De Soto Hardwood Flooring Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 382 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Procedure Act .5 Moreover, the Employer has failed to allege in what
manner it has been prejudiced as a result of the Board's failure to
publish in the Federal Register the fact that a Board election may be
held by mail balloting at the Regional Director's discretion. Conse-
quently, the Employer is in no position at this time to attack the elec-
tion on the grounds of the Board's alleged noncompliance with Sec-
tion 3 (a) (2) of the Administrative Procedure Act e
Accordingly, we find that the Employer's objections do not raise
substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct of the
election, and they are therefore overruled.
Certification of Results
Upon the basis of the tally of ballots and the entire record in the
case, the Board finds :
1. A majority of the employees eligible to vote in the unit described
below have voted to authorize Retail Clerks' International Associa-
tion, Local Union No. 324, to make an agreement with F. W. Wool-
worth Co., Compton, California, requiring membership in such labor
organization as a condition of employment, in conformity with Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
2. The appropriate bargaining unit in which the election was con-
ducted comprises : All employees at the Compton, California, store of
F. W. Woolworth Company, but excluding the store manager, assist-
ant store manager, sales floor supervisor, personnel supervisor, office
supervisor, stockroom supervisor, learner, seasonal employees, and
other supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER MuRDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Second Supplemental Decision and Certifica-
tion of Results.
In any event, Section 3 ( a) does not provide for invalidation of administrative action
taken pursuant to an unpublished procedure . The only sanction there provided is that
"no person shall be required to resort to organization or procedure" not properly published.
As the use of-mail ballots did not require resort by the Employer to any organization or
procedure , application of the foregoing sanction can have no effect on the validity of the
election.
6 See : Market Street Railroad Co. v. Comm'n ., 324 U . S. 548 , 561-562.
DE SOTO HARDWOOD FLOORING COMPANY and LOCAL 400, INTERNA-
TIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO . Case No. 32-CA-152.
September 26,1951
Decision and Order
On June 11, 1951, Trial Examiner Frederic B. Parkes, 2nd, issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
96 NLRB No. 67.
DE SOTO HARDWOOD FLOORING COMPANY 38a
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the,
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner lnade-
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The,
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions,, the brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.
We find, like the Trial Examiner, that the strike of September 26,
1950, although of economic origin, was converted on September 27
to an unfair labor practice strike and that the Respondent's employees
were entitled to reinstatement upon their unconditional application,
displacing, if necessary, any replacements hired on and after Septem-
ber 27, 1950.
As to one employee, Henry Smith, the Trial Examiner found that
he had been replaced before September 27 by T. J. Hendrix, a non-
striker, who was transferred to Smith's job as a stock sawyer. How-
ever the Trial Examiner found that Smith had not been "effectively"
replaced on that date, characterizing the transfer-as a "makeshift ar-
rangement." We do not agree that Smith had not been effectively
replaced. '. Under Board policy, Smith would not be entitled to dis-
place any employee, whether old or new, who had replaced him on a
permanent basis before September 27, when the strike was converted
to an unfair labor practice strike. There is no adequate basis in the
record, in our opinion, for finding that the transfer of Hendrix to
Smith's job was a "makeshift" or temporary, rather than a permanent,,
arrangement. In fact, the record shows that at the time of the hear-
ing in this case, nearly 6 months later, Hendrix was still employed as a
stock sawyer. Accordingly, we find that Smith was permanently re-
placed before September 27, 1950, and that he is not entitled to rein-
statement or back pay .2
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
, Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Houston , Reynolds , and Styles].
2 The Trial Examiner stated that his conclusion as to Smith applied also to R. Marr,
who had been replaced on an unspecified date by a nonstriker . While we disagree with
the Examiner ' s finding that Smith had not been permanently replaced on September 27,
we find, in the absence of any evidence as to the date in which Marr was replaced, that
she was not effectively replaced on September 27, and that her right to reinstatement and
back pay are to be determined accordingly.
384 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Relations Board hereby orders that •the Respondent; De' Soto Hard-
wood Flooring Company, Memphis, Tennessee, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to recognize or to bargain collectively with Local 400,
International Woodworkers of America, CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all production and maintenance employees of its Memphis
plant, excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, engineers, fire-
men, salesmen, lumber inspectors, superintendents, foremen, subfore-
men, maintenance foremen, and any other supervisory employees
within the meaning of the Act.
(b) Taking any unilateral action, or dealing individually with em-
ployees in derogation of their bargaining representative, with respect
to any matter properly the subject of collective bargaining.
(c) Discouraging membership in Local 400, International Wood-
workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of employment.
(d) Interrogating its employees concerning their union activities,
or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Local 400, International Wood-
workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, and 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 organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following action, which the Board finds will effectuate
the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 400, -
Interna-tional Woodworkers, of America, CIO, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees in the appropriate unit and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
(b) Make whole each of the employees named in Appendix B at-
tached to the Intermediate Report, who have already been reinstated
or offered reinstatement, in the manner described in the section of the
Intermediate Report entitled "The remedy."
(c) Offer to its employees listed in Appendix C attached to the
Intermediate Report (except Henry Smith), if they have not already
DE SOTO HARDWOOD FLOORING COMPANY 385
been reinstated or offered reinstatement, immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without'
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
each of them whole in the manner described in the section of the Inter-
mediate Report entitled "The remedy."
(d) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and the right of
reinstatement under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its plant in Memphis, Tennessee, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies
of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fif-
teenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), shall, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees customarily are posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director of the Fifteenth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as
it alleges that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of J. Bray, Alline Brown, Fred Cox, A. Dennis,
S. Evans, C. Gillon, N. Hampton, T. Howell, S. O. Jackson, Lucy
Jones,.B. Merriweather, O. Merriweather, S. Merriweather, R. Milam,
G. Murphy, L. Murphy, T. Oliver, B. Phillips, O. Pigues, M. Robin-
son, Henry Smith, N. Thompson, and Bob Williams, and insofar as
it alleged interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act, except as otherwise found herein.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Local 400, International Woodworkers of Amer-
ica, CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board,' by the Regional Director of the Fifteenth Region (New
Orleans, Louisiana), issued a complaint dated February 16, 1951, against De
3 This notice is amended , however , by substituting for the words "The Recommendations
of a Trial Examiner " in the caption thereof, the words "A Decision and Order ." If this
Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice shall be
further amended by inserting the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing ," before the words "A Decision and Order."
The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to as the General
Counsel. The National Labor Relations Board is herein called the Board.
386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Soto Hardwood Flooring Company, herein called the Respondent , alleging that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3 ), and (5) and
Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61
Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges , complaint , and notice
of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance
that : ( 1) On or about September 26, 1950, the employees of the Respondent, in-
cluding those listed in an appendix to the complaint , ceased work concertedly and
launched a strike caused and prolonged by the Respondent 's unfair labor prac-
tices; ( 2) although on October 6, 1950 , the striking employees made an uncon-
ditional offer to return to work , the Respondent refused on or about October 7,
1950, and continues to refuse to reinstate certain named striking employees and
refused to reinstate other strikers until various dates because they had assisted,
or had become members of, the Union , or had participated in the strike; (3)
since on or about July 15, 1950 , and thereafter, the Respondent refused to bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
Respondent 's employees within an appropriate bargaining unit, although the
Board had certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit on or about December 28, 1944, and the Union
has thereafter been the statutory representative of such employees , and although
the Union had requested the Respondent to bargain collectively with it as the
statutory representative of the employees on or about May 30, 1950, and there-
after ; and (4 ) since about July 20, 1950 , and thereafter , the Respondent (a)
made statements interfering with and restraining activity on the part of its
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and
protection , (b) interrogated its employees in regard to their union desires, sym-
pathies, activities , and business , ( c) warned and threatened employees against
assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of the Union , ( d) urged,
threatened , coerced , and persuaded its employees to abandon their strike, and
(e) threatened striking employees with physical violence . The complaint further
alleged that by the foregoing conduct, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3 ), and (5 ) and Section
2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
Thereafter , the Respondent duly filed an answer , admitting certain allegations
of the complaint but denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor
practices . Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held from March 20 to March 24,
1951, inclusive , at Memphis, Tennessee , before Frederic -B. Parkes, 2nd , the under-
signed Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . The Gen-
eral Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by
an official representative . 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 outset of the hearing , the Respondent's motion that the complaint be
made more specific was denied . During the course of the hearing , motions of
the General Counsel to amend the complaint as to certain minor matters and to
add the names of eight employees to the list of strikers attached to the complaint
were granted without objection . At the conclusion of the hearing, the under-
signed granted a motion by the General Counsel to conform the pleadings to the
proof as to dates, spelling, and minor variances . Upon the conclusion of the
hearing, the undersigned advised the parties that they might argue before and
file briefs or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law , or both , with the
Trial Examiner. The parties waived oral argument. Thereafter the Respondent
DE SOTO HARDWOOD FLOORING COMPANY 387
and the General Counsel each filed a brief with the undersigned. The Respondent
also filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Upon 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
De Soto Hardwood Flooring Company, a Tennessee corporation with its office
and principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee, is engaged in the manu-
facture of finished lumber products, particularly hardwood flooring. During
1950, the Respondent purchased raw materials valued at more than $150,000, of
which 90 percent, by value, was shipped to its Memphis plant from outside the
State of Tennessee. During the same period, the Respondent produced and sold
finished products, worth in excess of $300,000, of which value approximately
90 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Tennessee. It is found
that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 400, International Woodworkers of America is a labor organization affil-
iated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting employees of the
Respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events
On December 28, 1944, the Board certified the Union as the statutory repre-
sentative of the Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit, following an
election conducted pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election of the
Board! About April 1, 1945, the Respondent and the Union executed their first
collective bargaining contract and thereafter maintained a contractual relation-
ship until the expiration of the last agreement on August 12, 1950.
