their will, said Association has at no time been the freely
chosen representative of more than a small number of the employees
,.of The respondent.
14. By the discharges described in paragraphs 5, 6 and 12 above,
the respondent has interfered with, restrained and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 117
15. By the discharges described in paragraphs 5, 6 and 12 above,
the respondent did discriminate in regard to hire and tenure of
employment and conditions of employment and has thereby encour-
aged membership in the labor organization known as the Clinton
Friendship Association and has thereby discouraged membership in
the labor organization known as Local Union No . 2182, United
Textile Workers of America.
16. By the surveillance described in paragraph 4 above, by the
solicitation of its employees described in paragraphs 8 and ' 9 above,
and by the imposition of the condition of employment described in
paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 above, the respondent has interfered with,
restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
17. The aforesaid acts of respondent occurred in the course and
current of commerce among the several states and immediately affect
employees engaged in the course and current of such commerce.
18. In September , 1934, a strike occurred at the respondent's mill
which caused it to be shut down for a period of four weeks . During
this period no shipments of print cloth were made by the respondent.
The strike was called by Local No. 2182, United Textile Workers of
America.
19. The respondent's acts described in the foregoing paragraphs
caused unrest , resentment and bitterness among the employees in the
mill and tend to lead to a labor dispute burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce between the State of South
Carolina and the other states in which the respondent buys its cotton
and sells its print cloth.
20. Interference by employers with the activities of employees in
joining or assisting labor organizations results and tends to result
in labor disputes and other forms of industrial unrest which burden
and obstruct commerce among the several states and the free flow
thereof.
Upon the basis of the foregoing the Board finds and concludes as
a matter of law:
(a) Respondent , by discharging thirty to forty of its employees
as described in paragraphs 5 and 6 above , by discharging and con-
tinuing to exclude from work in its mill the employees - named in
Appendix A hereto, and by interfering with, restraining and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act, as set forth above , has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 , subd'vision ( 1) and Section 2, sub-
divisions ( 6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
(b) Respondent , by encouraging membership in the labor organi-
zation known as the Clinton Friendship Association and discourag-
118 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing membership in the labor organization known as Local Union
2182, United Textile Workers of America by enforcing the discrimi-
natory condition of employment described above, by discharging
thirty to forty of its employees as described in paragraphs 5 and 6
above and by discharging and continuing to exclude from work in
its mill the employees named in Appendix A hereto, has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within.
the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (3) anc'E Section 2, subdivisions
(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
(c) Respondent, by its domination of and interference with the
labor organization known as the Clinton Friendship Association and
by its contribution of support to such labor organization, as above
set forth, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (2)
and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
APPENDIX A
List of employees of the Clinton Cotton Mills who were regularly
employed by it immediately prior to August 26, 1935 and who, despite
their desire to continue such employment, have since been refused
employment solely because of their refusal to become members of
the Clinton Friendship Association or to sign powers of attorney
authorizing the Association to represent them for collective bargain-
ing, together with their average wage as of August 26, 1935 and the
amount earned through employment elsewhere from August 26, 1935
to November 21, 1935, such employment being with the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration, except where otherwise indicated.
