Graniteville Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 456 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ,LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ceded, that the injury to Francis was not such as would prevent him.
from continuing to perform the same kind of tasks he had performed:
prior to the injury. The question is whether this employee, at the
time of the election, had a reasonable expectation of further employ-
ment with the Employer.4 Upon the present record, we find that not-
withstanding the fact that ,the Employer may have considered the
advisability of discharging Francis, he at no time took any steps to,
discharge him prior to the election. This conclusion is supported by
the further fact that, although Francis had visited the Employer at
the plant several times before the election, the Employer never ad-
vised Francis that he would not be taken back to work. As Francis'
employment had never been terminated, he was in effect an employee-
absent on sick leave, and under the established policy of the Board,.
was eligible to vote.5 We therefore adopt the Regional Director's-
recommendation that the challenge to this ballot be overruled and that
the ballot be opened and counted.
Direction
IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED that the Regional Director for the Ninth
Region shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Board,.
within ten (10) days from the date of the Direction, open and count
the ballot of Charles M. Francis and thereafter prepare and serve-
upon the parties to this proceeding a supplemental tally of ballots,
including therein the count of said challenged ballot.
4 Clsppard Instrument Laboratory, Inc.. 86 NLRB 424; Goodyear Rubber Sundries, Inc.
(Case No. 1-RC-913, supplemental decision , unpublished
"Whiting Corporation, Spencer and Morris Division , 92 NLRB 1851
GRANrrEVILLE COMPANY , SIBLEY DIVISION and TEXTILE WORKERS-
UNION OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 10-CA-900. September 27,
1951
Decision and Order
On April 23, 1951, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher , Sr., issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent has engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter--
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner further,found'
that the Respondent had not engaged in other alleged unfair labor
practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with
respect thereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the,
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
96 NLRB No . 63. -
'_ '0RANITNE'VI1;Lf COMPANY 457
The•Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
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 Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
'record' in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications and
exceptions set forth below:
1. -The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, by engaging in acts of interro-
gation, surveillance, threats of reprisal, and promises of benefit con-
cerning,the union activities of its employees. 'In so finding, however,
we do not rely, as did the Trial Examiner, upon Overseer Gay's
threats of discharge to employees Lawrence Monday and Henry Kim-
berly for engaging in union solicitation on company time.
2. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the
Respondent discriminatorily discharged Alton Cook in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. The factual finding of the
Trial Examiner that Cook was discharged for engaging in union
activity is not, in our opinion, supported by a preponderance of, the
evidence.,
Cook operated a beaming machine which separates ropes of yarn
into individual strands ranging in number from 200 to 375. The
beamer' operates the machine by keeping his foot on a brake pedal;
when he removes his foot, the machine comes to a stop.' About every
2,000 yards, the ball of yarn is marked by a lease string, which is a
signaE to the beamer to stop the machine, remove the string, and
check the individual strands. Cook admitted that the main part of
his job'was to be on the lookout for an approaching lease string.
Another important, duty of the beamer is to mark the large spools,
upon which the individual strands are wound, in order to alert the
slasher operator, whose operations follow the beamer, to' any defects.
'The Respondent contends that Cook was discharged when it learned
that he had permitted a lease string to hit the separating device,
known as a comb, thereby causing considerable damage; and that 2
hours prior thereto, Cook had been reprimanded for having made a
bad beam and having failed to make a notation on the beam to warn
the slasher tender which resulted in additional breakage and waste
bn the slashing operation.
Although the Trial Examiner rejected Cook's explanations that a
faulty brake caused the lease string damage and that he did not work
on that portion of the spool which resulted in the slashing damage,
he nevertheless found that the Respondent, having knowledge of
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this ease to a three-member panel
' Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cook's union activity, seized upon these incidents as a pretext to rid
the plant of an active union adherent. We have carefully examined
the facts surrounding Cook's discharge, and while the matter is not
free of doubt concerning the Respondent's motive, we are constrained
to disagree with the Trial Examiner. The record shows that Cook
was warned by his overseer after the slashing incident that he would
have to improve his work or be discharged. That fact coupled with
the lease string incident, occurring but 2 hours later and causing
serious damage, in our opinion, afforded reasonable justification for
the Respondent's action in discharging Cook, and we so find.
3. No exceptions having been filed to the Trial Examiner's recom-
mended dismissal of the complaint insofar as it alleges (a) that the
activities of Sedberry, Green, and Hollingsworth constituted violations
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and (b) that the Respondent dis-
criminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of
Harding Kimberly and Whit Holloway, we shall dismiss these
allegations.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor -Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Graniteville Company,
Sibley Division, Augusta, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliations,
activities, or sympathies; threatening its employees with discharge
or other economic reprisal if they become interested in, join, or engage
in activities on behalf of the above-named or any other labor organi-
zation; soliciting its employees to spy upon and keep under surveil-
lance the union members and their activities, and to report such
activities to the Respondent; or promising benefits to employees if
they refrain from becoming interested in, joining, or engaging in
activities on behalf of the above-named or any other labor
organization.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coer-
cing its. employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union
of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively 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 and all such
activities, except to the extent that such rights-may be affected bby
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
GRANITE'VILLE COMPANY 459
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will,
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant in Augusta, Georgia, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix A." 2 Copies of the said notice, to,
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, 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, and it hereby is, dis-
missed, insofar as it alleges (a) that the activities of Sedberry, Green,
and Hollingsworth constituted violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act, and (b) that the Respondent discriminated with respect to the
hire and tenure of employment of Alton Cook, Harding Kimberly,
and Whit Holloway.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, We hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees with respect to their
union membership, activities, and sympathies; threaten our em-
ployees with discharge or other economic reprisal if they become
interested in, join, or engage in activities on behalf of TExTrL
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion; solicit our employees to spy upon and keep under surveil-
lance the union members and their activities, and to report such
activities; or promise benefits to our employees if they refrain
from becoming interested in, joining, or engaging in activities on
behalf of the above-named or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist TEXTILE.
WORKERS-UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organiza-
2In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order " the words "A Decree of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining 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 organization as a condition of employment , as author-
ized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY, S IBLEY DIVISION,
Employer.
By --------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated ----- --------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a fourth amended charge filed by Textile Workers Union of America,
'CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board,' by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia),
issued a complaint dated November 15, 1950, against Graniteville Company,
Sibley Division, Augusta, Georgia, 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) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136,
herein called the Act. Copies of the various charges, the complaint, and the
notice of hearing were duly served.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance
that the Respondent: (a) Discharged Harding Kimberly on October 27, 1949,
Alton Cook on November 10, 1949, and Whit Holloway on May 23, 1950, and
thereafter failed and refused to reinstate them because of their membership
in and activities on behalf of the Union, and because they engaged in concerted
activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and
mutual aid and protection; (b) from October 1949 to and including June 14, 1950,
interrogated its employees concerning their union membership, activities, and
sympathies; (c) from October 1, 1949, to and including May 1950, threatened its
employees with discharge and other economic reprisal if they became interested
in or joined the Union, or engaged in activities on behalf of the Union; (d) from
September 30, 1949, to and including February 27, 1950, solicited its employees
to spy upon and keep under surveillance the union members and their activities,
and to report such activities to the Respondent; and (e) on October 1 and 23,
1949, promised benefits to its employees if they would refrain from becoming in-
terested in or joining the Union, or engaging in activities on behalf of the Union.
The Respondent thereafter filed an answer, admitting that Kimberly, Cook, and
Holloway were discharged on the dates alleged in the complaint, but denying
the commission of any unfair labor practices.
'The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to herein as
the General Counsel. The National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the Board.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY, 461
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from December 4 to 7, 1950, inclusive,
at Augusta, Georgia, before Sydney S. Asher, Jr., the undersigned Trial Examiner-
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the-
Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by its representative.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the-
beginning of the hearing, the General Counsel moved for an oral bill of partic-
ulars with respect to that part of the Respondent's answer which admitted the-
discharge of the three employees involved, but denied that their discharges were-
violative of the Act. The General Counsel contended that the Respondent
should "spell out . . . its own reasons and position with respect to the discharges
alleged." The motion was denied!
By agreement of the parties, witnesses were excluded from the hearing room
until they were called to testify. During the course of the hearing, the General
Counsel made several motions to amend the complaint with respect to the
names of supervisors alleged to have committed acts of interference, restraint,
and coercion, and the dates on which the alleged acts occurred. All such motions
were granted without objection. At the close of the hearing, the Respondent
moved to dismiss the complaint, insofar as it related to any discriminatory dis-
charges, and to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Rulings on these motions.
were reserved. They are now disposed of in accordance with the conclusions
and recommendations herein. The General Counsel moved to conform the plead-
ings to the proof with respect to names, dates, and other nonsubstantive matters.
The motion was granted without objection.
All parties were afforded an opportunity to present their contentions orally
upon the record, and the General Counsel did so. All parties were granted
time after the close of the hearing to file briefs and proposed 'findings of fact
and conclusions of law. A brief has been received from the Respondent and
has been duly considered.
In accordance with arrangements made during the hearing, the Trial Examiner,.
accompanied by representatives of the Respondent and the General Counsel,
visited the Respondent's Sibley Mill on December 8, 1950, for the purpose of
acquainting himself with the physical character of the plant and the type of
operations performed therein.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 8
The Graniteville Company is a corporation, with its principal office and place-
of business at Graniteville, South Carolina. In its several mills and plants,
it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton textiles. Only the Respond-
ent's Sibley Mill, located at Augusta, Georgia, is involved in this proceeding.
In the course and conduct of the Respondent's business operations at the Sibley
Mill, the Respondent annually purchases raw materials exceeding $500,000 in.
H The Board has held that a general denial by a respondent is sufficient to satisfy the-
requirements of Section 203 20 (now Section 102 20) of the Board's Rules and Regulations.
Columbus Manufacturing Company, Case No. 10-CA-2056, on appeal to the Board, Novem-
ber 30, 1948. See also Lerner Shops of Alabama, Inc., at al, 91 NLRB 151, footnote 2,
and footnote 1 of the Intermediate Report therein.
8 The findings of fact contained in this section are based primarily upon a stipulation,
of the parties.
6
462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
value, approximately 90 percent of which is shipped to the Sibley Mill from
outside the State of Georgia. The finished products of the Sibley Mill amount
to more than $500,000 in value per annum, of which in excess of 95 percent
is either shipped to customers outside the State of Georgia or shipped for further
processing to other plants of the Respondent outside the State of Georgia.
The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.4
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
6
A. The operations of the Sibley Mill
Approximately 900 employees are employed at the Respondent's Sibley Mill.
The mill operates on three shifts, as follows : First shift, 7 a. in. to 3 p. in.; second
'shift, 3 p. m. to 11 p. m.; and third shift, 11 p. m. to 7 a. m.°
Each principal department is supervised by an overseer, under whom is an
assistant overseer. The overseers are generally on duty from 7 a. m. until about
'6 p. m., and the assistant overseers from 6 p. m. to 7 a. in. Under the overseer and
assistant overseer in each department are shift foremen for each shift ° The
parties stipulated that the overseers, assistant overseers, and shift foremen
named herein are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
B. Sequence of events
In September 1949 the Union began attempts to organize the employees of the
Sibley Mill. Sometime in October, Mr. Mangum, superintendent of the Sibley
Mill, instructed the overseers, in effect, that if employees inquired about the
Union, they should be told that they could join or not join, as they chose, and
that the Respondent did not care, so long as they performed their work. These
instructions were relayed to the shift foremen, but were not communicated
-directly to the employees. James Hunnicut, a shift foreman, admitted that
he had heard rumors of the Union's advent prior to October 27, 1949, but stated
that he did not know if these rumors were true. As will later appear, Oscar
0. Gay, an overseer, questioned employee Lawrence E. Monday concerning the
distribution of union cards a week prior to October 27. It is accordingly found
that the Respondent became aware of its.employees' interest in the Union on
or before October 20, 1949.
On October 27, 1949, employee Harding Kimberly was discharged, under cir-
,cumstances discussed hereafter. ' On October 31, a group of employees on the
second shift, by agreement among themselves,. came to work wearing union
buttons! They approached Hunnicut and told him they wanted to speak to
'Gay. Hunnicut told the men to start work and he would see what could be
done. After conferring with Gay, Hunnicut returned a short while later and
informed the employees that Gay would talk to them one at a time. The em-
4 The parties so stipulated.
"The first shift is also referred to in the record as the B shift, the second as the C shift,
and the third as the A shift.
6 Shift foremen are also referred to in the record as second hands.
I According to the undenied and credited testimony of employee Henry Kimberly, the
employees were advised by a union organizer "to do it for our own protection, so if they
did fire us they couldn't say they didn't know we were union members."
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY 463
ployees replied that would not be necessary, they merely wanted to let him know
they belonged to the Union. Thereafter, some of the employees continued to
wear their union buttons in the plant.
On November 10, 1949, employee Alton Cook was discharged, under circum-
stances related below. The original charges herein were filed on November 16,
1949, and served upon the Respondent on November 23, 1949.
In April 1950, the Union again actively sought to organize the employees of
the Sibley Mill. On May 23, 1950, employee Whit Holloway was discharged,
under circumstances described hereafter.
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint alleges numerous incidents of interference, restraint, and
coercion by various supervisors. The Respondent's answer denies all of them.
The allegations concerning each individual supervisor will be discussed seriatim.
1. Avery Kirkland 8
Avery Kirkland is shift foreman on the second shift in the card room, under
Overseer W. H. Hutcherson. The complaint alleges that Kirkland illegally
interrogated employees, on September 30, October 26, November 1, 5, 7, and 30,
and December 20, 1949; threatened employees with economic reprisal on Octo-
ber 27 and November 7 and 30, 1919, if they became interested in or joined the
Union ; and solicited employees to spy upon union members and their activities
on September 30, October 26, and November 5, 1949.
In the fall of 1949, Kirkland came to employee Barney Dempsey while he was
working and asked him if he had joined the Union. Dempsey replied that he
had not. Kirkland remarked : "Well, the boys all of them are joining up around
here." Dempsey answered that he was not going to have anything to do with
the Union. Later, the same day, Kirkland returned and again questioned
Dempsey with regard to his union membership. Dempsey explained that a
union organizer had talked to him about joining the Union, but that he had told
the organizer that he was not interested. Kirkland laughed and went away.
A few days later, Kirkland returned and told Dempsey that Hutcherson had
been told by another employee that Dempsey had joined the Union. Dempsey
denied that he had joined. The following week, Kirkland again told Dempsey
that he had heard that Dempsey had joined the Union. Dempsey once more
protested that he had not joined. Kirkland left but returned, and told Dempsey
that he believed that Dempsey had not joined the Union, but Hutcherson did
not seem to believe it. Dempsey responded : "Well, I don't care who don't
believe it. I have told you the truth about it." Kirkland returned a few minutes
later, and said: "Barney, we don't need no Union here. We are getting along
good without a Union." Dempsey responded : "Yes, we are getting along all
right. I am not going to join a union, not fooling with no union." Kirkland
then stated: "Well, I tell you, they all seem to think that you joined the Union,
some few of them was telling me." Dempsey answered : "Mr. Avery, for the
last time let me tell you. You have lied to me enough about this union Now,
for the last time, I don't care who says I joined a Union just told a damn lie."
