Salant & Salant, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 24 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of SALANT & SALANT, INC., AND THE CITIZENS INDUS-
TRIAL COMMITTEE AND MARTIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., AND
JOE SHATZ AND MARTIN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION and AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. 10-C-1354.-Decided February 28, 1946
Messrs. Dan M. Byrd, Jr., and David V. Easton, for the Board.
Messrs. Joseph Martin, of Martin & Cochran, and W. Gordon
McKelvey, of McKelvey & Lackey, of Nashville, Tenn.; Mr. F. F.
Locke, of Lawrenceburg, Tenn.; and Mr. James W. Van Dyke, of
Paris, Tenn., for the respondent Salant.
Mr. Gene Stockard, of Lawrenceburg, Tenn., for the respondent
Lawrenceburg Committee.
Mr. George W. Rowlett, of Martin, Tenn., for the respondent
Martin Company.
Mr. D. W. Harper, of Martin, Tenn., for the respondents Martin
Commission and Shatz.
Messrs. Carl F. Albrecht and Harold S. Marthenke, of Nashville,
Tenn., for the Union.
Miss Kate Wallach, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a fourth amended charge filed May 3, 1944, by Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional
Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its com-
plaint, dated May 3, 1944, against Salant & Salant, Inc., herein
called the respondent Salant, the Citizens Industrial Committee,
herein called the respondent Lawrenceburg Committee, Martin
Manufacturing Company, Inc., herein called the respondent Martin
Company, Joe Shatz, herein called the respondent Shatz, and Mar-
tin Industrial Commission, herein called the respondent Martin
Commission, alleging that the above-named respondents had en-
gaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5), and Section
66 N. L . R. B., No. 2.
24
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 25
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing
thereon were duly served upon the respondents and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint as
amended during the hearing, alleges in substance : (1) that at all times
material herein the respondent Salant has engaged in the manufac-
ture and sale of clothing at plants in Lawrenceburg, Paris, Hender-
son, Parsons, Lexington, Obion, and Union City, Tennessee, that
before September 27, 1943, it was similarly engaged at its plant in
Martin, Tennessee, and that after.that date it has jointly engaged in
such manufacture and sale at the Martin plant with the respondent
Martin Company; (2) that physical properties in the above-named
eight cities have been made available to the respondent Salant by
the cities, counties and/or non-profit corporations under subsidies
and concessions of great monetary value; (3) that in April 1943,
the respondent Lawrenceburg Committee was created and has since
then existed for the purpose of denying to employees of the re-
spondent Salant at its Lawrenceburg plant the assistance of labor
organizations of their own choosing; and that the respondent
Lawrenceburg Committee is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2 (2) of the Act; (4) that since April 1943, the respondent
Martin Commission has acted in the interest of the respondent
Salant in acts and conduct hereinafter set forth; and is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act; (5) that the re-
spondent Shatz, treasurer of the respondent Martin Commission, has
acted in the interest of the respondent Salant in acts and conduct
hereinafter set forth and is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2 (2) of the Act; (6) that from March 15, to September 27,
1943, the respondent Salant, and from September 27, 1943, the re-
spondents Salant and Martin Company have refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all
employees at the Martin plant in an appropriate unit wherein the
Union, at a Board election on March 12, 1943, was selected as their
bargaining representative by a majority of the employees; (7) that
on March 1 and 2, 1943, the respondent Salant locked out all of its
employees at its Martin plant to discourage membership in the Union
and concerted activities of the employees; (8) that on June 29, 1943,
the respondent Salant discriminatorily discharged Neysa Yates, and
that since then the respondents Salant and Martin Company had
discriminatorily refused to reinstate her; (9) that on December 6,
1943, the respondents Salant and Martin Company discriminatorily
refused to reinstate or hire Bobby Killebrew at the Martin plant;
(10) that at its Lawrenceburg plant the respondent Salant discrim-
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inatorily discharged the following employees on dates noted opposite
their names :
Jessie Mae Beard November 23, 1943
Ruth Weaver Cole December 2, 1943
Olene Hollman April 25, 1944
Ethel Brewer March 1, 1944
Hassell Alven Truitt January 15, 1944
Ethel Ruth Hughes January 26, 1944
discriminatorily refused to reinstate the following employees on dates
noted opposite their names :
Vernell Sawyer October 10, 1943
Nora Newton Fry 1 March 28, 1944
and discriminatorily refused to hire the following employees on dates
noted opposite their names :
Earl Foster August 10, 1943
Annie Mae Rhinehart Young February 21, 1944
that at its Paris plant the respondent Salant discriminatorily laid off
Daisy Helms from April 26 to May 8, 1943; that at its Union City
plant the respondent Salant discriminatorily discharged Raymond
Phillips in April 1943; (11) that the above-described discriminatory
discharges, refusals to reinstate or to hire, and lock out, were for the
reason that the respective employees joined or assisted the Union,
engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or because they were relatives
or associates of persons who had joined or assisted the Union; (12)
that at each of its Tennessee plants the respondent Salant has engaged
in a campaign to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act, by acts and conduct
including the following: (a) disseminating anti-union propaganda
and inciting civil authorities, business and other interests to disorgan-
ize and defeat union activity among the employees; (b) instigating
and acquiescing in anti-union activities of the respondents Lawrence-
burg Committee, Martin Commission and Joe Shatz, such activities
including the holding of anti-union rallies, spying upon and making
reports to the respondent Salant of the union membership and activi-
ties of its employees, and circulating non-union petitions; and (c)
failing to afford its employees, who were members of the Union, pro-
tection against violence while at work in the plant; and (13) that by
these acts the respondents have interfered with, restrained, and
coerced the employees at the above-named plants in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
In its answer, filed May 31, 1944, and amended during the hearing,
the respondent Salant denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair
1 Named in the complaint, before motion to conform to proof, as Nora Newton.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 27
labor practices; denied that since September 27, 1943, it has exercised
any supervision or control over the activities of the respondent Martin
Company; and denied the allegations of the complaint as to the re-
spondents Lawrenceburg Committee, Martin Commission and Joe
Shatz. In its answer, filed May 31, 1944, the respondent Martin Com-
pany denied that it had engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged
in the complaint. In their joint answer, filed May 31, 1944, the re-
spondents Martin Commission and Joe Shatz denied that they are
employers within the meaning of the Act and that they have engaged
in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. In its answer,
filed June 1, 1944, and amended during the hearing, the respondent
Lawrenceburg Committee denied that it had engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and that it is an employer
within the meaning of the Act, and moved for dismissal of the com-
plaint as to itself upon the ground, among others, that the complaint
was based upon an inadequate charge and investigation. Said motion,
at the opening of the hearing, was denied by the Trial Examiner.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in Lawrenceburg, Mar-
tin, and Nashville, Tennessee, and Washington, D. C., from June 5
to August 23, 1944,2 before C. W. Whittemore, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the
respondents were represented by counsel, and the Union by its offi-
cials. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues.
At the opening of the hearing a motion was made by counsel for
the Board, without objection, to amend the complaint in certain re-
spects.3 The motion was granted. During the hearing the Trial Ex-
aminer granted a motion, made without objection by counsel for the
Board, to dismiss allegations of the complaint as to the discharge of
two employees 4 At the close of its case-in-chief, counsel for the Board
moved, without objection, that all pleadings be conformed to the
proof, in minor particulars. The motion was granted.
During the hearing counsel for the respondents Lawrenceburg Com-
mittee and Salant moved, without objection, to amend their answers
in certain respects. The Trial Examiner granted the motions. During
the course of the hearing numerous motions were made by the various
parties either orally or in writing which were disposed of by the
Trial Examiner, either at the hearing or in the Intermediate Report.
2 A number of adjournments , of varying periods, were granted during the hearing.
3 The amendments included additional allegations as to : ( 1) discriminating as to
working conditions at the Martin plant ; ( 2) discriminatory discharge or lay-off of
three employees at the Lawrenceburg plant and one at the Union City plant ; and (3)
failing to provide employees protection against violence.
A Ethel Ruth Hughes and Hassell Truitt
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
Following the receipt of all evidence the parties argued orally
before the Trial Examiner. The respondents Salant and Martin
Company and counsel for the Board filed briefs with the Trial Exam-
iner. Upon motions of counsel for the Board and for the respondent
Lawrenceburg Committee, the Trial Examiner issued an order, which
was duly served upon all parties, correcting the record in certain
respects. No objections to the order were filed by any of the parties.
We hereby adopt the Trial Examiner's order correcting record and
make it a part of the record herein.
On November 6, 1944, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which
he found that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce. Thereafter, the
respondents Salant and Lawrenceburg Committee and counsel for the
Board filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs. Pursuant to notice duly served on all parties, a hearing for
the purpose of oral argument was scheduled before the Board in
Washington, D. C., on November 8, 1945. None of the parties ap-
peared at the hearing.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and finds that the excep-
tions are without merit insofar as they are inconsistent with the find-
ings, conclusions, and order set forth below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
A. The business of the respondent Salant
Salant & Salant, Inc., is a New York corporation, qualified to do
business in Tennessee, and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
work shirts and pants. Its main office is in New York City. At the
time of the hearing it admittedly operated plants in seven Tennessee
cities or town : Lawrenceburg, Henderson, Lexington, Parsons, Union
City, Obion, and Paris. It is also admitted that until September 1943,
the respondent Salant operated an eighth plant at Martin, Tennessee.
The extent of its present control, if any, over the operations of the
Martin plant is a point at issue in these proceedings. All of these
Tennessee plants above referred to are herein involved.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 29
Raw materials valued at more than one million dollars are pur-
chased and shipped annually to the respondent's plants in Tennessee,
including the Martin plant, from all parts of the United States.
Practically all of the respondent's finished products, as well as the
products of the respondent Martin Company, valued at more than
one million dollars, are shipped outside the State of Tennessee. The
respondent's principal customers are Sears, Roebuck & Company and
Montgomery Ward.
B. The business of the respondent Martin Company
Martin Manufacturing Company, Inc., is a Tennessee corporation,
incorporated in September 1943, having its office and place of busi-
ness in Martin, Tennessee. Under contractual arrangements herein-
after described in full, entered into in September 1943, the respondent
Salant furnishes all raw materials to the respondent Martin Company
and receives from it its entire production.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the respondents Salant
and Martin Company.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Salant & Salant, Inc., was incorporated in 1919 or 1920, succeeding
the partnership of Salant & Salant. The present corporate stock
is mostly held by the families of two Salant brothers, who were the
principals in the earlier partnership. A. B. Salant, president of the
corporation since 1936, and the major figure in many of the issues
involved in this proceeding, has been connected with the business
since 1902.
Except for a relatively small production of work pants, the opera-
tions of both the corporation and the partnership have been devoted
to the making of work shirts.
The Martin plant
In 1932 the respondent Salant opened its first Tennessee plant in
Martin, a small, Weakley County city, now of about 4,000 popula-
tion. It occupied a 3-story factory building originally constructed
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LA13OIt RELATIONS BOARD
by the Martin Improvement Company with funds subscribed by a
group of local citizens, including a subscription of $1,000 by the
City State Bank. In 1932, when the respondent Salant came to
Martin, the Improvement Company had become inactive, the mort-
gage on this property had been foreclosed, and title was held by
two local individuals. From them the respondent leased the prop-
erty. The lease agreement, dated October 13, 1932, included among
others, the following provisions :
. . . the lessors desire to have the lessee conduct a shirt factory
in said building where men's shirts are manufactured in order
that employment may be offered and had for the people of
Martin, Tennessee, and vicinity. . . .
. . . in consideration of the lessee agreeing to furnish employ-
ment to people of sufficient number, and wherever possible to
people of Martin, Tennessee, and vicinity . . . the lessors do
hereby agree to lease and to let to the lessee the above described
lot and building . . . for a period of ten years from this date,
with the right and privilege on the part of the lessee to have two
successive renewals of ten years each, with the option for the
lessee to cancel the lease on 60 days' notice to the lessors. The
lessors desire to have a manufacturing plant located in said
building in order that as many people of Martin, Tennessee, and
vicinity as possible may have employment and so long as the
lessee uses said building it is to have the use of the same without
the payment of any rent.
Thereafter this property was deeded to the city of Martin, which
became the lessor under a contract with the same provisions. At
the time of the hearing before the Trial Examiner, title was still
held by Martin. In 1934 the city erected another factory building,
adjoining the original structure. The new building was leased and
occupied by the respondent at a rental of $1,000 a year. In 1940
the respondent Salant exercised the above-mentioned option, thereby
extending the lease until 1962. On March 20, 1941, the city leased
another building to the respondent until 1962, with the same rent-
free provisions as contained in the above-quoted agreement. Accord-
ing to the testimony of Milburn Gardner, City Councilman and
cashier of the City State Bank, "The City Board always feels that
that property belongs to the merchants of Martin." He admitted
that the merchants and the City, having been responsible.for the
factory construction, believe that they ought to have a voice in what
takes place in the factory.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 31
The Lexing4on plant
Within a few months after the opening of the Martin plant in
1932 about 300 employees had been hired . The news circulated
rapidly in Tennessee . Many other communities offered similar
inducements . Late in 1932 a second plant was opened in Lexington.
Lexington is the county seat of Henderson County , and in 1940
had a population of about 2 ,500. The town constructed a factory
building especially for occupancy by the respondent Salant.
In October 1932, Lexington leased this factory building for 10
years to the respondent Salant , upon condition that the premises
be used only for the manufacturing of garments and that the respon-
dent employ sufficient labor to operate at least 75 machines. Terms
of the lease provided that the respondent Salant was to pay no taxes
and no rent. ' It also contained a 10-year renewal clause . In 1935,
the town leased to the respondent Salant a storage building adjoining
the factory , tax-free but at an annual rental of $280 until 1942.
Early in 1940 , Lexington leased , for a period of 13 years , a second
storage building to the respondent , tax-free but at an annual rental
of $950.
In 1941 , however, a 10-year contract to run from 1952 to 1962 was
entered into by the parties , covering the factory building and both
warehouses . Conditions as to the respondent Salant 's operations
remain the same as in the original contracts . During the term cov-
ered by the new agreement , however, the respondent Salant will be
required to pay $280 annually as rental only for the first storage
building.
Lexington's mayor, Joe C. Davis, testified :
. . . there is not only now, but has been since the construction
of that plant, a close relation existing between the city, the
management, and also the employees. We consider the whole
thing a three-handed deal in which the city as a municipality
is interested, and the employees and also the management. In
other words, there are thre6 horses hitched to the wagon, so
to speak.
The Lawrenceburg plant
The third of the Salant chain of factories in Tennessee was also
opened in 1932, at Lawrenceburg, a small city of about 3,800 popu-
lation and seat of Lawrence County. Lawrenceburg leased to the
respondent Salant, for 10 years, a factory containing floor space of
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about 40,000 square feet, tax, water, and rent free, upon condition
that the respondent :
install machines and machinery of modern type in the building
. . . to the full capacity thereof, and to employ in the operation
of said machines and factory all necessary labor required for the
operation of its business. . . .
In the same lease the city agreed to provide, at its own expense,
any additional floor space thereafter required by the respondent. In
1940 this lease was extended to 1960.
In 1935, additional space being, needed, the County of Lawrence
leased to the respondent another adjacent building of 22,000 square
feet of floor space. The agreement between the County and the
respondent Salant required that the latter use the premises solely
for the manufacture and for storage of garments, and that in its
operations Lawrence County residents be used.
In 1940 the County leased additional property to the respondent
Salant under a contract containing similar provisions. In 1942,
when the two preceding County leases expired, another agreement
was entered into which is to terminate in 1960. This lease contract,
which covers both County properties, requires the respondent to
maintain a policy of causing at least 50 percent of all its employees
to be residents of the County outside the City of Lawrenceburg, and
that such employment be distributed among the County districts in
proportion to their assessed valuations of taxable real estate.
The County Building Committee, lessor in the above-described con-
tract, consisted of John Roberts, chairman; Jos. Sims, County Judge;
Gene Stockard, County attorney and secretary of the Committee;
E. A. Sims and H. V. Brewer. As described more fully hereinafter
Roberts is also chairman of, and Stockard is counsel for, the Citizens
Industrial Committee of Lawrenceburg, a respondent in this pro-
ceeding.
Lawrenceburg's Board of Commissioners, lessor in the above-
described extension of lease covering the property owned by the city,
consisted of Mayor R. 0. Downey, Commissioner of Finance E. N.
Parkes, and Commissioner of Streets H. A. Mathis. As described
fully hereinafter, both Downey and Parkes took active part in the
creation and function of the Citizens Industrial Committee of
Lawrenceburg.
The Paris plant
The respondent Salant opened its plant in Paris, Tennessee, in
1933. Paris is a city of about 12 ,000 population . A factory of about
75,000 square feet of floor space was leased to the respondent for a
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 33
10-year period with the right of two additional renewal periods of
10 years each. The building was erected by the city, solely for the
use of the respondent. By the terms of the contract, the respondent
was specifically absolved from the payment of rental, taxes, and
water rent, but was required to use the premises only for the purpose
of manufacturing garments, to install at least 126 machines for this
purpose, and to hire labor necessary to operate the machines.