By letter dated May 30, 1950, prior to the expiration of its last contract, the
Union informed the Respondent of the former's desire "to negotiate certain
changes in the Agreement, plus paid holidays, insurance and welfare plan and a
general wage increase." On June 1, 1950, the Respondent acknowledged the
Union's request by the following letter :
Yours 30th ultimo and we are communicating with our Labor Relations
Consultant, Mr. George Kamenow, in Detroit. We assume we will hear from
him within a reasonable time provided he is now at home. We do not sup-
pose there is any particular rush on this proposition as negotiation was'sus-
pended by you some six months ago, therefore a further delay will prob-
ably not be serious.
On June 22, 1950, the Respondent sent the Union the following letter :
With reference to your letter of May 30th, and our reply of June 1st.,
and up to this time we have not received a letter from Mr. Kamenow ; there-
fore, assume that he must be away from his office.
When further negotiations are started, desire that Richard G. Taylor, our
Secretary and Treasurer, sit in on the conference; however, he is out of
town on a buying, pleasure and business. trip until July 5th. If you deem
it necessary can meet with you previous to that time and suggest the time
of day at 4:30 p. in.
2 Desoto Hardwood Flooring Company, 59 NLRB 332.
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On July 10 , 1950, representatives of the Respondent and the Union 3 met at
the Respondent's plant at 4: 30 p. m. The Union presented the following pro-
posed changes in the existing contract :
ARTICLE V-HOLIDAYS BE AMENDED TO READ :
New Years Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and
Christmas Day are hereby recognized as being holidays and any work per-
formed on any of the above holidays shall be paid for at double the regular
rate of pay. If no work is performed on the named holidays the straight time
rate shall be paid.4
ARTICLE XI-WAGES The present rates, plus an additional ten (10)
cents per hour shall be put into effect. The rates including the ten (10)
cent per hour increase shall be listed and shall be made part of the contract.
The Company or the Union, at the option of either may bring up for review
and adjustment any or all of the job rates any time during the contract term.
ARTICLE XIII-UNION MEMBERSHIP BE AMENDED TO READ :
It is agreed that union membership shall be at the option of each employee.
The employer agrees to withhold from employees salary, their union dues
and initiation fees. This shall only apply to those employees who authorize
such deductions by signing an authorization card. . . .
The Respondent's representatives requested time to study the Union's proposals
and the meeting adjourned.
On July 15, 1950, the representatives of the Respondent and the Union held
another collective bargaining conference. President Taylor declined to accede
to any of the Union's proposed changes in the existing contract, pointing out
that the Respondent was concerned as to the effect of the Korean war upon its
business. Taylor refused to assent to the requested 10-cent an hour wage in-
crease for the reason that in January 1950 the employees had been granted a wage
increase, averaging 71/2 percent, to conform to the new minimum wage standards
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and to preserve existing wage differentials.
Taylor stated that to grant a 10-cent an hour increase would "be more than the
net profit, after taxes, we had made the previous year." As for holiday pay,
Taylor stated that to give five paid holidays would be "more expense than we
could bear," and would in effect give the employees an additional week's vaca-
tion, over and above the regular vacations given employees. In regard to check-
off of union dues and fees, Taylor stated "that our position was then as it had
been in the past, we would not give check-offs." Taylor stated that the Respond-
ent would he willing to extend the existing contract without change in its pro-
visions.'
3 R. A. Taylor, president of the Respondent, Superintendent J 0 Puckett, and Richard
G. Taylor, secretary-treasurer of the Respondent, represented the Respondent in the con-
ference The Union's representatives were International Representative George Bentley
and employees -Henry Smith, William Randolph, and Taft Howell. All representatives
but Howell participated in succeeding bargaining conferences, except that Puckett did not
attend that held on August 31 All conferences were held at the Respondent's plant after
the end of the first shift at 4 . 30 p. in.
4 The existing contract merely recognized these days as holidays and provided that the
rate of pay for time worked on those holidays should be one and one-half times the regular
rate
5 The findings in this paragraph are based principally upon R A. Taylor's testimony
which was corroborated by that of Richard Taylor and Puckett. Bentley and Smith testi-
fied that Taylor simply refused to grant each of the proposals without giving any reasons
for his decision. Although the matter is not free from doubt, the undersigned believes
that the testimony of the Respondent's witnesses is more accurate as to the occurrences at
the meeting and their testimony is accordingly credited. -
DE SOTO HARDWOOD FLOORING COMPANY 389
International Representative Bentley testified credibly and without contra-
diction that. he attempted to discuss Taylor's answers to the Union's proposals,
but "he just told me there was no use discussing it, that he had given his
answer."
On July 20, 1950, representatives of the Respondent and the Union met again.
The Respondent reiterated its position taken at the previous conference int
regard to the Union's proposals and the Union countered with arguments in sup-
port of its proposals. Considerable discussion ensued as to the requests for
checkoff of union dues and fees and in respect to International Representative-
Bentley's activities in support of a strike at the American Snuff Company,
conducted by another affiliate of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein
called CIO. Newspaper accounts had attributed to Bentley various statements.
in support of the strike and a suggestion that all affiliates of the CIO having
contracts in the Memphis area should sponsor a day's "holiday" or work stoppage
in support of the American Snuff Company strike. In regard to the latter sug-
gestion, R. A. Taylor stated that if the Union participated in such a strike, he.
would do everything possible to keep his plant in operation, that white employees.
had relatives who desired to work for the Respondent, and that if Bentley at-
tempted to prevent them from going to work, "your friends will visit you in,
jail." °
Richard G. Taylor testified that when Bentley asked him the reason he was
opposed to granting the requested checkoff of dues and fees, Taylor replied as
follows :
. .. I stated that in view of the recent trouble at the Snuff plant and the
violence and so forth that I wasn't in favor of collecting dues for contributing:
to the CIO which had allowed this sort of violence to occur in regard to
their strike at the Snuff plant, and we discussed that at some length, and
I went further to say that although the CIO had been active in signing non--
Communist affidavits, that their activities since then, although they have,
signed non-Communist affidavits, they still used some Communist tactics in,
this particular strike. In other words, the riots and the throwing of bricks.
and the beating up of people was certainly not American way and it was
something like you might find in Russia rather than here, and I couldn't-
see the point in their signing non-Communist affidavits and then not main-
taining, trying to keep the rioters and so forth. . . . [Furthermore,] I
thought it was the union 's job to collect their own dues, not the company's
position to collect them.
A third collective bargaining conference was held on August 31. In addition
to the usual representatives of the Union, W. A. Copeland, regional director for
the CIO, and J. B. Hannah, president of District No. 4, CIO, also attended. The.
proposals of the Union were discussed, individually, and the Respondent refused,
to accede to them, stating reasons. The question of job classifications was also
briefly mentioned. In regard to the wage question, Copeland asked whether-
the Respondent would be willing to grant a 9-cent an hour increase. During the,
discussion on wages , the Respondent stated that possibly it might agree to an
increase in wages but that further study of its records would be necessary and,
in addition, it desired to discuss the matter with George Kamenow, its labor
relations consultant. Copeland stated that considerable time had passed since
6 The findings in this paragraph are based principally upon the credible testimony of
Bentley and Smith R . A Taylor's version of the conference was in accord with their
testimony , except that he denied that he told Bentley that the latter 's friends would.visit
him in jail if Bentley tried to prevent employees from working during a strike. Upon,
the entire record and his observation of the witnesses , the undersigned credits the testimony-
of Bentley and Smith in this regard and finds Taylor 's denial unworthy of credence.