A few days later, Kirkland asked Dempsey if he had received a letter with
respect to a union meeting to be held on the following Sunday. Dempsey first
8 The findings of fact contained in this subsection are based upon the credited and
undenied testimony of employees Dempsey, Fordham , and Whisnant . Kirkland did not
testify.
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
denied having received such a letter, but later admitted that he had received it.
Kirkland asked if Dempsey intended to go to the meeting, and Dempsey replied
that he was not sure. Kirkland then suggested that Dempsey go to the meeting,
listen to what was said, and report back to Kirkland. Dempsey answered that
he was not sure that he would be able to attend. In fact, Dempsey did not
attend the meeting. On another occasion, Dempsey offered to prove that he-
had not joined the Union by giving Kirkland a letter which the Union had
written to Dempsey. - Kirkland replied that he did not know if "that would
help you any," but suggested that Dempsey bring the letter to him. Accord-
ingly, Dempsey gave the letter to Kirkland on the following day. These-con-
versations took place over a period of approximately 2 weeks. It is found that
Kirkland interrogated Dempsey with respect to his union membership and
activities, and solicited him to spy upon union members and their activities and
to report such activities to him.'
Early in November 1949, Kirkland approached employee E. B. Fordham and,
after remarking that he had tried to be a friend to Fordham and that he thought
Fordham was friendly toward him, asked what Fordham knew about the Union.
Fordham replied that the only thing he knew about the Union was that a union
organizer had come to his house a few days before to discuss it. Kirkland said
that he understood that Fordham had been in the dressing room trying to interest
other employees in joining the Union, and had been supplying the union organizer
with the names of employees. Fordham denied this. Later that week, Kirk-
land asked Fordham where his union button was, and Fordham replied that he
did not have one. Kirkland then remarked that he had heard that Fordham
had joined the Union. Fordham denied that he had done so. During the follow-
ing week, Kirkland asked Fordham if he had attended the union meeting which
had been held on the previous day. When Fordham admitted attending, Kirk-
land asked : "Well, did you learn anything?" Fordham answered that he had
not learned anything particular. Kirkland inquired why Fordham had gone
and Fordham replied that he "was trying to find out something or other about
the Union." According to Fordham, Kirkland then warned Fordham that he
"had better be particular about how I talked outside, and what I done, that there
was somebody outside watching me." Fordham demanded: "Who is telling you
so damn much?" Kirkland refused to reveal the source of his information,
merely saying that he was receiving it somehow. Fordham protested: "I think
somebody is damn smart to tend to my business, and I mean it is going to stop
if I have to fight." Kirkland replied : "There is no need you getting into any
trouble about it." Fordham then asked if the Respondent were paying someone
to watch him. The record does not reveal Kirkland's reply. Later that same
week, Kirkland asked Fordham if he knew whether Dempsey and another em-
ployee named Maddox had joined the Union. Fordham replied that he did not
know. These conversations took place within a period of about 3 weeks. It is
clear that Kirkland interrogated Fordham with respect to his union membership
and activities and those of other employees Moreover, Kirkland impressed
Fordham with the fact that his union activities outside the plant were being
watched, and warned him that he "llad better be particular about how (he)
talked outside." This constituted not only interference with Fordham's right to
9 Kirkland's statement to Dempsey that "We don't need no union here We are getting
along good without a union" is protected under Section 8 (c) of the Act, and is therefore
found not to constitute interference , restraint , or coercion.
GRANIT'EVILLE COMPANY, 465
engage in union activities, but also a veiled threat of economic reprisal which
could be expected to result from his further support of the Upion 10
' On November 10, 1949, Kirkland approached Hubert N. Whisnant, a slubber
tender, while he was at work, and asked if he had heard anything about the
Union. Whisnant replied that he knew nothing about it. Kirkland then asked
Whisnant to report to him anything lie heard about the Union. Whisnant
answered that he would have to think it over. On November 30, while Whis-
nant was working, Kirkland asked him if be could have one of his union cards.
Whisnant asked him what he meant, and Kirkland replied : "One of your CIO
Unioh'cards. ' I heard you had some signing the boys up." Whisnant demanded
to know if somebody had told Kirkland that he bad some union cards or whether
it was something that Kirkland had invented. Kirkland replied that somebody
had told him, but that he had promised not to reveal the identity of the informer.
Kirkland remarked : "You know, if we get in the Union, started up around here,
it is going to cause trouble. You remember that other one, don't you?" Whis-
nant replied that he had had nothing to do with that. Kirkland then asked if
Whisnant knew what his job really was. Whisnant replied that his job was to
run three slubbers." Kirkland replied: "Well, your job is really four slubbers,"
adding that the written job description called for each slubber tender to operate
four slubbers, but that Hutcherson had been "good enough ... to hold it off
us the best he could, see, and hadn't never given it to us." Whisnant pointed
out that he could not operate four slubbers. Kirkland then asked Whisnant
if he had seen any of the union organizers, and Whisnant admitted that he had
talked to them. Kirkland stated: "Well, if the damn Yankee son-of-bitches had
stayed up North where they belonged instead of coming down here trying to start
something or another we [would] get along better." Whisnant replied that he
did not think that Kirkland would say that to their faces. Kirkland asked if
Whisnant really had any union cards, and Whisnant replied that that was his own
business, that what he did outside the mill did not concern anyone as long as he
performed his work. Kirkland replied : "Well, now, we cannot fire nobody about
the Union, but there is one thing we can do. If you do get a Union started, well,
we can keep our eyes open and if anything comes up about your work or anyway,
the gate is open where you come in to go back out. It will be a good thing on my
part because I won't have anything to do then but just put my collar and tie
on and walk by." About 2 weeks later, Kirkland asked Whisnant if he knew
anything about a union meeting which had been held on Walton Way. Whisnant
replied that he knew nothing about it. It is evident that Kirkland interrogated
Whisnant with respect to his union membership and activities. Moreover, the
conversation between Kirkland and Whisnant on November 30 contained im-
plied threats by Kirkland that if the Union came in, the slubber tenders' work
would be increased by 25 percent, and the Respondent would seek for a pretext
to discharge active union adherents'2
10 In a case involving a somewhat similar set of facts the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia stated : "Interrogation by supervisory employees as to
union sympathies carries with it at least the aroma of coercion. Here the questioning
was coupled not only with the supervisor's expressions of extreme distaste for unionism,
but also with veiled threats as to future benefits and job security. Conduct of this sort
violates the employees'. rights under section 7 of the Act and constitutes an unfair labor
practice under section 8 (a) (1) " Joy Silk Mills, Inc v N. L. R. B., 1815 F. 2d 732
(C A D. C ) These observations are pertinent in the instant case.
A slubber is a machine which makes roving for the spinning room.
18 It is found that Kirklancl's statement that "if the damn Yankee son-of-bitches had
stayed up North where they belonged instead of coining down here trying to start some-
thing or another we [would] get along better" is not violative of the Act' Disparage-
ment of a union does not constitute restraint, interference, or coercion. Edstoltal "Fl
Imparcial" Inc., 92 NLRB 1795.
466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. James, Hunnicut"
James Hunnicut' is shift foreman in the spinning room on the second shift,
under Overseer Oscar O. Gay. The complainant, as amended at the hearing,
alleges that Hunnicut interrogated employees concerning their union member-
ship, activities, and sympathies on October 27, and November 5, 15, and 25, 1949;
threatened employees with economic reprisal if they became interested in or
joined the Union during October 1949; solicited employees to spy upon union
members and their activities on October 23, 1949; and promised benefits to
employees if they would refrain from becoming interested in or joining the
Union during October 1949.
William Noland Brown, a fixer" under Hunnicut's supervision, testified that
late in October 1949, Hunnicut told Brown that he wanted him to go in the
water house15 about 10 or 15 minutes before changing time to see what he
could find out. He added that if Brown heard anything, he would know what
it was, he would not have to tell him. However, Brown did not report back
to Hunnicut. Brown testified that, prior to this incident, he and Hunnicut had,
been good friends, but that after this occurred Hunnicut "went to work on"
him 1° -
The Respondent contends that Hunnicut was merely seeking to have Brown,
aid him in enforcing the rule against smoking, and to prevent the men from
congregating in the rest rooms. In support of this contention, Gay testified
that in the fall of 1949 the employees had fallen into the habit of congregating
in the water house to smoke. As a result, they were staying away from their
jobs, thus causing bad work, and were violating the Respondent's rule against
smoking in the plant."' Accordingly, Gay told his shift foremen that he wanted
them to check'the water houses during their shifts, and if they caught anybody-
smoking to "do something about it." Hunnicut testified that Gay was "putting
pressure" on him to stop the men from smoking in violation of the Respondent's-
rules, and that he then requested his three fixers, including Brown, to check
on this. According to Hunnicut, his instructions to Brown were : "I expect
you better go down to the water house about quarter to 11 and look around
down there and see what is going on." Brown replied : "All right." Hunnicut
did not recall whether he particularly told Brown what to look for, but stated-
that Brown knew that there had been trouble with the men smoking in the
water house "and he knew what the score was on that." Hunnicut placed the
conversation as having taken place "along around the last of September" 1949.
The versions of Brown and Hunnicut both indicate that Hunnicut ordered
Brown to investigate the situation in the water house. However, there is a
material difference with respect to the actual language used by Hunnicut, and
the time when the conversation occurred. Brown's demeanor on the witness-
stand impressed me with his candor. Accordingly, his version of the language
13 Also described in the record as Tames Hunnicutt.
14 Fixers are also referred to in the record as "section men " It was stipulated that
they are not supervisors '
15 The water house is the toilet
10 On this point, Brown testified credibly as follows :
Q. What did he do to indicate there was a change in relations?
A He started putting extra work on me. Finding frames there wasn' t anything'
wrong with, making me tear them down and put them back together again when I knew
in my own mind there wasn't anything wrong with the frame
17I find that the ll.espondenf had a rule against smoking in the plant, which was made
known to the employees. Gay testified without contradiction that the shift Foremen
usually explained this rule to each new employee, and that "No Smoking" signs' were
posted in the vicinity of the rest rooms.
GRANITE'VILLE COMPANY 467
used by Hunnicut and the date of this occasion is adopted . Had the enforce-
ment of the no-smoking rule been Hunnicut 's reason for asking Brown to go,
into the water house, he would not have told Brown that if Brown heard any-
thing Brown would know what he meant, he did not have to tell him. In view
of the fact that the Respondent was aware that the Union was organizing its
employees at this time , and considered in the light of other instances of inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion by the Respondent 's supervisors , described herein,
it is found that Hunnicut was, in effect , requesting Brown to listen for con-
versations regarding the Union , and to report these conversations to him. This
conclusion is bolstered by Hunnicut 's sudden and unexplained change in attitude
toward Brown following this incident . It is evident that Brown's failure to
comply with Hunnicut 's request that he furnish information with respect to,
the employees ' union activities caused a rift in their previous friendly
relationship.
Brown further testified that, within a week before or after October 27, 1949,
employee James Thrift was talking to several other employees during working
hours. Hunnicut asked Brown what Thrift "was trying to sell those people
up there." Brown replied that he did not know. Thrift testified that he had
spoken to several employees during working hours, and that Hunnicut had asked
him "what I was trying to sell those people." Thrift explained to Hunnicut
that he had given an apple to the first employee , that the second employee
had given his sister some flowers and he was thanking her, and the third
employee had called him over, adding: "It wasn't what you were thinking."
Hunnicut replied : "Well, I didn't know." Thrift set the time of this conversation
as approximately a week before October 27. Hunnicut testified that he saw
Thrift talking to another employee during working hours, and that he asked
Thrift what Thrift "was trying to sell." Hunnicut explained that this was
"merely a figure of speech," instead of simply telling Thrift to go back to his
job and to allow the other employees to return to their work; that he wanted
the employees to know he thought they should be on their jobs.
This incident requires elaboration with regard to the Respondent 's attitude
toward employees talking during working hours. On this subject, the record
presents conflicting testimony. Thrift testified that it was customary for the
employees to talk to one another "when we have time," and that Hunnicut had
never previously reprimanded Thrift for talking to other employees. He ad-
mitted , however, that he had heard Hunnicut reprimand another employee who
was talking by telling her that "she was a long way from home, from her job."
Employee Leonard Fletcher , a witness for the Respondent , testified that there
was no reason why employees should not talk to eagh other when they had
the time and that he knew of no rule against such talking, as long as it did not
interfere with the work. On the other hand, Gay testified that employees were
not supposed to leave their jobs to talk to other employees, thus delaying them
from their work. He added that if the conversation lasts too long, the employees
are told to go back to their jobs. He stated: "We ask them what their business
is if they are talking to someone else on their job." In view of all the testimony,
particularly Thrift's admission that he had heard Hunnicut reprimand another
employee for talking, it is found that the Respondent 's policy was to discourage
excessive talking which interfered with work. Accordingly, I agree with the
contention of the Respondent that it was not unreasonable for a supervisor to
correct or inquire what it is that an employee is talking about when he is
supposedly engaged on his own job, although he undertakes to go around and
talk to other employees who are also supposed to be at their jobs. Foremen,
in maintaining some semblance of discipline and attention to duty, should not be
required to select their words with specific exactitude in order to reprimand an
468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee. I therefore find that Hunnicit 's question addressed to Brown as-to
what Thrift "was selling" and his similar question addressed to Thrift did not
,constitute illegal interrogation with respect to union activities , and was not
violative of the Act"
Willie May McCarthy was one of the employees who wore a union button on
October 31, 1949. She testified that, during the last part of October 1949, she
approached Hunnicut and asked him if he had heard anything about the' Union.
Hunnicut answered that he had heard a little something . McCarthy told Hunni-
cut that two or three employees had mentioned the Union to her, and Hunnicut
replied that he could name these employees if he wanted. She further testified
-that on October 26, 1949, she was talking to another employee , and that Hunnicut
later asked her what the other employee "was trying to sell ." McCarthy replied
that the other employee was not trying to sell her anything. Hunnicut testified
that he had only one conversation with McCarthy with respect to the Union and
-that was the first conversation referred to by McCarthy in her testimony. Ac-
-cording to Hunnicut , McCarthy asked him if he had heard anything about the
Union, and he merely replied that he had heard a little something about it.
Hunnicut placed this conversation as occurring sometime after October 27, 1949.
McCarthy impressed me as a witness whose memory was not altogether reliable.
Accordingly , I adopt Hunnicut's version as the more accurate . As Hunnicut's
-statement in answer to McCarthy 's question was devoid of any promise of bene-
fit or threat of reprisal , and did not constitute illegal interrogation , I find that
,it was not violative of the Act.
There is no evidence that Hunnicut , as alleged in the complaint , interrogated
employees with respect to their union activities , threatened employees with eco-
nomic reprisal if they supported the Union , or promised them benefits if they
refrained from so doing . It is found , however, that he solicited Brown to spy
upon the union members and to report their activities to him.
3. Oscar O. Gay
Oscar 0 . Gay is overseer of the spinning room. The complaint alleges that he
interrogated employees concerning their union membership , activities , and sym-
pathies on October 20, 27 , and 31 , and November 5 and 25, 1949 ; threatened
-employees with economic reprisal if they became interested in or joined the
Union on'October 20 and 31 , 1949; solicited employees to spy upon union members
.and their activities on October 23, 1949; and promised benefits to employees if
they would refrain from engaging in activities on behalf of the Union on Oc-
tober 23, 1949. &
Employee Lawrence E. Monday had been active in the Union, and had passed
.out union cards to other employees both inside and outside the mill. He testified
that , about a week before October 27, 1949, Gay summoned him and said that he
understood that Monday had been passing out cards, and asked Monday if it
were true . When Monday admitted that he had been passing out cards, Gay
stated that if Monday did not agree to apologize and cease distributing cards
that he would have to discharge him. Monday answered : "Yes, sir," and left.