In 1939, Paris leased to the respondent Salant for 13 years another
parcel of land, upon which the respondent contracted to construct
a building at its own expense. For the use of the land, the respond-
ent is required to pay $1 a year. The city of Paris, however, assumed
the payment of all taxes, water rents, and municipal assessments of
any character, as well as maintaining adequate hazard insurance on
the building.
The Union City plant
Also in 1933 the respondent Salant opened a factory in Union City,
near Martin, with a population of about 7,000. It occupied property
owned by the city, leased to it free of rent, tax and water expense,
upon condition that it operate at least 75 machines in the manufac-
ture of garments. The contract covered a period of 10 years, with
provisions for two additional renewal terms of the same number of
years.
Apparently in need of additional space, in 1940 and 1942, the
respondent Salant leased two more buildings. These properties,
however, were leased from private owners, at a rental totaling $125
monthly. Nor did these leases specify either the use to be made of
the buildings or the extent of employment required.
The Henderson plant
In 1940, the respondent Salant opened a plant in Henderson, a
"municipal corporation" of about 1,700 population, in Chester
County. It leased from the city and the county, factory property for
a period of 20 years, at an annual rental of $1. Under the terms of
the lease the respondent is exempted from all city and county taxes,
but is required to install and keep in continuous operation at least
50 sewing machines for the "manufacture of garments, raiments and
clothing," and to employ only residents of Chester County.
The Parsons plant
In 1938, the respondent Salant opened a shirt plant in Parsons,
a small town of about 1,250 population, and in 1941, a pants factory.
686572-46-4
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The first factory building was erected by the town and leased to
the respondent, rent and tax free, upon condition that the respondent
use the property as a garment factory and employ local labor suffi-
cient to keep in continuous operation at least 40 machines. The
pants factory was built by Decatur County Development Corporation
at an annual rental of $1,200. The lease provides, however, that the
respondent shall pay no taxes upon the realty, but must keep the
plant in continuous operation with a minimum of 40 machines.
The Obion plant
In 1942, the respondent Salant opened its plant in the town of
Obion, which has a population of about 1,500. Its factory was sup-
plied and leased to it by the town, rent-free, and without taxes or
water rents, but with the requirement that 'it keep in continuous
operation at least 35 machines in the manufacture of garments. The
contract also provides that the town must, upon request of the
respondent, furnish additional manufacturing space.
B. Salant's anti-union campaign in general
Self-organizational and concerted activities among the employees
at the respondent Salant's Tennessee plants first commenced on Feb-
ruary 10 or 11, 1943, when more than 300 employees at the Martin
plant signed a petition requesting a wage increase. As a result of
this petition Arthur Lipshie, production manager for all Salant
plants, came to Martin on February 19 and advised the employees
that applications for permission to increase wages would be made
to the National War Labor Board, hereinafter called the NWLB.
The employees insisted that they did not wish to work longer hours,
as Lipshie had advised them if they wished to earn more money,
but that they wanted definite information concerning wage increases
within a week.
On February 24, 1943, Salant sent a wire to Milburn Gardner,
a city councilman and cashier of the City State Bank at Martin,
threatening the removal of the Martin plant unless the townspeople
took steps to stop the unrest among the employees. The next day,
February 25, there was distributed to the Martin employees in front
of the plant a document signed by prominent citizens and business
clubs, to the effect that no wage increases could be granted without
NWLB approval, that the respondent Salant had made such appli-
cations, and that the employees should not give Salant additional
worries during the waiting period.
SALANT & SAf,ANT, INC. 15
The following clay, Friday, February 26, Salant came to Martin
and discussed with the employees the pending applications for wage
increases. He assured the employees that the plant would be open
as usual the following Monday. On Saturday night and Sunday
afternoon, February 26 and 27, meetings of the Martin employees
were held for the purpose of self-organization. As hereinafter found,
Salant had the Martin plant closed and the employees locked out
for 2 days, March 1 and 2, in order to discourage their self -organi-
zational activities.
On March 12, 1943, the Union at Martin won a consent election
and the following month commenced negotiations with Salant at
New York City. As hereinafter more fully described, the respondent
Salant failed to bargain in good faith, refused to sign an agreement
embodying all terms upon which an accord had been reached, and
finally sold the Martin plant for the purpose of evading his statutory
obligation to bargain with the Union.
Shortly after the Martin employees organized, similar efforts were
begun at other Salant plants. During March and April 1943, Salant
made a number of visits to his various Tennessee plants. He con-
sulted with local civic authorities, business leaders, and newspaper
publishers. He conferred with his local bankers, and with the city
or county officials who had leased to him the factory buildings or
who had been instrumental in getting him to establish a plant in
their town or county. Following his visits, or coincident with them,
citizens' committees were set up, reorganized, or planned. In design,
each of these committees, whether it later functioned as such or not,
had the common characteristic of purporting to serve as a "grievance
committee"; that is, a committee of business men who would take
up with local Salant management any grievances which employees
might wish to submit through them instead of through a union. In
the towns where no self-organization among employees occurred,
these citizens' committees did little more than take initial steps
toward actual formation. In other localities, such as Martin and
Lawrenceburg, the committees and their members openly operated
as anti-union groups. The respondent Lawrenceburg Committee
sponsored and conducted what its answer admits was an "anti-
Union" rally. In Martin the respondent Martin Commission hired
a speaker on two occasions to urge employees to abandon the Union,
and its treasurer, Joe Shatz, engaged in a long campaign of soliciting
employees to revoke their union affiliation.
Salant frequently sent letters to the various committees and their
members, as well as to other influential citizens, often enclosing
reprints of news stories derogatory and disparaging of the Union
and its officials. The letters and enclosures were designed to, and in
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
many instances did, incite and encourage the recipients to interfere
with the employees' organizational efforts in their respective com-
munities. In these letters Salant also repeatedly threatened to close
the plants in the event that the Union succeeded in organizing the
employees there. In addition Salant during this period discharged,
laid off, or otherwise discriminated against a number of employees
at various plants because of their union membership and activities.
In summary, the general design of the respondent Salant's anti-
union campaign was as follows : (1) to defeat the Union at Martin
by various stratagems such as locking out the employees and refusing
to bargain with the Union; (2) to enlist the aid of business leaders
and newspaper publishers in all towns where its plants are located
in Tennessee, in preventing its employees from successfully organ-
izing as they had at Martin; (3) to provide such leaders and news-
paper publishers with anti-union propaganda; (4) to threaten
employees at its other plants with the same treatment accorded to
the employees at Martin; (5) to weed out certain employees because
of their union activities at places where self-organization was taking
place; and (6) to encourage and acquiesce in anti-union activities
carried on by individuals and citizens' committees.
Detailed findings of the respects in which the conduct of the re-
spondent Salant and the other respondents violated the Act, follows.
Although a'number of relevant events occurred simultaneously in
different localities, for the purpose of clarity in treatment, occurrences
at each town will be discussed in separate sections.
C. Salant's anti-union campaign at Martin
1. The lock-out
On February 10 or 11, 1943, the employees presented to James E.
Cushing, superintendent of the Martin plant, a petition for higher
wages signed by some 300 of the Martin employees. On Friday,
February 26, 1943, Salant arrived in Martin to address the employees.
He informed them that he had applied for a wage increase; that the
outcome would depend upon the action of the NWLB ; and that he
could do nothing about it.-' He then invited the employees individu-
ally to discuss with him their problems in general and the effect of
the rise in living costs on local conditions in particular. A number
of employees availed themselves of this opportunity. They were
interviewed by Salant individually, and in small groups, on the day
b The application for the Martin plant was mailed on February 22, 1943; the applica-
tions for the other Salant plants were made during the period from February 22 to
March 10 and 11, 1943.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 37
of his speech and all day Saturday. During these interviews he told
the employees that although he had intended to close the Martin
plant when he came to Martin, it would be open as usual the follow-
ing Monday. Salant left Martin on Saturday night for Union City
and Nashville, where he arrived Sunday night.
Meanwhile, on Saturday night, February 27, 1943, the Union held
its first organizational meeting at which it was decided to call a mass
meeting of the employees for Sunday afternoon, February 28. The
meeting, held at a local hotel, was attended by about 100 Salant
employees from the Martin plant. Superintendent Cushing testified
that he heard the "rumor" that the employees were gathering at the
hotel Sunday afternoon and were signing cards and joining the
Union. ' Uncontradicted testimony establishes that both Lipshie and
Cushing were at the plant on Sunday afternoon. The hotel where
the union meeting took place could be observed from the plant.
On Sunday night, Salant telephoned to Lipshie and asked him
to inform Cushing that the plant was to be closed on Monday,
March 1. Cushing testified that he did not know Salant's reason
for closing the plant. He denied that he informed Salant about the
union activities on Sunday. Salant, in turn, denied that union organ-
ization in Martin was mentioned to him on Sunday. However, Cush-
ing made arrangements with the local police on Sunday night to
guard the plant the following day. On Monday morning, in the
presence of police officers, Cushing told the employees when they
reported for work that "due to changed circumstances the plant
would not open until further notice." The police officers remained
until Wednesday, March 3, at which time the plant was reopened.
The respondent Salant contends that the shut-down of the Martin
plant on March 1 and 2, 1943, was motivated solely by an article in
a Martin newspaper on February 8, 1943, announcing the opening
of a cigar plant at Martin. Salant testified at great length that he
had made repeated efforts to come to terms with the officials of the
cigar plant about possible raiding of his employees and that he
decided to close the plant on Sunday because an agreement on that
point was not reached by that time. Like the Trial Examiner, we
find no merit in this contention.
Although the cigar plant was not opened at that time, the
employees nevertheless remained locked out for 2 days. Moreover,
Superintendent 'Cushing testified that he did not know why Salant
ordered the plant closed. As the Trial Examiner pointed out, if
Salant had really been concerned about the opening of the cigar
plant it would be reasonable to expect the superintendent to be aware
of such concern. Salant's testimony in this respect was corroborated
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by no other witnesses. Furthermore, when the cigar plant finally
opened in September, Salant did not lose any employees to it.6
When Salant interviewed the employees at Martin on Friday and
Saturday, February 26 and 27, he told them that the plant would be
open as usual the following Monday. During the interval there
occurred the two organizational meetings of the Martin employees.
Cushing admitted that he was aware of these organizational activi-
ties. He and Lipshie were at the plant while the Sunday afternoon
union meeting was in progress. Salant admittedly was in com-
munication with the Martin plant on Sunday evening. The record
discloses no incidents to justify the extraordinary precautions which
Cushing took in requesting police protection on Sunday night and
in having the police remain at the plant from March 1 through
March 3. i
Under all the circumstances we are unable to credit Salant's denial
that he had any knowledge of union activities in Martin over the
week end. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the open self-
organizational activities at Martin, and not the expected opening of
the cigar factory, motivated Salant in ordering the plant to be closed
and in locking out the employees for 2 days. By such conduct the
respondent Salant interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. The respondents Martin Commission and Joe Shatz
The respondent Martin Commission , of which the respondent Joe
Shatz, a local merchant, was treasurer , was apparently organized
early in 1942 . According to Shatz 's testimony , it was formed for
the purpose of bringing "additional industry into Martin and also
to take care of any friction that might come between the industry
and the workers , and the employers." There is no evidence to sup-
port Shatz's testimony that its coexistent purpose, when first set up,
was to "take care of friction " between workers and employers. In
any event , it never functioned in this capacity until Salant enlisted
its aid in 1943.
On February 24, 1943, after the employees at the Martin plant
had petitioned the respondent Salant for a wage increase , Salant
wired to Milburn Gardner , his local banker , as follows :
CONFIDENTIAL. REFERRING TO RECENT PHONE
CONVERSATION I REPEAT THAT OUR POLICY IS TO
6Salant again relied on the opening of the cigar plant as a defense to the sale of
the Martin plant See infra, p. 48.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 39
WITHDRAW FROM ANY PLACE IN WHICH EITHER
THE TOWNSPEOPLE OR THE EMPLOYEES DO NOT
WANT US. WE ARE UTTERLY AT A LOSS TO EX-
PLAIN CHANGED ATTITUDE TOWARD US. NEITHER
WE NOR THE MARTIN MANAGEMENT HAS DONE
ANYTHING TO MAR THE PREVIOUS HARMONIOUS
AND EVEN CORDIAL RELATIONS. UNLESS WE CAN
FEEL ASSURED OF GOOD PROSPECTS FOR RESUMP-
TION OF SUCH RELATIONS, OUR PLAN IS TO CON-
TRACT OPERATIONS IN MARTIN GRADUALLY WITH
OBJECT TO ULTIMATE ENTIRE WITHDRAWAL. IT
IS FOR THE TOWNSPEOPLE AND OUR EMPLOYEES
TO DECIDE. AS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET NEW
MACHINERY, WE CAN USE THE MARTIN EQUIP-
MENT TO VERY GREAT ADVANTAGE ELSEWHERE.
ABOVE ALL WE WANT NO PUBLICITY. OUR ONLY
EXCUSE FOR BOTHERING YOU IS YOUR WELL-
KNOWN DEVOTION TO THE INTERESTS OF THE
TOWN AND YOUR FRIENDLINESS TO OUR EM-
PLOYEES AND OURSELVES.
Salant 's wire brought immediate results. During the evening of
the same day George M. Brooks , Mayor of Martin; Joe W. White,
vice president of the Young Business Men's Club ; and Superintend-
ent Cushing visited the home of Paul Meek , president of the local
Chamber of Commerce , presented him with a document , and asked
him to sign it. He signed . The document , in printed form, was
distributed to employees in front of the garment factory the follow-
ing day. In this document , signed by the Mayor of Martin , Milburn
Gardner and other business men, the president of the Chamber of
Commerce, and officials of the Young Business Men's Club and the
Martin Rotary Club, the employees were assured that the people
of Martin had always had their interests at heart, that the under-
signed would use their influence in getting favorable consideration
by the NWLB of the respondent Salant's application for wage
increases , and that in the meantime the employees should not give
Superintendent Cushing any additional "worries."
On April 5, 1943, the day on which bargaining negotiations with
the Union began in New York City, Salant wrote to Gardner, in
part, as follows :
Will you please let me know whether the Citizens Committee,
about which we spoke last week , has been formed, and if so, who
is the Chairman . We may want to send data to this Committee
from time to time that would be of interest to it.
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the same letter he pointed out to Gardner the "shrinkage" in his
pay rolls, and warned that "prospects for the maintenance of even
the present rate of operations are highly doubtful," if the "present
agitation and turmoil" continued.
Three days later Gardner replied as follows :
Glad to get your letter of the 5th. There was a meeting of a
few 'of the business men Monday evening but it was impossible
for me to be there on account of some previous engagements.
However, the meeting was well organized and a chairman
appointed and also a Secretary. Mr. Paul Clarke, who ownes
(sic) the Pepsi Cola Plant here was Chairman and Roy
Clements [Clemons] was secretary. They are two of the most
competent men I know in Martin. Mr. Clarke is a very quiet
man but a man of strong conviction and not afraid to express
himself. He is also of such a character that people have confi-
dence in him. Even though I was not present at the meeting
-I did have a part in selecting him. Am sure you will find him
to be everything that you might expect. (Italics supplied.)
According to the testimony of the respondent Shatz, members of
the Commission held a reorganization meeting at the Martin Bank
early in April 1943.7 After the election of a new president and
secretary and the reelection of the respondent Joe Shatz as treasurer,
Mayor Brooks and others present discussed the "trouble at the
factory."
Salant denied having had anything to do with the formation of
the Commission. Gardner denied that he had ever discussed with
Salant the formation of the Committee; he later admitted, however,
that at Union City and in correspondence with Salant, he had dis-
cussed with Salant the Martin Commission. While Salant may have
had nothing to do with the formation of the Martin Commission
in 1942, it is clear, and we find from the foregoing facts and particu-
larly from Salant's letter to Gardner, dated April 5, 1943, that Salant
was at least instrumental in instigating the reorganization of the
Martin Commission.
Although the Commission had not yet been formally reorganized
at the time when the business men of Martin distributed copies of a
letter to the respondent Salant's employees at Martin, on or about
February 25, 1943, the expenses incident to the letters were paid by
Treasurer Shatz from the funds of the Martin Commission after
its reorganization. That the Commission adopted the letter as its
7 Shatz, testifying from minutes of the meeting , set the date of the meeting as April
3, a Saturday, whereas Gardner, in his letter to Salant , stated that the meeting was
held on a Monday . Like the Trial Examiner, we consider it unnecessary to resolve
the conflict as to the exact date of this meeting.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 41
own is further shown by its reference to it in a subsequent letter
mailed to the employees on April 12, 1943, shortly after the Com-
mission 's formal reorganization. Shatz obtained the mailing list for
this letter from Superintendent Cushing. Again, the cost of print-
ing, addressing, and mailing was borne by the Martin Commission.
The 4etter is written on stationery of the City of Martin and signed
for the City of Martin by the Mayor and other officials as well as
by local business men. The letter refers to the "unrest," "confusion,"
and "dissatisfaction" at the factory caused by the CIO (the Union) ;
it reminded the employees that if they had listened to "our plea" in
the letter of February 24, 1943, "to cooperate with us, you would
have had a salary increase long before now" ; it urged the employees
not to join the Union and to seek their assistance in withdrawing
if they had already joined; and it suggested that the employees "form
an organization of their own and we will form a committee to
cooperate with you and in that way conditions in this community
can and will be improved." The letter closed with the exhortation,
"Let's have a united, friendly and cooperating community and gov-
ern and control our own affairs."