974176-52-vol. 96-26
390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the start of the negotiations and that the Respondent should be able to make a
definite proposal on wages. He suggested that it might facilitate negotiations
if Kamenow were present at the next conference. The meeting adjourned with
the understanding that they would meet soon again when Kamenow could be
present.
According to the credible and uncontroverted testimony of employee Booker
T. Martin, about September 12, 1950, Richard G. Taylor asked him at work
whether he belonged to the Union. When Martin replied in the affirmative,
Taylor replied, "Well, Booker, it doesn't look like you are thumbing your way."
On September 18, 1950, representatives of the Respondent and the Union held
another collective bargaining conference. Kamenow participated in this meeting
and acted as spokesman for the Respondent. The counterproposal of the Re-
spondent, resulting from this conference, was as follows: (1) As to the Union's
request for a wage increase, the Respondent offered a 5-cent an hour increase for
employees who had worked for the Company a year- or longer and 21/2-cent an
hour increase for the other employees. (2) In regard to holiday pay, the Re-
spondent agreed to give holiday pay for Thanksgiving and Christmas for 1950
and to give the employees a bonus of $5 for the past Labor Day, September 5,
1950, and stated that it would consider giving holiday pay for the five holidays
in 1951, if business conditions warranted such payment. However, not wishing
to be obligated to pay for holidays in 1951, upon the contemplated automatic
renewal of the contract under negotiation, the Respondent did not wish to make
its offer in respect to holiday pay a part of the contract but suggested the holi-
day pay provisions be incorporated in a letter agreement, separate and apart from
the contract. (3) As to the requested provision for checkoff of union dues and
fees, the Respondent remained adamant in its refusal to grant such a concession
to the Union. The Union urged that the holiday pay provisions be made part
of the contract , stated that the offered wage increase . was inadequate and should
be the same for all employees, and advanced various arguments in support of its
contentions. Taylor closed the discussion by stating that the Respondent's pro-
posal was final and that the Union could "take it or leave it," according to the
credible testimony of Bentley. The latter agreed to submit the proposal to the
membership of the Union the following evening and to report the results of the
meeting to the Respondent.-
At a union meeting on September 19, 1950, the membership voted to reject
the Respondent's counterproposal. On September 20, 1950, representatives of the
Union met with the Respondent. Bentley testified that he informed the Respond-
ent of the reasons for the rejection of its offer and that the following occurred :
[R. A. Taylor] further criticized me for my supposed activities relative
to the American Snuff strike. He accused me of not informing the people
truthfully of what the company's proposal actually was. I attempted to
explain to him that I was certainly interested in explaining exactly as
possible to our people what. the company's proposal had been and that as a
result of this they had rejected it.
' There is no substantial conflict in the testimony of the various witnesses as to the
,occurrences at this conference except in relation to the Respondent's offer to include the
holiday provisions in a letter agreement . Bentley could not recall that that was part of
the offer, but Kamenow testified that it was Bentley's suggestion that the holiday pay pro-
visions be incorporated in a letter agreement. However, in this regard , Richard G . Taylor
testified , "Mr. Bentley ... wanted it to be put in the contract . Dad said he wouldn't
put it in the contract , but that he would give them a letter to the effect that we would
pay those holidays and that if business continued good, we would consider paying other
additional holidays ." R. A. Taylor ' s testimony was consonate with that of Richard Taylor.
Upon the entire record, the undersigned believes that Kamenow was mistaken as to this
detail of the conference and credits the testimony of the Taylors in this regard.
DE SOTO 'HARDWOOD FLOORING COMPANY 391
During the discussion Mr. Taylor, Sr., got pretty abusive at times. He
accused me and the union representative of having false philosophies, that
we weren't really interested in representing the people, that, for example, we
were asking the company to collect our dues for us so that our income would
be greater and that as far as he was concerned he would again or that he
was again making the statement that his offer was final and that we could
take it or leave it. He, at this point, again reached up and got his hat and
about that point [Richard G. Taylor] got up and moved over to a chair that
was sitting directly to my left, and, as I explained, [R. A. Taylor] had been
pretty abusive in his remarks to me. [Richard G. Taylor] at this point
interjected into the conversation and explained that the company really
didn't feel that way, that as far as I was personally concerned, him and
-his daddy both had respect for me, that they were under the impression that
I had been led into a false philosophy, that as far as he was concerned that
the check-off of union dues was not as obnoxious to the company as they
previously stated, that if I would use my influence to the people to induce
them to leave the CIO and set up an independent union that they would
consider granting check-off or any other reasonable request of the union.
He further stated that as long as we are an affiliate of the CIO that the
company was not going to collect dues so that we in turn could turn part
of that money over to the CIO and Philip Murray so that they could promote
Socialism and Communism in the United States. He further stated that he
didn't believe that I was a Communist, but he said, "I think you have been
led into a false philosophy that is no good, and as far as we are concerned
and as long as you are an affiliate of the CIO, we can't grant you the check-
off of union dues."
Bentley further testified that at a union meeting on the evening of September
20, 1950, he reported the outcome of his conference with the Respondent and a
summary of the remarks of the Taylors and that "as a result of this report the
group present ordered the committee to attempt to get another conference with
the Company." Consequently, according to Bentley, he telephoned R. A. Taylor on
September 21, and asked for a conference, but Taylor replied that "he had made
all the offer he was going to make and that it was final as far as he was con-
^cerned and he hung up the phone."
Testimony of Henry Smith, elicited on cross-examination by the Respondent,
was in part corroborative of that of Bentley.' Smith testified that after Bent-
ley informed the Respondent that the Union had rejected its proposal and
,enumerated some of the reasons therefor, a heated argument concerning Bent-
ley's activities in the American Snuff Company strike commenced. According to
Smith, "after they criticized Mr. Bentley a certain length, [Richard G. Taylor]
say to Mr. Bentley, he say, 'Now, George, if you and your committee will pull
our employees out of the CIO and make this an independent union, we will grant
you a checkoff and other concessions within the bounds of reason."' Smith
further testified that Bentley reported Richard G. Taylor's remarks to the mem-
bership at a meeting that evening.
R. A. Taylor testified that the conference on September 20 was of short dura-
tion and that when the Union informed him that the membership had rejected
the Respondent's proposals, he told them that he was sorry and that "that was
all we could do at that time." He specifically denied that Richard G. Taylor
8 Smith was the first witness called by the General Counsel . The issue in regard to
the Taylors' statements to Bentley on September 20, 1950, was brought out for the first
time by the cross-examination of counsel for the Respondent.
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
uttered the statements attributed to him by Bentley and Smith. Taylor also
denied that Bentley telephoned him on September 21, 1950, and requested an-
other conference.
Richard G. Taylor testified that when the Union reported its rejection of
the Respondent's proposals, R. A. Taylor said that "he was sorry that that was
the best we could do," that there was little discussion at the meeting, and that
Bentley's activities in the American Snuff Company strike were not discussed
at the meeting. Richard. G. Taylor specifically denied making the statements
attributed to him by Bentley and Smith.
According to Superintendent Puckett, R. A. Taylor stated, after being in-
formed of the rejection of the Respondent's proposals by the Union, "that that
was the best he could do at that time. He was sorry." Puckett denied that
there was any resumption of the discussion between Bentley and Richard G.
Taylor in regard to the tactics of the CIO and the American -Snuff Company
strike.
George Kamenow, R. A. Taylor, Richard G. Taylor, and J. S. Allen, counsel
for the Respondent, testified that they were all present at a conference held
about November 8 or 9, 1950, with respresentatives of the Board conducting
an investigation of the charges filed by the Union in the instant proceeding. Each
of them denied that Richard G. Taylor was asked by the Board's representatives
whether he had told Bentley that if the employees gave up their CIO affiliation,
the Respondent would grant the checkoff requested by the Union or that Richard
G. Taylor admitted making such a statement during the conference.
Upon the entire record, the undersigned is unable to credit the testimony of
Bentley and Smith in regard to the occurrences at the meeting of September 20,
when at variance with the testimony of the Respondent's witnesses, who are
credited. This resolution of the conflicts in testimony is based, in part, upon
the undersigned's observation of the witnesses, but more particularly upon the
following considerations: (1) Although the General Counsel called as witnesses
several members of the Union, none was questioned as to the occurrences at the
union meeting of September 20. Nor was President Randolph called as a wit-
ness to corroborate the testimony of Bentley and Smith as to this crucial issue.