After this incident , Monday stopped passing out union cards . Gay's version of
this incident was somewhat different . He testified that he had received a report
-from Sedberry , the assistant overseer , that Monday was soliciting for the Union
on the job . Following the receipt of this complaint , Gay called Monday into his
.office, told him that he had received reports that Monday was soliciting on the job,
that unauthorized solicitations constituted a violation of the Respondent 's rules,
is Compare The Pure Oil Company (Heath Refinery), 75 NLRB 539; W. T Smith Lum-
;ber Company , 79 NLRB 606; and' W. T. Carter and Brother, et al., 90 NLRB 2020.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY 469
and that if he would apologize to the people whom he had bothered on the job,
the matter would be forgotten, "for we weren't going to tolerate any unauthor-
ized solicitations of any kind."
Henry Kimberly's was one of the employees who wore union buttons to work
on October 31, 1949. Immediately after the start of the second shift that day,
Barney Hollingsworth, a shift foreman, came up to Kimberly as he was working,
and asked him : "What kind of button is that you have got on?" Kimberly re-
plied that it was a Textile Union button and that Hollingsworth ought to get one:
Hollingsworth reported this incident to Gay, and Gay then had a conversation
with Kimberly. According to Kimberly, Gay started the conversation by stating
that Kimberly had been reported for "soliciting membership" in the Union, which
automatically caused Kimberly to be discharged. Kimberly denied having en-
gaged in any acts of solicitation, pointing out that he had not approached anybody
about joining the Union while in the mill. Gay then replied that Kimberly had
told Hollingsworth that he ought to get a union button. Kimberly admitted
having made this statement to Holfingsworth, but added that Hollingsworth had
approached him while he was working and had asked him what the button was.
Gay answered that, under the circumstances, he was warning Kimberly that "we
don't allow that," and that if he heard any more similar complaints regarding
Kimberly he would be automatically discharged. Gay's version of the conver-
sation differed from that of Kimberly ; according to Gay, he told Kimberly that
any unauthorized solicitation on the job was a violation of the Respondent's
rules, and would not be tolerated.
In determining whether or not the two incidents described above constitute
violations of the Act, it is important to ascertain the Respondent's policy at
the time with respect to solicitation in the mill. The General Counsel contends
that no valid rule against solicitation existed at this time. I agree. On this
point, Gay testified that employees were not permitted to solicit for any purpose
without prior permission from either an overseer or a shift foreman, that the
shift foremen were instructed not to permit solicitation without permission from
the overseer for any reason except flowers for sickness or funerals, and that
the overseers generally permitted solicitation, in addition to the reasons outlined
above, for city-wide or national drives, such as the Red Cross and the Salvation
Army. He also testified that there was no specific rule applying to union solic-
itation, the same rule governed all types of solicitation. He further testified that
the rule applied in the mill, during the employees' luncheon periods and during
the period when the employees were in the plant waiting for their shifts to
start. Gay admitted on cross-examination that the rule was made known to
the employees only when there had been a violation or when an employee made
a request for permission to solicit. The Respondent's written rules, given to
all new employees, make no reference to the subject of solicitation. Ford ham
testified that he did not know whether or not it was against the rules to give
out union cards during working hours, and that he had known Kirkland to
appoint employees for the purpose of collecting money for flowers, during
working hours. Whisnant, who had been working for the Respondent more
than 15 years, testified that he knew of no rule prohibiting the distribution of
union cards on company time. Henry Kimberly, who had been in the Re-
spondent's employ approximately 17 years, testified that prior to October 31,
1949, he had never been informed of any rule against solicitation of any kind,
either on or off the premises. He admitted, however, that collections for needy
employees, Christmas gifts, and similar purposes were always made after
permission had been obtained from either the shift foreman or the overseer. He
19 Henry Kimberly is the father of employee Harding Kimberly, referred to previously.
974176-52-vol. 96-31
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
further testified that, after October 31, 1949, the rules with respect to charitable
collections were tightened , and that after that date when he wanted to make a
collection for children stricken by cerebral palsy, it was necessary for him to
obtain permission from the plant superintendent. Under all the circumstances
particularly in view of the lack of any reference to solicitation in the Respond-
ent's printed rules, and Gay's admission that the alleged rule against solicitation
was only brought to the attention of the employees after a violation, it is found
that on October 31, 1949, and prior thereto, the Respondent had no rule which
prohibited union solicitation, either in the plant or outside the plant, or during
working hours.20 It-thus appears that, under either Gay's version or that of
Monday and Kimberly, Gay, reprimanded these employees, and threatened to
discharge them, for allegedly violating a nonexistent rule. Such conduct ob-
viously constituted interference, restraint, and coercion, as it effectively denied
to the employees their statutory right to engage in union activities.21
Brown testified that in the latter part of October 1949, he went to the office
to get aspirin. Gay told him that "there as something going on out there
in the spinning room," that Hunnicut had a great deal of confidence in Brown,
and was expecting Brown "to help him." Gay then asked Brown if he was
satisfied with his job, and Brown replied that he was. Gay remarked : "Well,
there is a lot of people out there that don't feel that way about it." Gay assured
Brown that he had a good chance of getting a better job, but Brown said that
he did not think so, as he felt that he had gone about as far as he could, and
that he did not have enough education to handle the job of a "boss." n Gay
testified that, on the occasion in question, Brown had asked Gay to help him
get his wife a job, and that at this time, Brown had dropped out of vocational
school. Gay told Brown that Hunnicut had a great deal of confidence in Brown,
and that if he would apply himself to his job be could "go on up from where he"
was." Brown responded that he felt that- he had reached as high a level as
he could because of his limited education Gay replied that he did not think so,
that if Brown applied himself to his job he could go higher. Brown's demeanor
on the stand while testifying impressed me with his candor and sincerity. I
therefore credit his version of this conversation.
Although Gay did not' specifically mention the Union in his discussion with
Brown, it will be recalled that he stated that there was something going on in
the spinning room. He did not specify what he was referring to, thus assuming
that Brown fully understood This assumption is underscored by Gay's remark
that Hunnicut was expecting Brown to help him. By the latter part of the
conversation, Gay- indicated that if Brown cooperated, he might improve his
chances of promotion. The Respondent contends that any finding that this
conversation related to the Union would be based upon an attempt "to read
things into it which were not there." I cannot agree. Although Gay carefully
refrained from mentioning the Union, this does not camouflage the fact that the
Union was the problem under discussion. Considered in the light of the Union's
current organizational campaign, and in view of other acts of interference,
restraint, and coercion committed about this time by Gay and Qther super-
20 It will be recalled that Gay testified that the rule applied within the mill, even before
the employees had started their shifts . The promulgation of any such rule might possi-
bly have been, itself, a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. See, for example, Allen-
Morrison Sign Co, Inc, 79 NLRB 904 However, as it has been found that no rule
against union solicitation of any kind existed on October 31, 1949, or prior thereto, and
as the complaint does not allege the existence of any rule against solicitation, I deem it
unnecessary to resolve this issue
21 Compare Fontaine - Convtrtang Works, Inc ., 77 NLRB 1386.
22 Brown placed the time of this conversation as a day or two before or after Brown's
conversation with Hunnicut about the water house , described above.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY 471
visors, I conclude that, 'by -innuendo , Gay asked Brown to help Hunnicut defeat
the Union , and indicated that if Brown cooperated in this respect he would
improve his chances for promotion . This evidence is sufficient to prove that
Gay promised benefits to Brown for -refraining from union activity . I do not
consider it sufficient , however, to support the allegation that Gay solicited
Brown to spy upon the union members, and to report their activities to him.
McCarthy testified that a few days after October 31 , 1949, she went to the
office to get permission to use the telephone . At the time she was not wearing
her union button. Gay asked her : "Where is that pretty little button you have
been wearing ?" She replied that it was in her box . Gay then stated if she did
not know what to do with it, he did, she should give it to him. McCarthy
answered that if he would come down to her place of work she would give it
to him. Later , Gay passed McCarthy 's machine, stopped , and held his pocket
open. He was smiling. McCarthy dropped into his pocket four union buttons
which she had in her.box . On another occasion during this period, Gay sent for
McCarthy, said that she appeared to be afraid , that he did not want her to be
afraid, and that whenever she wanted to talk to him about anything to feel
free to .do so. He added that the law would not allow him to approach her, and
that he had once belonged to the Union and had lost everything he had. Mc-
Carthy replied that she was afraid she would be discharged and that there
was another employee who was also afraid. Gay suggested that McCarthy
tell the other employee to talk to him. On another occasion , Gay told McCarthy
that the Respondent supplied insurance and old-age pensions for the employees,
that the Respondent was "mighty good," to the employees , and that he did not
see why they would want to join a union . McCarthy also testified that Gay
told her that the Respondent was not going to discharge her. Gay testified that
McCarthy had told him that she had joined the Union and wanted to get out
of it, and inquired how to resign . Gay told her either to see the person who,
had secured her membership application or to discuss the matter with her
preacher . The next day, when she came to use the telephone , she was not
wearing her ,button. Gay asked her where her button was and she replied that
it was in ,her box, adding ",Come down there and I will give it to you." An hour
or so later , Gay was talking to McCarthy about her job and she put several
union buttons in his pocket . He admitted that he had sent for McCarthy twice,
once late in 1949 and the second time in February 1 950, but stated that these
conferences with McCarthy related to a disagreement between McCarthy and
another spinner. He further stated that McCarthy had told him that she was
afraid she was going to lose her job, and that she had been warned that if she
lost her job the Government would not furnish a lawyer to fight her case for
her unless she wore the button. Gay assured her that she had no reason ,ta,
believe that she was going to lose her job, and that she could stay as long as
she performed her work. He denied that he told McCarthy that he had
belonged to a union at one time and that he had lost everything . He also denied
that McCarthy expressed any fear that she might -lose her job because she was
wearing a union button , or that she had told him that another employee was
afraid to talk to him because of the Union . For reasons previously stated, T
do not consider 1VlcCarthy's testimony reliable. I therefore adopt Gay's versiom
of these conversations as the more accurate account.
When 'McCarthy appeared at Gay's office to use the telephone , Gay inquired
where her union button was. Thus, in effect, Gay interrogated McCarthy with
respect to her current status in the Union . Such interrogation 10, proscribed
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Act22 It is found, however, that the remainder of Gay's discussions
with McCarthy did not constitute illegal conduct .24
4. H. L. Sedberry
H. L. Sedberry is assistant overseer in the spinning, spooling, and twisting
department. The complaint alleges that, on October 27, 1949, he interrogated
employees concerning their union membership, activities, and sympathies.
McCarthy was afraid that if she belonged to the Union she would lose her
job, and she so informed several supervisors. She testified that, on one occasion,
Sedberry told her not to let anybody cause her to do anything for which she
would be sorry. She described this conversation as having taken place shortly
after October 31, 1949. Sedberry testified that McCarthy came to him and
stated that she was worried, that she did not know what to do, and that if she
knew she could hold her job she would throw away her union button. Accord-
ing to Sedberry, he responded that she could hold her job just as well by not
belonging as she could by belonging, and that she should have a mind of her
own. He further testified that he might have told McCarthy not to let anyone
dictate to her but that he was not sure that he used this language. I adopt
Sedberry's account of this conversation. Even if Sedberry had indicated to
McCarthy that she should not take any steps which she might later regret, I
would not read into this statement any implied threat that if McCarthy con-
tinued with her union membership the Respondent would take any action to
McCarthy's economic detriment. I would view it merely as advice to McCarthy
that she should not take any course of action in conflict with her own personal
convictions. Accordingly, I find nothing in Sedberry's statement which violated
the Act.
5. W. H. Hutcherson'
W. H. Hutcherson is overseer in the card room. The complaint alleges that
he illegally interrogated employees in October and November and on December
30, 1949; and threatened employees in November and December 1949 with
economic reprisal if they engaged in activities on behalf of the Union.
In December 1949, Hutcherson summoned employee Forest Washington and
asked : "You have joined the Union, haven't you?" Washington replied : "If
you know I have, there ain't no use me telling you," and Hutcherson laughed.
Washington then asked if Hutcherson were going to fire him, to which Hutcher-
son replied : "No, I can't fire you. I wouldn't fire you anyway. Any man has
a perfect right to join anything they want to join, any church or anything else.
Ain't concerning me at all." By questioning Washington with respect to his
union membership, Hutcherson clearly violated the act. And the illegal conduct
in which he engaged is not cured by the fact that it was followed by a statement
assuring Washington that he had a right to join or not to join, as he saw fit 2
22 The fact that an employee openly professes her union sympathy by wearing a union
button does not justify an employer' s interrogation of such an employee . Standard -
Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358, 1363.
24 Although Gay accepted the union buttons proffered by McCarthy , this conduct is deemed
insufficient to support the allegation of the complaint that Gay promised benefits to em-
ployees if they would refrain from engaging in union activities.
25 The findings of fact contained in this subsection are based upon employee Washington's
credited and undenied testimony . Hutcherson did not testify.
26 The Locomotive Finished Material Company, 56 NLRB 840, 845 ; Empire Pencil Com-
pany, D2vision of Hassenfleld Bros., Inc., 86 NLRB 1187 , 1208; enforced , 187 F. 2d 334
(C. A. 6) ; and Kallaher 6 Mee, Inc., 87 NLRB 410.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY 473
There is no evidence, however, that Hutcherson threatened any employees with
economic reprisal if they engaged in union activities.
6. Fletcher Price 47
Fletcher Price Is shift foreman in the weave room on the second shift. The
complaint alleges that he interrogated employees concerning their union mem-
bership, activities, and sympathies during October and November 1949; and
threatened employees with economic reprisal on November 7, 1949, if they became
interested in or joined the Union.
Approximately a month after October 27, 1949, Price asked employee Albertis
Clark if he belonged to the Union. Clark did not answer. Price then asked
Clark where his button was, and Clark replied that he did not have one. Price
remarked : "If I had a button I wouldn't be ashamed to wear it," adding that
"if it was anything besides the damn C. I. O. it would be all right." He asked
Clark if he had attended a union meeting, and Clark replied that he had not.
Price then told Clark that if the mill became organized the employees would be
denied their rest period and would not have the privilege of leaving their jobs
except to go to the toilet. Price also asked employee Melton Dismuke if he had
taken another employee to a union meeting. Dismuke admitted that he had done
so. Price then told Dismuke that he knew Dismuke had done so, adding: "You
better not go down there any more." By such conduct, Price not only illegally
interrogated Clark and Dismuke with respect to their union activities, but also
threatened them with economic reprisal if they continued in such activities.
Moreover, Price asked Louis Bishop, an employee working under his supervision,
how he felt about the Union. Bishop replied that if the Union organized the mill
and the Respondent recognized the Union, he would have to join it, but that was
the only way "they could make me join it." By questioning Bishop with respect
to his union sympathies, Price committed a further violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
7. C. D. Turner
C. D. Turner is overseer of the weave room, beamer room, and slasher room.
The complaint alleges that he interrogated employees concerning their union
membership, activities, and sympathies on November 7, 1949, February 15 and 19,
March 10, and April 15, 1950.