Viewed in the setting in which both letters were issued and the
surrounding circumstances , we find that both letters carried the
implication that repudiation of the Union would result in more
favorable and quicker action on the employees' wage increase
demands.8
In addition to his activities as treasurer of the Martin Commis-
sion, the respondent Joe Shatz personally conducted a campaign to
destroy the Union at Martin. Copying a form given to him by Paul
Clarke, head of the respondent Martin Commission, Shatz prevailed
upon about 50 employees to sign letters to the Union reading as
follows :
8 Both Gardner and Shatz testified that Salant advised them not to send the circular
out. Gardner stated that he talked with Salant about it in Union City , while Shatz
testified that upon request of members of the Martin Commission he consulted Salant
by telephone Salant denied having talked with Shatz over the telephone about the
circular . On April 23, the day after the Union had protested strongly in New York
City against Salant 's anti -union conduct , Salant sent to Superintendent Cushing a
letter in which he stated that he learned of the circular on Saturday , April 24 Gardner
did not testify with respect to the exact date when the circular was discussed between
him and Salant , but according to Gardner it was before the mailing of the circular
In correspondence between Shatz and Salant during May and June, Shatz offered to
take the position that Salant had advised him by telephone not to take any action with
respect to the circular.
In view of the conflict in the testimony of Gardner, Shatz, and Salant, we , like the
Trial Examiner, do not credit either witness with respect to Salant 's disapproval of
the Commission 's action in putting out the circular. The record does not show that
Salant took any measures either to prevent its distribution or to kill the circular after
its distribution . In any event, the fact that Cushing provided the mailing list on the
basis of which copies of the letter were sent out to the employees clearly establishes
the respondent Salant's responsibility for the distribution of the letter.
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This is our written request that we desire to withdraw from
the above Union and desire that our cards be returned to us.
Shatz prepared and mailed the signed letters to the Union, in enve-
lopes bearing the local box number of the respondent Martin Com-
mission as return address. He began this campaign at about the
time the above circular was sent out, and it continued for several
weeks.
Sometime in June, Shatz was given a letter by George C. Rowlett,
local counsel for the respondent Salant at that time, advising him
on how to draft a petition to the Board by which employees might
"repudiate" the bargaining agency already selected by the employees
in a consent election conducted by the Board. Rowlett also suggested
having the "two Senators from the State and the Congressmen from
the district involved handle the matter actively with the Board" and
to have employees "resign their membership" in the Union by mail.
Rowlett also drew up for Shatz a petition to the Board requesting
a new election on the ground that the Union no longer represented
a majority of the Salant employees. Shatz solicited signatures to
this petition among the Martin plant employees. The close contact
with those employees who were his customers facilitated his task.
The letter, signed by three employees at the Martin plant, was mailed
to the Board under date of August 18, 1943.8
As part of the joint campaign to get the employees at the Martin
plant to sign the petition for a new election, the respondent Martin
Commission hired John Hart, a Union City lawyer, to address the
workers in a room at the Martin Bank Building. Hart talked to
them twice, once in the latter part of July and again about 2 weeks
later. The Commission paid Hart a fee for making each speech.
In these speeches Hart stressed the fact that the employees' friends
were the citizens and merchants and not the Union; he inferred that
the Union was responsible for the fact that the employees had not
received their wage increases and pointed out that at Salant's plant
in Union City, where there was no union, wage increases had already
been received. Analogizing the Union to quicksand, he blamed the
failure of the cigar plant to locate at Martin on the ground that the
officials "are afraid to build a plant with its foundation on quick-
sand." After reading and ridiculing the foreign sounding names
of the Union 's officials , Hart urged the employees to "correct the
9 The petition was denied by the Board 's Regional Director on the ground that the
Union had been selected as the employees' bargaining agent at an election conducted
on March 12 , 1943, and that It is "contrary to our policy to entertain another petition
and conduct another election before the duly chosen agent of the employees has had
full and free opportunity to negotiate and carry through at least one term of an agree-
ment with the Company."
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 43
serious mistake you have made" in selecting the Union as their bar-
gaining agent by signing the petition for a new election.
During the remainder of the year 1943; Shatz kept the respondent
Salant informed on his progress in inducing employees to withdraw
from the Union and to bring about a new election and on union
activities at Martin. Despite Salant's advice to Shatz that the
respondent Salant could have no part in inducing any employee not
to join the Union or to withdraw from it, Relief Superintendent
Furth and Production Manager Lipshie thereafter urged Shatz to
report on union activities in Martin. For example, on August 23,
1943, Shatz wrote to the respondent's production manager Lipshie :
I have your letter of 20th and very glad to note contents. Believe
we are on the right track now. If we can keep pulling together
feel sure we will work out. Of course will know more when
we hear from the application for new election is acted on. If
this is turned down we expect to take oction (sic) actions along
the lines we have been advised as per letter which was received
from one of our friends in Nashville.
In order that you might know more definitely just how your
employees stand in Martin I here list same. (this is as workers
of about three weeks ago), of'course I have left out names that
have quit and do not have list of those that have been employed
lately.
List of signers for new election :
[there follows a list of about 100 employees]
List that are subject to being changed over or likely not to vote
either way. Belong because they think can get higher wages :
[there follows a list of about 30 employees]
Figure only about 50% of this list will vote for union - - -
25% against Union and 25% will not vote.
List that we figure will vote more than likely for Union;
[there follows a list of about 60 employees]
Both list marked with xx can be counted on as being very strong
for that side; those with x reasonable strong. Names not marked
with xx or x but listed can be counted on as being on each side
as listed. Considerable more listed on Union Side will not vote
than those listed on Non-Union. Interest seems to be where
they are against the union as being sold on the idea; those on
Union side are more or less not settle.
If you want any addition information please advise.
On August 28 Lipshie replied as follows :
Am in receipt of your letter dated August 23rd and after study-
ing this very closely, I must admit that you and your co-workers
must have put in a lot of work, which I hope will not be in vain.
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 25, 1943, Lipshie had written to Shatz as follows :
Confidentially speaking, as much as we would want to help you
in every possible way [referring to the circulation of petitions
for a new election] you must remember that there are things
we cannot do because it would be contrary to law.
After a silence on the part of Shatz, Lipshie wrote to Shatz on
December 8, 1943, urging Shatz to do something about a new election.
Such correspondence clearly reveals that the respondent Salant was
fully aware of, approved, and encouraged the part played by Shatz
in its anti-union campaign at Martin.
Salant also kept in constant touch with the Mayor, the Martin
Commission, and Milburn Gardner, and spurred them into continuing
their campaign against the Union and coercing the employees in
repudiating the Union, by threatening to withdraw from Martin.
He used his economic power to prevail upon them to do his bidding.
In various letters addressed to them and to his superintendent, whom
he instructed to forward such information to interested citizens,
Salant describes the adverse effect of unionization on the pay roll at
Martin. Salant also sought to convey to the employees his unalter-
able opposition to the Union and the futility of remaining members
therein by informing F. C. Letch, the editor of the Martin news-
paper, according to the latter's uncontradicted testimony, that Salant
and the Union would never do business at the same plant.
Conclusions
Upon the entire record and more particularly the above-stated
facts, we find that the anti-union campaign on the part of the re-
spondents Martin Commission and Joe Shatz was instigated and kept
alive by the respondent Salant who was instrumental in reviving
the Commission for that very purpose. Salant kept in constant
touch with the Martin Commission and Shatz and other members
of the Commission, inciting their feelings against the Union with
various types of anti-union propaganda. The respondent Shatz
reported on union activities to the respondent Salant; he actively
engaged in a campaign to procure a new election and to obtain
employee resignations from the Union. Shatz also reported to the
respondent Salant on the union activities of individual employees.
High officials of the respondent Salant instigated, encouraged, and
approved such activity on the part of Shatz.
Upon the entire record we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
the respondents Martin Commission and Joe Shatz, acting in the
interest of the respondent Salant in the manner and under the cir-
cumstances hereinabove described, are employers within the meaning
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 45
of Section 2 (2) of the Act. We find further, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the respondents Martin Commission and Joe Shatz,
by their activities hereinabove described, have interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced the employees of the respondent Salant at the
Martin plant in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.lo
The respondent Salant contends that it is not responsible for the
actions of the respondents Shatz and the Martin Commission; that
they acted independently of Salant; and that he had no influence
over them. In view of the correspondence appearing in the record
between Salant and these respondents, some of which has been herein
quoted, we find no merit in Salant's contention. The conduct of
Lipshie and Furth, high officials of the respondent Salant, is attribut-
able to Salant. The correspondence shows that Shatz's activities
were openly approved, encouraged, and in some instances instigated
by the respondent Salant.
As previously described, the respondent Salant fed the Martin
Commission anti-union propaganda with full knowledge that it
would be relayed by the Commission to Salant's employees ; Salant
incited the Commission to engage in its coercive course of conduct
by repeated threats to withdraw from Martin if the employees per-
sisted in retaining the Union as their bargaining agent. In turn, the
respondent Salant made use of the services of the respondents Martin
Commission and Shatz to accomplish indirectly what it knew the
Act barred it from doing directly. Like the Trial Examiner, we find
that the respondent Salant, by the activities hereinabove described,
including that of the respondents Martin Commission and Shatz,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. Refusal to bargain
Pursuant to a consent election agreement between the Union and
the respondent Salant, the Board on March 12, 1943, conducted an
election among the employees at the Martin plant. Out of a total
of 294 ballots cast, 224 were for the Union and 70 against the
Union."
10 Like the Trial Examiner, we credit the testimony of Mortimer Freeman, an at-
torney on the Board 's staff, with respect to the manner in which he served upon the
respondent Shatz a subpoena under which various documents introduced in the record
were surrendered to him by Shatz on April 24, 1944, and we find that the subpoena
was properly served.
11 Like the Trial Examiner , we find that a unit of all production and maintenance
employees at the Martin plant, including machinists and watchmen , but excluding execu-
tive, administrative , and clerical employees , and principal supervisory employees who
have the right to hire and discharge , constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a. Refusal to sign agreement
On March 15, 1943, Carl F. Albrecht, Southern Director of the
Union, wrote to Superintendent Cushing requesting a conference
with A. B. Salant at which a proposed contract could be discussed.
A copy of the proposed contract was attached to Albrecht's letter.
Beginning with April 5, 1943, a number of conferences were held
during April and May at New York City.
On Friday, May 21, 1943, Gladys Dickason, Research Director of
the Union and one of the union representatives in the negotiations,
submitted a draft of a contract which, according to her testimony,
embodied all provisions agreed upon. This draft did not include
provisions relating to wages and vacations with pay, issues which
were to be submitted to NWLB for decision. Further corrections
in the draft were made over the week end and the revised draft was
discussed on Sunday, May 23, between Dickason and Austin Fisher,
labor relations counsel for the respondent Salant. Copies of the
revised draft were sent to Salant's home on Sunday. On Monday,
May 24, a conference was scheduled at Fisher's office for 2 p. m.
Salant was in separate conference with Fisher until about 3:30 p. m.
while the union representatives were kept waiting in an outside
office. Finally, Salant came out of Fisher's room and, in passing,
told Dickason that he had to leave, that Fisher and his brother, Louis
Salant, who was the respondent's attorney during the negotations,
would explain to her that he, Salant, would not sign any agreement
which was silent on the subject of wages. Thereafter, Dickason and
another union representative discussed the matter with Louis Salant
and Fisher. During the course of the discussion or a few days later,
Fisher notified Dickason that he had resigned as labor relations
counsel for the respondent. By letter of May 27, 1943, Dickason
asked Salant to reconsider his decision. Salant admittedly left the
letter unanswered. The Union thereupon filed a charge with the
Board alleging a violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act but later with-
drew the charge without prejudice to enable the disputed issues on
wages and vacations with pay to be submitted to theNWLB.
It is undisputed that the parties were unable to come to terms on
the question of wages and vacations with pay and that these two
issues would have to be, and were, in fact, determined by the NWLB.
Witnesses for the respondent testified that no accord had been
reached by May 21, 1943, on several other issues. However, such
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act . We also agree
with the Trial Examiner and find that at all times since March 12, 1943 , the Union
has been , and now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the above-
described appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates
of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other conditions of employment.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 47
witnesses were not in agreement as to which issues were still in dis-
pute. Dickason, however, firmly asserted that all provisions of the
contract, as submitted to the respondent on Monday, May 24, 1943,
had been agreed upon and had been checked by Fisher on Sunday
and that the conference on Monday was called for the sole purpose
of signing the agreement. Like the Trial Examiner, we credit
Dickason's testimony and find that at the close of the May 21 con-
ference, all provisions except those as to wages and vacations, had
been agreed upon and were embodied in the contract, and that the
two exceptions were by agreement of the parties to be submitted to
the NWLB. We also agree with the Trial Examiner and find that
the parties had decided to sign the agreement on May 24 with the
changes made by Fisher and Dickason during the week end
discussions.
Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the respondent Salant, by
refusing to sign an agreement embodying the terms agreed upon by
the parties on or before May 24, 1943, refused to bargain within the
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act and thereby interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
b. The sale of the Martin plant
On September 27, 1943, about a month after the hearing on the
wage applications before the NWLB, Salant sold the Martin plant
to a newly formed corporation, the respondent Martin Company.
Cushing, the superintendent of the Martin plant, became secretary-
treasurer and general manager of the new company.12 Milburn
Gardner, the local banker who was the recipient of numerous anti-
union literature and letters from Salant, became president; and a
local merchant became vice president. These 3 men held among them
100 shares of no par value of the 2,000 shares authorized. Cushing
held the majority of 52; each of the other 2 held 24. The respondent
Martin Company entered into the following contracts with Salant :
a conditional sales contract, a cut, make and trim contract for a
1-year period and a sales agreement. It also executed a sublease
agreement with the City of Martin on the same terms which the
respondent Salant had enjoyed in its lease. The purchase price for
the plant amounted to $44,667 payable in installments, the first $9,000
to be due on September 27, 1944. Title to all property was to remain
in Salant until payment of the final installment. Salant was to
furnish all raw materials and supplies ; the respondent Martin Com-
pany was to furnish labor, machinery, and equipment. The finished
32 To avoid confusion, we shall continue to refer to Cushing as the superintendent.
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
product was to be shipped for Salant according to its directions.
The price per dozen shirts, although determined in the contract, was
to be increased in case of higher production cost occasioned by antici-
pated government action. The transfer was to become effective on
September 27, 1943. The respondent Salant assumed liability for
any retroactive wage increase which might be ordered by the NWLB
up to the transfer date. The respondent Martin Company agreed to
bargain with the employees and to comply with any NWLB order
effective from the transfer date on.
While Superintendent Cushing announced the change in owner-
ship to the employees, Salant remained silent. Cushing assured the
employees of continuous operations under the same conditions.
Salant continued to give directions to Superintendent Cushing on
internal operations at Martin. While it may appear natural that
Cushing would ask Salant's advice on pay-roll matters during the
transitional period, it is significant that thereafter Salant sent Cush-
ing a copy of a letter dated December 23, 1943, addressed to all his
factory superintendents, in which Salant outlined his employment
policy. Furthermore, after the sale of the Martin plant had been
completed, Cushing continued to ask Salant's advice on all matters
relating to the bargaining negotiations with the Union and with
respect to the cases pending before the NWLB and this Board.
Upon the entire record, it is clear, and we find, that the respondent
Salant continued to exercise substantial control over the labor rela-
tions at the Martin plant and together with the respondent Martin
Company acted as an employer of the employees of the Martin plant,
within the meaning of the Act.13
The respondent Salant contends that the sole reason for the sale
of the Martin plant was the opening of the cigar factory in Martin
on September 15, 1943. However, Salant had been assured by offi-
cials of the cigar company that neither his business nor his employees
would be affected. And, as Superintendent Cushing stated in a tele-
gram to Salant on September 15, 1943, the cigar factory did not
take any of the Salant employees. About 3 weeks before the sale,
Salant was obviously not concerned about the opening of the cigar
plant but only with the fact that the NWLB might grant the wage
increase applications. This appears from Salant's letter to Cushing
of August 26, 1943, in which Salant stated that "there is no law on
earth that compels anybody to run a plant and lose money." The
contents of this letter are in sharp contrast to Salant's assertions on
the witness stand that he himself had conceived the idea of granting
wage increases to his employees. The letter also indicates that in
1 See, for example, Matter of Condenser Corporation of America, et al ., 22 N. L. R. B.
347, enf 'd 128 F . ( 2d) 67 (C. C. A. 3).
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 49
selling the plant, Salant was motivated by anti-union considerations.
This is the more evident when considered in the light of Salant's
anti-union campaign carried on at the same time in his other plants,
where he pointed to the sale of the Martin plant as a warning of
what would happen to those plants should the employees join the
Union.