Name
Average
wage for
full 40 hour
week
Wages re-
ceived from
employment
elsewhere
from August
26, 1935 to
November
21, 1935
MaddenJ H ---------------L $13 $10. . ------------------------------------------
C. D. Hughes----------------------------------------------------------------- 12 16
Fred Wilson------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 16
C C Lusk------------------------------------------------------------------ 13 16
Ruth Lusk---------------------------------------------------------------- 13
(1)
E B. Worthy- --------------------------------------------------------------- 13 (1)
J S Grady------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 16
John Harris ------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 16
James Harris----------------------------------------------------------------- 12 (1)
T W Simmons-------------------------------------------------------------- 17 16
O C Dees-------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 12
J F McKelly---------------------------------------------------------------- 12 16
Frank Hancock --------------------------------------------------------------- 12 16
H. L Kennedy --------------------------------------------------------------- 13.50 12
Grady Smith---------------------------------------------------------------- 12.50
(1)
Tom Lee--------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.50 10
L. L Ballow ------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 16
Andrew Ballow --------------------------------------------------------------- 12 (1)
J. C. Young------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 12
W. M Rochester------------------------------------------------------------- 12 16
John Reed-------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 (1)
1 Nothing.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
Name
119
Wages re-
ceived from
employment
elsewhere
from August
26, 1935 to
November
Average
wage for
full 40 hour
week
21, 1935
Jack Meadors $12 $16
Jim Knighton-------------------- ---------- ---------------------------- 12 16
Martha Hancock 14 50 (i)
David Smith 12 50 (i)
Henry Russ ------------------------------------------------------ 13 10
Lola Russ 13 (i)
Joe Reed 13 16
Joe Kessler 17 16
Mattis Summer 15 (1)
Bevlar Summer 12 16
Lawson Smith 12 (2) 24.20
M. B. Rochester 12 16
Pearl Meadors-------------- 14 25 (i)
Stella Compton------------------------------------------------------------- 14. 28 12
Fate Hanback 15 16
Arzetta Hanback 14.25 (i)
Mary Madden---------------------------------------------------------------- 14 25 (i)Flora Knight ----------------------------------------------------------------- 14 25 (i)
Maggie Grady--------------------------------------------------------------- 14 25 (i)
Emma Smith--------------------------- 13 75 P)
Lessie Harrison 12 12 12
Arthur Smith------------------- 9 (i)
Maude Davis 16 20 (i)
Sallie Mae Bagwell----------------------------------------------------------- 14 25 (i)
John Bagwell ----------------------------------------------------------------- 15 16
Minnie Ray----------------------------------------------------------------- 13 75 16
Willie K Willis 15 8
Horace Howell 9 16
Andy Hames ----------------------------------------------------------------- 12 16
Florence Splawn------------------------------------------------------------- 14 20 (i)
Jesse Finley-- -------------------------------------------------------------- 15 16
Addie Finley- -------------------------- 14 25 (i)K E Balkham 9 10
W H Dover 9 16
Irene Adams-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 13 50 (i)
Hubert Leopard-------------------------------------------------------------- 13 . (i)
Ruth Leopard- --------- ----------------------- 12 50 (i)
A W Dennis 18 75 16
Roy Davis--------------------------------------------------------- ------- 12 16
Fred Miller 13 62 16
Aron Quarls 18 12
Irene Quarls ------------------------------------------------------------------ 18 (i)
Marshall Brady--------------------------------------------------------------- 19 16
C L Braswell 18 8
Elizabeth Ledford 18 (i)
J F Golden 13 45 16
J T Golden 17 (i)
Clara Hawks 18 12
Beatrice Alexander 18 10
Willie Rushton 13 87 (i)
C W Rushton 12 16
Franklin Davis 12 16
Young Davis 13 60 (i)
Kathleen McKelly--------- ------------------------------------- -- 13 49
(i/(
Robt Adams 17 12
H A Adams 9 12
R R McLendon 13 48 12
Ben Whitmire ---------------- ---------- 13 62 12R S White 12 16
Carrie White 13 49 (i)
R B Overstreet 17 12
M G Overstreet 17 (i)
Lola Mae Overstreet---------------------------------------------------- 13 (i)
Magadlen Wilbanks 13 45 (i)
J. F Craig----------------- -------------------------------------------------- 19 50 16
Mary Craig------------------------------------------ -------------- 17 (i)
Norman Blackwell ----------------------------------------------------------- 13 12
J H Owens 13 87 16
J N Nix 12 12
Robt Overstreet-------------------------- 12 (i)
Lizzie Holmes 12.12 (i)
R L Anderson 17 (3)
Vero] Mathis 13 87 (i)
Beatrice Owens 13 50 (i)
Mae Smith (3) (3)
i Nothing. 2 $19 20 in Gastonia, N. C. I Not ascertained.
97571-36-vol. 1-9
120 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
J. L. Mathis has been employed by- the respondent since Sep-
tember 17, 1935 at an average wage of $12.50. On August 26, 1935
his average wage was $17 for the same amount of time. Previous
to September 17, 1935 he had received $6 from the Federal Emer-
gency Relief Administration.