Alton Cook, a beamer, testified that he had attended a union meeting on Sunday,
November 6, 1949. On the following day, November 7, Turner asked him : "How
was the meeting Sunday?" Cook replied : "It was a pretty good meeting."
Turner then asked : "Did you know anyone out of the weave room?" Cook re-
sponded : "I didn't pay special attention to who was there." Turner testified
that on a Friday, he had heard some of the beamers mention a union meeting to
be held, and that they believed they would attend. On the following Monday,
Turner heard several of the beamers, including Cook, talking about the meeting
which had been held, and one stated that he had not attended because his car
had broken down. Turner turned to Cook and asked : "Cook, did you go?"
When Cook replied that he had attended, Turner asked : "Was there a very good
crowd there?" Cook responded : "Yeah, pretty good bunch." Turner admitted
that, in questioning Cook about his attendance at the union meeting, he was
knowingly violating Mangum's instructions, described above. Under either
Cook's or Turner's version of this conversation, it is clear that Turner illegally
interrogated Cook with respect to his union activities, in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
27 The findings of fact contained in this subsection are based upon the credible and uncon-
tradicted testimony of employees Clark , Dismuke, and Bishop . Price did not testify.
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4
Employee Whit Holloway testified that his wife had been working for River-
side Mill. He further testified that Turner asked him if he had heard his wife
say anything about the Union organizing the Riverside Mill Holloway replied
that he had beard his wife talking about it, but that he did not know anything
about it. Turner then asked if Holloway had heard the Union's radio broad-
casts. Holloway could not recall his response. About 2 weeks or a month later,
Turner came to Holloway and said : "Boy, didn't you say you didn't believe in
the C. I. O.?" Holloway replied that he had. Turner then asked: "Don't your
buddy belong to it?" Holloway asked Turner who he meant. Turner replied
that he meant Robert Davis 28 Holloway stated that he did not know about
Davis' membership in the Union, that this was the first time he had heard'of it.
Turner then inquired if Holloway was a union member, and Holloway denied that
he was. Turner laughed and went away. On direct examination, Holloway
placed these conversations as having taken place in April or May 1950. On
cross-examination, -however, Holloway testified that the first conversation with
.Turner occurred "about a year, maybe, or better" before the hearing, which
would make it prior to December 5, 1949. He further testified that approximately
'a year before the hearing, he had asked Turner to give his wife a job. Turner
,testified that approximately in December 1949, Holloway asked him to give
his wife a job, mentioning that his wife was working at Riverside Mill. Turner
said : "I understand they have had some trouble down there " Holloway replied :
."That's right, but I think it is cleared up down there." Turner told him that
.if he had an opening, he would consider hiring Holloway's wife. He denied
that he had questioned Holloway about a union being organized at Riverside
'Mill, that he had asked Holloway what he thought about a union at Riverside
Mill, or that there was any, discussion concerning unions during the course of
the conversation. He further denied that he had asked whether Holloway
listened to the Union's radio broadcasts, or that he had questioned Holloway
concerning his belief in the Union or Davis' union membership. Holloway's
testimony concerning these conversations, with Turner was vague, and his
memory at times was faulty. I therefore credit Turner's testimony, as the more
accurate version of these occurrences. Accordingly, I find that Turner's con-
versations with Holloway contained no element of interference, restraint, or
.coercion, nor did they in any way constitute illegal interrogation with respect to
union activities.
Employee Richmond Dunn testified that-in April 1950 he was at the Coca-Cola
machine with Turner, and Turner said to him : "I heard that the boys, Whit
and Roberts" and Johnnie and you boys up there '[are] in the Union." Dunn
told Turner that he did not know anything about the Union, but Turner re-
sponded : "Don't tell me no damn lie." Turner then asked what Dunn intended
,to do when he was approached to join the Union, and Dunn answered: "Well,
,Mr. Turner, "I don't know anything about [the] Union. I don't believe I want
to fool with it." Turner replied : "That's right." Turner flatly denied that he
had ever had, any discussion with Dunn concerning the Union, and specifically
denied asking Dunn whether or not Holloway or Davis had joined the Union.
His denial in this respect is not credited. It is therefore found that Turner
illegally interrogated Dunn with respect to his union membership and that of
his fellow employees.
Employee James Thompkins testified that in June 1950, Turner asked him
If he belonged to the Union, and he replied that he did not. Turner then stated
28 Davis is an employee of the Respondent.
29 This referred to employees Holloway and Davis.
t
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY 475
that he had done the best thing, and asked Thompkins if Arthur Hammond and
Willard Thompkins a0 belonged to the Union. When Thompkins answered that
he did not know, Turner told him to find out and let him know. Thompkins
did not reply. After this conversation, Thompkins made no effort to ascertain
if Hammond and Willard Thompkins were members of the Union, or to report
back to Turner. Although Turner denied that he had had any conversation
with Thompkins about the Union, or that he had asked him whether he belonged
to the Union or whether Arthur Hammond and Willard Thompkins were union
members, his denial in this respect is not credited. It is therefore found that
in June 1950, Turner interrogated Thompkins with respect to his union member-
ship and that of other employees. Such interrogation was violative of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act "
8. Fred Green aZ
Fred Green is shift foreman in the lower %veave room on the second shift,
under Overseer Turner. The complaint alleges that Green interrogated em-
ployees concerning their union membership, activities, and sympathies during
October and November 1949, and threatened employees with economic reprisal
on November 7, 1949, if they became interested in or joined the Union.
Green and his wife had been friendly with Lee Hayden, his wife Alberta
Hayden, and his brother George Hayden for a long period of time. The
friendly relationship between the Greens and Haydens still existed at the time
of the hearing. The Haydens worked on the third shift, Lee and George as
loom fixers and Alberta as a slash hand ; at the time in question, none of them
was under Green's supervision. During this period, Green's wife was also work-
ing on the third shift and rode to and from work with Alberta and Lee Hayden.
On a Saturday morning in the fall of 1949, following the end of the third
shift at about 7 a. m., Mrs. Green rode home from work as usual with Alberta
and Lee Hayden. The Haydens and Mrs. Green entered the Greens' house,
where they found Mr. Green. They all sat at the kitchen table, the Greens
eating breakfast and the Haydens drinking coffee. During the Haydens' visit,
which lasted from 20 to 30 minutes, all four were present in the kitchen. The
evidence is conflicting with respect to what was said.
Alberta Hayden testified that, as she was entering the mill to go to work prior
to 11 p. m. on the previous evening, she met Green, who was just coming off
work. Green asked her to come to his house the next morning, as he wanted to
talk to her. The following morning she and her husband went to the Greens'
house. Green told the Haydens that he had heard they had joined the Union and
asked them if it were true. They replied that they had not joined the Union.
Green then said that Turner had heard that the Haydens had joined the Union
and was going to discharge them and that he, Green, "had had to do some talk-
ing" for them. He advised them that if they wanted to keep their jobs, they
should talk to Turner on the following Monday morning. Green then asked the
Haydens if "Yank" n had said anything to them about the Union, and Alberta
80 Arthur Hammond (also referred to in the record as Arthur Hanson) is James Thomp-
kins' stepfather and Willard Thompkins (also referred to in the record as Willard Thomp-
son) is James Thompkins' brother. Both are employees of the Respondent.
az I do not determine whether or not the conversation between Turner and Thompkins
was sufficient to support an allegation that Turner solicited Thompkins to spy upon union
members and their activities and to report back to him, as the complaint contains no such
allegation.
az Also referred to in the record as "Booty" Green.
This was the nickname of Juanita Boatwright (or Boatrite), an employee of the
Respondent.
476, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hayden replied that she had not. Green added : "We got people working right
there with you all giving us all the information that we need." Alberta Hayden
further testified that, although Green addressed his questions to both of the
Haydens, she did all the talking for herself and her husband.
Green testified that on this particular Saturday morning, his wife had invited
the Haydens to come into their home for coffee. According to Green, when the
Haydens came in, Alberta Hayden "up and told everything she knew about the
Union." Specifically , Alberta Hayden stated that there was talk that the
Haydens belonged to the Union, but that they knew nothing about it and did not
want to know anything about it. The Haydens added that they had almost
starved during a strike in 1934, and that this had taught them a lesson. Green
said nothing about the Union , and the conversation then turned to hunting and
fishing. Green denied that he had ever requested either of the Haydens to come
to his house , that he had asked the Haydens about their union membership, that
he had mentioned Turner, that he had stated that he had to talk for the Haydens,
or that "Yank" was mentioned in the conversation . Furthermore , Green denied
intimating that the Respondent or Turner or Green had any information con-
cerning the union membership of individual employees.
Mrs. Green testified that this particular Saturday was a cold day, and that she
had invited the Haydens into her home for coffee, as a "friendly gesture more or
less." After some discussion about the weather, Alberta Hayden said to Green :
"Booty, have you heard about the talk about the Union?" Green replied : "No,
Alberta, I haven't." Alberta Hayden then remarked : "Well, I will tell' you one
thing right now, I definitely don't like the Union. My people almost starved
before and I want nothing to do with it." Mrs. Green remarked that she was
too young to remember anything about that. According to Mrs. Green, Green
did not continue with the conversation , allowing Alberta Hayden to do all the
talking. Gradually the conversation turned to fishing, hunting, and problems
concerning work at the mill . Mrs. Green denied that Turner was mentioned,
that Green asked the Haydens any questions about the Union, that Green said
that the Respondent had any source of information , or that Green had said he
had to "talk for" the Haydens.
Lee Hayden testified that, on the previous evening just before the 11 p. m.
change of shift, Green had asked him to stop by his home . At the close of the
shift the following morning at 7 a. in., the two Haydens, Mrs . Green , and Lee
Hayden's sister drove from the mill to the Greens ' house. Alberta and Lee
Hayden and Mrs. Green went inside, but Lee Hayden's sister waited outside.
Green said that he had heard that the Haydens had joined the Union , but Lee
Hayden replied that they had not. Green then stated that if they had, they
should get out. He explained that Turner was going to discharge the Haydens,
but that he (Green ) had talked for them, and he suggested that Lee Hayden see
Turner. Lee Hayden replied : "I am not going to see Mr . Turner because Mr.
Turner sees me every morning in the mill." Green said : "All right," then in-
quired if Lee Hayden knew of any employees who belonged to the Union, stating
that he knew that "Yank . . . was mixed up with it." He asked Lee Hayden
if "Yank" had talked to him about the Union, and Lee Hayden replied that she
had not. Green further stated "he had someone in there getting all the informa-
tion" and that he was supposed to find out who belonged to the Union. Mrs,
Green, who was present during the entire conversation , said nothing. Lee
Hayden further testified that no subject other than the Union was discussed.
From my observation of the demeanor of the various witnesses involved,
I adopt the version of Green and Mrs. Green as a more accurate version than
that of Lee and Alberta Hayden . Accordingly , I find that the evidence fails
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY 477
to establish that Green engaged in any conduct violative of the Act with respect
,to either Lee or Alberta Hayden.
On the following day, a Sunday, George Hayden visited the Greens' home.
The evidence as to what occurred is conflicting.
'George Hayden testified that in the middle of the previous week, he had re-
ceived a message that Mr. Green wanted to see him. He could not recall who
had given him this message. Several days later, on a Sunday, George Hayden
went to the Greens' home: Green asked him if he belonged to the Union and
he replied that he did not. Green then said : "Well, if you don't belong to it,
I wish you wouldn't join." George Hayden testified that no other person was
present when this conversation took place. Green testified that he was still
in bed on the Sunday morning when George Hayden came to his home. Green
rose and joined George Hayden, who said : "I hear there is some talk about us
belonging to the Union." Green replied : "I don't know nothing about it,
George." George Hayden then remarked : "Well, I want to let you know I don't
belong to it and I won't have nothing to do with it." He denied that he had
asked George Hayden whether he belonged to the Union, or that he had told
George Hayden that he wished he would not join. He further testified that
Mrs. Green and Tom Hayden, George Hayden's brother, were present during
this conversation. Mrs. Green testified that on a Sunday morning following
the Saturday on which the Haydens had been to her home, George Hayden came
to see Green while Green was still in bed. George Hayden was accompanied
by his brother, Tom Hayden. The two Hayden men sat down with the Greens
while the Greens ate breakfast. George Hayden said: "Booty, I want to tell you
that I have heard a lot of talk in the mill about the Union. You know, I don't
like the Union at all." He added that "there was a lot of suffering going
on." According to Mrs. Green, Tom Hayden also "put in a few words." Green
replied that it did not matter to him how other people felt, that it was their
privilege to do as they pleased. Mrs. Green denied that Green had asked
George Hayden whether or not he belonged to the Union, stating that George
and Tom Hayden had volunteered the information that they did not belong
to the Union. The conversation then turned to hunting, fishing, and loom fixing."
From my observation of the witnesses, I adopt the version of Green and Mrs.
Green as the more accurate account of this occurrence. Accordingly, I find
that Green did not interrogate George Hayden with respect to his union
activities.
9. Steeley K. burden
Steeley K. Durden is shift foreman in the beamer and slasher room on the
second shift. The-complaint alleges that on November 7, 1949, he interrogated
employees concerning their union membership, activities, and sympathies.
Cook testified that in November 1949, on the same day that Turner questioned
him with respect to his attendance at a union meeting the previous day, as de-
scribed above, burden asked Cook : "Did they cut up much at the meeting?"
Cook replied that he did not know what burden was talking about. Durden
asked: "Did they promise you more money?" Cook replied: "I didn't hear any-
thing about any money." Durden then asked : "Was there very many there?"
and Cook replied: "Pretty good house full." Durden denied that he had had any
conversation with Cook about the Union, or that he asked Cook if the employees
had "cut up" in the union meeting. His denial is not credited. Accordingly, I
find that Durden illegally interrogated Cook with respect to his union activities. '
84 Tom Hayden did not testify.
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
10. Hershel Croy °6
Hershel Croy is assistant overseer in the weave room, beamer room; and
slasher room. The complaint alleges that he questioned employees concerning
their union membership, activities, and sympathies on December 20, 1949, and
in January, February, and March 1950.
In the fall of 1949 Croy asked employee Jack Fallaw if he had a union button,
and Fallaw replied that he did not. It is therefore found that Croy illegally
interrogated Fallaw with respect to his union membership.
11. George Chambers 8°
George Chambers is foreman of the dye house. The complaint alleges that he
interrogated employees concerning their union membership, activities, and sym-
pathies during November and December 1949, on February 27, 1950, and during
March, April, and May 1950; threatened employees with economic reprisal during
November and December 1949, and on February 27, 1950, if they engaged in ac-
tivities on behalf of the Union ; and solicited employees to keep union members
and their activities under surveillance on February 27, 1950. '
Between Christmas 1949 and May 23, 1950, Chambers asked James Johnson,
an employee working under his supervision, how the Union was getting along,
and if he had heard anything about it. Johnson replied that he had not heard
anything about it. Chambers remarked that he did not think the Union
was any good because although it had attempted to organize the employees at
Riverside Mill, the manager of Riverside Mill had refused to sign any contract.