We find no merit in the respondent Salant's contention that it sold
the Martin plant because of the opening of the cigar plant in Martin.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Salant's real reason for
the disposal of the Martin plant was the evasion of the obligations
under the Act to bargain with the Union after the disposal of the
contested wage issue by the NWLB. By such conduct the respondent
Salant has refused to bargain collectively in violation of Section
8 (5) of the Act, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing
the employees in the Martin plant in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
c. The refusals to bargain after the sale of the Martin plant
After Cushing had become general manager of the new corpora-
tion, Albrecht congratulated him in a letter in which he also ex-
pressed the hope that an agreement could be reached between the
Union and the respondent Martin Company. Cushing enclosed
Albrecht's letter with a letter from Cushing to Salant, dated Sep-
tember 30, 1943, in which Cushing asked Salant's advice on how to
answer Albrecht. In his reply to Cushing on October 2, 1943, Salant
outlined Cushing's course of conduct in dealings with the Union.
However, the record does not show that Cushing ever replied to
Albrecht's letter.
The NWLB's Directive Order on the wage and vacation questions
was issued April 13, 1944. It set forth certain terms and conditions
of employment which were to govern the relations between the
parties, including the provision that the agreement be signed by the
parties. The respondent Martin Company petitioned the NWLB
for a rehearing or review. On May 3 and 5, 1944, Cushing declined
to meet with the Union although requested to do so by Albrecht, on
the ground that the Directive Order was not yet final. Although
on May 11, the NWLB ordered its Directive Order of April 13 to
be put into effect immediately, both respondents Salant and Martin
Company refused to confer with the Union, as requested by Albrecht
in his letter to both respondents, dated May 13, 1944. On June 26,
1944, the NWLB denied the respondent Martin Company's appeal
for reconsideration.
686572-46-5
SO DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On July 27, 1944, during the course of the hearing in these pro-
ceedings, Cushing and Albrecht, for the respondent Martin Company
and the Union, respectively, entered into a signed collective bargain-
ing agreement. On August 3, however, Salant refused to sign the
same agreement, claiming, "I have nothing to do with the Martin
Manufacturing Company."
The respondent Martin Company contends that during the pend-
ency of the case before the NWLB it could not enter into a contract
with the Union. Thus the respondent Martin Company resorts to
the same defense which we found lacking in merit in the case of
the respondent Salant, namely, the refusal to sign a contract embody-
ing the remaining matters upon which the parties were in agreement.
We accordingly find, as did the Trial Examiner, that by refusing
during the period from September 27, 1943, to July 27, 1944, to
embody in a written agreement the terms upon which an accord had
been reached, the respondent Martin Company has refused to bargain
with the Union in violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act and has
thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We have previously found that the respondent Salant continued
in control of the operations and labor policy at the Martin plant
after its sale, and retained the status of an employer within the mean-
ing of the Act. We accordingly find, like the Trial Examiner, that
the respondent Salant, by refusing to bargain with the Union after
the sale of the Martin plant, violated Section 8 (5) of the Act and
thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees at
the Martin plant in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
d. Failure to bargain in good faith
While the bargaining conferences were in progress during April
and May 1943, the respondent Salant conductdd an extensive anti-
union campaign at Martin and at its other plants. On April 13,
1943, Salant inserted an advertisement in the "Daily News Record,"
a trade paper, offering an unidentified work shirt factory in West
Tennessee for sale; the identity of the plant was revealed by Editor
Critchlow who published the story about the offer for sale of the
Martin plant in his paper in Union City on April 19, 1943. Critch-
low obtained the necessary information from Salant personally at
Union City on April 18, 1943. Part of the bargaining negotiations
dealt with the Union's request that Salant desist from such activities,
which the Union alleged constituted unfair labor practices.
During the same period the respondent Salant made use of the
services of the respondents Martin Commission and Shatz to secure
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 51
defections from the Union and a new election. Moreover, as previ-
ously found, Salant told Editor Letch on April 17, 1943, that he
would never do business with the Union at Martin. After the dis
ruption of negotiations because of Salant's refusal to sign the con-
tract, the respondent Salant discharged Neysa Yates, the chairlady
of the Union at Martin, because of her union activities, as herein-
after found. In September 1943, when it appeared that the NWLB
was about to issue its decision on the wage issue which the parties
had submitted to it, Salant sold the Martin plant in order to evade
his statutory obligation to bargain with the Union. Thereafter,
Salant refused to bargain with the Union although he still retained
control over the operations and labor relations at the Martin plant.
At, the same time, the respondent Salant engaged in a campaign to
prevent the Union from organizing at its other plants by, among
other things, using the sale of the Martin plant as a warning that
similar action would be taken at the other plants in the event of
unionization by spreading stories about the ill effects of unionization
on the wage demands of the employees at Martin, and by discrimi-
nating against various union members.
In view of the foregoing conduct of the respondent Salant, con-
cerning which more detailed findings appear elsewhere in this Deci-
sion, we are of the opinion and find that the respondent Salant did
not approach the negotiations with an open mind, a spirit of coopera-
tion, and a sincere effort to arrive at a signed agreement binding on
both parties. We find that at all times on and after April 5, 1943,
the respondent Salant failed to bargain with the Union in good faith
within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act and thereby inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced the employees at the Martin plant
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
4. Discharges at Martin
a. Neysa Yates
The complaint alleges that on June 29, 1943, the respondent Salant
discriminatorily discharged Neysa Yates, and that since then the
respondents Salant and Martin Company have discriminatorily
refused to reinstate her. The respondents' answers deny the
allegations.
On February 10 or 11, 1943, employee Neysa Yates presented to
Superintendent Cushing a petition for higher wages. On February
19, 1943, production manager Arthur Lipshie discussed this request
with the employees at Martin. Yates acted as spokesman for the
employees. After Lipshie's talk, the employees roamed around the
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant. Cushing thereupon asked Yates to assist him in getting the
employees back to work. Yates and two of her coworkers went to
the basement where they pulled the master switch; the power re-
mained shut off for about 5 minutes, the time it took Cushing to turn
the switch back on again.14 No action was taken either by Cushing
or the respondent Salant to discover or discipline the employees
responsible for the switch incident until June 21, 1943, when, upon
orders from Salant, Cushing posted a notice on the plant bulletin
board promising three rewards of $50, $25, and $10, respectively, for
information leading to the arrest and conviction of the persons guilty
of sabotage in pulling the switch on February 19, 1943.
As soon as this notice came to their attention, Yates and two other
employees, who had been with her on February 19, immediately went
to Cushing. Yates readily admitted having pulled the switch, point-
ing out that she had not attempted to hide the fact. According to
Yates' testimony, Cushing became red in the face and said he would
have to report the matter to Salant. He did so by letter on the same
day.
On June 26, Salant instructed Cushing to discharge Yates. In
his letter Salant declared that records showed that Yates had been
"soldiering on the job," and stated that "you have warned her . . .
repeatedly during the last four months that she would be discharged
if . . . she did not make her minimum or something approaching
it." He ordered Cushing to tell Yates :
You are hereby discharged effective on the completion of your
bundle or, if you prefer, sooner because of your sabotage and
act of malicious mischief of February 19th and because of your
disregard of my repeated warnings that you would face dis-
charge if you persisted in refusing to make the minimum.
Yates was discharged by Cushing on June 29, as instructed by
Salant. The superintendent told her that he had orders from New
York, that "they" had decided that pulling the switch was sabotage,
and asked her not to blame him.15
Immediately after the forming of the respondent Martin Company
in September, Yates again applied to Cushing for reinstatement.
She was refused employment, and at the time of the hearing before
the Trial Examiner had not been reinstated.
The record is barren of any credible evidence to support many of
the statements made by Salant in the above letter. As to her "high
adjustments," Salant's claims are wholly refuted by his own super-
11 Yates testified that there was so much confusion going on upstairs that that
was the only way to get them back to work again , that she thought by pulling the switch
the employees would get settled , and that she knew that " if anybody got hurt that
[she] would be blamed with it, because she was doing all the talking."
15 Yates' account of this interview is undisputed.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 53
intendent. Cushing admitted that while Yates was working on
"shaded" work, from March until about 2 weeks before her discharge,
her adjustments were justified. He further admitted that for the
last 2 weeks of her employment, when she was on regular work, she
"was making her amount." Cushing's testimony to the effect that
while on special "shaded" work her adjustments were to be expected
negates Salant's statement that the manager had "warned her . . .
repeatedly during the last four months that she would be discharged
if . . . she did not make her minimum." Cushing cited no instance
of having "warned" Yates, or even of criticizing her work. Cushing
admitted that Yates, as an employee, conducted "herself with good
deportment," but that he was instructed not to reemploy her "for
pulling the switch, as far as I know. That's what I thought, any-
way." Furthermore, the testimony of Forelady Vera Mae Wash,
who was supervisor over Yates during most of her employment, is
unchallenged that the employee was an "A-1" worker, and was not
only able to keep up with her own section but also help out in
others.16 There is no contradictory testimony by any of the other
supervisory employees.
The respondent Salant introduced a time-study on Yates' work
and that of a coworker, Imogene Price, who had started as a learner
on November 28, 1942. This study is based on an average amount
of regular work. According to the time study, Price was a more
efficient worker. However, Yates had been in the respondent's employ
for about 5 years without having been taken to task for inefficiency.
The respondent Salant also introduced a comparison of Yates' and
Price's adjustments for that period, showing that Yates' adjustments
were higher than Price's. However, as mentioned before, Cushing
testified that Yates had "more shaded work than the girl who worked
in the same section" and that Yates made her amount during the
2 weeks prior to her discharge when they had returned to regular
work. We find that the records introduced by the respondent Salant
do not support its contention that Yates' adjustments were high
because they do not show the type of work performed by Yates and
Price, respectively, and therefore do not serve as a valid basis for
16 Wash thus explained the difference in "shaded" and "regular" work for button
sewers She pointed out that the sewer could produce more on regular work, "for
the simple reason you have bundles of 20 dozen, and when you are on shaded work
pi obably you have a bundle of six shirts and maybe a bundle of six or more. These
bundles have to be kept separate, the 10's, 141/2, and on through, have to be kept
separate and have to be run according to the bundle numbers and shades" Keeping
shades separate affects production, she testified, "because each bundle has to be stacked
separate In other words, you have to stack all of your shade A's together. After
you complete that, if your joining girl isn't up with size 14 you have to start another
size and keep that separate. There are two sizes. All have to be kept separate. You
have a 20-dozen bundle, lay that out, and that 's all there is to it."
54 DECISIONS O11 NATIONAL LAIlOR RELATIONS I;OATtI)
a comparison. Especially is this so, in the light of Superintendent
Cushing's testimony that Yates had more shaded work than Price
during the period covered by the reports.
As to the switch-pulling incident, credible evidence establishes (1)
that Yates openly turned off the power because of the fear, shared
by other employees, that someone might be hurt, and not as an act
of "malicious mischief" or "sabotage"; and (2) that Salant well
knew she had pulled the switch in May, many weeks before she was
discharged. That Cushing himself did not consider it an act even
deserving of reprimand is made clear by his testimony to the effect
that his comment, when he turned the switch back on, was to tell
employees Chandler and Nowlin, who were then standing by the
switch, that the "people had decided to go back to work." Austin
Fisher, Salant's labor relations consultant, testified that at a bar-
gaining conference, when Yates was present, Salant made some
remark about her having pulled the switch. Fisher resigned as
Salant's counsel sometime in May 1943. Fisher did not testify exactly
when during the course of the negotiations Salant showed concern
about Yates' having pulled the switch. Fisher's resignation in May,
however, establishes, and we find, that Salant made the statement
prior to Fisher's resignation in May. We therefore find that the
respondent Salant knew at least as early as May 1943, that Yates
had pulled the switch on February 19, 1943.17
Previous findings have described the leading role taken by Neysa
Yates in the Union at Martin and the collective activity which pre-
ceded formal organization. In summary, Yates prepared and had
circulated the petition for a wage increase which was submitted to
Cushing early in February and preceded the respondent Salant's
filing of any request with the NWLB for permission to increase
wages. She was elected president and chairlady of the local union
the day of the lock-out. Cushing recognized her early leadership
when, to quiet the resentment among employees when Lipshie sug-
gested that if they wanted to earn more money they should work
overtime, he turned the meeting over to her. Yates led the committee
of employees which took part in the first negotiation meetings in
New York.
14 In their brief, counsel for the respondent Salant contend that, despite Fishei's un-
contradicted testimony , Salant did not know, until late in June, that Yates had pulled
the switch in February . Salant did not testify on the point. Like the Trial Examiner,
we find no merit in this contention . Yates' testimony is undisputed that on February
25, when Cushing informed her that Salant would visit the plant the next day, he
also said , "Now, about this switch -pulling. I don't want it to happen any more." It
is reasonable to infer that Cushing or Lipshie informed Salant of the incident at the
time it occurred . Although Salant did not have Yates ' admission as the basis for
factual knowledge in May, it is clear that she was intimately associated in his mind
with an act performed many weeks before.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 55
On June 8, 1943 , Salant wrote the respondent Shatz the following
letter :
The last paragraph of the enclosed clipping in the "Daily
News Record" of today, may interest you in connection with
your recent letter.
Please note, that we are operating on a Navy contract in the
Martin plant . If any sabotage or spoilage of work is attempted,
we will try to have the FBI investigate, regardless of whether
the guilty person is a member of the union or not.
Shatz's letter, to which Salant refers, was that of June 4, in which
he offered to supply Salant with the "names of two Union Members
that are strong for the Union because they have been assured that
they cannot be let out on account of inefficient work so long as they
are members."
We find, as did the Trial Examiner , that Salant seized upon the
idea of "sabotage" in order to advance it as a convincing reason for
discharging Yates; that the respondent has not proved that Yates
had high adjustments, and that the real reason for the discharge was
Yates' union and concerted activities. We find that the respondent
Salant, by discharging Neysa Yates, discriminated with respect to
her hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging member-
ship in the Union and interfering with , restraining , and coercing
the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
Furthermore, we find that Superintendent Cushing refused to
employ Yates when she applied for a job on September 28, 1943,
not for the reason assigned by the superintendent that she pulled the
switch but because of her union membership and activities. We find
that the respondent Martin Company, by refusing to employ Neysa
Yates, discriminated in regard to hire or tenure of her employment,
thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with,
restraining , and coercing the employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
b. The refusal to reinstate Barbara (Bobby) Killebrew
The complaint alleges that the respondents Salant and Martin
Company, jointly and severally, refused to reinstate or hire employee
Bobby Killebrew at the Martin plant on December 6, 1943, and
thereafter. The respondents' answers deny the allegation.
By September 1943, employee Barbara Killebrew, known gener-
ally and carried on the plant pay roll as "Bobby," had worked for
the respondent Salant for about 7 years. She was an experienced
operator on several different machines,
56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Killebrew was an active union member, serving on one of its com-
mittees. During the noon hour on June 19, 1943, Killebrew listed the
names and length of service of the girls in her department. The
following morning Cushing posted a notice forbidding "any solicita-
tion . . . in the factory building." He then interviewed Killebrew,
and inquired what she had been asking the girls the day before. She
explained that each committee member was doing the same. He
warned her that this was against the rule posted that morning, and
instructed her not to talk about the Union, either for or against, "in
the factory at any time." 18
During September Killebrew became ill, and went to a hospital
for an operation. She notified Cushing, while in the hospital, and
told him she would like to have her job back as soon as she was
able to work. About November 20 she met Cushing on the street.
The manager promised her work when she returned if a job was
open. On December 6 she reported at the factory but was told that
there was no work available for her. She was given her separation
slip. Cushing told her, however, that he might 'call her before she
started drawing her unemployment compensation and asked if she
still lived at the same address. At this time the firm was adver-
tising, by a sign posted, "Experienced Help Wanted." Killebrew
was not called, and thereafter obtained work in the local cigar
factory.
Sometime during the latter part of June, after she had testified
in these proceedings, Killebrew was reinstated. There is no evidence,
however, that she was made whole for any loss of pay.
The respondent Martin Company contends that Killebrew was not
reinstated on December 6, 1943, because there was no vacancy in her
old job at felling. The record, however, discloses that the respondents
Salant and Martin Company had engaged several learners in Kille-
brew's former job. However, Killebrew was admittedly a good oper-
ator and the "felling" operation was one of the two most difficult
jobs, according to Superintendent Cushing's uncontradicted testi-
mony. The respondent Martin Company was in need of experienced
operators at the time Killebrew asked for reinstatement, and Kille-
brew had handled other jobs besides felling while in the respondent
Salant's employ.
Counsel for the respondent Martin Company contended at the
hearing before the Trial Examiner that Killebrew was physically
unable to work at its plant.19 The record does not show that Kille-
18Iiillebrew 's testimony as to this incident is undisputed.
19 Counsel for the respondent Martin Company also stated, on the same occasion,
that she was denied reinstatement because , after obtaining work at the cigar factory,
she told someone there that she had quit at the garment factory because the work
was too hard. He later reversed his position , and denied that was the reason for not
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 57
brew, prior to her separation, had been physically unable to fill her
job or would have needed special training for a new assignment, as
Superintendent Cushing asserted in his testimony. We find that
the respondent Martin Company's contention as to its reason for
not rehiring Killebrew on December 6, 1943, is without merit.