(2) The testimony of Smith was not fully corroborative of Bentley's. (3) The
manner in which the issue arose during the hearing is not, considering the record
as a whole, conducive to establishing the testimony of Smith and Bentley. (4)
The American Snuff Company strike ended in July, around the time of the July
20 meeting when admittedly considerable discussion occurred as to Bentley's
activities in respect to that strike. It would therefore seem improbable that
the discussion would be resumed over a month later after the settlement of that
strike.
Having found Bentley's testimony in regard to.the conference on September
20, 1950, to be unworthy of credence, the undersigned cannot accept Bentley's
testimony in respect to the telephone call to Taylor on September 21, but credits
Taylor's denial that Bentley telephoned him on that date.
On September 24, 1950, Bentley left Memphis on a business trip. On Septem-
ber 25, 1950, employees Smith and Randolph were summoned from work to,
confer with President Taylor and Superintendent Puckett. Taylor asked, "What
is the union going to do about my proposal?" Smith replied that they could do
nothing about it since the membership had rejected it. Taylor stated that he
had heard rumors of a strike, that some employees had heard of the pay in-
crease proposed by the Respondent to the Union and were eager to receive it,
and that he was not-certain that-the Union had correctly relayed the Respondent's
proposals to the employees. He suggested that all employees be assembled so
DE SOTO HARDWOOD FLOORING COMPANY 393
that he might explain to them the proposals which the Respondent had made the
Union on September 18. Smith and Randolph objected to such an assemblage
at that time inasmuch as Bentley was out of town and requested that Taylor
postpone the meeting until the following morning, so that they might confer
with the employees at a union meeting that evening. Taylor assented to their
-requests. That evening, Smith and Randolph informed the membership of
Taylor-'s request to address them the following morning. The record indicates
that at the meeting on September 25, 1950, the membership of the Union agreed
to listen to Taylor's address the following morning and "if they couldn't get
consideration" for their demands, they would walk out on strike.
On the morning of September 26, 1950, the employees were assembled before
-work commenced and R. A. Taylor addressed them, setting forth the proposals
the Respondent had submitted to the Union on September 18. He concluded by
giving the Respondent's position as to the checkoff of does and fees, requested
by the Union. According to R. A. Taylor's testimony, he stated, "I said our posi-
tion is the same. We will not give it. I repeated that. Our position is the
same. This is final and we will not give the checkoff." s Admittedly, he told the
employees that the Respondent's proposal was "the best proposition that the
company could make at that time." Thereupon, approximately 160 of the Re-
spondent's 230 employees concerned left the plant and refused to return to work.
On September 27, 1950, the Respondent sent each of the striking employees
the following letter :
Unless you report for work within 24 hours from this date which will be
not later than Friday morning, Sept. 29th, we will consider that you are no
longer employed - by this Company and will immediately begin replacing
you.
On the same day, the Respondent sent the following letter to the Union :
On account of the wildcat strike beginning yesterday morning, September
26th, we no longer consider your Union bargaining agent for this Company.
Bentley returned to Memphis the evening of September 27 and learned of
the strike. On the morning of September 28, 1950, Copeland telephoned R. A.
Taylor, with Bentley listening to the conversation on an extension phone.
According to the credible testimony, of Copeland, the following conversation
ensued :
I then told him that I understood that there was some labor difficulties
out at the plant and -I was calling him about that. Mr. Taylor told me, I
believe, that they guessed they had a little wildcat strike, but that it was
not bothering him too much. I believe at that point, I told Mr. Taylor that
Mr. Bentley had been out of town for about a week and that had he been
in town earlier he would have called him earlier, but that was the situation,
but now he was back in town and we suggested a meeting for that after-
noon in an effort to discuss some ways and means that we could end this
work stoppage, and to the best of my recollection, Mr. Taylor replied .. .
"I have already given those people my final offer, and I am not going to give
them any more."
I asked him what the final offer had been, and he said, "Five cents an
hour increase and three paid holidays."
I believe I entered this question, "What about the check-off of union dues,"
and he replied, . .. "Well, now, Copeland, you know we are not going to
give the check-off of union dues."
9 Several employees testified that Taylor ended his remarks by stating, "This is final."
For the purposes of this Report, the undersigned accepts the testimony of R. A Taylor,
Richard G . Taylor, and Superintendent Puckett in regard to Taylor 's speech.
394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At that point I told him I, was a bit surprised that he had a union in his
plant for about five years and had never granted the union a check-off, and
I think his exact reply, as I recall it, was this: "Well, Copeland, had you,
been representing the union in the plant for the last five years, we probably
would have given you the check-off," and I told him that, "Now, if you
would have given Copeland a check-off, why couldn't you have given it to
Bentley? All CIO union representatives work on about the same plane,
and I could see no reason why you could give it to one if you wouldn't give
it to the other, but let's not talk about the check-off any more. Let's talk
about settling this labor problem you have in your plant. How about a
meeting this afternoon so we can talk it over?"
Mr. Taylor told me that there would be no purpose in meeting. "I have
got all the workers I need in the plant, particularly in the dimension
plant." . . . When I suggested we have a meeting that afternoon, . . . he
said, "We have notified the union that we have withdrawn recognition of the
union in our plant," and I told him that I didn't think that was the proper
time to withdraw recognition of the union, because it was entirely possible
that the union might be the only agency which could solve their problem,
and I pressed my point for a meeting so we could at least discuss the ways
and means of solving it if we could.
I suggested again that we meet that afternoon, as I pointed out earlier,
this telephone conversation was before noon that day, and Mr. Taylor said
no again, and I said, "Well, how about meeting you at another date," and
I believe he said that, "We will keep that in mind and maybe we will get
together some other time." 10
At a union meeting held the evening of September 28, Bentley explained that
Copeland had been unsuccessful in obtaining a conference with the Respondent
that morning but suggested that the employees terminate the strike and return
to work. The membership, however, did not adopt Bentley's suggestion ; instead,
they voted unanimously to continue the strike and to establish a picket line at
the Respondent's plant. The following morning, pickets of the Union appeared
for the first time at the plant. -
-According to the undenied and credible testimony of employee Bob Williams,
who had gone on strike, R. A. Taylor on §eptember 29 asked whether Williams
could return to work, pointing out that in the past Taylor had done favors for
Williams. Williams returned to work.u
On September 29, a nonstriking employee was beaten by unidentified persons
in the vicinity of the Respondent's plant after he left work. The following day,
two strikers, Arthur Howard and Bennie Merriweather, were arrested for another
incident involving a nonstriking employee, Clyde Smith, and were charged with
disorderly conduct. Merriweather was convicted and fined but Howard was
acquitted.
10 Bentley corroborated Copeland's testimony in regard to this conversation. Taylor
denied that he informed Copeland that the Respondent had no shortage of employees and
that Copeland asked to meet with the Respondent that afternoon. From his observation
of the witnesses and upon the entire record, the undersigned credits the testimony of
Copeland and Bentley in regard to the telephone conversation between Copeland and
Taylor and finds Taylor's denials unworthy of credence.
11 Smith testified that after Williams returned to work, he relayed a message to Smith
from R. A. Taylor to the effect "that if we go back to work, Mr. Taylor would give us any-
thing that we had asked except in the checkoff." Taylor denied that he had made such a
remark to Williams or had requested Williams to relay any messages to the Union.
Williams denied that Taylor requested him to convey messages to the strikers. The testi-
mony of Williams and Taylor in this regard is credited.
DE SOTO HARDWOOD FLOORING COMPANY 395
Not long after the arrest of Merriweather and Howard on September 30,
Richard G. Taylor stopped at the picket line and told Henry Smith, according
to his credible testimony, "I would like to see you hit somebody out here so I
could get to kill you. . . . I could shoot you just the same as you was a jack
rabbit." At that point R. A. Taylor came out of his office carrying a gun and
said, "This is what I use on anybody that do anything to somebody that is work-
ing for me."