Chambers then asked Johnson if he knew of any of the employees who belonged
to the Union, and Johnson replied that he did not, but that he would find out if
any of the employees had joined. Following this conversation, Johnson asked
several of the employees if they belonged to the Union, and told them "not to
bother with it." About 2 days later, Johnson reported to Chambers that none
of the employees to whom he had spoken were members of the Union. About
1 or 2 months later, Chambers again inquired of Johnson how the Union was
getting along. Johnson replied that he did not know, that he thought it was
"dead," and that he had not heard anything about it.
It is beyond question that Chambers interrogated Johnson with regard to his
union membership and that of other employees. It is true that Chambers did
not directly request Johnson to ascertain information with respect to the union
membership of other employees and report this information back to him. He
did, however, by interrogating Johnson with respect to the union membership of
other employees, indicate his interest in the subject. This fact was not lost to
Johnson. While the original suggestion that Johnson obtain this information
came from Johnson, he was merely putting into words his understanding of what
Chambers wanted him to do. By showing his interest In the subject matter, by
remaining silent in the face of Johnson's suggestion that he make reports, and
by his willingness to accept such reports, Chambers in effect encouraged John-
son to spy upon the union activities and membership of his fellow employees. It
is found that such conduct is violative of the Act $' However, Chambers' state-
ment that he did not think the Union was "any good" is a mere expression of
opinion falling within the realm of protected free speech. Nor does the record
contain any evidence that Chambers, as alleged in the complaint, threatened
81 The findings of fact contained In this subsection are based on the uncontradicted testi-
mony of employee Fallaw. Croy did not testify.
86 The findings of fact contained in this subsection are based upon the undenied testi-
mony of employee James Johnson. Chambers did not testify.
87 Compare S. H. Camp and Company, 60 NLRB 263, 273.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY 479
employees with discharge or other economic reprisal if they engaged in union.
activities.
12. S. M. McKeown °B
S. M. McKeown is assistant superintendent of the Sibley Mill, in charge of the
dye house, finishing plant, and cloth room. The complaint alleges that he ques-
tioned employees concerning their union membership, activities, and sympathies
during February and April 1950 and on June 14, 1950.
Sometime after Christmas 1949, employee Edgar Johnson was talking to
another employee. McKeown came up to them and remarked that he had heard
that the employees were trying to form a union. Johnson replied that he knew
nothing about it. McKeown then stated that he could not tell them what to do,
that they should suit themselves, and that he thought they all had pretty good
jobs. Johnson agreed that they had pretty good jobs. It is found that Mc-
Keown's opening remark, although not phrased as a question, was calculated
to elicit information with regard to Johnson's union sympathies and the current
state of organizational activities, and therefore constituted illegal interrogation
proscribed by the Act89
13. John Henry Tullis d0
John Henry Tullis is shift foreman in the dye house. The complaint alleges
that he interrogated employees concerning their union membership, activities,
and sympathies during April and May 1950; and, during the same period, threat-
ened employees with economic reprisal if they became interested in or joined
the Union.
Sometime between the two conversations which James Johnson had with Cham-
bers, as described above, Tullis asked Johnson if Jessie Williams and John Stur-
geon 41 belonged to the Union. Johnson replied that neither Williams nor Stur-
geon was a member of the Union. It is therefore found that Tullis interrogated
Johnson with respect to the union membership of Williams, another employee.
Nothing in the record, however, sustains the allegation of the complaint that
Tullis threatened economic reprisal against any employee for union activities.
14. Barney Hollingsworth
Barney Hollingsworth is shift foreman on the second shift in the spool room.
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that on October 31, 1949,
he interrogated employees concerning their union membership, activities, and
sympathies.
It will be recalled that on October 31, 1949, Henry Kimberly came to work
wearing a union button. Hollingsworth approached Kimberly and asked : "Kim-
berly, what kind of button is that you have got on?" Kimberly explained that
it was a union button. Clearly, Hollingsworth was merely evincing impulsive
curiosity. It is therefore found that this evidence is insufficient to support the
allegation of the complaint that Hollingsworth illegally interrogated Kimberly. 13
98 The findings of fact contained in this subsection are based upon the uncontradicted
testimony of employee Edgar Johnson. McKeown did not testify.
ae Sohso Pipe Line Company, 75 NLRB 858, 859.
40 The findings of fact contained in this subsection are based upon the undenied testimony
of employee James Johnson. Tullis did not testify
u Williams was an employee of the Respondent. Sturgeon had previously been employed
by the Respondent, but was not so employed at the time of this conversation.
u The findings of fact contained in this subsection are based upon the credited and
Undisputed testimony of employee Henry Kimberly. Hollingsworth did not testify.
63 Compare United States Gypsum Company, 93 NLRB 966.
i.
480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
15. Conclusions as to interference, restraint, and coercion
It is found that the Respondent, from October 1949 to June 1950, interrogated
its employees concerning their union membership, activities, and sympathies,
and those of other employees. This finding is based upon the following con-
duct of supervisors : Kirkland's interrogation of Dempsey, Fordham, and Whis-
nant ; Gay's interrogation of Monday, Henry Kimberly, and McCarthy ; Hutcher-
son's interrogation of Washington ; Price's interrogation of Clark, Dismuke, and
Bishop; Turner's interrogation of Cook, Dunn, and Thompkins; Durden's in-
terrogation of Cook ; Croy's interrogation of Fallaw ; Chambers', interrogation
of James Johnson ; McKeown's interrogation of Edgar Johnson ; and Tullis'
interrogation of James Johnson.
It is further found that, during October and November 1949, the Respondent
threatened its employees with discharge and other economic reprisal if they
became interested in or joined the Union, or engaged in activities on behalf
of the Union. This finding is based upon the following conduct of supervisors :
Kirkland's warning to Fordham that he was being watched, his statement to
Whisnant concerning the work of slubber tenders, and his inference that the
Respondent could find a pretext for firing union adherents ; Gay's warning to
Monday and Henry Kimberly that they were not to solicit for the Union ;
Price's threat to Clark that if the Union came in, the employees would lose
their rest period, and his warning to Dismuke not to attend any more union
meetings.
It is further found that the Respondent, between October 1949 and May
1950, solicited employees to spy upon and keep under surveillance the union
members and their activities, and to report such activities to the Respondent.
This finding is based upon the following conduct of supervisors : Kirkland's
solicitation of Dempsey to spy ; Hunnicut's request that Brown spy ; and Cham-
bers' acceptance of James Johnson's offer to spy.
It is further found that the Respondent, during October 1949, promised bene-
fits to employees if they would refrain from becoming interested in or joining
the Union, or engaging in activities on behalf of the Union. This finding is
based upon Gay's remark to Brown that he could go far, and that Hunnicut
needed his aid.
It is further found that the above-described conduct of the Respondent con-
stitutes interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
It is also found that the conduct engaged in by Sedberry, Green, and Hol-
lingsworth did not constitute violations of the Act.
D. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Harding Kimberly 44
1. Sequence of events
Harding Kimberly began working for the Respondent in 1938 in the twister
room. About a year later, Kimberly was transferred to the spooler room and
later to the spinning room. In 1943, Kimberly quit the Respondent's employ
without notice to take a job elsewhere, but returned to the Respondent's mill
a few months later. He again left the Respondent's employ for an undis-
closed period of time, but returned to work for the Respondent in 1945. At
this time, Kimberly told Hunnicut that he was going to work steadily and was
"In the pleadings and throughout the hearing, this individual was referred to as, Harding
Kimberly. At the time he testified, he gave his name as James Kimberly, but said that,
he Leas the same Harding Kimberly involved in this case.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY 481
not going to quit without notice again, as he had done previously. He was
then employed as a filling doffer on the second shift.
In the summer of 1949, a group of doffers, with Kimberly and Thrift acting
as spokesmen, complained to Gay about their workload, and requested that
they be relieved of some of their frames.46 Gay replied : "Well, it can't be
done, not right now. Any of you all boys want your job better get back down
there on the damn thing." All of the employees then returned to work, except
Kimberly and Thrift. Kimberly told Gay that it would not be necessary for
him to go back to the job, because he knew that he was not able to performs
the work on all the frames assigned to him. Gay retorted : "Come in here.
I am going to fire you, anyway." He added that if Kimberly ever went out
the gate, he would never return as long as Gay worked in the mill. They-
entered Gay's office and Gay ordered Hunnicut to write a pass for Kimberly..
While Hunnicut was writing, Kimberly told Gay that he needed his job be-
cause he had a family to support. Gay replied that he did not care about any-
body else's family except his own. At this point, Thrift caught Kimberly by
the arm and said to him : "Let's go back to our job. I know you have got to
work and I have, too. We don't want to lose our job. The rest of them have
gone and we will go back and do the best we can with it." Heeding this plea,
Kimberly returned to work, as did Thrift. Immediately afterward, Hunnicut
reduced the doffers' workload by releasing one frame from each doffer.
When the Union first began to organize the Respondent's mill in September
1949, Kimberly was the first employee to join, and he agreed to work on the
organizing committee. He spoke to several employees about joining the Union-
About 2 weeks later, at the Union's first meeting, Kimberly was elected to the
organizing committee. He talked to "quite a few" of the employees about
joining the Union, and succeeded in persuading several to do so. Some of
these conversations took place in the mill, others outside the mill. This union,
activity took place prior to October 27, 1949.
On October 26, Kimberly worked as usual on the second shift. On that day,
Kimberly operated six frames running white filling and one frame-frame 22-
which ran blue filling. Frame 22 was the only frame in the spinning room that
day which ran blue filling. Although the shift did not normally end until 11
p. in, on this particular night the shift ended at 10 p in. and all the frames were
shut off at that time until the third shift commenced at 11 p. m 4e
Shortly after the start of the third shift at 11 p. in. on October 26, Clifford
Tanner, the shift foreman, noticed that frame 22 was not operating properly.
According to Tanner, the filling box near frame 22 contained bobbins on which
45 A frame is a machine designed to wind filling (thread) on empty bobbins or quills.
46 According to Kimberly, when he came to work that day, the filling box (a large wooden
box) containing bobbins wound with blue filling was almost full. Kimberly doffed (removed
filled quills from the frame and replaced them with empty ones) frame 22 within the first
hour, and emptied the filled bobbins into the filling box, completely filling the box. Accord-
ingly, this box was taken to the weave room and replaced by employee A. J Dickey, Jr.,
whose duty it was to remove full filling boxes Kimberly doffed frame 22 twice more prior
to 10 p in. that evening, and emptied the filled bobbins into the new filling box. As this.
did not fill the box, Kimberly left the partly full filling box by frame 22 for the third shift.
Dickey's testimony did not agree with that of Kimberly with respect to the removal off
full filling boxes. Dickey testified that at the beginning of the shift, he had placed' an
empty filling box near frame 22 for Kimberly, and that, at about 10 p m. that night when
the shift shut down, he had removed from frame 22 a filling box which was almost full,
and which contained bobbins wound with blue filling. He replaced this with an empty
filling box . Thus,, according to Dickey, there were no filled bobbins in the , box when. the
third shift began.
482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the filling was wound too high off the bottom.44 Accordingly, Tanner had the-
fixer adjust frame 22, after which it operated properly. Tanner then had the
box of defectively wound blue filling set aside, and wrote the following note which
he placed in Hunnicut's drawer:
10-27-49.48
MR. HUNNICUT,,
There is a box of 17 reg. blue that came off of frame 22 next to the
elevator.
The frame was running to (sic) high off the bottom. It should have been
pulled down on the bottom.
Thanks,
C. G. T.
When Hunnicut came to work on October 27, he found the above-quoted note
and the box of filling. Before his shift began at 3 p. in., Hunnicut examined
the bobbins in the box and found that the filling was improperly wound. Noting
that frame 22 was the only frame running blue filling, Hunnicut removed several
of the defectively wound bobbins from the filling box and showed them to Gay,
pointing out that Kimberly was the only doffer on his shift who had run blue
filling on the previous day.
Hunnicut told Gay that Kimberly was an experienced doffer who had been
instructed what to do if a frame made bad filling and had apparently disregarded
all instructions,49 adding that he thought Kimberly should be discharged. Gay
instructed Hunnicut to ask the fixer if he had been notified that frame 22 was out
of order, and to take whatever steps he considered necessary. Hunnicut asked
if, in Gay's opinion, discharge was the proper remedy. Gay replied that he
thought discharge would be appropriate, providing that the responsibility for the
bad work was determined. Hunnicut then spoke to Brown, the fixer, and in-
quired if Brown had been notified that frame 22 was not operating properly.
Brown replied that he knew nothing about the matter. At about 2: 50 p. in.,
'just prior to the start of the shift, Hunnicut showed the box of defectively wound
filling to Kimberly. Hunnicut told Kimberly that frame 22 was the only frame
in the mill which had been running blue filling, and that Kimberly had been
instructed to notify the fixer whenever a frame was not working properly. Kim-
berly denied making the defectively wound filling and disclaimed any knowledge
of its origin. Hunnicut replied that Kimberly had operated frame 22 on the
previous day, and that the defectively wound filling was in the box at 11 p. in.
,the previous night. Kimberly, however, remained steadfast in denying that he
had made the bad filling. Hunnicut then told Kimberly that he was discharged.
Kimberly remarked that he was glad he had not quit, but instead had been dis-
charged. Hunnicut replied that he, too, was glad that Kimberly had not quit.
Kimberly said that he knew why he was being discharged, and that it was not
because of the defectively wound filling. Hunnicut asked : "What do you think
the reason was?", but Kimberly did not reply. Hunnicut then said: "Well, if I
44 Improper winding of filling on the bobbins was due either to a lack of adjustment in
the frame, or the failure of the doffer to wind the traverse (a rack which controls the
manner in which the thread is wound on the bobbins) completely down. If such bobbins
were used in the looms, the result would be mispicks (defects) in the finished cloth; if
not used in the looms, the yarn on the bobbins would have to be rewound and sold at a loss.
41 Tanner testified without contradiction that because his shift commenced at 11 p.m.,
he customarily dated his papers the following day.
49 Under the Respondent's rules, if a frame is not winding filling properly on the bobbins,
the doffer is required to report this fact to the fixer. The fixer examines the frame,
and determines whether or not to allow it to continue running. If the fixer decides that
the frame should be stopped, the frame is shut down and the fixer makes an adjustment
before the frame is run again.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY A83
.am discharging you for something else, I don't know what it is, Harding. There
is the filling. I have told you how I came to know that it was your filling."
Hunnicut gave Kimberly a slip for his pay, and instructed him to go to the pay-
master and draw his wages. Later, Hunnicut reported to Gay that the fixer had
not been notified that frame 22 was out of order and that he had discharged
Kimberly for running the bad filling. On the same day, Hunnicut submitted a
memorandum to Gay, which read :
10/27/49.
Mr. GAY,
I discharged Harding Kimberly this afternoon for making bad work. He
doffed frame No. 22 several doffs, or long enough to make a box of bad filling.
This is the only frame of 17 reg. blue filling in the room. There was a doff
on the frame at 11 p. m. and a box full at the end of the frame.
This employee and all others have been talked to about bad work.
Thanks,
J. E. HUNNICUT.
The notice of separation supplied Kimberly by the Respondent indicates that
he was discharged "for making bad work."
About a week or two after his discharge, Kimberly went to the Respondent's
personnel office to file an application for work. While he was there, several
other applicants were told that the Respondent was not hiring any doffers.