Admittedly Superintendent Cushing had knowledge of Killebrew's
union activity. When considered against the broad background of
anti-union activity on the part of both respondents, the failure to
reinstate Killebrew on December 6, 1943, becomes an integral part
of their program to discourage union membership and activity. Like
the Trial Examiner, we therefore find that Killebrew was discrimi-
natorily refused reinstatement on December 6, 1943, by the respond-
ents Salant and Martin Company, because of her union membership
and activity. By said conduct, the respondents discriminated with
respect to her hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging
membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and
coercing the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Sect ion 7 of the Act.
5. Other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
a. Rule prohibiting solicitation on the employees' own time
On June 10, 1943, the respondent Salant, under the signature of
Superintendent Cushing, posted a notice on the Martin plant bulletin
board announcing, among other things, that it would "not tolerate
any solicitations either one way or the other during work hours or
in the factory building." 20 This notice was broad enough to forbid
union solicitation on the respondent' s premises during the employees'
non-working time. No showing was made that such a rule was
necessary in order to maintain production or preserve discipline in
the plant. As we have previously held in numerous decisions, the
prohibition of solicitation on company premises on the employees'
reinstating her. In his brief before the Trial Examiner , counsel renewed his original
position that Killebrew had quit. Cushing's testimony deprives this claim of any
validity. The manager admitted that she applied for work and was refused . Neither
Cushing nor any other management witness testified that they had knowledge of any
statement which Killebrew may or may not have made when she later obtained work
at the cigar factory. Pate, the cigar factory employee, admitted that she had never
told Cushing about Killebrew 's statement to her , and stated that she had not told
Rowlett, counsel for the respondent Martin, until the day before she testified , on July
25, 1944 By that time, Killebrew had already been reemployed for a month . Whatever
Killebrew may have said to Pate, after having been refused reinstatement on December
fi, it plainly could have served as no valid reason for the respondent 's refusal to hire
her on that day.
The respondent also stated in the notice that employees had a right to join a
union without fear of discrimination and that they could "get a fellow employee to
join the Union or not to join the Union or to withdraw from the Union." A similar
notice was posted at the Paris plant bulletin board.
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
own time constitutes an unwarranted interference with the em-
ployees' self-organizational rights guaranteed by the Act 21
We find that the respondent Salant, by prohibiting union activities
on company premises during the employees' non-working time, inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
b. Discrimination in Martin working conditions
By letter of March 5, 1943, Salant instructed Superintendent
Cushing "not to engage any more learners pending the stabilization
of employment conditions." This rule remained in effect until about
the end of the year 1943. It was promulgated during the height of
the organizational drive of the Union and about 1 month after the
employees at the Martin plant had been locked out on account of
their organizational activities. In his correspondence with the super-
intendents of his other plants and with citizens and committees in
the respective communities, Salant during the course of the year
pointed out that the selection of the Union as the bargaining agent
for the employees in the Martin plant was responsible for the shrink-
age of the Martin pay roll and the decline in the number of its
employees. In view of Salant's order to Cushing, it is clear, and we
find, that Salant himself brought about the decline in employment
opportunities at the Martin plant because the Union had been
selected as the employees' bargaining agent, and for the purpose of
coercing the employees at the other plants by threatening similar
treatment should they organize.
We find that the respondent Salant, by restricting employment
opportunities and output at the Martin plant, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. Salant's anti -union campaign at Union City
1. Surveillance and questioning
Early in March, shortly after the Martin plant employees organ-
ized, similar activity began at the Salant plants in Union City and
Paris, both located near Martin. At Union City an organizer and
two union members from the Martin plant met at the home of Ray-
mond Phillips, whose discharge shortly thereafter is discussed below.
s' See, e.g , Matter of May Department Stores Company , et at., 59 N. L. R. B. 976 ; Matter
of Keystone Steel & Wire Company, 62 N. L. R. B. 683; Matter of Union Manufacturing
Company, 63 N. L. R. B. 254.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 59
A few night later, a larger group met at the home of Mrs. Mayfair
Dotson, who left Salant's employ voluntarily on April 3, 1943.
On or about March 13, 1943, Hazel Hammonds, assistant forelady
at the Union City plant, appeared at the home of employee Margaret
Speed, inspected one of several file cards she carried, and inquired,
"Margaret, has anybody been to you and asked you to join the
union?" Speed replied, "No," whereupon the supervisor instructed
her, "Well, you don't join that Union,-we had rather you
wouldn't." 22
On March 13, 1943, the Union had arranged for the use of the
town's Armory building. During the morning, however, permission
to use the hall was withdrawn, and vacant store space nearby was
rented for that purpose. Raymond Phillips went to the Armory at
the scheduled meeting hour to direct employees to the store. While
Phillips was at the Armory, Foreman J. E. Millsap stationed Reuben
Hastings, a non-supervisory employee,23 on the spot and instructed
him to tell anyone who came to Armory Hall that there would be no
union meeting. While the meeting was in progress Millsap and
Hastings, in one car, and Foreladies May Taylor and Hazel Andrews
in another, drove back and forth a number of times in front of the
union meeting place.24 Thereafter, while a union organizer was
visiting Phillips' home, Millsap, Taylor, and Andrews drove by his
house, which was not on a main thoroughfare .25
Salant arrived in Union City the day of the above-described union
meeting. On the following day, March 14, 1943, Salant met at a
local hotel with Field Examiner Adair of the Board's Fifteenth
Regional Office. Salant, Stone, and Gold, plant manager and pro-
duction manager of the Union City plant, respectively, conferred
with Adair about charges filed by the Union with respect to the
conduct of Foreman Millsap, Hammonds, and Taylor. Salant agreed
zz Speed's testimony as to this incident is unchallenged , as is the supervisory status
of Hammonds . The date of the occurrence is not fixed accurately by the record, but
counsel for the respondent stated that It was his information that it happened some-
time "prior to March 15." Speed was sure only that It was a Saturday morning.
2OPhillips testified that Hastings was a "straw boss," In the cutting department but
admitted that he did not know anything about his supervisory powers. Superintendent
Stone denied that Hastings was a supervisor , and the record is without substantial
evidence to the contrary . In any event on the above occasion he was clearly acting
upon instructions from a foreman.
The findings as to the conduct of Millsap and the foreladies rest upon Phillips'
testimony which we, like the Trial Examiner , credit. Millsap denied posting Hastings
at the Armory hall, but admitted that he was in the vicinity with Hastings at the
time, and he further admitted having driven in front of the union meeting at least
once. Taylor admitted that she and Andrews drove back and forth at least twice, and
that they had "a curiosity to see who would be there . We heard the packing house,
and all the niggers of the town were going."
25Millsap and Taylor denied such surveillance of Phillips . In view of their admitted
surveillance of the union meeting we, like the Trial Examiner , do not accept their
denials as true Andrews was not a witness.
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to have a notice posted in the plant, pursuant to Adair's request,
stating in effect that management would not interfere with the
employees' rights under the Act. On March 15, 1943, copies of the
notice were posted at the Union City plant.
The complaint specifically alleged that the respondent Salant has
requested employees or persons to spy or report upon the Union and
that it received reports of such surveillance. The respondent does
not dispute that the above-named supervisory employees have
engaged in surveillance of the union activities at Union City but
contends that the charges with respect to surveillance were settled
by the posting of the notice on March 15, 1943; that it has not com-
mitted any unfair labor practices after March 15, 1943; and that
therefore the Board is precluded from considering any conduct prior
to the settlement. In view of our findings hereinafter that the
respondent Salant has subsequently committed additional unfair
labor practices at the Union City plant, we shall, in accordance with
our well established practice, go behind the settlement agreement
and consider all of the respondent's conduct.26
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent Salant,
by engaging in surveillance and by questioning employees about the
Union, as described above, has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees at the Union City plant in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Salant's cooperation with the Union City grievance committee
On March 14, 1943, the day following his arrival at Union City,
Salant met with J. W. Kerr, head of a bank in Union City, and
several other business men. Union activity at the Salant plants both
in Union City and Martin was discussed . It was proposed that a
"grievance committee" of local business leaders be revived 27 Salant
agreed to cooperate with the committee 28 After the meeting with
Salant, the business organizations, such as the Chamber of Com-
merce , Junior Chamber of Commerce, Rotary Club, Kiwanis Club,
and American Legion, appointed new committee members.
20 See e.g , Matter of The Wallace Corporation, 50 N L R B 138, affirmed 323 U. S. 248,
rehearing denied 323 U. S. 819.
27 The findings as to Salant 's meeting with Kerr and others on this occasion are
based upon Kerr's testimony which we, like the Trial Examiner , credit Like the
Trial Examiner, we do not credit Salant ' s testimony that "the only point of contact
I had with them at any time-and that was not with the committee but with the
Chamber of Commerce-was when they invited me to that weekly luncheon of theirs."
2$According to Kerr's testimony , a "grievance committee " had been appointed by
local business clubs and associations about 10 or 12 years before the hearing in this
proceeding , for the purpose of "ironing out" employees' troubles with employers but
it was dormant when Salant arrived.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 61
On March 15, the day after Salant had met with Kerr and others,
the "grievance committee" published an open letter in the local news-
paper, "The Daily Messenger," edited by E. S. Critchlow. It was
signed by eight local business and professional leaders, including
Kerr, and stated, among other things : (1) that "we feel that our
own people can help us much better than strangers who might come
among us on this mission"; (2) that the committee invited "em-
ployees of this community to consult with" it on their problems "of
any kind"; and (3) that "this is your committee, selected by Zeaders
of the community to represent you." (Italics supplied.)
Also on March 15, the committee, headed by Kerr, held an open
meeting at the local courthouse. At that meeting, the purposes and
aims of the committee were explained to the employees present-
numbering nearly 100, according to Critchlow's -newspaper account.
In substance, they were told by Kerr that the committee believed it
was better able than any "outside" organization to serve the workers.
The following day Salant, Stone, and Gold were guests of the
Chamber of Commerce at Union City. Salant was the speaker. He
told the business men of the Union having "started organization at
the Martin plant," according to Critchlow's testimony, and declared
that it was "causing discontent and disharmony." Salant further
stated that "people were at each other's throats . . . and as a
result of that operations weren't successful in the Martin plant at
that time." 29
On Friday, March 19, the local Junior Chamber of Commerce
announced in the local paper a mass meeting to be held that same
night at the courthouse for the stated purpose "to decide whether the
citizens of Union City, and employees of the local industrial plants
in particular, desire that unions be established in Union City." All
citizens and employees of all plants were urged to attend 30
According to Editor Critchlow's unchallenged account of the mass
meeting, Kerr, Mayor Miles, and others spoke at the meeting. Kerr
advised the employees that as business men of Union City, they were
in a position to negotiate for the employees with the Salant manage-
ment "to better advantage than a union." The mayor asserted that
the people can take the property away from Salant "whenever they
are ready to do so" and told the employees that he did not want
them to join this union, and that if they had, he wanted them to
"tell these organizers to take your name off the list."
29 The findings as to Salant 's speech to Union City business - men on March 16 rest
upon the undisputed testimony of Editor Critchlow , which we, like the Trial Examiner,
credit.
There is no evidence in the record that organizing activities at any other plant
than Salant 's were being engaged in at Union City at this time.
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Critchlow's story of the meeting was reprinted in circular form
upon order of the Martin Commission and Salant and copies were
seen both in Union City and in Martin.
That the Union City "Grievance Committee," while actually serv-
ing the interests of Salant, has also maintained a semblance of carry-
ing out its announced purpose of handling employees' grievances is
established by the testimony of its chairman. Kerr stated that on
June 14, 1944, the morning on which he appeared as a witness before
the Trial Examiner, an employee's complaint had been submitted to
him. He stated that he did not think "the grievance had any justifi-
cation," although he also admitted that he had not made an investi-
gation and was unfamiliar with certain "regulations" involved.
Furthermore, on May 10, 1943, Dixon Williams, a member of the
"Grievance Committee" wrote to Salant, inquiring as to the interpre-
tation of the wage increases just granted by the NWLB and asking
about the reopening of the case if employees were dissatisfied. On
May 18, Salant replied in detail, concluding his letter as follows :
We wish to add that we welcome any inquiries from the Citizens
Grievance Committee as to any and all matters forming the
relations between our workers in Union City and ourselves.
. . . we would prefer not to give the contents of this letter
publicity, except of course, to the members of the Grievance
Committee or to any of our employees.
Although there is no evidence of a resumption of union activity
among the employees at the Union City plant after the spring of
1943, Salant continued to send anti-union items to Stone, his plant
manager, Mayor Miles, Editor Critchlow, and others in Union City.
Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the respondent Salant, by
participating in the revival of the Union City grievance committee,
by promising its cooperation to the committee in the manner and
under the circumstances hereinbefore described, by recognizing it
as a grievance committee representing its employees in their dealings
with management, by sending propaganda to the committee and
thereby inciting it to engage in anti-union activities, and by the
above-described anti-union activities of the committee, has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. Further acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
On April 13, 1943, Salant advertised the Martin plant for sale
while he was ostensibly negotiating in good faith with the Union
in New York City with respect to an agreement for the Martin plant.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 63
On Sunday, April 18, 1943, Salant showed Editor Critchlow at Union
City the advertisement and gave him information which Critchlow
used as the basis for a story published in the Monday edition headed
"Salant plant at Martin may be sold." In this article Critchlow
mentioned that the employees of the Martin plant chose the Union
to serve as their collective bargaining agent; that while Salant
planned to decrease its manufacturing operations by sale of the
Martin plant, production had been increased at the Obion plant.31
Critchlow testified that while he did not "recall" whether Salant
told him specifically, at this interview, that he would never do busi-
ness in the same plant with the C. I. 0., he admitted having under-
stood Salant to mean that operation of the plant, with its employees
organized by the C. I. 0., was unsatisfactory to management. Critch-
low also testified that lie considered that Salant's revealing, through
Critchlow's columns, the identity of the factory offered for sale in
the blind advertisement "could have been taken as a threat not only
for Martin but for Union City and every Salant plant. . . . It
could have been taken as a threat against the Union City employees."
Apparently aware of the serious 'nature of the "threat," to the
making of which he had become a party, Critchlow later asked Salant
for written confirmation of the information upon which his story
was based. On May 14 Salant wrote to him as follows :
This is to confirm the story I gave you some time ago that the
ad in the "Daily News Record" offering a work shirt plant in
West Tennessee for sale had been placed by us and that it
referred to our factory in Martin.
I should like to add for your further information, off the record,
that we got several responses to this add but that to avoid pos-
sible complications, we have withdrawn this recent offer of sale.
(Italics supplied.)
Earlier, on April 2, 1943, employee Mayfair Dotson was not per-
mitted by a group of employees to leave the plant at the closing hour.
The exit was locked. The employees, none of whom Mrs. Dotson
identified as a supervisor, accused her of making a statement that
they were not going to get a raise. Mrs. Dotson denied the accusa-
tion. They demanded that she quit. She refused. They told her
that she might as well quit because management would rid itself of
her as it had of her husband.
A few weeks before this incident, a union meeting had been held
at Mrs. Dotson's house and, as hereinafter discussed, management
knew that Dotson and her husband were among the leaders of the
31 The record does not disclose any organizational activities at the Oblon plant.
64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union in Union City. We find that the employees who accosted Mrs.
Dotson in the above-described fashion were opposed to the Union
and molested Mrs. Dotson because of the latter's union activities and
leadership.
The next morning Mrs. Dotson went to Plant Manager Stone, and
asked him if he knew of the previous day's occurrence. He admitted
that he did. She asked him what he was going to do about it. He
replied that there was nothing he could do about it. Her husband,
present with her, then insisted that she quit. She was given her
check and a separation slip, stating that she "voluntarily quit." 32
Plant Manager Stone testified that the only leaders of the Union
he had heard about were Mr. and Mrs. Dotson and Mr. and Mrs.
Raymond Phillips. The discharge of Raymond Phillips will be
discussed hereinafter.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that by advertising the Martin
plant for sale under the circumstances previously described, by fur-
nishing Editor Critchlow with the material for the story published
in Union City on the sale of the Martin plant, and by refusing to
provide protection to a union employee against assaults on the plant
premises, the respondent Salant has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees at the Union City plant in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by the Act.33
4. Discharge of Raymond Phillips
Raymond Phillips began work as a creaser for the respondent
Salant in its Union City plant in October 1942. As noted above,
Manager Stone admitted knowing that Phillips was one of the
leaders of the Union at the Union City plant.
On Thursday morning, March 25, Phillips had two teeth pulled,
and remained away from work until the following Monday, March
29. On the first morning of his absence Mrs. Phillips reported both
to Foreman Millsap and Stone that her husband would be back as
soon as possible. On Monday morning, when Phillips reported for
work, he was summarily discharged by Stone and given a separation
slip, noting as the reason for his discharge "Excessive absence from
work."
32 The findings as to Mrs. Dotson are based upon her uncontradicted and credible
testimony.
mm The Trial Examiner found that the respondent Salant disseminated anti-union propa-
ganda to its employees directly, and that the respondent Salant is liable for certain
attacks made by its employees on Union Organizer Orr in front of the plant. We find
the evidence Insufficient to support such findings. In the case of the attacks on Orr,
there is no showing that supervisory employees were present or had any knowledge of
such attacks . The Trial Examiner 's findings in these respects are therefore reversed.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 65
The respondent Salant contends that Phillips was discharged
because he was absent from work too often. In support of this con-
tention it introduced a record of hours worked by all employees in
the "creasing" department, where Phillips had regularly been
assigned, from the first of January 1943 to the time of his discharge.
