Morehead City Garment Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 3, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 245 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

MOREHEAD CITY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 245
ant classified advertising supervisor, manager of the advertising service depart-
ment, city editor, assistant city editor, news editor, assistant news editor, sports
editor, women's editor, editor of The Kentucky Post, business manager of The
Kentucky Post, managing editor of The Kentucky Post, and any other super-
visory employees, and guards as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
3. At all times since December 10, 1949, the Union has been and is now
the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing at all times since December 10, 1949, to bargain
with the Union as to the standards to be applied or the methods adopted to
effect merit increases in wage rates, and by 'refusing to furnish or provide
the Union with the names, rates of pay, classifications, and merit increases
granted to each of the employees within the aforesaid unit, the Respondent has
failed and refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit and has thereby engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
S (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By said acts the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
and has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section S (a) (1) of the Act.
6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
MOREHEAD CITY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. and AMALGAMATED CLOTIi-
ING WORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO. Cases Nos. 34-CA-143 and 34-
RC-150. May 3, 1951
Decision and Order
On December 21, 1970, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had 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
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report,
and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
94 NLRB No 45.
246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS- BOARD
The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as
the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues
and the positions of the parties.
The Board 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 In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case , and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the exceptions, modifications,
and additions set forth below.
1. The Intermediate Report contains a number of inaccuracies
or inadvertences, which do not, however, affect the ultimate con-
clusions reached either by the Trial Examiner or by the Board. The
Intermediate Report is hereby corrected in the following respects :
(a) In the opening paragraph of the Intermediate Report, the
Trial Examiner stated that the complaint issued upon objections to
the election held in Case No. 34-RC-150 and upon charges filed by
the Union. We note that the complaint was based upon the charges
alone, and that, by order of the Board, the hearing on the complaint
was consolidated with the hearing on the objections.
(b) The Trial Examiner stated that Morehead City, where the
Respondent 's plant is located , and Beaufort , the county seat, "are 2
of the easternmost cities in the United States ." They are two of
the easternmost cities of North Carolina.
y
(c) In his discussion of the supervisory status of Rosa Bell and
Opal Arthur, the Trial Examiner failed to state that the Respondent
did not except to the finding of the Regional Director, in his report
on challenges and objections in Case No. 34-RC-150, that the votes of
both Bell and Arthur had been correctly challenged on the basis of
their supervisory status.
(d) The Trial Examiner stated that , at all times material herein,
Truman Kemp 1 and Rose Garner were in charge of the sewing room
employees . This statement inadequately reflects the Respondent's
supervisory setup prior to the election, which was held on October
17, 1949, as Kemp was hired during the last week in October 1949 to
assume duties formerly performed by Mrs. Jackson, the president of
the Respondent.
(e) The Trial Examiner stated that Bertie Beacham was hired
for the first time in September 1949, whereas the record shows that
Beacham had worked for the Respondent during two different
periods -since May 1943.
' The Trial Examiner inadvertently designated this supervisor as Murray Kemp
MOREHEAD CITY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. ' 247
2. The Trial Examiner concluded, and we agree, that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by various acts set
forth in Section D 2 of the Intermediate Report, entitled "Inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion." We do not, however, adopt the
language and findings of the Trial Examiner with respect to the Re-
spondent's liability for the "barber shop talk" and for the activities
of the businessmen of Morehead City and vicinity, including David
E. Merrill. We do not find, under the circumstances of this case,
that the Respondent made the "community its agent" for the dis-
semination of coercive statements, nor that it can be held to have as-
sumed responsibility for the antiunion activities of the inhabitants
of the community. However, we do find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that the Respondent is responsible for the activities of its managerial
and supervisory personnel 2 in this connection.
The Trial Examiner concluded that the speech made by Super-
visor Dill on the Friday prior to the election was coercive and con-
tained threats of reprisal. We do not subscribe to all of the Trial
Examiner's rationale in reaching this conclusion. We do, however,
agree with his conclusion that the speech itself, considered alone and
without regard to the conditions under which it was made or the
interpretation placed upon it by the employees, contained readily ap-
parent threats of reprisal.
3. In discussing the discharge of Pauline Miller in the Interme-
diate Report, the Trial Examiner found that, after the election,
Mrs. Jackson had announced over the loudspeaker system that any-
one caught with union literature in the plant would be discharged.
He concluded, and we agree, that Mrs. Jackson's announcement vio-
lated Section 8 (a) (1) in that it forbade possession of union litera-
ture in the plant.3 Such a prohibition is an unreasonable restraint on
the rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act.
4. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Sally Smith,
Lucy Miller, Margaret Rhue, Bessie Robinson, and Pauline Miller
were discharged by the Respondent in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act. We also agree with the Trial Examiner's holding that
in spite of the "many and extremely suspicious matters connected
with" the discharge of Mattie Barbour the evidence adduced was in-
sufficient to prove that Barbour was discharged in violation of the
' We find , as did the Trial Examiner , that Ruby Swinson was not a supervisor Accord-
ingly, we do not base any of our findings that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act upon the antiunion meeting addressed by Swinson.
' The Respondent contends that the rule as announced by Mrs Jackson prohibited
distribution of union literature in the plant The Trial Examiner discredited Mrs Jack-
son's testimony with respect to the announcement and we accept his credibility findings.
We therefore find it unnecessary to pass upon the effect of such a rule prohibiting the
distribution of union literature.
248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act. We shall therefore adopt the Trial Examiner's recommenda-
tion and dismiss the complaint insofar as it relates to Barbour's dis-
charge.
5. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
refused to employ Minnie Katherine Piner in violation of Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act. We disagree, however, with the Trial Ex-
aminer's conclusion that the Respondent violated the Act by its re-
fusal to employ Eleanor Trott Gillikin and Kathleen Rhue Salter as
there is no showing that they were connected with the Union or that
the Respondent believed them to be connected with the Union .4 We
shall therefore dismiss the complaint insofar as it relates to these
two individuals .5
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Morehead City Gar-
ment Company, Inc., Morehead City, North Carolina, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily
discharging any of its employees, by discriminatorily refusing to hire
applicants for employment, or by discriminating in any other manner
in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of any of its em-
ployees or any terms or conditions of their employment.
(b) By interrogation concerning union affiliation or sympathies,
threats of economic reprisal, promises of benefit, or in any other
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4 We note that the Trial Examiner stated that Salter saw Supervisor Dill when reapply-
ing for employment in April . The record shows that Salter spoke only to Mrs Jackson's
secretary , Isabel Rose , on this occasion.
6 Dismissal of these allegations does not affect the Trial Examiner ' s conclusions, nor
our concurrence therein, with respect to the illegality of the interrogation of employees
and applicants for employment with respect to their union membership or sympathies.
MOREHEAD CITY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 249
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Sally Smith, Lucy Miller, Pauline Miller, Margaret
Rhue, and Bessie Robinson, immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole Sally Smith, Lucy Miller, Pauline Miller, Mar-
garet. Rhue, and Bessie Robinson, and each of them, for any loss of
pay she may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimina-
tion against her in the manner set forth in the section of the Inter-
mediate Report entitled "The remedy."
(c) Offer employment to Minnie Katherine Piner, and make her
whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the
Respondent's discrimination against her in the manner provided in
the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The remedy."
(d) Post at its plant in Morehead City, North Carolina, copies of
the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A .6 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places--where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTITER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent: (a) Violated Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act by offering money and other things of value
to encourage employees to vote against the Union as an exclusive bar-
gaining agent of its employees in a National Labor Relations Board
election; (b) violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by entering into
and maintaining an agreement with an association of Morehead City
residents, the terms of which agreement provided in part that if the
Company would locate its operations in Morehead City, the Company
would be protected against union organization of said plant; (c) dis-
charged Mattie Barbour, and refused to employ Eleanor Trott Gilli-
kin and Kathleen Rhue Salter, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act ; and
U In 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."
250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on October 17, 1949,
among the employees of Morehead .City Garment Company, Inc., in
Morehead City, North Carolina, be, and it hereby is, set aside?
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 discourage membership in AMALGAMATED CLOTH-
ING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or in any other, labor organization,
by discriminatorily discharging any of our employees, or by
discriminatorily refusing to hire applicants for employment, or
by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning union af-
filiation or sympathies, make threats of economic reprisal, prom-
ises of benefit, or 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 AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose 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 authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent po-
sitions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Sally Smith
Lucy Miller
Pauline Miller
Margaret Rhue
Bessie Robinson
7 When the Regional Director advises the Board that circumstances permit a free
choice of representatives , we shall direct that a new election be held among the Respond-
ent's employees.
MOREHEAD CITY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 251
WE WILL offer employment to the employee named below and
make her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination.
Minnie Katherine Piner
All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from be-
coining members of the above -named union or any other labor or-
ganization , except to the extent that the right to refrain may be af-
fected by a lawful agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment . We will not discriminate
in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment against any employee because of membership in or
activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
MOREHEAD CITY GARMENT COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------- By---------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report 9
John K. Pickens, Esq., and H. Raymond Cluster, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Mr. John R. Sullivan, of Wilmington, N. C., for the Union.