Overhearing these statements, Kimberly left without filing an application. On'
his way out, he met Gay and asked Gay about returning to his job. Gay
suggested that Kimberly file an application in. the personnel office. Kimberly
replied that he had just been to the personnel office, and that no applications
were being taken for doffers. He added : "I know the reason you all fired me.
It wasn't what you all said it was. There is going to be something done about
it." Gay asked: "What is going to be done about it?" Kimberly replied:
"Well, the Government is going to take a hand in it." Gay answered : "I
didn't know they had anything to do with people getting fired in here. We can
fire anybody we want to. Anyway, I didn't fire you." Kimberly asked : "Who
fired me?" Gay replied: "Mr. Hunnicut . Second bands can fire anybody they
want to." Gay added that Kimberly could see " liigher authorities" if he desired
to do so. Accordingly, Kimberly visited Frank Dennis, the Respondent's gen-
eral manager . Kimberly told Dennis that he had allegedly been discharged for
making bad work, but that actually he had not made any bad work. Dennis
replied that he had Gay's record to guide him, that his hands were tied, and that
there was nothing that he could do about the situation.
2. Contentions of the parties and conclusions
The General Counsel maintains that Kimberly was actually discharged be-
cause of the prominent part which he played in union activities, and that the
alleged bad work was merely a pretext for his discharge. In support of this
contention, the General Counsel introduced evidence tending to prove that
Kimberly was among the best doffers in the mill, whose work had not previously
been criticized, and that other doffers who had performed work as poor or worse
than that which had resulted in Kimberly's discharge had merely been repri-
manded. The Respondent, conversely, contends that Kimberly was discharged,
not because of any union activities, but because he either negligently or delib-
erately doffed defectively wound filling from frame 22 at least three times, and
started the frame a fourth time, without notifying the fixer that the machine
11
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was not working properly. 60 In this connection, the, Respondent introduced
evidence tending to prove that a quality drive was under way at Sibley Mill
at the time that Kimberly was discharged, and that other doffers were dis-
charged for similar offenses at or near the time of Kimberly's discharge.
No useful purpose would be served by a detailed discussion and analysis of
the evidence regarding the bad work alleged to have been performed by Kim-
berly. The fatal defect in the General Counsel's position is the failure of the
record to indicate that, prior to Kimberly's discharge, the Respondent had
any knowledge of his union membership or activities. While it is true that the
Respondent knew that the Union was attempting to organize its employees,
it should be recalled that the Respondent employed approximately 900 employees
at the time. In such a large plant, it cannot be presumed that an employer
possesses knowledge of the identity of the most active union adherents. Any
such knowledge must be proven. However, Kimberly was never subjected to
interrogation with regard to his union activities by any supervisor. Nor is
there any evidence that, prior to October 27, any employee was questioned with
respect to Kimberly's union membership or activities. Indeed, Kimberly testi-
fied that he did not tell either Gay or Hunnicut of his union activities, and that
he could not remember whether any supervisor was present when he solicited
other employees to join the Union.
The General Counsel maintains that the incident in the summer of 1949, de-
scribed above, can reasonably be interpreted to indicate that the Respondent
looked upon Kimberly "as a natural leader of the men in any concerted activi-
ties." I find no merit in this contention. Even though Kimberly acted as one
of the spokesmen for the group at that time, it does not necessarily follow that
the Respondent would thereafter assume that he was the leader of any self-
organizational activities among the employees. The General Counsel also con-
tends that the Respondent's knowledge of Kimberly's union activities is shown
by the testimony of witnesses Monday, McCarthy, and Turner. However, the
testimony of these three witnesses contains nothing indicating that any of the
supervisors knew of Kimberly's union membership or activities. The most that
can be said for the testimony of these witnesses is that it indicated that the
Respondent had knowledge that a union had been formed in the mill
It will be recalled that, on October 31, certain employees wore union buttons
in the plant, and spoke to Hunnicut. According to Thrift, the employees told
Hunnicut that they knew that Kimberly had been discharged because of his union
activities and not because of his work, "because we knew, we were too old hands
for that, we had been there too long." Hunnicut replied : "Go back to your jobs."
This falls far short of constituting an admission by Hunnicut that Kimberly was
discharged because of his union activities. In my opinion, Hunnicut was under
no obligation to deny such an accusation, particularly since it came from em-
ployees under his supervision.
Oii the record before me, no inference that the Respondent somehow acquired -
knowledge of Kimberly's union membership and activities is warranted. A con-
clusion cannot be justified by, or founded upon, mere suspicion or speculation.
The burden rests upon the General Counsel to provide affirmatively that such was
50 Doffers are paid according to the amount of filling run through their frames A
hank clock" is attached to each frame for the purpose of measuring the number of
hanks (840 yards) run. Readings of the hank clocks are made at the end of each shift
and recorded on a "hank sheet." Thus, the: doffer is earning money as long as the frame
is running filling, whether or not the filling is winding properly on the bobbins. The
doffer is not making money, however, when the frame is shut down for repair. The
Respondent argues that Kimberly would therefore have reduced his pay if he had re-
ported to the fixer that frame 22 was not operating properly.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY 485
the fact 63 In my opinion, this burden has not been sustained. An essential ele-
ment of discrimination-knowledge by the Respondent that Kimberly had joined
the Union or was active on its behalf-has not been established.53 Accordingly„
it is found that there is no substantial, reliable, or probative evidence sufficient
to support the allegation that the Respondent discharged Harding Kimberly on
October 27, 1949, and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate him, because of
his membership in or activities on behalf of the Union 63
E. The discriminatory discharge of Alton Cook
1. The duties of a beamer
In order better to understand the events related below, it is necessary to ex-
amine the functions and duties of beamers.
Cloth is manufactured of two components-the filling, or woof, which is the
crosswise thread, and the warp, or lengthwise thread. The warp comes to the
beamer as a large ball containing numerous separate strands of yarn in the
form of a single loose rope. This is known as a ball warp. The strands of yarn
are separated by an acetate rayon string called a lease, normally placed at 2,000
yard intervals. Occasionally, however, a lease is placed only 1,000 yards from
the previous lease: Prior to beaming, the ball warp is dyed. Because acetate
rayon resists cotton dyes, leases remain white even after the dyeing process.
After dyeing, the ball warp is run through a beaming machine, operated by a
beamer. The object of this process is to separate the ball warp into individual
strands of yarn ranging in number from 200 to 375. The beaming machine con-
sists essentially of a rear drum and a large spool, approximately 32 feet apart.
Mounted above the large spool is a comb or rake containing the same number
of separations as there are strands in the warp. The strands pass from the ball
warp, around the drum, through the comb, and are finally wound on the spool.
The beamer operates the machine by keeping his foot on a pedal, which controls
the power. When the beamer removes his foot from the pedal, the machine
slows down to a stop within 3 to 5 yards. The machine is also equipped with
hand brakes, which the beamer uses when he desires to stop the machine more
rapidly. The brakes can stop the machine within 3 or 4 feet, but if applied
too suddenly may break fine yarn."
The beamer constantly watches the warp for the appearance of leases. Some-
times he can see the lease as it goes around the drum, but he can almost always
see it as it leaves the drum and travels toward the comb. When the lease ap-
proaches the comb, the beamer stops the machine and checks the yarn to see that
all the individual strands are in line and going through the comb properly.
After this has been done, the beamer cuts the lease, pulls it out, and discards it.
He then starts the machine again and continues as before.
If the beamer does not stop the machine before the lease hits the comb, dam-
age to the strands results. The extent of this damage depends, to some extent„
upon the type of yarn being beamed and the speed with which the machine is
operating when the lease hits the comb. In any event, the result is likely to be
a number of broken strands. Where the damage is extensive, it is sometimes
21B & Z Hosiery Products Co, 85 NLRB 633, 640, enforced 180 F. 2d 1021 (C. A 3).
See also W. C. Nabors Company, 89 NLRB 538.
52 Olympic Luggage Corporation, 78 NLRB 953
53I deem it unnecessary to pass upon the Respondent's contention that Kimberly was
"discharged'for'cause," within the meaning of Section 10 (c) of the Act.
51 If the brakes are not working, it is possible for the beamer to stop the machine with
his hand However, this involves risk of injury and is contrary to safety regulations.
974176-52-vol 96-32
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
necessary for the beamer to turn over the ball warp and start beaming from
the other end.
From the beaming operation, the warp goes to the slashing machines, where
it is starched. Attached to each roll of.warp received at the slashing machines
,is a tag indicating the name of the beamer who operated the beaming machine.
Any defects in the beamed warp may cause difficulty when the warp goes through
the slashing process. Consequently, the beamer is required to indicate on the
tag any relatively serious defect. This alerts the slasher operator, so that he
can slow the slashing machine in advance and thus reduce the amount of damage
resulting from the defect.
2. Sequence of events
Alton Cook began working for the Respondent in 1942 as a painter, but quit
-the same year. He returned in 1945 and was employed operating winders.
-About 8 months later he was transferred to the beamer room as a learner, on
-the first shift. After 6 months as a learner, Cook became a full-fledged beamer.
Early in 1949 he was transferred to the weave room, but after about 6 months
there, he returned to the beamer room as a beamer on the second shift, at his
gown request '
Cook joined the Union about October 4, 1949. He attended two union meet-
ings, and was a member of the Union's organizing committee. In this capacity,
he talked to several employees, outside the mill, about joining the Union. As
has been previously found, Cook was interrogated with respect to his union
activities on November 7, 1949, by both Turner and Durden. While Turner was
talking to Cook on November 7, Cook put a union button on his shirt, and
-continued to wear it during the remainder of his employment. He was the
,only employee on his shift in his department who wore a union button.
3. Cook's discharge
On November 9, Cook beamed the bottom 10,000 yards of a 16,000 yard warp.
The top 6,000 yards was completed by another beamer. On November 10, Cook
came to work on -the second shift, as usual. The circumstances surrounding
his discharge on that date are in dispute, and the testimony of various wit-
nesses with respect thereto will therefore be set out separately.
According to Cook's testimony, at about 6 p. in. Durden took Cook to a slash-
ing machine and showed him a warp on which approximately 5 of the 290
strands were crossed. Indicating the defective beaming, Durden said : "This
is your warp. What about it?" Cook looked at the tag and found that it
showed that he had beamed the bottom 10,000 yards, and that the top 6,000 yards
had been run by another beamer. The notation was not in Cook's handwriting.
The bad work was only about 4,000 yards from the top, and therefore not in the
part of the warp beamed by Cook. Cook told Durden that he had not written
his name on the tag. Durden cut off the defective strands, straightened them,
and tied them together again. According to Cook, this adjustment "didn't take
but a few minutes." It was then possible for the slasher operator to continue
running the warp through the slashing machine. Cook returned to his work,
beaming fine blue warp. At approximately 7: 50 p. in. Cook hit a lease against
the comb of his beaming machine. As a result, enough strands were broken in
the warp to require Cook to turn over the ball warp and start beaming from
65 During the period from 1945 to 1949, Cook's rate of pay increased from 40 cents to
91.13 per hour. However, this increase was due to general wage increases granted to
all employees in the mill..
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY 487-
the other end of the ball. Cook turned over the ball warp himself, without any
aid. About 10 minutes later, after he had turned over the ball warp, burden
came by, saw what had happened, and discharged him. Cook further testified
that he hit the lease because the brakes were defective, and because the lease
came up earlier than he expected 66 He admitted, however, that he saw the
lease at least 15 feet from the comb and that the beaming machine would stop
in less than 15 feet without the use of the brakes, if the operator merely took
his foot off the pedal.
Jessie Johns, a slasher operator on the second shift, testified that on Novem-
ber 10 he was running some warp through the slasher and found a place in
which 200 or more strands were torn. There was no warning on the tag. Ac-
cording to Johns, the defective beaming appeared after approximately 8,000
yards had been run, in that portion which the tag showed had been beamed by
Cook. As the warp could not be run through the slashing machine, Johns
stopped the machine and went in search of burden. Meanwhile, Turner came
by and Johns showed him the defective beaming. burden and Turner then
went away and returned a little later with Cook. Johns saw Durden and
Turner showing Cook the defective warp, but did not hear what was said. On
November 11, Johns ran through his slashing machine some warp which had
been beamed by Cook on November 10. He found a section of the warp which
was broken "all the way across," where Cook had hit a lease the previous
-day. Again, there was no warning on the tag. Johns worked for a period
of 8 hours trying to untangle the broken strands, but never succeeded in
doing so.
Turner testified that on November 10 at about 3: 30 p. in., he passed the slash-
ing machine operated by Johns, and noticed from 25 to 35 broken strands in the
warp. Upon inquiry, Turner was told that Cook had done the beaming on this
warp and that Johns had not been able to run it through the slashing machine.
'Turner further testified that the tag did not indicate any warning of broken
threads, and that approximately 8,000 yards of warp had been run through the
slashing machine when the defective work appeared. Turner then brought Cook
and Durden to the slashing machine and showed them the defective beaming.
burden told Turner that he had had Cook to the slashing machine to show him
the defective warp a few minutes before. Turner told Cook he had been making
bad work and "it looked like he was getting worse," and warned him that he
would have to improve his work or be discharged. Turner then went back with
Cook to Cook's beaming machine and watched him beam. At about 8 p. in., Croy,
the assistant overseer, notified Turner that Cook had hit a lease, and that Durden
recommended discharging him. Turner replied that Cook should be discharged.57
Durden testified that on November 10, Johns reported that he had a warp
that could not be run through the slashing machine. Durden examined the
defective warp and found that from 100 to 200 strands were broken. According
to Durden, 8,000 or 9,000 yards of warp had been run through the slashing ma-
chine before the defective beaming was reached, thus it was in the part which
Cook had beamed. Durden called Cook to the slashing machine, showed him
the defective warp, and told him that he could not put up with that kind of
work. Cook then returned to his work. About 10 or 15 minutes later, Turner
saw the defective beaming,•called Cook to the slashing machine, and warned him
that he could not have that kind of work, and that if he did not improve he
would be discharged. Later, Durden passed Cook's beaming machine and found
all the strands broken and the ball warp turned bottom upward. Cook had turned
se According to Cook's testimony, a lease normally appeared every 10 or 11 minutes,
but this particular lease came up only 6 or 7 minutes after the previous one.
57 Croy did not testify.
488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
over the ball warp himself, and had done so unevenly, resulting in a tangle. It
was obvious to Durden that Cook had hit a lease. After reprimanding Cook,
Durden told Croy what had occurred. Croy inspected the warp on Cook's beaming
machine, then communicated with Turner. He returned in a few minutes and
informed Durden that Turner had decided to discharge Cook. Durden then
wrote Cook a pass and told him that he was discharged. Durden estimated that
the defect for which he first reprimanded Cook on November 10 resulted in,
40 or 50 pounds of waste, as against a normal waste incidence of a "pound or
2" per week. Moreover, he estimated that the waste caused by Cook hitting a
lease later that day was approximately 800 yards.