The records show that, other than during the final week of his
employment, Phillips had failed to work his full 40 hours per week
but once since the first of January. Of eight other employees in this
department, who worked during the same period, one had a record
of 5 weeks in which approximately 40 hours were not worked, one
a similar record of 3 weeks, three a similar record of 2 weeks, two
a similar record of 1 week, while only one worked a full 40 hours
each week.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent's alleged
reason for discharging Phillips is wholly without merit and is
refuted by its own records as well as by the testimony of Foreman
Millsap. Also, like the Trial Examiner, we find that Stone seized
upon Phillip's legitimate absence, properly reported to management,
as a mere pretext for his discharge, while the real reason was Phillip's
union activity. We find that, by discharging Raymond Phillips
because of his activities on behalf of the Union, the respondent
Salant discriminated with respect to his hire and tenure of employ-
ment thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
E. Salant's anti-union campaign at Paris
1. Formation of the Paris grievance committee
Early in March 1943, the Union began its organizational drive at
Paris. At the beginning of this campaign, Salant conferred with
Mayor J. P. Lasater, Jr., and former Mayor John Reeves at Paris.34
At this conference Lasater and Reeves were told by Salant, according
to Lasater's undisputed testimony which we credit, that Salant was
no longer interested in the Martin plant; that he might close it; and
that the Union had stopped the wage raise which Salant had been
trying to get for the Martin employees. Salant also left with Lasater
several clippings of an anti-union nature.
Sometime after this conference Reeves asked Lasater whether he
had appointed a committee. Lasater told Reeves that he would
appoint a committee provided he received a petition from the
a` Lasater testified that he was sent for when "the Union started to come into the
plant."
686572-46-G
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees to that effect. According to the testimony of employees
Adrian Brewer and Kate Caraway, such a petition to the mayor for
a grievance committee was actually circulated around the plant.
However, as Lasater testified, he never appointed a committee because
Reeves told him that "they were going to have an election and there
would not be any need of appointing a committee."
Under the circumstances hereinabove described and in view of the
pattern followed at other Salant plants in establishing grievance
committees, it is reasonable to infer, and we find, that the efforts
of Reeves and Lasater to set up a grievance committee at Paris were
instigated by the respondent Salant.
2. The no-solicitation rule
At the beginning of the union campaign at Paris, Superintendent
Shoemaker of the Paris plant posted the following notice on the
factory bulletin board :
Any worker who is not in a supervisory capacity or who is not
in a position of authority over other workers has a perfect right
to say what he thinks about joining or not joining any union,
and a perfect right to persuade or convince any other worker
about this matter.
No Union or non-Union solicitation will be allowed in this
factory.
Shortly after the posting of this rule, Shoemaker's assistant, Hol-
loway, told employee Ora Perry :
Ora, I don't want to hear you talking for the union or against
the union. If you do, you will be thrown out.
This notice, like the one posted at the Martin plant, is so broad
in its terms as to forbid union solicitation even on the employees'
non-working time. For the reasons given with respect to the Martin
notice, it is invalid to that extent.
3. Misrepresentation of facts with regard to wage applications
Soon after interest in the Union appeared among his employees
at Union City and Paris, Salant suggested, according to his own
admission, to his several superintendents that they have wires sent
from employee committees to Alvin B. Biscoe, Regional Director of
the NWLB at Atlanta. The following wire was sent by management
selected employees at Paris, Parsons, Henderson, and Lexington,
while another, differing slightly in text, was sent from Lawrenceburg.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 67
AS A COMMITTEE REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYEES
OF SALANT & SALANT INC. [name of city] WE HEREBY
URGE YOU TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION ON OUR
EMPLOYERS APPLICATION FOR WAGE RAISE
FILED OVER A MONTH AGO.
The Paris wire was signed by three foremen, by Marian Minter,
Shoemaker's typist, and Kate Karaway.
At the same time, between April 7 and 9, and also* at Salant's
"suggestion," wires identical in text, except for designation of the
community involved, were sent to Congressman Tom Murray of
Tennessee, then in Washington, by city and county officials at Paris,35
Parsons, and Henderson. The wire urged Congressman Murray to
bring pressure upon the NWLB to expedite action on Salant's appli-
cation for wage increases in the respective towns and further stated,
in part :
HAVE RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT ACTION ON
THE APPLICATION IS BEING HELD UP BY MR.
BISCOE AT INSTANCE OF AMALGAMATED CLOTH-
ING WORKERS AFFILIATE OF C. I. O. THE ORGANI-
ZATION AS FAR AS WE KNOW HAS NOT A SINGLE
MEMBER IN THE PLANT AND HAS NOT EVEN A
SHADOW OF RIGHT TO INTERVENE NOR HAS MR.
BISCOE ANY RIGHT TO RECOGNIZE IT IN THIS
CONNECTION.
Since Salant admitted having suggested sending the above wires,
and because the texts are identical, we, like the Trial Examiner,
infer and find that he also prepared or approved the text. In it,
he plainly misrepresented facts. Salant had been specifically
informed by Regional Director Biscoe, in a wire dated March 24
which Salant admitted having received, that only the Martin plant
application was being delayed, waiting for joint application. By
that time, the Union had been found by the National Labor Relations
Board to be the sole collective bargaining agent of the Martin
employees. That Salant did not unwittingly cause city and county
officials throughout Tennessee to wire Murray misinformation, is
established by the fact that Salant himself, on March 25, had written
all of his plant managers, except at Union City and Martin, as
follows :
m The Paris wire was signed by Mayor Lasater , vice mayor Currier , chief of police
Butler, County Judge Thompson , Sheriff Graham , President Hastings of the First Trust
& Savings Bank , County Court Clerk Burton , Circuit Court Clerk Upchurch , and three
untitled individuals : T. M. McSwain , H. L. Lawrence , and B. S. Clark.
68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In our efforts to prod Atlanta into early action, we wired it
yesterday morning requesting it to advise us when we could
expect action on our applications for the different Tennessee
plants. Much to our astonishment, we received an answer to the
effect that the application for the factory at Martin was being
held up at the request of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers,
who as you know have organized the Martin plant. Evidently
the applications for the other plants are not being similarly held
up. Since the A. C. W. has not organized . . . [name of
town] it of course has been unable to intervene there in order
to block action same as it did for Martin. You can see, there-
fore, how much the Martin people have gained through their
organization. The game of the A. C. W. is probably to delay
or prevent action on our application for Martin, then compel
us to make a new application jointly with them so that they can
say that the increase was granted as a result of their interven-
tion and not on our own initiative. (Italics supplied.)
Salant was in Union City when he received the wire from Biscoe
on March 24. Despite this fact, he told Manager Stone, according
to the latter's testimony, that all the applications were being held
up at the insistence of the Union, and Stone relayed this misinforma-
tion to Mayor Miles. Miles apparently promptly protested to Senator
McKellar of Tennessee. Thus, on April 15 Stone wrote to Salant,
in part, as follows :
Mr. Miles has just received a letter from Senator McKellar
enclosing a copy of a letter that he (Senator McKellar) received
from Mr. Biscoe dated April 8th, which stated that he had
received applications from seven different Salant factories, and
that none were being held up because of the Amalgamted Cloth-
ing Workers' request except that of the Martin plant. . . .
The outstanding statement of the letter was that the application
for the factories other than Martin were not being held up
because of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, and that he was
awaiting additional information from Mr. McKelvey. (McKel-
vey was counsel for the respondent Salant.)
Mr. Miles asked me for a copy of the wire that you showed him
and also to me contrary to the above, but to the effect that the
other applications were being held up because of the Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers, so that he might communicate further
with Mr. McKellar.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 69
The record does not disclose how Salant explained his misconstrue
tion of facts to Stone and Miles. His file copy of the above letter
bears only the brief notation :
Salant furthered his anti-union campaign at Paris by enlisting the
4/26/43 Answered in person ABS
As noted in the section on Lawrenceburg, hereinafter, upon the
basis of the same misinformation from Salant, the local mayor made
similar protests to Senator McKellar. We, like the Trial Examiner,
conclude that Salant intentionally caused misinformation to reach
Tennessee Senators and Representatives in order to further his own
anti-union campaign.
4. Salant enlists aid of local editor
Salant furthered his anti-union campaign at Paris by enlisting the
assistance of publisher Williams of the Daily Paris Post Intelli-
gencer. Williams, according to his credible testimony, first met
Salant sometime in April. Among other documents, Salant provided
Williams with the advertisement offering the sale of the Martin
plant, which Williams used for an editorial appearing in his paper
on April 20, 1943. In this editorial he stated that "at Martin where
a union has already been organized, we understand production has
been reduced to 25 percent." Williams urged the Salant workers to
make their decision about union representation at once. On April 21.
1943, Williams reported in his paper that the Salant employees were
petitioning the Mayor to appoint a grievance committee.
5. Holding of election at the Paris plant
Instead of appointing a grievance committee, an election was held
at the Paris plant under the auspices of former Mayor Reeves and
other businessmen in the afternoon of April 23, 1943. During the
course of the morning of April 23, one of the employees presented
a petition to Superintendent Shoemaker, asking him to close the
factory at 3 p. in. so that the employees could hold an election. Shoe-
maker granted the request.
That same afternoon the girls under Foreman Nichols' charge
were not permitted to leave the factory, as was the custom, when
they had finished their quota of production, but were instructed to
continue to work until the bell rang. Nichols told them : "We are
having an election and we want you to vote." 36 Furthermore,
employees were not permitted to leave by the factory front door, as
usual. Foreman Nichols told them to leave by the back door.
w Employees Orr and Perry so testified without contradition.
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The ballots used by the employees read "for the Union" and
.'against the Union." Office girls assisted in their distribution and
assembly. Former Mayor Reeves counted the ballots 37 According
to an editorial of Williams, 240 employees voted. against, and 16 for,
the Union.
6. Assault of union organizer by foreman
On the evening of April 23, while Union Organizers Campbell and
Orr were sitting in the lobby of the hotel, Orr was called to the
telephone. Someone who refused to identify himself told him that
the election held at the plant that day meant that he should leave
town at once. The two organizers then moved from the lobby to
the adjoining sun porch.
Suddenly two men, one of them Foreman Brown, confronted them.
The foreman demanded of Orr, "You are aware of the election in
the plant today?" Orr admitted that he was. Brown said, "Well.
that means that we don't want a union there and you are to get out."
Orr asked who they were. Brown replied, "Don't talk back to us,"
and threatened him with violence if he got up from the chair. At
this point Campbell hurriedly left the porch, and at the desk put
in a call for the police. Followed by another man, who had been
standing by the desk, Campbell returned to the porch just as Brown
told Orr :
If you are seen on the streets of Paris tomorrow you will be
killed.
The unidentified man who had followed Campbell interrupted :
Let's get out of here. My God, she has called the law.
Brown and his two accomplices left the hotel. When Orr went to
his room a little later, he found that it had been broken into, the bed
covers and his clothing strewn about the place, and his brief case
stolen. A piece of paper, bearing the brief advice, "Get Out," was
on his bed. The local police were called and examined the room.38
The respondent Salant does not dispute the supervisory status of
Brown nor the fact that he engaged in the conduct described above.
7. Conclusions as to the anti-union campaign at Paris
We find that by the above-described anti-union activities, including,
among others, the posting of a notice forbidding union solicitation
rr Both Shoemaker and his assistant , Holloway, testified that they were not at the
plant that afternoon while other evidence establishes that Holloway was there until
shortly before the election , there is no evidence that either was present during the
election.
m The above findings are based on the undisputed testimony of Campbell and Orr,
which we, like the Trial Examiner , credit.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 71
on the employees' non-working time, the assault of Foreman Brown
on a union organizer, the holding of a straw poll on plant premises,
the abortive attempt to form a grievance committee to represent the
employees in their dealings with management, the misrepresentation
of facts with regard to the holding up of wage increase applications,
the respondent Salant has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act 39
F. Salant's anti-union campaign at Lawrenceburg; interference,
restraint, and coercion
1. Atteihpts to forestall self-organizational activities
On March 25, 1943, before union organizational activities had
begun in Lawrenceburg, but shortly after formal organization of the
Union at Martin, the respondent Salant wrote to G. C. Gambill,
superintendent at the Lawrenceburg plant, stating in part, as
follows :
Since the ACW has not organized Lawrenceburg, it of course
has been unable to intervene there in order to block action same
as it did for Martin. You can see, therefore, how much the
Martin people have gained thru their organization. The game
of the A.C.W. is probably to delay or prevent action on our
application for Martin, then compel us to make a new applica-
tion jointly with them so that they can say that the increase was
granted as a result of their intervention and not on our own
initiative.
The above facts should be made clear to all the Lawrenceburg
people interested in the plant as well as to those supervisors and
employees in it, who in your opinion, should be made acquainted
with them4° (Italics supplied.)
Gambill admitted that he communicated the above letter to Fore-
men Asa Giles, Roy Morris and Lawrence Skinner, and discussed it
with Mayor R. O. Downey, John Roberts and "probably" with E. N.
Parkes, two local businessmen.
zo The Trial Examiner also attributed to Salant the conduct of Paschall , a former
employee, in attacking union members at a meeting held outside the plant and in at-
tacking a union organizer at a local hotel . We are not convinced that Paschall'o
conduct should be attributed to the respondent Salant on the state of the record before
us. The Trial Examiner 's findings in this respect are accordingly reversed.
The Trial Examiner also found that employee Dalay Helms had been discriminatorily
laid off for 2 weeks in violation of the Act. We do not agree. The record in our
opinion does not warrant such a finding . The Trial Examiner's finding in this respect
is reversed.
Oo Salant sent the same letter to other plant superintendents on the same day.
72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 7, at Salant's suggestion, six employees were selected by
Gambill at the Lawrenceburg plant-as at others heretofore noted,
to send a wire to the NWLB urging "speedy action" on Salant's wage
application. Two of these employees were Harley Watson and Posy
Plunkett, both of whom thereafter had leading roles in the respond-
ent's anti-union campaign.
On the following day, April 8, Salant forwarded to Gambill the
same misinformation about the application for wage increases which
he had also sent, the same day, to Mayor Miles and Editor Critchlow
at Union City. Salant's letter, which stated, in effect, that the Union
was delaying approval of his application, also contained the follow-
ing advice :
There is no objection to communicating those facts to the Mayor,
County Judge and other prominent people in town and to the
Editor of the local paper.
Gambill admitted having shown the letter to Mayor Downey, who
"was to communicate it to the County Judge." 41
Thus Salant, using his local superintendent as an emissary, pro-
vided not only local key officials, but Senators and Congressmen as
well, with misinformation concerning the Union before any effort
toward organization in Lawrenceburg was made.
'On April 8, Union Organizer Ed Blair arrived in Lawrenceburg.
Mayor Downey testified that he first learned of Blair's presence in
Lawrenceburg on Saturday, April 10; that on April 8, his clerk's
attention had, been called by employee Harley Watson to a car bear-
ing a license tag identifying it as coming from outside Lawrence
County, and later the same afternoon he, himself, saw Watson fol-
lowing it in his car. He placed the latter incident as after 2 or 2 :30
p. m., which would have been during Watson's working hours. On
Saturday Watson told Mayor Downey that the man Watson had
been following was Blair.
Shortly after Blair's first visit to Lawrenceburg on April 8, Harley
Watson told Gambill he had talked with him.42 As a witness Watson
admitted that he "took off" from work several times to go "down
town" to see Blair. According to his time card in evidence, however,
he did not punch out, but was given credit for full time or more
during the 2-week pay periods ending April 10 and April 24.
Watson, previously identified as having been selected as one of a
group of employees to send a wire to the NWLB on April 7, served
"Upon the basis of the facts misstated by Salant in his letter to Gambill , Downey
wrote to Senator McKellar urging speedy action by the NWLB.
AgWatson, as a witness , professed that he could not remember many details surround-
ing the Blair incident , but admitted he "guessed " he talked to Gambill soon after the
organizer 's first visit and that he "guessed" he had told the superintendent that Blair
had said the Company "had not applied for an increase "
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 73
as liaison between management and a group of city and county
officials. Watson admitted having discussed the Union several times
with Mayor Downey, and Parkes and Roberts, two local businessmen.
On April 15, Watson reported Blair's presence in town to Roberts,
as he had about a week before. On this second occasion, according
to Roberts' testimony, Watson, Posy Plunkett, and another employee
"felt" that some of the "business people" ought to talk to Blair
"about how we felt about the things he was doing here." Roberts
promptly called Downey and various other businessmen, including
Parkes.
After some delay, during which time Blair's exact whereabouts
was apparently not known to Watson, the latter reported to Roberts
that the organizer had just been seen near a filling station. Watson,
Plunkett, and two other employees accompanied the businessmen to
the filling station.
Accounts vary as to what actually was said to Blair on this occa-
sion. Blair himself was in the armed services at the time of the
hearing. We, like the Trial Examiner, can place little reliance upon
the testimony of employees Plunkett, Van Clayton and Crews.