S. A. Owens has been employed by the respondent since October
14, 1935 at an average wage of $12. On August 26, 1935 his aver-
age wage was $10.50 for the same amount of time. Previous to
October '14, 1935 he did not have any employment elsewhere.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, Clinton Cotton Mills, and its officers and agents,
shall :
1. Cease and desist (a) from discharging or threatening to dis-
charge any of its employees for the reason that such employees have
joined or assisted Local Union No. 2182, United Textile Workers
of America; (b) from maintaining surveillance of the meetings and
activities of Local Union No. 2182, United Textile Workers of
America; and (c) from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self
organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act;
2. Cease and desist (a) from requiring as a condition of employ-
ment in its mill that the employee or applicant for employment
become a member of the Clinton Friendship Association or sign a
power of attorney or other document authorizing the Clinton Friend-
ship Association to represent him for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or grant any other authorization to the Clinton Friendship
Association; and (b) from encouraging membership in the Clinton
Friendship Association, or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, and from discouraging membership in Local Union No.
2182, United Textile Workers of America, or any other labor,organi-
zation of its employees, by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment;
3. Cease and desist (a) from permitting its overseers, second hands
and other supervisory officials to remain or become officers or-
mem-bers of the Clinton Friendship Association, to---participate- in its
activities and .to solicit membership in it; (b) from affording the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 121
Clinton Friendship Association the privileges of having its dues
collected by the respondent from the wages of its members and of
soliciting for members during working hours and on mill property
unless similar privileges are offered to Local Union No. 2182, United
Textile Workers of America-and any other labor organization of its
employees ; and (c) from in any manner dominating or interfering
with the administration of the Clinton Friendship Association or
any other labor organization of its employees and from contributing
any support to the Clinton Friendship Association , or to any other
labor organization of its employees , except that nothing in this
paragraph shall prohibit the respondent from permitting its em-
ployees to confer with it during working . hours without loss of pay;
4. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to the employees listed in Appendix A to the concluding
findings of fact immediate and full reinstatement , respectively, to
their former positions , without prejudice to any rights and privileges
previously enjoyed;
(b) Make whole said employees for any losses of pay they have
suffered by reason of their discharge by payment , respectively, of a
sum of money equal to that which each would normally have earned
as wages during the period from August 26, 1935 to the date of such
offer of reinstatement, computed at the wage rate stated in Appendix
A as the rate each was paid immediately prior to August 26, 1935,
less the amount which each earned subsequent to August 26, 1935 as
shown in Appendix A; and make whole J. L. Mathis and S. A.
Owens, by a similar payment computed in respect of the period from
August 26, 1935 to the respective date of reinstatement , as shown in
Appendix A;
(c) Withdraw all recognition from the Clinton Friendship Asso-
ciation as representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing
with respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment , or conditions of work, and completely
disestablish the Clinton Friendship Association as such representa-
tive ;
(d) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
throughout its mill and in the mill village stating ( 1) that the Clin-
ton Friendship Association is so disestablished and that respondents
will refrain from any such recognition thereof; (2) that to secure
employment in the mill a person need not become a member of the
Clinton Friendship Association or sign any power of attorney or
other document authorizing the Clinton Friendship Association to
represent him or grant any other authorization to the Clinton Friend-
ship Association; (3) that the contract signed with the Clinton
Friendship Association is void and of no effect ; (4) that the re-
122 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent will not discharge or in any manner discriminate against
members of Local Union No. 2182, United Textile Workers of Amer-
ica or any person assisting said organization or engaging in Union
activity; (5) that the respondent has ceased and desisted as provided
in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of this Order; (6) that the respondent has
instructed its overseers and second hands to remain neutral as be-
tween organizations and that any violations of this instruction should
be reported to it; and (7) that such notices will remain posted for a
period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of post-
ing; and
(e) File with the National Labor Relations Board on or before
the tenth day from the date of service of this Order, a report in
writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has
complied with the foregoing requirements.