With respect to the' circumstances of Cook's discharge, in view of all the evi-
dence, it is found that Johns reported to Turner a defect in warp beamed by
Cook, which resulted in from 5 to 25 broken strands. There was no warning
on the tag. This was a comparatively minor defect. Durden was able to rectify
it in a short period of time, and the warp was then run through the slashing
machine without further trouble.68 Later that day, Cook hit a lease. He-
'blamed this on the defective brakes of his beaming machine. In this connec-
tion, he testified that he had complained to Durden "every two or three days"
for some time prior to November 10 that the brakes on his beaming machine
were slipping. The brakes would be repaired, but 2 or 3 days later would begin
slipping again. According to Cook, James Mills, the beamer who operated the.
same beaming machine on the first shift, told Cook that he had complained
about the brakes slipping a day or two before November 10.69 Cook admitted,
however, that when Durden discharged him on November 10, he did not mention
the defective brakes to Durden. Fletcher, a beamer, testified that he worked'
on the same shift as Cook on November 9 and 10, but did not hear Cook com-
plain or ask anyone to fix the brakes on his beaming machine. He further
testified that a beamer is not supposed to operate a machine if the brakes are-
bad. Durden testified that, during the 5 or 6 days before November 10, he had
no complaints about the brakes on Cook's beaming machine. Turner testified
that he observed Cook beaming for a short while about 4 p in. on November 10,
and noticed nothing wrdng with the brakes. Furthermore, he testified that
Cook did not mention to him that day that there was any defect in the brakes
Claude Thompson, beamer foreman on the first shift, testified that he had
received no report concerning the brakes of Cook's beaming machine during the
week prior to November 10, and that the beaming machine operated satisfac-
torily on the shift after Cook was discharged, without requiring any adjust--
ment. Julius Axon, a former beamer, testified that a beamer was not supposed
to operate a defective machine unless instructed to do so. In view of all the
testimony, it is found that there was no defect in the brakes of Cook's beaming
machine on November 10, that he hit the lease partly through negligence and
partly through the fact that the lease appeared sooner than expected," and
that the resulting damage to the warp was increased by the fact that Cook
was beaming fine yarn.
In order to continue beaming after hitting the lease, Cook turned the ball
warp himself. A full ball warp weighs between 200 and 300 pounds, but at the-
time Cook hit the lease, the ball warp was less than half full. If a beamer
finds it necessary to turn over the ball warp, and feels that he is not capable
se Durden's testimony with regard to the amount of waste which resulted is considered
an exaggeration , and is not adopted.
119 Mills didcnot testify . Cook's testimony regarding Mills' complaints is therefore hearsay
evidence , not corroborated by any other witness.
9° It will be recalled that sometimes leases are placed only 1,000 yards apart instead of'
the usual 2,000 yards. Apparently, this is what happened to the lease that Cook hit.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY . 489
,of doing this by himself, it is customary for him to call upon other beamers to
help him. This is not invariably done, however. For example, Fletcher, a
-witness for the Respondent, testified that he never sought aid in turning over a
ball warp. There is no evidence in the record that any beamer was reprimanded
for failing to secure help in turning over a ball warp, and Durden did not point
,out to Cook on November 10 that he was at fault in failing to do so. Accord-
ingly, it is found that Cooks' failure to secure help in turning over the ball warp
did not constitute a breach of the Respondent's rules.
One other circumstance of Cook's discharge warrants brief comment. Johns
testified that the warp which Cook damaged when he hit a lease contained no
warning on the tag. - As Cook was discharged only a short time after hitting
the lease , it is clear that he had no opportunity to fill out the tag before his
dismissal. It follows that he was not at fault in failing to do so.
4. Cook's attempts to secure reinstatement
On November 11, the day following his discharge, Cook returned to the mill
to get his pay. While there, he asked Turner for a job. According to Cook,
Turner replied that perhaps he might put Cook on the third shift later, but that
he could not put Cook back on the second shift because "the boys were kind of
sore with me." Cook further testified that this was a reference to the other
beamers on his shift, who were not members of the Union, and had been "throw-
ing little slurs around" about the Union. Turner testified that when Cook asked
him for a job he replied that Cook's work was too bad, that he could not put him
back beaming, but that he could probably put him back in the weave room when
a vacancy occurred there " Turner denied that he told Cook that he might be
able to put him on the third shift or that he told Cook that "the boys" were
"sore" at him. His denial in this respect is not credited.
Approximately 2 or 3 weeks later, Cook again asked Turner if there was work
for him. Turner answered that he had no openings.
5. Contentions of the parties
The General Counsel contends that Cook was discharged because of his known
'union membership and activities, and that the alleged defective work done by
him was a mere pretext for his discharge. The Respondent, on the other hand,
maintains that Cook was discharged because of "repeated gross negligence and
carelessness," after final warning that the quality of his work must be improved,
and because of two specific instances of poor work on the day he was discharged,
namely, the broken strands discovered by Johns and hitting the lease. In con-
nection with this contention, the Respondent introduced evidence tending to
prove that Cook's work had not been satisfactory, that the Respondent was
engaged upon a drive for quality at the time of Cook's discharge, and that other
beamers had been discharged for similar poor work.
6. Cook's work record
'The testimony with respect to Cook's ability as a beamer is conflicting. Cook
testified that prior to November 10, his beaming had never been criticized by any
slasher operator or supervisor. Indeed, about 3 weeks prior to November 10,
a Cook has not been offered reinstatement in the weave room . The record does not
indicate whether any vacancies occurred in the weave room between the date of his dis-
charge and the date of the hearing . It Is therefore impossible to tell if Turner lived up
to his alleged promise to reinstate Cook in the weave room when an opening appeared
there.
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Durden had told him that he was "about as good a beamer as they had on the
job." Cook specifically denied that he had ever been taken to the slashing
machines to be shown bad work by either Durden or Turner, after his return to
beaming, except on November 10. Axon, a witness, for the General counsel, had
worked as a beamer until July 1949. He testified that, at that time, Cook was
"no better or no worse" than the other beamers, and that all the beamers had
been taken to the slashing machines at one time or another to be reprimanded for
poor beaming.
Witnesses for the Respondent contradicted this testimony. Johns testified
that he and other slashers "dreaded" to run warps beamed by Cook, and were
constantly complaining to the supervisors about Cook's poor beaming. He esti-
mated that Cook had hit at least 10 leases and that Cook was taken to the slash-
ing machines to be shown defective beaming more often than any of the other
beamers. Johns further testified that when Cook was previously operating a
beaming machine before his transfer to the weave room, his beaming was of the
same low caliber, that he was not as good a beamer, although a regular beamer,
as some of the learners, and that some of his beaming was so bad, in those days,
that it required 3 or 4 shifts before the beaming could be run through the slasher.
Darden testified that when Cook first returned to the beaming room, his work was
"ordinary." As time went by Durden received complaints from the slasher
operators regarding warps beamed by Cook. He found it necessary frequently to
take Cook to the slashing machines and show him defective beaming that Cook
had run. He estimated that this occurred between 15 and 20 times during a
period of 3 or 4 months, more frequently than with any other beamer under his
supervision. Durden described Cook as the worst beamer he had,o but admitted
that he had never known Cook to hit a lease prior to November 10, 1949. Turner
testified that, when Cook was in the beaming room for the first time, he was an
average beamer. Approximately 6 or 8 weeks after Cook returned to the beaming
room for the second time, bad beaming began to show up on the slashing machines„
and Turner received reports from the slasher foreman. After this, Cook's work
"kept getting worse." Fletcher, a beamer who worked on the same shift as Cook,
testified that he had never been taken to the slashing machines to be shown bad
beaming, and that he could not recall any such reprimands directed to Cook.
Thompson, Cook's foreman when he had first been a beamer, testified for the
Respondent, but did not refer to Cook's ability as a beamer.
Thus, the testimony of some of the Respondent's witnesses with respect to-
Cook's beaming ability conflicted directly with that of other witnesses called by
the Respondent. Indeed, if Johns' testimony were believed, it would prove only
that Cook had been a consistently poor beamer for a long period of time, but
that the Respondent had continued Cook in its employ until a few days after it
learned that he was a union member. I consider Johns' testimony highly ex-
aggerated, and find that Cook, at all material times, was an average beamer
whose work had not been criticized more frequently than that of other beamers,
and who, in fact, had been complimented by Durden shortly before his discharge
on November 10.
7. The Respondent's quality drive
Dennis testified that the Respondent 's business at the beginning of 1949 was
slack, and that the market was highly competitive. The Respondent was able
to obtain business in the fall of 1949 strictly on a quality basis, and great emphasis
was therefore placed upon quality production in all the Respondent 's mills. A
series of conferences of key supervisors was held for the purpose of improving
the quality of the products . Moreover , a statistical study was prepared showing,
62 At the time, Durden supervised Cook and two other beamers.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY 491
the weekly percentage of "irregulars" produced by each of the Respondent's six
mills for the period of May 30 through December 10, 1949. This study indicated
that Sibley Mill had a higher percentage of "irregulars" than any other mill."
As a result of this study, Mangum was told that he would have to improve the
record of Sibley Mill.
Gay testified that a quality drive was under way during the entire year of.
1949. Hunnicut testified that a quality drive was in effect during the summer,
fall, and winter of 1949. According to Hunnicut, this drive commenced 4 or 5
months before October 27, 1949, and was still continuing at the time of the
hearing in December 1950. On the other hand, Green (a witness for the Respond-
ent) testified that the Respondent strives for quality production "about all the
time," and that during 1949 the emphasis on quality was "no more than usual."
Moreover, Brown, who had been working for the Respondent almost 4 years,
testified : "They have talked about waste ever since I have been here," and that
meetings to discuss problems of quality were held every 3 or 4 months.
In view of all the testimony on this subject, I find that the Respondent had
not entered upon any quality drive of an unusual nature at Sibley Mill before-
the preparation of the statistical study described above, that is, before De-
cember 10, 1949. It follows that Cook's discharge on November 10, 1949, was,
not in any way connected with the quality drive.
8. Frequency of bad beaming and discipline of beamers
Cook testified that he had seen other beamers perform work worse than that
for which he was allegedly discharged, but that they had not been discharged.
The'only beamer discharged for bad work whom he could recall was Carl Hayden..
Approximately a year before Cook was discharged, Hayden had beamed some
warp so poorly that it could not be run through the slashing machine. He was:
instructed to beam it again. Finding himself unable to do so, Hayden cut the
strands with his knife instead of summoning the fixer to help him. As a result,
a large quantity of material was wasted, and Hayden was discharged. Axon
testified that in 1946 his brother was learning to beam and had been working
for about 5 weeks. He had fouled some warp. After the warp was straightened,,
he was unable to run it through the beaming machine a second time. He was,
therefore discharged. Dennis testified that the Respondent averaged between
12 and 15 discharges per month in all its plants, and that "quite a number" of
these were for bad beaming or bad doffing. He further testified that consistently
bad work was cause for discharge. In view of all the testimony on the subject,
I find that discharges for poor beaming at Sibley Mill were reserved for the
most extreme cases, and that the defective beaming discovered by Johns on:
November 10, resulting in from 5 to 25 broken strands, was not an offense for
which the Respondent would normally have discharged a beamer.
I turn now to an analysis of the evidence with respect to hitting leases. Cook
testified that hitting a lease is something that happens to all beamers. Johns
testified that he would agree with this statement. Axon testified that hitting
a lease "is just something you can't keep from happening" and that he had seen
it happen to other beamers, but that he never knew of a beamer to be discharged
merely because he hit a lease. Johns testified that hitting a lease did not happen
often, but was not too unusual Fletcher testified that he had hit a lease when
he was a learner. Durden testified that it had been the Respondent's experience
to have one or two leases hit each year. Dennis testified that hitting a lease
was not, as such, a dischargeable offense, depending entirely on the circumstances.
re Irregulars included (1) defective cloth, and (2) any piece of cloth less than 40 yards
in length, whether defective or not.
492 DECISIONS , OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He further testified that hitting a lease is considered "bad" and could be "the
straw that breaks the camel's back."
It is clear from the testimony of several of the witnesses that a beamer who
hit a lease was not required to report this matter to any supervisor. In view
of all the testimony on this matter, I find that the hitting of a lease was neither
a dischargeable offense nor an extremely unusual occurrence.
9. Conclusions
The picture presented is that of an employer who engaged in numerous acts
of interference, restraint, and coercion in order to defeat the employees' self-
organization. With knowledge that a union had been formed, both Darden and
Turner questioned Cook about his attendance at a union meeting. Cook there-
after was the only employee on his shift in his department who openly proclaimed
his union adherence. Thus, as one of the Union's outstanding champions, he
became marked as the logical target for the Respondent's antiunion campaign,
which was then at its height. Three days later, he was discharged.
The reasons advanced by the Respondent for discharging Cook must be viewed
in this context. An experienced beamer whose work had recently been compli-
mented, he was allegedly discharged for two separate instances of bad beaming,
close together in point of time. As has been previously remarked, the first of
these was of a comparatively minor nature, and beamers who had done work of
a lower caliber had merely been reprimanded. The second incident-hitting a
lease-was admittedly not, standing alone, a legitimate cause for discharge.
Indeed, hitting a lease is something a beamer "just can't keep from happening."
Even the two instances of defective beaming on the same day, taken together,
were not, in my opinion, sufficient to have called for the ultimate penalty of
discharge at the Sibley Mill under ordinary circumstances. The conclusion is
inescapable that the Respondent seized upon these events as a convenient pre-
text to rid the mill of the only openly proclaimed union adherent in the depart-
ment on that shift. This conclusion is bolstered by Turner's later remark that
he could not put Cook back on the second shift because "the boys" were "sore"
at Cook-a remark which unmistakably referred to the nonunion beamers on
the shift 84 '
For the reasons set forth above, it is found that Cook was not discharged for
cause within the meaning of Section 10 (c) of the Act, but because of his mem-
bership in and activities on behalf of the Union. Thus, by discriminatorily dis-
^charging Cook on November 10, 1949, and thereafter refusing to reinstate him,
thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act, and engaged in interference, coercion, and restraint in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
F. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Whit Holloway
1. The duties of a cloth doffer
Warp and filling are woven into cloth on machines known as looms. The
finished cloth is wound onto cardboard tubes at the loom. Whenever a defect
appears in the cloth, the weaver "flags" the doffer.`4 When the doffer sees
64 A notice of separation given by the Respondent to Cook after his discharge lists the
reason for discharge as "making bad work." As this was a self-serving statement, I do
not consider it persuasive.
as In order to "flag" the doffer , the weaver places three empty and one full bobbin on
the arch ( the metal piece across the top ) of the loom.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY 493
the "flag," he goes to the loom, rolls down the cloth until the defective part is
reached, cuts out the defective portion with a knife, and then rerolls the good
cloth onto the loom. After this operation has been completed, the doffer marks
the number of the loom on the roll of cloth with chalk, in letters approximately
21/2 inches high.
The longer the loom has run after the flag is up , the more good cloth It is
necessary for the doffer to reroll. Moreover, if he does not properly reroll the'
cloth, the cloth will wind on the tube unevenly. This may possibly cause dam-
age to the loom.
The pieces of defective cloth cut out by the doffer are normally approximately
18 inches in length and are discarded by being thrown on the floor. If the doffer
erroneously cuts off a larger piece, containing about 3 yards or more of good
cloth, he is required to take the piece of cloth to the shift foreman and report
the matter. A failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Respondent's
rules.'