Plunkett not only admitted that he had "no distinct recollection" of
certain events, but also that he had "told a fellow to tell" counsel
for the Board, the night before he appeared as a witness for the
respondent Salant, "to be easy" on him in cross-examination. Van
Clayton admitted that he had a "pretty bad" memory, while Crews
said his memory was "not so good."
The Mayor and a number of other businessmen testified to the
general effect that the Mayor accused Blair of telling employees that
Salant had not applied for a wage increase, and that their resentment
against this "falsehood" had caused them to approach the organizer.
Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the more credible account
of the events is that of local Editor Charles Crawford printed a few
days later. The newspaper account stated that the businessmen
"invited" the union organizer out of town, and that Superintendent
Gambill and Salant were informed of the occurrence. The record
does not disclose that any disciplinary action was taken with respect
to those employees who during working hours participated in the
incident. Since they constituted the entire crew of one department,
we find that management was aware of their absence. In view of
the fact that the respondent took no disciplinary measures with
respect to these employees' activities during working time, we find,
like the Trial Examiner, that the respondent Salant condoned their
activities.
Watson continued to keep the respondent Salant informed, on all
union activities at Lawrenceburg. Thus, when in June 1943, an
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organizer of the United Garment Workers, A. F. L., conferred with
a few employees at local homes on two occasions, Harley Watson
attended both meetings and reported thereon to Foreman Asa Giles
and his own foreman, Morris.43
2. The respondent Lawrenceburg Committee
On or about April 21, 1943, a few days after the Blair incident,
Salant discussed the Union City grievance committee with Parkes,
Judge Vaughan and Mayor Downey 44 In view of the fact that
after organization of the Martin employees similar groups had been
formed or revived at Salant's behest in other cities where Salant
operated its plants and in view of Salant's correspondence with the
Committee after its formation, we find, like the Trial Examiner,
that Salant instigated the forming of the respondent Lawrenceburg
Committee.
Formal steps towards formation of the local committee were taken
shortly after this visit of Salant. James H. Stribling, head of the
First National Bank and purchaser of the bonds issued by the city
to build Salant's plant, summoned to his office a few local business-
men, including the Mayor, Parkes, and Roberts. In Stribling' s office
a mass meeting of other businessmen was arranged. It was held in
the City Hall on April 26. At this meeting it was decided to form a
committee, similar to that formed at Union City. Mayor Downey
and Judge Vaughan were asked to appoint its members. Parkes and
C. W. Moore, Jr., a local merchant, drew up resolutions, thereafter
published in Crawford's weekly, which set forth the committee's
"duties." According to these resolutions the purposes were in part :
To hear any worker or workers, employer or employers, singly
or in a group, who may wish to register complaints against their
employer or employees.
Also published were the names of the committee members who would
"act as a grievance committee to be known as "The Citizens Indus-
' The United Garment Workers is not named specifically in the complaint . The com-
plaint alleges , however , that the respondent Salant interfered with employees' rights
under the Act by "requesting employees . . . to spy or report upon the Union or other
unions, and receiving reports of such surveillance," and also by "threatening employees
with discriminatory treatment for . . . their union associations." Watson admitted
having reported the meeting to the two foremen.
"The above finding rests upon the following colloquy between counsel for the Board
and A. B. Salant :
Q. Well, do you recall introducing the subject of the Union City grievance com-
mittee into any conversations with these three gentlemen , Mr. Parkes, Mayor
Downey or Judge Vaughan?
A. I may have done so. I may have talked with them Whether I brought it
up or whether they brought it from having read it in the paper, I don't know,
I don't remember,
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 7S
trial Committee , for Lawrence County." The announcement stated,
"It is our belief that our own people can provide more help and
understanding in compromising differences or making necessary
adjustments for the benefit of all, than can strangers from New York,
Chicago, or St. Louis, who have no real interest in the city or
county"; the Committee thus publicly invited the citizens to consult
with it or its members and present any "problems , involving labor
matters, wages or salaries or working conditions , or relations with
any local or outside organizations , or grievances of any kind."
On May 6, 1943, shortly after the formation of the respondent
Lawrenceburg Committee, Salant wrote to Superintendent Gambill
that the hoped that "the people of the town and especially the Citi-
zens Industry Committee are not intimidated from doing what they
have a perfect right to do by the widely distributed charges that
there is a `rein of terror ' in the city ." 45 Gambill admitted that he
showed Salant 's letter to Mayor Downey, Roberts and Parkes.
Thereafter Salant kept Roberts and members of the respondent
Lawrenceburg Committee informed of his relations with his
employees ; and Roberts continued in correspondence with Salant.
Thus, on May 8, Salant wired Roberts concerning action taken by
the NWLB on its application for permission to grant wage increases.
He closed the wire thus :
We must emphasize that the law does not allow us to do any-
thing without the previous approval of the Board.
On May 25 Roberts wired Salant :
Our committee is informed that you are negotiating contract.
We suggest that you do not sign any contract this week.
Whatever fears Roberts may have had were set at rest by Furth, who
replied :
Re your tel. Mr. Salant is enroute to Washington . We are sure
no contract for Martin will be signed this week . There is no
proposal for any contract at any other plant.
And on June 2 Salant informed Roberts that negotiations had
"broken down" between himself and the Union at the Martin plant.
On May 21 Salant sent to Roberts , as he did on the same day to
Chairman Houston and Brown of similar committees in Parsons and
Henderson , tabulations "showing the effect of unionization on our
plant in Martin on the production and the payrolls of the factory."
On June 18 Salant sent Downey similar information , and on August
7 to Parkes . To the latter letter Salant added :
44 The Union had used this term in its description of the Blair incident
76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
These figures show pretty well that neither the City of Martin
nor the employes have gained a great deal from the election
held March 12th at which they voted for the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers as their agent.
As noted heretofore, Salant himself had halted the hiring of new
employees at Martin, thus appreciably reducing his production.
Throughout the following months, as established by his corre-
spondence in the record, Salant kept the local officials, committee
members and Editor Crawford aware of his own continued hostility
toward the Union by sending them, either direct or through Gambill,
various newspaper clippings and other anti-union material, many of
them relating to "Murder, Inc."-which Salant termed the "Hillman-
Weinstein-Buchalter" combination.
Sometime before July 30, 1943, Chairman Roberts of the respond-
ent Lawrenceburg Committee and a number of other businessmen
met in order to discuss, according to his testimony, "ways and means
that they might contact the citizens and the employees over the
county." 46 Frank Hobbs, a businessman of Lawrenceburg, addressed
a meeting held in one of the Lawrence County communities, as
reported by Editor Crawford in the issue of July 30, 1943, of the
local paper, according to which, Hobbs talked about "the organiza-
tion of Lawrence County industry by outside paid labor organizers."
On November 26, 1943, Superintendent Gambill reported to Salant
that the "union organization" had a meeting in Lawrenceburg.
Salant promptly sent to Gambill, on November 30, for communica-
tion to supervisors and Lawrenceburg "business people" data show-
ing the decrease in Martin production. On December 2 Gambill
forwarded to Salant a wire he had received from Union Representa-
tive Albrecht about an election at the Lawrenceburg plant. Salant
instructed Gambill to ignore the wire. On December 13, Roberts
told Salant in a letter that the businessmen had met in order to
discuss the labor situation, and that they had expressed the desire
for him to pay them a visit. Roberts assured Salant that they were
"trying to do everything possible to sell the employee's [sic] on the
right course and anything that [he, Salant] can do to help [them]
will certainly be appreciated." The record does not contain any
answer from Salant to Roberts' request.
On February 4, 1944, the respondent Lawrenceburg Committee
held a mass meeting at the Courthouse in Lawrenceburg for the
purpose of discussing matters of vital interest to every worker, citi-
zen and taxpayer in the county.
4 Roberts placed this meeting as in December . His recollection was admittedly un-
certain on this point. Richaidson testified that such a meeting was held before Ilobbs
acted as a result of it, as above described.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 77
Roberts served as chairman of the meeting. He called upon various
employees, including Harley Watson, who spoke briefly against the
Union. He called for a "few words" from banker Jim Stribling who
called attention to the fact, among other things, that the County
owned the factory property, and "we can always control it." The
principal speaker was J. E. Thornberry, formerly a teacher at Law-
renceburg schools. The substance of Thornberry's address was that
the employees at the Salant factory were well, and did not need
the services of "Doctor Amalgamated C. I. 0." "You don't need
them," he declared, "don't let them talk to you, don't let them betray
you, don't let them fool you. You just don't need it and you better
be safe than sorry."
Shortly after Thornberry finished, Roberts and other businessmen
left the meeting. Those employees who depended on bus transpor-
tation also left. The remaining persons listened to speeches on behalf
of the Union by those who were refused permission to speak during
the first part of the meeting under the chairmanship of Roberts.
The respondent Lawrenceburg Committee takes the position that
it merely called the meeting but that individual citizens who are
not subject to the Act expressed their views freely at the meeting.
We, like the Trial-Examiner , find no merit in this contention. At
the inception of the Union's organizational attempts in Lawrence-
burg, Salant instigated the formation of the respondent Lawrence-
burg Committee as fully discussed heretofore, for the purpose of
combating the Union. As appears from the correspondence between
Salant and members of the Committee, there was a close cooperation
between Salant and the Committee during the course of the union
drive. Although at first the Committee took no active part in fight-
ing the Union, Salant kept alive its anti-union feeling by his anti-
union propaganda and inspired it to take action hostile to the Union.
Whenever union interest among the employees was revived, the Com-
mittee informed Salant about it and took steps to combat it. Thus,
in July 1943, the Committee sent a speaker into the county to talk
against the Union ; when an election request by the Union was
anticipated, the Committee, early in 1944, called the mass meeting
for the purpose of providing the audience with speeches against the
Union.
Like the Trial Examiner , we find that the respondent Lawrence-
burg Committee , acting in the interest of the respondent Salant in
the manner and under the circumstances hereinabove described, is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. We find
further, as did the Trial Examiner , that the respondent Lawrence-
burg Committee, by its activities hereinabove described, has inter-
fered with, restrained , and coerced the employees of the respondent
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Salant at the Lawrenceburg plant in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. Salant enlists aid of local editor
Salant was accorded the use of Editor Crawford's columns for
anti-union propaganda as he was in the local papers of Union City
and Paris. Messages were given to Crawford either in person, or
through Superintendent Gambill, Roberts, or Parkes. Shortly be-
fore April 30, Salant gave to Crawford his account of wage increases
for use as an interview. On September 27, 1943, Salant sent both to
Superintendent Gambill and Parkes for transmission to Crawford
and "our friends" the editorial on the sale of the Martin plant ap-
pearing in the Paris Post Intelligencer, which Crawford published
in full.
4. Display of "no-union" signs at the plant
On November 24, 1943, the day after the discriminatory discharge
of Jessie Mae Beard, as hereinafter found, a union meeting was held
in Lawrenceburg. A committee of several girls was elected; they
decided to wear union cards to work the following Friday, November
26, in order, according to Florence Young's testimony, to show to the
people that "there was laws to protect you if you joined a union."
The letters ACWA were printed on the back of membership applica-
tion cards.
On Friday, seven or eight girls wore the cards when they reported
for work. The appearance of the cards created a mild sensation
among the other girls before work began. During the morning, Fore-
lady Stricklin went "prissing around," as Young described it, with a
comic postal card pinned to her sweater.47 During the afternoon
working hours, a section man "Red" Mitchell and Harley Watson
made scores of "non-Union" signs. Watson, previously identified as
having served the respondent's anti-union campaign in various ca-
pacities, admitted that he spent most of the afternoon making such
signs on company material and with a machine in his foreman's
office, and that in this work he was aided by Lloyd LaCroix, assistant
master mechanic. He declared that he made and had distributed
about 500 such signs. Several foremen and foreladies wore them and
distributed them among the employees. Assistant Foreman J. W.
Anderson, Watson's immediate superior, wore one of them. Fore-
ladies Scott and Mildred (Logue) Jones distributed them and wore
them, while Foreladies Stricklin and Childress also wore them.
47 Stricklin admitted wearing the postal card, but said "somebody" pinned it upon her.
SALANT & SALANT. INC. 79
Foreman Morris, under whom Watson worked, admitted that he
knew the signs were made on the machine in his office and that, al-
though he was aware that the act was a breach of discipline, he had
done nothing about it.48 Although Gambill denied that he told
Watson to make the signs, he admitted having seen them and that he
made no inquiry about them 49 Watson admitted that he was never
reprimanded for his part in this incident.
5. Salant conducts anti-union preelection campaign
On February 14, Gambill was formally requested, by wire from
Albrecht, to recognize the Union as the bargaining agent for the em-
ployees at the Lawrenceburg plant. The following day the Union
forwarded to the Tenth Regional Office of the Board, a petition for
investigation and certification. The petition was filed February 16.
Following a notice of hearing issued on February 22, a hearing was
held in Lawrenceburg on February 26. On March 24, the Board
ordered that an election be held at this plant.
On March 1, Salant ordered Gambill to post the following notice
at the plant :
ANOTHER LIE NAILED
A story has been spread that the factory in Martin got a bigger
increase last year than any other of our factories and that it
also got other benefits that other factories didn't get.
THIS STORY IS FALSE. IT IS A LIE MADE OUT OF
WHOLE CLOTH. The facts are just the reverse.
The truth is that the Martin factory is the only one that got
NO INCREASE from us. We sold it in September, 1943, and
the new owners tell us they have made no application for any
advance. That factory is therefore working to this very day on
the same wage scale as in OCTOBER, 1941.
Last spring every one of our factories got whatever increase the
"Little Steel" formula entitled it to. The only exception was
Martin. This plant DIDN'T GET ANYTHING and hasn't
gotten anything to this day.
We made application for increase for Martin last spring, the
same as we did for all of our other factories. If you are inter-
ested in finding out who blocked the application, write to the
Regional War Labor Board, Candler Building, Atlanta, Ga.
*B As his reason for taking no action, Morris testified : "I have been under the im-
pression that I was to take no part for or against. Therefore I played neutral."
4 The above findings are based upon undisputed testimony and the admissions of
supervisors.
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We like the Trial Examiner , find that Gambill posted this notice.
No evidence was offered by the respondent to show that any "story
had been spread" which justified Salant's posting of this notice. It
was clearly a threat to Lawrenceburg employees that, if they voted
for the Union, the same treatment as to wages would be accorded
to them as had been accorded the employees at Martin.
A few days later, on March 3, the local paper published a news
item submitted by County Judge Vaughan to the effect that "officials
say plant may be used as cotton warehouse " in case Salant should
vacate the building. Thereafter, on two occasions local cotton
brokers were shown through the plant building by the Judge and
Parkes, respectively.
Shortly before the Board issued its order that an election be held
at the plant, on March 20, 1943, Salant sent to Roberts, Hobbs, and
Gambill a clipping from the "Journal of Commerce" to the effect
that in case the NWLB should order increases to a certain southern
garment factory, that factory would have to be closed . On March
21, 1943, the following day, Salant sent another tabulation of pro-
duction figures pertaining to the Martin plant to Parkes, Downey,
and Roberts. All this correspondence was to the effect that selection
of the Union as a bargaining agent would result in decreased pro-
duction at the plant to the detriment of the community.
Salant made two trips to Washington in an effort to speed up
NWLB action on, the previously filed wage increase applications.
He finally succeeded in getting informal advice that the wage appli-
cations had been approved on March 28, 1944. He thereupon called
Superintendent Gambill in Lawrenceburg and the New York office
and ordered them to get the calculations for payment of the increase
to the Lawrenceburg employees ready.
At about 4:30 the afternoon of March 29, according to Salant's
testimony, he received a telephone call from Mr . Oppenheimer of
the NWLB, who told him that the Board had rescinded approval of
the wage increases -,,ith respect to the Lawrenceburg plant, but not
the others. About an hour before this, Mr. Berg of the NWLB had
informed Salant, according to Salant 's testimony , that the Board
might take action, due to the fact that the National Labor Relations
Board had on March 24, 1944, ordered an election at the Lawrence-
burg plant.
Despite the receipt of official information on the afternoon of
March 29, Salant made no attempt to stop the distribution of back-
pay checks in Lawrenceburg. Such checks were distributed on
March 30, bearing that date. Salant admitted that he "could have"
stopped the making out and distribution of the checks, but did not
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 81
want to because, the day before, he had had notices posted stating
that the increase had been approved.
The Union thereafter filed unfair labor practice charges against
the respondent Salant for distributing the checks. On April 19 the
National Labor Relations Board amended its Direction of Election,
and on April 21 the NWLB finally granted the wage increase
application.
The respondent Salant denied that the unauthorized payments
were made in order to defeat the Union at the forthcoming election.
Salant's own testimony, however, when he was questioned by his own
counsel, is significantly evasive. We, like the Trial Examiner, do
not consider as trustworthy a denial drawn from him so laboriously
by his own counsel. Furthermore, Salant's statement that he "rushed
up" Lawrenceburg payments because of the abnormal labor turn-over
is completely refuted by records introduced into evidence by the
respondent itself. According to the respondent's records there was
not a single vacancy in the plant from February 15 to April 25, 1944.
When viewed against the background of other and varied efforts
made by the respondent Salant, by Parkes, Roberts, and other mem-
bers of the respondent Lawrenceburg Committee acting in Salant's
behalf, to interfere with the rights of the employees to select their
own bargaining agent, Salant's unauthorized distribution of the pay
checks on March 30 is plainly of the same pattern.60 We, like the
Trial Examiner, find that the action was taken in an effort to dis-
courage membership in the Union.