• About October 2, 1950, Foreman Charles Hilliard asked employee Willie Wren,
while he was on the picket line, when he was returning to work. Wren replied,
"No, sir, not now." Hilliard countered, "You better throw that damn thing away
and get a bunch of them to come back Monday. If you don't you won't have no
job because we are teaching these scabs to do your work.""
About the same time, Foreman Hilliard asked Simon Clay, while the latter was
on the picket line carrying a sign, why Clay did not "throw that damn thing down
and go to work." Clay replied, "I wouldn't do that. I would watch it until this
time next year." Hilliard replied that Clay "could go on walking it this time
next year." 19
According to the credible and undenied testimony of Burton Woods, Foreman
Collins stopped at the picket line and said to Woods, "Better come on back to
work" and, apparently referring to R. A. Taylor, "That is as far as he is going."
About October 2, 1950, Foreman Collins came to employee Arthur Howard on
the picket line and said, according to the latter's credible and undenied testimony,
"Well, Arthur, I think you better come back and go to work because you ain't
going to get no more." Employee Booker Martin testified without contradiction
that about October 3 Foreman George Smith stopped at the picket line and asked
Martin, "Why don't you put the picket down and come on back to work?" Martin
replied, "I don't know sir." Smith then inquired, "You haven't got a con-
tract . . . do you?" It. A. Taylor admitted that during the strike, "Sure we
asked some [strikers] to return occasionally. When we saw them on the street
we asked if they wanted to come back to work." He also testified that when
the Respondent commenced to hire new employees to replace the strikers, on
September 28, 1950, the Respondent put into effect the wage increase which it had
offered the Union on September 18.
At a union meeting on October 5, 1950, the membership voted to abandon the
strike and to return to work. On October 6, Bentley sent the Respondent the
following letter:
At a meeting October 5th, of your striking employees, a motion was made
and passed to call off the strike and to return to work. All of your employees
who went on strike are presently willing and able to return to work and
hereby unconditionally offer to return to work.
As representatives of your employees, we are also requesting a conference
for continuing our negotiations with respect to wages, hours and working
conditions.
I will respect (sic) your reply by Monday, October 9, 1950.
12 The findings in this paragraph are based upon the credible testimony of Smith. Thg-
Taylors admitted that they spoke to Smith, although their versions of their remarks varied
somewhat from the testimony of Smith. The latter impressed the undersigned as being
reliable in this portion of his testimony and it is accordingly credited.
13 The findings in this paragraph are based upon the credible testimony of Wren.
Hilliard was unable to recall the identity of Wren and denied that he had solicited any
strikers to return to work. From his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned credits
Wren and does not credit Hilliard 's denial.
14 Hilliard admitted that the conversation occurred but denied that he asked Clay to
return to work. From his observation of the witnesses and upon the entire record, the
undersigned credits Clay's version of his conversation with Hilliard.
396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On October 7, 1950, the Respondent sent the Union the following letter :
Replying to your letter of Oct. 6th, this is to advise you that we have
replaced a large number of our old employees. On the jobs where we did
not replace we will re-hire our old employees. The other employees will be
put on a preferential hiring list and will be given jobs as they become
available. -
As to a meeting continuing the negotiations I wish to discuss this matter
with my attorney before giving an answer.
The record reveals that between September 27 and October 7, 1950, the Re-
spondent hired 74 new employees' As of October 7, 65 were still in its employ.
At the time of the hearing 32 were still on its payroll. After receipt of the Union's
letter of October 6, the Respondent hired 15 additional new employees in October
and November 1950. It is clear that 13 of these employees were laborers and
performed work which some of the strikers could have done. Of these 13, 8
were still in the Respondent's employ at the time of the hearing.
On October 9, 1950, a group of the strikers assembled at the Respondent's
plant and asked to be put to work" On October 9, 10, 11, and 12, 1950, the
.Respondent reinstated approximately 6, 29, 15, and 14 of the strikers, respectively.
Thereafter, between October 13, 1950, and March 19, 1951, the Respondent reem-
ployed approximately 50 of the strikers.
According to the credible and undenied testimony of employee Willie Wren,
he returned to the Respondent's plant about October 9 and 10, and told Superin-
tendent Puckett that Wren had "come back down there to go back to work."
Puckett replied, "If you can find another job that would be the best thing to do"
and stated that Wren would "never have another job out there." Wren was never
reemployed by the Respondent.
Employee Simon Clay testified that when he sought reemployment by the
Respondent on October 10, Foreman Hilliard asked whether Clay remembered
walking the picket line and said that Clay "could still walk," Hilliard "didn't
need [him] anymore." About 3 days later, Clay talked with Puckett who prom-
ised to send for him when his services were needed. On October 19, 1950, Clay
resumed work with the Respondent after being summoned by Puckett.10
Following receipt of the Respondent's letter of October 7, the Union unsuccess-
' fully sought to reach President Taylor by telephone. On October 11, 1950, the
Union filed with the Board charges that the Respondent had engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act."
On October 12, 1950, Bentley spoke with Taylor on the telephone and requested
a conference with Taylor. The latter deferred the meeting until he consulted
his attorneys 17
15 On October 5 and 6, 1950 , three strikers were reinstated
"The findings in this paragraph are based upon the credible testimony of Clay. Hilliard
did not deny the statements attributed to him by Clay and testified that he reemployed his
employees when they were needed and denied that he called any of them back but "let them
come back as they would." Puckett testified that the rehiring of Clay was done by Hilliard
and that strikers were called back as the various divisions of the Respondent's plant
resumed full operation , and that the Respondent endeavored to give the strikers the same
jobs they had before the strike.
17 The findings in this paragraph are based upon the testimony of Taylor . Bentley
testified that he made the call from \Copeland's office with the latter listening on an
extension phone to the conversation between Taylor and Bentley According to Bentley,
he asked "Mr. Taylor fora conference at which time he explained that he didn't think a
conference would be necessary inasmuch as the plant was in operation " Copeland
testified that in the telephone call to Taylor, Bentley "requested a meeting with the union
committee or with himself , and the company , to discuss the particular situation , and Mr.
DE SOTO HARDWOOD FLOORING COMPANY 397
On October 30, 1950, the Union filed a first amended charge in the instant pro-
ceeding alleging that the Respondent had engaged in violations of Section 8 (a)
(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. On the same date, Bentley sent Taylor the follow-
ing letter : _
On October 12th, I called you and suggested a meeting between the
Company and the Union concerning negotiations.
You informed me at that time that you had to check with your attorney
before giving an answer . That has been more than two weeks ago and I
assume you have had the opportunity of consulting your attorney and this
is a formal request for a meeting with the Company, by the Union.
I hope to have your answer not later than Thursday, November 2, 1950.
On October 31, 1950, Taylor replied to Bentley with the following letter :
Yours 30th and in talking to Mr. Kamenow in New York this morning he
states will be in town week of Nov. 6th.
Although Kamenow was in Memphis around November 6, there were no
further conferences between the Respondent and the Union. On December 29,
1950, Bentley sent Taylor a list of the employees who had engaged in the strike
and renewed "in their behalf, their unconditional offer to return to work."
B. Conclusions
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleged, the answer of the Respondent admitted, and the under-
signed finds that all production and maintenance employees of the Respondent's
Memphis plant, excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, engineers, firemen,
salesmen, lumber inspectors, superintendents, foremen, subforemen, maintenance
foremen, and any other supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
The complaint alleged that at all times since the Board certified the Union as
the statutory representative of the employees in the appropriate unit on Decem-
ber 28, 1944, the Union has been and is now the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of those employees. Following the Union's certification, a con-
tract was negotiated and in later years when new contracts were consummated,
the Respondent did not question the Union's majority. The last contract in
existence between the parties, which expired August 12, 1950, provided for the
recognition of the Union as the "sole and exclusive collective bargaining agency"
for the employees in the appropriate unit. In negotiations for a new contract
occurring in 1950, the Respondent did not question the Union's majority and was
willing, as is inherent in its counterproposal submitted to the Union on Septem-
ber 18, 1950, to recognize the Union as the statutory representative of its em-
ployees. Despite these factors, the Respondent's answer denied the complaint's
Taylor said here was no need meeting." Copeland could not "recall the exact reason if
he gave any." Although the recollection of both Bentley and Taylor in regard to the
telephone conversation on October 12 seemed not to be too clear, the undersigned has
accepted Taylor's version since it is in accord with the statement of Bentley in his
letter to Taylor of October 30, infra Since Bentley admitted that one of the purposes
of his telephone call was "to get as much material as possible to try to prove our case
before the Board," the undersigned is convinced that had Bentley's version of the con-
versation with Taylor been correct, a summary thereof would have been perpetuated in
documentary form in Bentley 's letter of October 30.