2. Sequence of events
Whit Holloway began working for the Respondent in 1946 in the slasher
room. About a year later, he was transferred to the tie-in room. After ap-
proximately 2 years in the tie-in room, Holloway's job there was discontinued
and he was transferred to the upper weave room, on the first shift, as a cleanup
man. His duties were to clean the overhead lights, the walls, and the windows,
and to empty the trash ' During this period, Holloway occasionally filled in as
a helper to cloth doffers, and later as a cloth doffer.6'
In March 1950, Holloway joined the Union and passed out union cards to
some of his fellow employees. He succeeded in persuading several of them to,
join the Union. On one occasion, Holloway sat in an automobile about 50 feet
from the mill gate for an hour at change-of-shift time and helped the union.
organizer, who was with him, to identify certain employees. As described
above, in April 1950, Turner interrogated Dunn with respect to the union mem-
bership of Holloway and other employees. Dunn, however, merely replied that
he knew nothing about the Union,
3. Holloway 's promotion and discharge
On May 18, 1950, there was•a vacancy for a doffer on the second shift. Green,
shift foreman on that shift in the upper weave room, reported this fact to,
m The description of the duties of a cloth doffer contained above applies only to the
Respondent's second shift. On the first shift, in addition to these functions, doffers also
remove rolls of cloth when they become full.
87 This description of Holloway's duties as cleanup man is based upon the testimony of
Turner and Roberts. Holloway testified that, at first, his sole duty was to clean the
overhead lights, but that after he joined the Union, he was given additional duties such as
cleaning the windows, removing empty bottles from the window sills, setting up warp,
cleaning the floor, relieving the elevator operator for 10 minutes each day, obtaining
supplies from the supply room, and removing trash. Holloway stated that he did not
know what employee had been performing these additional duties prior to their assign-
ment to him. His testimony in this respect is rejected and that of Turner and Roberts
is adopted.
68 Holloway testified that he doffed cloth for Roberts at least three times during this.
period, but only as a helper, and that on a Saturday morning he doffed for Green by
himself, but was unable to do the job and was relieved. Roberts testified that he taught
Holloway how to doff cloth, and that Holloway had doffed cloth "a number of times,"
both as a helper and as a doffer , temporarily replacing absentees Green testified that,
on a Saturday morning in June 1949, Holloway had doffed cloth for him, but could not
run the job alone and was supplied with a helper. Turner testified that he knew that
Holloway could doff cloth and that he had seen him do so. In view of all the testimony
on this subject, I find that Holloway was able to perform the duties of a cloth doffer im
May 1950.
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Turner and requested that an additional doffer be assigned to his shift. This
job paid 8 or 9 cents per hour more than the cleanup job then held by Holloway.
.Turner's policy was that if a vacancy occurred in a job with more pay, and
another employee was qualified, he would be promoted. Accordingly, Turner
-inquired of John Roberts, shift foreman in the weave room on the first shift,
if he had a qualified employee whom he could spare to fill the vacancy. Roberts
suggested that Holloway was able to doff cloth and Turner agreed that Holloway
should be given the opportunity. On the next day, Roberts told Holloway to
come in on the following Monday on the second shift, to take a job as cloth
doffer. Holloway assented. On the following 'Monday, May 22, Holloway
reported to Green as instructed. Green explained to him the duties of a cloth
idoffer, and be worked in that capacity that day. On May 23, Holloway again
came to work on the second shift as a cloth doffer, and was discharged by Green
during the course of the shift. As the testimony is in conflict with respect to
the circumstances surrounding Holloway's discharge, the testimony of each
-of the witnesses with respect thereto will be set out separately.
Holloway testified that on May 22, he told Green that he was not able to run
a cloth doffer's job, but Green replied that he knew that Holloway was capable
of running the job. He also testified that there were no complaints with respect
to his work on May 22. On May 23, about 3: 05 p. in., Green told him that
,Turner was complaining that he had not copied the numbers of the looms on
the rolls of cloth legibly. Holloway replied that be was doing the best he
-could. Green, however, insisted that he had to do better 6' Holloway then
returned to his work. Later, during his rest period, Holloway went down to
the soft drink stand on the first floor, and was standing neafby with a sandwich
and a soft drink in his hands. Turner saw him there and told him to return
upstairs 40 and sit, down while eating, and that it was not advisable to walk
around while eating. Holloway complied. At the end of the rest period, Hollo-
way returned to his work. Later, he found it. necessary to go down stairs to
-the cloth room to get a supply of tubes. In order to do so, he had to obtain
-a truck, take it down on-the freight elevator, load it and return with it by the
same means. He testified that lie had to wait approximately 10 minutes to get
the elevator on his way down, and an additional 10 minutes on his way back.
When he returned to the upper weave room, Turner berated him for his long
•delay, and warned him to stay on the job. According to Holloway, he had cut
off defective cloth in response to "flags" approximately 10 or 15 times during
the shift. Each piece was about 18 inches long, and was thrown on the floor.
,However, there was one exception : Some cloth began to wrap around the roller
,.of one of the looms improperly, because he had not previously wound it tightly
enough. Holloway therefore cut off a 3-yard piece of cloth, as he had seen
other doffers do, and put it on a cloth truck. At about 9: 50 p. in., Green sum-
moned him, showed him the piece of cloth, and demanded to know what it
-was doing on the truck. Holloway admitted that he had cut it off and put it
on the truck, explaining that he had done so because the cloth had become
wrapped around the roller and he could not get the loom to run without cutting
it off. Green remarked that Holloway knew better, but Holloway responded
that he did not know better, because he had seen other doffers do the same
thing. Green then discharged him.
6° There was considerable testimony with respect to Holloway 's ability to read and
write. In addition , Holloway demonstrated at the hearing by reading and copying num- '
'hers Without going into further detail with regard to this testimony , I find that Hollo-
way was able to read numbers reasonably well, and that he was also able to copy numbers,
but did not do so with any great degree of speed or legibility.
70 The upper weave room was on the second floor.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY 495
Luther Motes, a weaver on the second shift, testified that Holloway was the
,only doffer on that shift on May 23. He further testified that Holloway allowed
the looms to run longer than they should have after the "flags" were up, then
cut off more good cloth than was necessary, instead of rolling the cloth back to
the defective place. According to Motes, he had never seen another doffer cut
off so much good cloth. On two occasions on May 23, Motes saw Holloway cut
off good pieces of cloth ranging in length from 5 to 10 yards each, put them
under his arm, and go out the door. Motes then reported to Green that Holloway
was cutting off more cloth than was necessary, and taking it out of the room.71
'Green testified that when Holloway first reported to him, he had explained to
Holloway the duties of a cloth doffer and had actually demonstrated on a loom.
He also testified that Holloway left his job approximately 4 times during his
shift on May 22, and that he had to hunt for Holloway each time, and warn him
to stay on the job. Once Green found him seated in the dye house, and on
another occasion discovered him sitting. in the dressing room. Holloway was
not supposed to be in either place. Green denied that he had seen Holloway
with a sandwich and a cold drink in his hands near the cold drink stand on
the first floor on May 23, or that he had had any conversation with Holloway
that day regarding his eating habits. He testified further that, on May 23,
he told Holloway to get some tubes from the cloth room, but Holloway complied,
and that this errand only took Holloway about 5 minutes. He also testified
that it was not necessary to use the elevator to get tubes from the cloth room.
On May 23, Holloway left his job twice, each time for a period of about 35
minutes, and Green was unable to find him. At about 10:30 p. in, Motes
reported to Green that Holloway had cut some cloth from one of his looms and
had walked out of the room with the cloth. Green checked this report and
found about 10 or 12 pieces of cloth, ranging in length from 5 to 15 yards each,
underneath some rollers on the cloth truck. The total yardage amounted to
between 20 and 70 yards. None of the pieces contained any defects. Green
then summoned Holloway and showed him the pieces of cloth. Green asked
Holloway if he did not know that it was against the Respondent's rules to cut
-off that much cloth and not report the matter. Holloway did not deny that he
had cut off the cloth. Green then told Holloway that the cloth was not sup-
posed to be on the truck, and that he was discharged for "causing too much
seconds."
.The notice of separation given Holloway by the Respondent after his discharge
.states that he was discharged because he "would not run job as instructed, would
not stay on the job."
In view of all the evidence on the subject, I find that Holloway absented
.himself from his job without permission on several occasions on May 22 and
23, and was reprimanded by Green for so doing. I further find that, on May
23, Holloway, against instructions, cut off a number of pieces of cloth which was
not defective, ranging in length from 5 to 15 yards each, and that he further
violated the Respondent's rules by attempting to hide this cloth, instead of
reporting the matter to Green. It is also found that this matter was called
to Green's attention by Motes.
4. Events following Holloway's discharge
Turner testified without contradiction that he first learned of Holloway's dis-
charge on May 24, the morning after the discharge occurred. Sometime later,
71 Motes testified that he reported Holloway's actions to Green because he was afraid
that he would be reprimanded when it was discovered that his loom did not have as much
good cloth on it as it should have had.
496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Holloway came to see Turner and asked why he had been discharged. Turner
sent for Green and instructed Green to tell Holloway the reason for his dis-
charge. Green accordingly told Holloway that he had been discharged for not
running his job as he was instructed. Holloway did not reply.
5. Contentions of the parties
The General Counsel maintains that Holloway was not discharged because of
any dereliction of duty, but because of his union membership and activities.
Conversely, the Respondent maintains that Holloway "was discharged as a result
of his wilfully tearing off, thereby rendering useless, a number of pieces of cloth
which had been woven on the looms to which he was assigned as a cloth doffer,
contrary to instructions, sound practice and policy, and attempting to conceal
the fact that he had done it by deliberately hiding the cloth and failing to
report any of the incidents to his supervisor."
In examining the contentions of the parties, it might be profitable to analyze
briefly Holloway's past work record, and also the frequency of bad doffing and
the discipline of cloth doffers at Sibley Mill. Roberts, who had been Holloway's
supervisor for approximately a year, testified that Holloway "was hard to keep
on the job" and that about every 3 or 4 days he would disappear from the job
and Roberts would find it necessary to hunt for him. This started about a
month after Holloway began working for Roberts. Roberts warned Holloway
that if he did not stay on his job he would be discharged. Summing up Hollo-
way's abilities, Roberts testified : "He was a good worker but I just had to
stay right in behind him." On cross-examination, Roberts testified that help
was "a little scarce" at that time.
There is little evidence in the record with respect to the frequency of bad
cloth doffing, or the discipline of cloth doffers for poor work. As previously
noted, Dennis testified that the Respondent averages between 12 and 15 dis-
charges per month in all its mills and that "quite a number" of these are due
to bad doffing or bad beaming. He further testified that, although he had been
the Respondent's general manager for about 4 years, he could not recall any
previous instance in which a cloth doffer cut off so many large pieces of good
cloth without reporting this fact to his supervisor.
6. Conclusions
The General Counsel's contentions with respect to the discharge of Holloway
must fall because the record does not contain adequate evidence that the Re-
spondent knew of Holloway 's union membership or activities . Although Hollo-
way testified that he sat in the union organizer 's car near the mill gate for
approximately an hour , there was no testimony that he was seen doing so by any
of the Respondent 's supervisors . Moreover , while Turner questioned Dunn with
respect to the union membership of Holloway and others , this interrogation did
not result in Turner obtaining any definite knowledge that Holloway was among
the members of the Union. Accordingly , I find that the General Counsel has
failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent at the
time of Holloway 's discharge had notice of his union membership or activities.
I therefore find that Holloway 's discharge was not discriminatory."
There is another reason, however, why I cannot agree with the position of the
General Counsel with respect to Holloway 's discharge . Even assuming , for the
purpose of argument , that the Respondent knew of Holloway 's union membership
and activities , I am convinced that any such knowledge the Respondent might
12 Compare Carolina Mills, Inc., 92 NLRB 1141.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY 497
have had did not enter into the decision to discharge him. Had the Respondent
desired to rid itself of Holloway, it does not seem reasonable that it would have
offered him a promotion-unless, of course, it did so in the belief that he was not
qualified for the job of cloth doffing, and would therefore furnish the Respondent
with an adequate reason for discharge. It is not clear whether the General
Counsel maintains that this is the case. In any event, on the record before me,
I cannot find that Holloway was deliberately promoted to a position which the
Respondent knew he could not handle in order to trap him into supplying a valid
cause for discharge. It is true that there is some evidence indicating that Hollo-
way had told several of the supervisors that he was unable to read or write."
But it was not essential that a, cloth doffer be able to read or write; it was merely
necessary for him to be able to copy and read numbers. This Holloway was able
to do, although not too expertly. Moreover, the reason assigned by the Respond-
ent for discharging Holloway was not connected in any way with any complaints
regarding Holloway's ability to read or copy numbers on the rolls of cloth. On
the contrary, the reasons given by the Respondent were Holloway's inattentive-
ness to his work, the fact that he cut off considerably more cloth than was neces-
sary-thus resulting in unnecessary waste-and the fact that, contrary to orders,
he concealed his dereliction by hiding the cloth instead of showing it to his
supervisor as instructed . These reasons, it seems to me, were adequate reasons
for the discharge. Accordingly, I am convinced that Holloway was discharged
for cause within the meaning of Section 10 (c) of the Act, and that his discharge
therefore did not violate Section 8 (a) (1) or (3) of the Act. It is so found."
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, appearing 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 ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
As it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain acts of inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion, it will be recommended that the Respondent
cease and desist therefrom.
It having also been found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged
Alton Cook on November 10, 1949, and thereafter refused to reinstate him, it will
be recommended that the Respondent offer to Cook immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or a substantially equivalent position," without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
practiced against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equivalent to that
i3 Holloway testified that he informed both Turner and Green that he could not read
or write, but that Green was not convinced. Turner contradicted this testimony. Green
admitted that Holloway had claimed that he could not read or write, but actually had
been able to do so. Roberts testified that Holloway had stated that he was not capable
of reading or writing, and that he had then taught Holloway how to copy numbers.
74 In reaching this conclusion, I have not relied upon the notice of separation given
Holloway by the Respondent, as I consider that document self-serving.
75 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827, 829.
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
which he normally would have earned as-wages from November 10, 1949, the date
of the discrimination against. him, to the date of offer of full reinstatement, less
his net earnings, if any, during, the said period." Loss of pay shall be computed
in a manner established by the Board in the Woolworth case."
In order to insure expeditious compliance with the recommended back-pay and
reinstatement order, it will be recommended that the Respondent, upon reasonable
request, make any pertinent records available to the Board and its agents."
Because of the Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose and
tendency, I find that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to
'other unfair labor ,practices proscribed and that danger of their commission in
,the future is to be anticipated from the course of the Respondent's conduct in the
,past." The preventive purpose,of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is
coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the inter-
dependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, to prevent a recurrence of unfair
labor practices, and thereby to minimize industrial strife which burdens and
cbstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the.policies of the Act, it will be recom-
mended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing
.upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 80
It has further been found that the Respondent did not discriminate with respect
to the hire and tenure of employment of Harding Kimberly and Whit Holloway.
Accordingly, it will be recommended that these allegations of the complaint be
dismissed.
Upon the basis of the 'foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1. Textile 'Workers Union of America, 010, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Alton
Cook, 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.
3. By such discrimination and by otherwise interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The activities of Sedberry, Green, and Hollingsworth did not violate Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The Respondent has not discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure
of employment of Harding Kimberly and Whit Holloway.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
7e Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440.
77 F TV Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
78 F. W Woolworth Company , supra. ^
79 N. L. R. B. v Express Publishing Company, 312 U. -S 426
so William Spencer, d/b/a Alliance Rubber Company , 76 NLRB 514.