Whiteford S. Blakeney, Esq., of Charlotte, N. C., and Philip Newman, Esq:,
of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon objections filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, here-
inafter called the Union, to the election held in Case No. 34-RC-150 on October
17, 1950, and upon charges and amended charges duly filed by the Union,' the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively
referred to as the General Counsel and the Board,' by the Regional Director for
the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), duly issued an amended complaint'
dated June 8, 1950, against Morehead City Garment Company, Inc., hereinafter
referred to as the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent has engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
and 8 (a) (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 61 Stat. 136, hereinafter called the Act. Copies of the amended com-
plaint, the charges, and notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the
Respondent and the Union.
I The original charge was filed on July 7, 1949, and was thereafter amended at various
times to and including June 5, 1950.
2 The attorneys for the General Counsel appearing at the hearing are included within
the term General Counsel
0 By appropriate order of the Board dated April 12, 1950, it was ordered that the objec-
tions to the election of October 17, 1950, be consolidated with the hearing on the unfair
labor practice complaint in Case No 34-CA-143. At the commencement of the hearing
the Respondent objected to such consolidation and moved to sever the hearings. This
motion was denied after argument
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended.complaint, hereinafter
referred to as the complaint, alleged in substance that the Respondent: (1) By
various enumerated acts including, among others, the entering into and main-
taining an agreement with an association of Morehead City residents, the terms
of which agreement provided, in part, that if the Company would locate its op-
erations in Morehead City, the Company would be protected against union or-
ganization of the plant, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) ; (2) on various dates between July 27 and De-
cember 21, 1949, had discharged six named individuals because of their union
membership or activity and between August 22, 1949, and January 3, 1050, had
refused to employ or reemploy three named individuals because of their real or
suspected membership in or activities on behalf of the Union in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
After a motion for a bill of particulars had been granted in part, the Respond-
ent filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint but denying.
the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Beaufort, North Carolina, from
June 26 to July 3, 1950, inclusive, before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner All parties were represented by coun-
sel, participated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent
to the issues involved At the beginning of the hearing the undersigned denied
the motion of the Respondent to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
CIO had not complied with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act' The parties
waived oral argument at the conclusion of the hearing but a brief has been
received from theoGeneral Counsel.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIDE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Morehead City Garment Company, Inc., is a corporation organized and exist-
ing by virtue of the laws of the State of North Carolina, having its principal
office and place of business located in the city of Morehead City, North Caro-
lina. where it is engaged in the manufacture and processing of sportswear and
wearing apparel. Substantially all of the manufacturing and processing is
done on goods and materials owned by the Beaver Shirt Company, a New York
corporation with its principal office and place of business in New York City.
Morehead City Garment Company, Inc., in the course and conduct of its business
operations at its Morehead City plant during the 12-month period ending June
15, 1950, worked on materials consisting principally of cotton and rayon cloth
valued in excess of one hundred thousand dollars of which more than 50 per-
cent was shipped in interstate commerce to the Morehead City plant from points
outside of the State of North Carolina. During the same period, the Respondent
caused to be transported and delivered products which it had processed and
manufactured, consisting principally of men's sport shirts, valued in excess
of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars of which more than 50 percent was
shipped in interstate commerce from its Morehead City plant to points outside
of the State of North Carolina.
a Although there are conflicting decisions from various circuit courts of appeals on the
question, the Board's position on this point is clear.
MOREHEAD CITY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 253
The undersigned finds that the Respondent is engaged in operations affecting
commerce among the several States.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The background
During the 1930's the husband of Mrs Edina M. Jackson, currently the presi-
dent of the Respondent and an officer of the Beaver Shirt Company, was the
manager and Mrs. Jackson herself was the forelady of a shirt factory located
in Lykens, Pennsylvania, for one W. S Fox. This plant was beset with labor
troubles during the last year of its operations in Lykens; Pennsylvania, when
a strike, or several strikes, interrupted production for the better part of
that year.
During and because of these labor troubles the management- of the Lykens
plant decided to locate the plant at forehead City, North Carolina, and to
abandon operations in Lykens Jackson assisted in the installation of the
machinery at the Mo ehead City plant In about 1936 the plant at Morehead
City opened for operations with Jackson as its manager and Mrs. Jackson
as its forelady.
The final departure of the Jacksons from Lykens occurred in a shower of
brickbats and stones thrown by union employees, according to Mrs Jackson.
About :i yens later Fox sold out to Jackson and his partners. Thereafter,
until the present corporation was foi med in 1947, this partnership underwent
various changes in personnel but the Jacksons remained throughout as one of
the chief partners as well as the manager and forelady. When Jackson died
in 1947, the present corporation was formed with Mrs. Jackson as its president.
Because of her added executive duties