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
allegations as to the Union's majority status as the collective bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees, but admitted that the Union was the statutory repre-
sentative of its employees between December 28, 1944, and September 27, 1950.
On the latter date, the day after the strike commenced, the Respondent wrote the
Union, "On account of the wildcat strike beginning yesterday morning, September
26th, we no longer consider your Union bargaining agent for this Company."
The Respondent's contentions are apparently based upon the assumption that
the strikers lost their status as employees on September 26. The contention is
clearly without merit. The strikers, who comprised more than a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit, ceased work as a consequence of a current labor
dispute, as defined in Section 2 (9) of the Act and accordingly remained employees
within the meaning of the Act. It follows that the Union's majority status as the
collective bargaining representative of the employees enjoyed prior to the strike
on September 26, continued thereafter inasmuch as the strike was not illegal in
any respect and was authorized by the Union, the replacement of strikers by
September 27 had not impaired the Union's majority standing, and, as herein-
after found, the Respondent's unfair labor practices commencing on September
27 converted the employees' work stoppage into an unfair labor practice strike,
entitling 'all strikers to reinstatement upon unconditional request, such as was
subsequently made 19
In any event, it is well settled that after a union's majority status is estab-
lished by Board certification, the "continuation of this status is presumed con-
clusively for a reasonable period, usually 1 year after certification, and indefinitely
thereafter until rebutted." 19 The Respondent has failed to present evidence re-
butting the presumption of the Union's continued incumbency in the position of
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees.
The undersigned concludes and finds that at all times material since December
28, 1944, the Union was, and now is, the exclusive representative of all employees
in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
The General Counsel contends initially that the Respondent should "be found
in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act from on or about September 21 and
thereafter." In addition to the Respondent's somewhat intransient attitude
demonstrated in the earlier collective bargaining sessions, the General Counsel
relies upon the testimony of Smith and Bentley as to the occurrences on. Septem-
ber 20 and 21, 1950, and also urges that the Respondent's suggestion that its
holiday proposal not be made part of the contract but be executed by a separate
letter agreement was "not prompted by `good faith' considerations, but rather to
deny the Union any prestige it might gain through having obtained this concession
on behalf of the employees it represented." The undersigned is not persuaded by
the General Counsel's argument in regard to the Respondent's holiday proposal.
The Respondent did not oppose the execution of its proposal in written form ; it
merely desired that it be formalized in such a manner as not to bind the Respond-
ent beyond 1950. Insofar as the Respondent's proposal was a concession to the
Union's initial proposal, the Union would have lost no prestige from the fact that
the agreement was in letter form rather than in the contract, since obviously the
19 Bradley Washfountain Co.. 89 NLRB 1662. See also , N. L. R. B. v. Reed & Prince
Manufacturing Company, 118. F. 2d 874 (C. A. 1) ; Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Co. V.
N. L. R. B, 91 F. 2d 134 (C. A 4).
11 Toolcraft Corporation, 92 NLRB 655, and cases cited therein.
DE SOTO HARDWOOD FLOORING COMPANY 399
,concessions contained in both the letter and the contract could be shown its mem-
bership. In view of the undersigned's resolution of the conflicts in testimony as
to events occurring on September 20 and 21, 1950, the General Counsel's conten-
tions in regard thereto have no merit. Although in the earlier conferences the
Respondent was adamant in its opposition to the Union's demands, on August 31
it indicated that concessions might be made in regard to a wage increase and on
September 18, 1950, advanced definite counterproposals. The undersigned con-
cludes that the record as a whole does not support the General Counsel's con-
tention that the Respondent engaged in violations of Section 8 (a) (5) on Sep-
tember 21, 1950.
However, the record clearly establishes the merit of the General Counsel's
alternative argument that the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the
Union on and after September 27, 1950. On September 26, 1950, more than a
majority of the Respondent's employees launched a strike, which was authorized
.and supported by the Union and was not in itself illegal. On the following day,
.September 27, the Respondent notified the Union that "we no longer consider
your Union bargaining agent for this Company" and mailed to each striking em-
ployee a notice that unless they reported to work by September 29, "we will con-
ssider that you are no longer employed by this Company and will immediately
begin replacing you." Although the Respondent argues that it was justified in
taking such action because an impasse in negotiations had been reached, it is
well settled that even if it be assumed that the parties herein had reached an
impasse in negotiations prior to the strike, the Respondent's withdrawal of recog-
nition of the Union because of the strike was per se a violation of Section 8 (a)
•(5)20 Recently, the Board succinctly reiterated the following principles govern-
ing this matter in the Central Metallic Casket 21 case :
The existence of a bargaining impasse does not destroy either the author-
ity of the representative to act within the sphere of its representation nor
the right of the employees to seek by collective action (which may take the
form of either further negotiation or concerted application of economic
pressures) to persuade the employer to accept the collective position of the
group as to the particular terms which shall govern the employment rela-
tion. Accordingly, as we have frequently held, a bargaining impasse does
not relieve an employer from the continuing duty to take no action which
the employees may interpret as a "disparagement of the collective bargaining
process" s or which amounts in fact to a withdrawal of recognition of the
union's representative status or to an undermining of its authority.'
8,See N. L R. B. v. Crompton-Highland Mills , Inc., 337 U. S. 217.
® See the Crompton-Hsghland Mills case footnote 8, supra. See also the following
cases in which we held that employers could not deal individually with employees
who are oii strike pursuant to a union determination to apply that form of economic
pressure on an employer to enforce a demand such employer rejected in the course of
prior bargaining : Sam'l Binghani 's Son Mfg Co., 80 NLRB 1612, Cat hey Lumber Co.,
86 NLRB 157; Cincinnati Steel Casting Company, 86 NLRB 592; Anchor Rome
Mills Co. , 86 NLRB 1120.
Moreover, "it is well settled that, although an impasse in negotiations has once
been reached, a strike effects a sufficient change of circumstances to break the
28 The cases relied upon by the Respondent are clearly distinguishable from the facts
and circumstances of the instant proceeding . The fact that the Union was adamant in
adhering to its original demands and launched a strike in an attempt to persuade the
Respondent to accede to the Union ' s demands does not establish , as the Respondent con-
tends, that the Union was not bargaining in good faitb . See Old Town Shoe Company,
91 NLRB 240.
11 Central Metallic Casket Co., 91 NLRB 572.
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Impasse," 22 and accordingly the Respondent herein remained legally obligated
to continue to bargain' with the Union during and subsequent to the strike.
That the Respondent's withdrawal of recognition on September 27 was not
merely a stratagem is shown, not only by President Taylor's testimony that his
position at the time of the hearing was still that reflected in his letter of Sep-
tember 27, but also by events occurring during the strike and after its termina-
tion. Thus, on September 28, the Respondent declined to meet with the Union
and when the Union requested conferences with the Respondent on October 6
and 12, the Respondent deferred meeting with the Union on excuse of a desire
to' consult with its attorneys. In response to the Union's last request to confer
with the Respondent made on October 30, the Respondent replied the following
day that Kamenow, its labor consultant, would be in Memphis the week of No-
vember 6.
Furthermore, after the commencement of the strike, the Respondent unilat-
erally inaugurated the wage increases which it had proposed but which the Union
had rejected prior to the strike. This precipitous action by the Respondent,
taken without consultation with or notification of the Union, was violative of
Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act, inasmuch as the strike broke any impasse
in the negotiations which may have existed prior to the work stoppage and as
the necessary effect of such action by the Respondent in regard to one of the
important and unresolved issues of bargaining was to undermine the Union's
prestige.28
4. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Richard G. Taylor's interrogation of employee Martin in September 1950 in
regard to Martin's membership in the Union was per se a violation on the part
of the Respondent of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 24
On September 27, 1950, the Respondent sent a letter to each of the strikers
notifying them that unless they returned to work within 24 hours, "we will
consider that you are no longer employed by this Company and will immediately
begin replacing you." During the strike, several foremen and supervisors of
the Respondent solicited individual strikers to return to work. Coupled with
the solicitations to abandon the strike were statements, such as, (1) "If you
don't you won't have no job because we are teaching these scabs to do your
work," (2) "I think you better come back and go to work because you ain't
going to get no more," and (3) "You haven't got a contract . . . do you?" It
is clear that the solicitations of the strikers to return to work were violative of
the Act, since the solicitations met both factors of the Board's following recently
reiterated criterion in regard to solicitation of strikers :
For, although the Board has, in the past, found individual solicitation of
strikers violative of the Act, in all such cases one or both of the following
two factors has been present: (1) The solicitation has constituted an inte-
gral part of a pattern of illegal opposition to the purposes of the Act as
evidenced by the Respondent's entire course of conduct, or (2) the solicita-
tion has been conducted under circumstances and in a manner reasonably
calculated to undermine the strikers' collective bargaining representative
and to demonstrate that the Respondent sought individual rather than col-
lective bargaining.25
22 Arthur Borchert, d/b/a West Fork Cut Glass Company, 90 NLRB 944.
23 Bradley Washfountain Co., supra ; Central Metallic Casket Co., supra, and cases cited
therein.
24 Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358.
21 The Texas Company, 93 NLRB 1358. Marginal notes have not been set forth in the
excerpt quoted in the text.
DE SOTO HARDWOOD FLOORING COMPANY 401
The undersigned concludes that by its oral and written appeals to the indi-
vidual strikers to take action in derogation of their statutory representative,
the Respondent interfered with the right of its employees to bargain collectively
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act26
5. The failure to reinstate the strikers
The General Counsel contends that the strike was an unfair labor practice
strike from its inception. The Respondent argues that it was an economic strike
and that its obligation to reinstate strikers was limited only to those whose
positions had not already been filled by replacements hired during the strike.
In view of the findings heretofore set forth, the undersigned finds that at the
outset, the strike was economic in character, but that the unfair labor practices
engaged in by the Respondent on September 27, 1950, and thereafter converted
the economic strike into an unfair labor practice strike on September 27. This
conclusion is based upon the obvious causal relation between the unfair labor
practices and the continuance of the strike. Clearly, the Respondent's with-
drawal of recognition of the Union as the statutory representative of its em-
ployees on September 27, 1950, and its refusal to bargain with the Union there-
after, coupled with its unilateral inauguration of wage increases and solicita-
tions that strikers abandon the strike, not only prolonged the strike, since the
Respondent refused to discuss with the Union any issues relating to the settle-
ment of the strike or cause of the strike, but also injected new issues into the
situation and gave the strike a different complexion. The undersigned concludes
that a causal connection is shown between the Respondent 's unfair labor prac-
tices on September 27 and thereafter and the prolongation of the strike.27
Accordingly, it follows that on September 27, 1950, the date on which the
strike became an unfair labor practice strike, the Respondent forfeited the right
permanently to replace the strikers and that the latter were entitled to rein-
statement upon their unconditional offer to return to work even if it were neces-
sary for the Respondent to discharge replacements for the strikers hired on
and after September 27, 1950. By letter dated October 6, 1950, the Union notified
the Respondent of the employees' decision to terminate the strike and. of their
unconditional offer to return to work. On October 7, 1950, the Respondent
replied that some strikers had been replaced but that it would reinstate strikers
who had not been replaced and would but the others on a preferential hiring
list and give them jobs as they became available. On Monday, October 9, 1950,
a number of strikers appeared at the plant and a few were reinstated. How-
ever, some were never reinstated and others were not reemployed until later.
By failing to reinstate these strikers on or about October 9, 1950, the Respondent
26 The complaint alleged that the Respondent threatened striking employees with physi-
cal violence. The only evidence adduced by the General Counsel in support of this allega-
tion of the complaint was the statements of the two Taylors to employee Smith on Sep-
tember 30 . It is not clear from the General Counsel's brief whether he maintains that
these statements , under the circumstances set forth above, were violative of the Act. In
view of the fact that the statements were made immediately following an act of violence,
the undersigned finds that by the statements of the Taylors the Respondent did not violate
the Act, since the Respondent was entitled to protect the nonstriking employees from acts
of violence on the part of the strikers . For the same reason , it is not found that the
transporting by the Respondent of nonstriking employees to and from work during the
strike was violative of the Act.
27 Old Town Shoe Company , 91 NLRB 240.
402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discriminated as to their hire and tenure of employment in violation of Section
8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Aet28
The Respondent's contentions that it was not required to reinstate strikers for
whose jobs replacements had been hired on and after September 27, 1950, are
without merit. Those strikers are entitled to reinstatement even if the Respond-
ent would be required to discharge the replacements in order to reemploy the
strikers. However, as to Henry Smith, question arises as to whether he had been
effectively replaced prior to September 27. The record reveals that on the first
day of the strike, September 26, a nonstriking employee, T. J. Hendrix, was
shifted to Smith's position as a stock sawyer. However, no new employees were
hired on that date On September 27, one new employee was hired and a few
were initially employed on September 28. The undersigned concludes that the
transfer of Hendrix to Smith's job was a "makeshift arrangement" and that
Smith had not been effectively replaced on the date the strike converted into,
an unfair labor practice strike, and that he is entitled to reinstatement "
The Respondent also contends 'that it was justified in refusing to reinstate,
Arthur Howard and Bennie Merriweather because they were arrested for an
incident involving a nonstriking employee on September 30. As noted above,
Merriweather was convicted and fined for disorderly conduct as a result of the,
incident, but Howard was acquitted The General Counsel concedes that Bennie,
Merriweather "is precluded for reinstatement by his unauthorized and illegal
act of disorderly conduct." The undersigned finds that Bennie Merriweather
was not entitled to reinstatement because of his conduct during the strike but
that inasmuch as Howard was acquitted of the charge of disorderly conduct
arising out of the incident, he was entitled to reinstatement on or about October 9„
19502°
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, 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.
28 The date the undersigned has found that the Respondent unlawfully failed to reinstate
the strikers is that suggested by the General Counsel in his brief Actually, the initial
refusal on the part of the Respondent occurred on October 7. 1950, a Friday However,
since it appears that the first working day following the Respondent's receipt of the,
Union's unconditional request for the strikers' reinstatement fell on Monday. October 9,
1950, the latter date has been adopted herein as the date on which the strikers were
entitled to reinstatement and as the beginning of the period for which back pay was due
the discriminatees.
29 Firth Carpet Company v. N. L R. B, 129 F 2d.663 (C A. 2). The record shows
that another nonstriker, Annie Griffon, was shifted to the job of a striker, R Marr, but
does not indicate the date on which the transfer was effected. The undersigned finds that
the conclusions in relation to Smith, set forth in the text, govern Marr's case and that
Marr is entitled to reinstatement
30 The complaint included among the alleged discriminatees certain employees who did
not participate in the strike and others who were reinstated by the Respondent on and
prior to October 9, 1950 The complaint will be dismissed as to these employees, who are,
as follows • J. Bray, Alline Brown, Fred Cox, A. Dennis, S Evans, C Gallon, N. Hampton,
T. Howell, S. 0 Jackson, Lucy Jones, 0 Merriweather, S Merriweather, R Milani, G.
Murphy, L Murphy, T. Oliver, B. Phillips, 0 Pigues, M Robinson, N. Thompson, and
Bob Williams The complaint will also be dismissed as to B. Merriweather for.the reasons
indicated in the text.
DE SOTO HARDWOOD FLOORING COMPANY
V. THE REMEDY
. 403
As it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent reinstated some of the strikers on and prior to October 9, 1950,
the first working day after the Respondent received the Union's notice of termi-
nation of the strike and its unconditional request for reinstatement made on
behalf of the strikers. The complaint has been dismissed as to those strikers.
The Respondent has on various dates after October 9, 1950, reinstated a number
of the strikers. The Respondent's records revealed that Foreman Thompson
offered O. D. Gordon reemployment on October 20, 1950, and Foreman Collins
offered L. Hamlett reinstatement on October 18, 1950, but neither employee
returned to work. The undersigned will accordingly recommend that the Re-
spondent make whole each of the strikers who has been reinstated or offered
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position for any loss
suffered, by paying to each a sum of money equal to that which he would nor-
mally have earned as wages between October 9, 1950, and the date of the Re-
spondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during this period. The
names of those employed before the strike who were reinstated or offered rein-
statement between October 9, 1950, and the date of the hearing are listed in
Appendix B attached hereto.
The Respondent has failed to reinstate or to offer reinstatement to a number-
of strikers, whose names are listed in Appendix C attached hereto. Included in,
this list are strikers whom the Respondent made some attempts to locate in order
to offer reinstatement, by sending messages to them through employees. The
record is inconclusive as to whether these messages were" in fact delivered to the.
strikers in question. The mere fact that an attempt was made to recall such-
employees or that letters in respect to other matters sent to some strikers by
the Respondent were returned by the post office department is insufficient to ex-
tinguish the Respondent's obligation to offer these strikers reinstatement since.
the Respondent failed to make offers of reinstatement through the Union. Nor-
does the fact that some strikers obtained employment elsewhere during and
after the strike eliminate their right to reinstatement by the Respondent and
reimbursement for any loss suffered as a result of the Respondent's discrimina-
tion against them. However, if offers of reinstatement were in fact made to any
of the employees in Appendix C on or after October 9, 1950, they should be
accorded the same remedy given employees in Appendix B.
It will accordingly be recommended that the Respondent offer to each of the-
employees listed in Appendix C reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position 81 without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, if necessary dismissing all replacements hired on or after Septem-
ber 27, 1950, who were not employees of the Respondent on that date. The under-
signed will further recommend that the Respondent make whole the employees
whose names are listed in Appendix C for any loss they may have suffered as=
a result of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum
of money equal to the amount which he would normally have earned as wages-
from October 9, 1950, to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings during this period.
31 In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position" Is intended to mean "former position wherever -
possible, but if such position is no longer in existence, then to a substantially equivalent
position." See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, .
Branch, 65 NLRB 827.
404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Consistent with the Board's new policy in the method of computing back pay,"
it will be recommended that the loss of pay be completed on the basis of each
separate calendar quarter, or portion thereof, during the period from October 9
to the date of an offer of reinstatement. The quarterly periods, hereinafter
called quarters, shall begin with the first day of January, April, July, and Octo-
ber. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal to that which
he would normally have earned for each quarter, or portion thereof, his net
earnings;' if any, in other employment during that period. Earnings in one par-
ticular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other
quarter. It will also be recommended that the Respondent make available to the
Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the
back pay due.
Having found that the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit,
the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent, upon request, bargain
collectively with the Union as such representative, and, if any understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
In view of the Respondent's violations of the Act by refusing to bargain collec-
tively with the Union, by failing and refusing to reinstate all strikers upon
request, and by engaging in other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion,
there is danger that the commission of unfair labor practices generally is to be
anticipated from the Respondent's unlawful conduct in the past. The under-
signed will therefore recommend that the Respondent not only cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found, but also cease and desist from in any
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
It will further be recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to the em-
ployees who did not participate in the strike and others who were reinstated by
the Respondent on or prior to October 9, 1950, namely : J. Bray, Alline Brown,
Fred Cox, A. Dennis, S. Evans, C. Gillon, N. Hampton, T. Howell, S. O. Jackson,
Lucy Jones, O. Merriweather, S. Merriweather, R. Milani, G. Murphy, L. Murphy,
T. Oliver, B. Phillips, O. Pigues, M. Robinson, N. Thompson, and Bob Williams.
In addition, the undersigned will recommend that the complaint be dismissed as
to Bennie Merriweather, for the reasons stated above, and,,also, insofar as it
alleged interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act, except as otherwise found herein.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 84
1. Local 400, International Woodworkers of America, CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent's Memphis
plant, excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, engineers, firemen, sales-
men, lumber inspectors, superintendents, foremen, subforemen, maintenance
foremen, and any other supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act,
' 8= F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
88 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B , 311
U. S. 7.
84 The Respondent submitted separately numbered proposed- findings of fact and conclu-
sions. They are rejected in toto because some are in themselves unacceptable and because
others, as worded, cannot be accepted entirely.
DE SOTO HARDWOOD FLOORING COMPANY 4O5
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
-meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. On December 28, 1944, Local 400, International Woodworkers of America,
CIO, was, at all times since had been, and now is, the representative of a majority
of the Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit described above for pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on September 27, 1950, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively with Local 400, International Woodworkers of America, CIO, as the
exclusive representative of all its employees in the appropriate unit, the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the
'employees listed in Appendices B and C, thereby discouraging membership in a
labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
6. By the foregoing unfair labor practices and 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 prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The Respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of J. Bray, Alline Brown, Fred Cox, A. Dennis, S. Evans, C. Gillon,
N. Hampton, T. Howell, S. O. Jackson, Lucy Jones, B. Merriweather, O. Merri-
weather, S. Merriweather, R. Milam, G. Murphy, L. Murphy, T. Oliver, B. Phillips,
0. Pigues, M. Robinson, N. Thompson, and Bob Williams.
.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner 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 by means of interrogation, solicitation to return to work
during the pendency of a strike, or -in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organ-
ization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist LOCAL 400, INTER-
NATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer the employees named in Appendix C immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them, and the employees in Appendix B, whole for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with the above- named union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
974176-52-vol. 96-27
406 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
described herein with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment, and, if"an understanding is reached, em-
body such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees of our Memphis plant, ex-
cluding office clerical employees, watchmen, engineers, firemen, sales-
men, lumber inspectors, superintendents, foremen, subforemen, main-
tenance foremen, and any other supervisory employees within the mean-
ing of the Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining members of the above-named union or any other labor organization,
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 National Labor Relations Act. We will not dis-
criminate in regard to hire and tenure of employment or any terms or conditions
of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on
behalf of any such labor organization.
DE SOTO HARDWOOD FIAORINO COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated-------------------- By------------------------------ ------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be alt'red, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Appendix B
Employees already reinstated or offered reinstatement who are entitled to
be made whole for any loss of pay from October 9, 1950, to the date they were
reinstated or offered reinstatement:
M Abrim E. Emmons W. B Jones
A. B. Abston W. Fitch W. F. Jones
L. Adair E. Fletchei C. Julius
J Armstrong C. Gibson G. Kimble
W. Biggs O D. Gordon J. P. Kizer
H. L. Bolton J. Guy 0. Kizer
A. Brown L. Hamlett D. J. McCoy
H. Brown R. H. Hardin S McGowan
J. Brown E. L Haihs H McKinnie
L. Brown J. Hayes W. McKinnie
J. Buford O. L. Henderson H. Maclin
Lee Buford L Herring M Malone
J. Burden C. Hester L. C. Malunda
J. Callicott David Hines H. Marr
J: Callion L. Hubbard B. Marshall
E. Champion G Huston B. T. Martin
L. J. Chears A. Jackson G. Martin
S. Clay . J. Jackson H. Martin
A. T. Coleman W. Jackson F. Merriweather
K.-B. Conley F. Jefferson R. Miller
R. Cooper J. Jeffries F Mitchell
V: Dean R. Johnson J. Mitchell
0. Douglass Tom Jones R. Murphy
Nat Elrod U. Jones L. Nailon -
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY 407
W. Nelson C. Stanford P. Watkins
P. Newsom E. Stephenson R. Washington
L. Norwood E. Stewart A. White
0. Patterson J. Strickland DeWitt Williams
W. Randolph M. Strickland H. W. Williams
E. Redmon W. Strickland B. Wilson
A. Reed S. Taylor L. Wilson
V. Reed E. Thomas B. Woods
W. Richmond 1. Vaught B. Wooten
A. Saulsberry R. Venson J. Wooten
C. C. Sharp L. Walker H. Wynn
C. D. Smith 0. Walker
S. Smith W. J. Ward
Appendix C
Employees to be offered reinstatement and to be made whole for any loss
pay in the manner set forth in the Intermediate Report :
M. Anderson
C. Barron
S. Bowling
1. Boyd
J. Bryant
L. Byrd
W. Clayton
Eva Clayton
J. E. Couch
0. Dodson
J. Dorn
R. Hardwick
1. Harris
A. Hester
A. F. Howard
Jerry Jackson
E. Jett
A. L. Jones
Ben Jones
E. Joy
A. K;zer
G. W. Lee
L. C. Marr
R. Marr
B. L. Matthews
R. E. Micken
It. Osby
W. Payne
W. Porter
T. Powell
S. Pryor
K. Roberson
T. J. Robertson
J. Robison
R. Sherrod
G. Smith
H. Smith
J. Sturgiss
C. Walls
C. L. Watson
W. Williamson
Leland Wilson
W. B. Wren
of
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY and FEDERATION OF
WESTINGHOUSE INDEPENDENT SALARIED UNIONS. Case No. 6-CA-
Z34- September 26,1951
Decision and Order
On December 11, 1950, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find-
ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3),,
and (5) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist there-
found 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. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the charging Union, and
96 NLRB No. 58.