6. Harassment of union members
Hand in hand with activities on the outside went anti-union activi-
ties inside the plant. Union members were harassed or discriminated
against. On April 21, 1944, an anti-union demonstration was staged
at the plant during working hours which management condoned.
During the afternoon, in the "Army Parts Department ," where
employees Olene Hollman and Elizabeth Sutton worked, section men
J. H. Tucker and H. W. "Red" Mitchell and employee Claude Mc-
Lean collected groups of other employees opposed to the Union.
60 Of further bearing upon the lack of merit in Salant's contention as to why he
hastened payments at Lawrenceburg is the fact that similar action was not taken else-
where. In Henderson, even after clearance for payment had been given by the NWLB,
lie wrote, in part, to Superintendent Averitt :
Thanks to the indefatigable efforts of Rep. Murray and also of Senators McKellar
and Stewart, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers have finally been defeated in
attempt to delay payment of wage increase still longer and the War Labor Board
released approval of payment. Our office is figuring this now and you will be
able to give the employees checks sometime next week . (Italics supplied.)
The letter is dated March 30, 1944.
6S6572-46-7
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
They went to the part of the plant where cutting is performed.
Some of the men climbed upon the tables and talked to the girls.
About 4 o'clock, while supervisors and Superintendent Gambill
looked on with no effort to interfere, a crowd of employees went to
machines where union members were working and demanded that
they leave the plant. They came to Edna Aaron and told her :
We don't want any Union people in here. We are asking you
to walk out.
She refused to leave, she told them, unless Gambill so instructed her.
They left Aaron for a time but later returned, and told her they
were not going to let her work any longer. They pulled the chair
from under her and pushed her toward Bertha Sutton, another union
member, whom they also threatened to take out of the plant. Fore-
lady Giles stood by within 10 or 15 feet from Aaron, watching but
saying nothing. A short distance away, also, Gambill observed but
made no move to interfere. The same group also shoved Bertha
Sutton toward the exit. As they pushed her by Gambill, she called
to him and asked for his protection. According to her undisputed
and credible testimony, Gambill "never opened his mouth." Finally,
toward the close of working hours, one of the mob pulled off Aaron's
glasses and shoved her out of the factory door.
The mob also approached Olene Hollman, ordered her out of the
plant, and when she refused to go, grabbed her and shoved her
toward the door. On the way, however, they pushed her against a
machine. Apparently believing they had severely injured her, they
permitted her to escape.
We, like the Trial Examiner, do not credit the testimony of Super-
intendent Gambill that he made an effort to disperse the mob or
to call the police. Gambill admitted that he neither reprimanded nor
took any disciplinary action with respect to any employee. Under
all the circumstances we, like the Trial Examiner, find that the
respondent condoned the action of the employees and failed to pro-
vide any protection to its union employees against harassment by
anti-union employees.
Individual employees who were union members were also subjected
to harassment and surveillance by the respondent Salant.
In June 1943, two AFL meetings were held at the house of
employee Pauline Toben on which Watson admittedly reported to
management.51 Thereafter, her supervisors constantly found fault
with her so that she quit work at the end of June. When she applied
for work about 2 months before the hearing in this case, Superin-
tendent Gambill told her that there was none available. The com-
51 See, supra, pp. 73-74 and footnote 43.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 83
plaint alleges that she was harassed because of her union affiliation.
We agree with the Trial Examiner and find that the treatment
accorded Toben constituted interference, restraint, and coercion, and
was an integral part of the respondent Salant's campaign to discour-
age organization on the part of its employees.
In June 1943, Thomas Young, who had been employed at the
factory for 7 or 8 years, resigned and became local organizer for
the Union. In a letter to Parkes, of August 9, Salant referred to
Young as "this precious skunk."
Young's wife, Florence, continued to remain an employee at the
factory until February 1944. On July 13, 1943, Thomas Young
informed Gambill of his official connection with the Union. On
July 19, Foreman Asa Giles checked Florence Young's production
record and told her she had "better watch out." On July 27, Fore-
lady Esther Scott told her Giles had said that if she could not
produce more they would bring someone into the "section" who
could. On August 5, Forelady Minnie Battles told her that "they"
had "been all over her" about Young's production. On October 15
or 16, the mechanic failed to fix her machine satisfactorily, and with
the forelady's permission she had to fix it herself. From October
24 to 27, a Field Examiner of the Board was in Lawrenceburg, and
consulted with Young and his wife. During this period, while she
was at work, Young was kept under constant surveillance by the
supervisors. During November she had continuous trouble with her
machine. On one occasion when it was not running properly she
complained to Scott and asked her to have master mechanic Jones,
then in the department, fix it correctly. Scott went to Jones. After
talking with him a few moments, Jones left the department without
repairing Young's machine. In January 1944, after Forelady Lessie
Kidd took Scott's place, Young was forbidden by her to talk. Also
in January, Young, admittedly known by Foreman Asa Giles to be
an active union member, was required by Forelady Stricklin to
change thread in her machine, thereby losing her regular production,
and to make certain repairs on cuffs of shirts returned from the
inspection department, although the employee on the following oper-
ation, who previously had openly displayed the fact that she was
not a member of the Union, was not required to do the repair work
on her operation.52 We find that the treatment accorded Young
constituted interference, restraint, and coercion.
52 The findings as to Young are based upon her testimony, much of which is undisputed
Scott and Kidd were not witnesses. Jones testified that he could not remember any
occasion when his mechanic , Osborn , had failed to fix Young 's machine when instructed,
but said that such incidents "happen every day "
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. Conclusions with respect to interference, restraint, and coercion
by the respondent Salant
Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the respondent Salant, by
the above-described acts, including among others, (1) Harley Wat-
son's spying on union activities during working time; (2) condoning
of and participation in, anti-union demonstrations at the Lawrence-
burg plant; (3) harassment and surveillance of union members; (4)
failing to provide union members in the plant reasonable protection
against attack by non-union employees; (5) distributing wage
increases without NWLB authorization; and (6) by instigating the
formation of the respondent Lawrenceburg Committee, by inciting
it by dissemination of anti-union propaganda to aid the respondent
Salant in its campaign against the Union, and by the anti-union
activities of the respondent Lawrenceburg Committee, hereinabove
found, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Discrimination in hire and tenure of employment
1. The discharge of Jessie Mae Beard
(a) Events preceding her discharge
Jessie Mae Beard was employed by the respondent Salant in May
1942. She was discharged November 23, 1943.
As a machine operator, her particular task was that of "setting"
pockets. In brief, the operation involved in her work was to sew
pockets at a spot previously marked upon one side of shirts.
She joined the Union in June 1943. She made known her interest
in the organization to Foreladies Gazelle Baxter and Minnie Battles,
the latter telling her that she would be fired if she joined.63
During the morning of November 23, Battles came to her machine
and gave her a number of shirts to repair, taking shirts both from
Beard's rack and the racks of other girls. In the afternoon she
selected eight or nine shirts from Beard's rack and took them to
Foreman Asa Giles, who then sent for Beard. When the employee
reached the foreman's desk he asked what the matter was with her
work. She replied that it was the same as always. Gambill came
to them. Giles pointed to the shirts and said, "There is the work she
has been doing," and asked the superintendent what he wanted to
Qs This finding rests upon Beard 's credible testimony. Battles admitted that Beard
had talked to her about the Union but denied having told her she would be fired if
she joined . Baxter at first denied ever having discussed the Union with Beard but
later admitted that she did not recall her conversations with Beard and admitted that
she did tell another employee , later discharged , that labor unions coming into a plant
stirred up a lot of trouble.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 85
do. Gambill replied that he would "give her her time and separation
slip." Beard began to cry, and protested that she was being fired,
as she had been warned, for joining the Union. Gambill denied
knowing that she belonged, but gave her her separation slip bearing
the notation :
Discharged for continuing to make bad work after being cau-
tioned by foreman and forelady.
(b) Contentions of the respondent Salant as to her discharge
The respondent Salant claims that Beard was discharged for the
reason recorded on her separation slip. In support of this contention
Forelady Battles and Foreman Giles, as well as Gambill, gave
testimony.
Battles testified that Beard was a "bad operator," that she "never
was a good operator," that she "didn't do nice work," and that "it
wasn't neat, uniform . . . it was just an imperfect seam, raw
edges, open seams." Thereafter, however, she admitted that Beard
had worked under her supervision only 2 months, that she had not
recommended her discharge, and that the first time she called Giles'
attention to Beard's work was "the morning of her discharge, the
afternoon." When asked why she had not been discharged before,
Battles replied, "well, some people get to the point where they do
worse work." It is unreasonable to believe that if Beard's work had
been as bad as claimed by Battles, 2 months would have passed before
she displayed it to Giles. Furthermore, Battles admitted that she
kept no records of employees' work. No work alleged to have been
done by Beard was exhibited at the hearing or offered in evidence.
Nor did Battles deny having given Beard a number of shirts to
repair which originally came from the racks of other girls. There
is no credible evidence that the shirts shown by Giles to Gambill
may not have come from these other racks. We, like the Trial Exam-
iner, can place no reliance upon Battles' testimony as support for
the respondent's contention.
Although Baxter had been forelady over Beard for several months.
she was not questioned as to Beard's workmanship.
Giles testified that Beard had worked under him for a year and
a half or 2 years and that he recommended her discharge because she
"was making open seams and raw edges." He further stated that
Battles brought him some of the work both in the morning and
afternoon of November 23. In direct contradiction to Battles, how-
ever, he testified that his "little green book" showed he and Battles
had warned Beard about bad work on two previous occasions, on
November 11 and 18. As noted above, Battles testified that the first
86 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time she brought Beard's work to his attention was on November 23.
In view of Battles' testimony we, like the Trial Examiner, do not
accept as true Foreman Giles' testimony that Beard had been previ-
ously warned about her work.54
Gambill testified that while coming through the factory that after-
noon he saw Giles and Battles at the foreman's desk discussing
Beard's work. According to the superintendent he examined the
work in question and, because it was of poor quality, discharged her
after Giles had told him he had previously warned her. He admitted
that Beard spoke of her union membership, but not until after she
had been discharged.
On November 30 Gambill wrote to Salant as follows :
Replying to your letter of November 27th with reference to our
discharging Jessie Mae Beard.
Please be advised that we discharged the above employee Tues-
day afternoon, Nov. 23rd for continuing to make bad work after
being cautioned by her foreman and forelady. In the week of
Nov. 15th, our foreman, Mr. Giles, talked with her as well as
a number of other operators and informed them that our cus-
tomers were returning goods due to raw edges, open seams, and
skipped stitches, and that we would have to make a grade of
merchandise that our customers would accept. The writer had
previously instructed our foremen and foreladies that we would
have to improve the quality of our work, as our customers were
not only kicking about it but were also returning it.
Tuesday morning, Mrs. Beard had an awful lot of bad work,
and her forelady gave it back to her to repair what of it could
be repaired. Then Tuesday afternoon, she started making work
with open seams and raw edges, and we knew nothing else to
do other than discharge her. The separation slip which we
gave her shows that she was discharged for `continuing to make
bad work after being cautioned by her foreman and forelady.'
On December 2, Salant replied in part, as follows :
I have your letter of the 30th ult. re Mrs . Beard 's discharge.
Your statement is very full, complete, and detailed and is just
what is needed for the record in case this matter should ever
64 Of additional bearing upon the unreliability of the testimony of both Battles and
(ales concerning the quality of Beard's work is the credible testimony of Irene Womble,
no longer an emplo,,-ee of the respondent or a resident of Lawrenceburg . Womble testi-
fied that early in February 1943, Giles made a time study of her work, on the same
operation as that of Beard, and urged her to run her machine as well as Beard who,
he said, was a "good operator." Giles testified that he did not remember the incident,
but denied that he told Womble Beard was a good operator . We, like the Trial Ex-
aminer, do not accept his denial as true.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 87
come up again. Please return her separation slip which Mr.
Lipshie sent you with the notation on it.
`Discharged by management for continued and persistent bad
work as detailed in the attached memo.'
The attached memo should report just what you wrote me in
the above letter of November 30th.
We, like the Trial Examiner, find no merit in the claim of the
respondent that Beard was discharged because of her poor work.
(c) Conclusions as to the discharge
In view of the fact that the respondent's defenses are unsupported
by the record, Salant's conduct in combating the Union, and that
Beard was an outspoken adherent of the Union to which Salant was
violently opposed, we, like the Trial Examiner, conclude and find
that Jessie Mae Beard was discriminatorily discharged on November
23, 1943, because of her union membership.
2. The discharge of Olene Hollman
(a) Events preceding her discharge
Olene Hollman was employed by the respondent Salant in March
1941. At the time of her discharge on April 25, 1944, she was a
machine operator engaged as a "hemmer," under the supervision of
Forelady Florence Childress.
Hollman was a member of the local union committee. As described
above, management stood idly by on Friday, April 21, while a group
of employees attempted to force Hollman and others bodily from
the plant.
During the morning of April 25, 2 working days later, Hollman
and Elizabeth Sutton were talking to each other while working at
neighboring machines. Childress came to them and told them that
Myra Giles wanted them to stop talking. Hollman reminded
Childress that Myra had made no effort to stop the women talking
the previous Friday when they tried to throw her out. Childress
told Hollman to tell Myra herself, and Hollman said she would if
she would ask Myra to come to her machine. About 3:30 that after-
noon, Asa Giles told Hollman to get her things, check out, and see
Gambill in his office. She followed instructions. When she entered
the superintendent's office he held in his hands her checks, termina-
tion slip, and statement of availability. Also in the office were
Childress, Foreman Morris, and an office girl. Gambill asked if she
was Olene Hollman. She acknowledged her identity. Gambill
started to hand her the papers, when Asa Giles entered. Gambill
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
turned to him and asked what the charges were. Giles replied,
"Laughing and talking back to a floor lady." Hollman asked about
other girls talking at the same time. Giles replied that it didn't
matter, she was "the only one they were after at that time."
She was thereupon given her separation slip, which noted as the
reason for her discharge:
Discharged due to insubordination to Forelady and also, exces-
sive adjustments.
Nothing had been said previously, or was said then, to her about
"excessive adjustments."
(b) Contentions of the respondent as to her discharge
At the hearing Gambill stated that Hollman was discharged for
"insubordination to the forelady." He testified that Giles came to
him in the morning and informed him that when Hollman had been
ordered to stop talking she had refused, and had told Childress to
tell Myra Giles so. When asked why he delayed discharging her
until afternoon , he stated that he wanted to "investigate" the charges
first , and that he did talk with Myra Giles and Childress. He also
called Salant 's local attorney for advice, stating that he did so
because he knew Hollman was a union member. He admitted, how-
ever , that he did not ask Hollman, at any time, for her version of
the incident.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the evidence introduced
by the respondent does not support the statement on her discharge
slip that she was also discharged for "EXCESSIVE" adjustments,5J
nor did Gambill make such a claim at the hearing. Nor did he
contend at the hearing that she was discharged for laughing, as
Giles had informed her at the time of her discharge. This failure
of the respondent to offer evidential support either for the oral
charge of "laughing" made against her by Giles, or the written
charge on the separation slip of "excessive adjustments," casts genu-
ine doubt upon the credibility of management's testimony as to the
other charge of "insubordination."
66 At the hearing counsel for the respondent Salant introduced into evidence a docu-
ment showing that over a period Hollman had received some adjustments in pay, that
is, that during certain pay periods her work at piece rates had failed to earn the
minimum required by law, thus bringing about adjustments in pay . Counsel admitted
that it was not offered for comparative purposes , and since no other pay records were
offered for employees engaged in the same kind of work, it clearly could not serve to
determine whether or not Hollman's adjustments were "excessive " in a comparative
sense. The record contains a great deal of evidence to the effect that piece -work rates
at the Salant plants were so low that adjustments were not uncommon It was a point
of considerable negotiations at the Martin plant. Nor did the respondent offer any
evidence to explain the use of the term "excessive" on her separation slip.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 89
(c) Conclusions as to the discharge
We agree with the Trial Examiner and find no merit in Gambill's
contention that Hollman was discharged for "insubordination."
Childress' testimony that Hollman refused to stop talking is flatly
denied by employee Elizabeth Sutton, who was nearby at the time.
Gambill's "investigation," if made, by his own admission was clearly
discriminatory, since he questioned only supervisors who for months
had aided in carrying on Salant's anti-union campaign. The attach-
ing of a further unwarranted stigma upon Hollman's record by
adding the wholly unsupported charge of "excessive adjustments"
to her separation slip, casts further discredit upon Gambill's
testimony.
Hollman, an active union committee woman had refused to quit
at the request of a group of anti-union employees at the plant 2
working days previously while Gambill, Mr. and Mrs. Giles, and the
supervisors looked on. Upon the entire record, we agree with the
Trial Examiner and find that she was discriminatorily discharged
April 25 because of her union membership and activity.
3. The lay-off of Ruth Weaver Cole
(a) Events preceding the lay-off
Ruth Weaver Cole was employed at the Lawrenceburg plant in
September 1942. Most of her work was as a recutter, on Army
contract shirts, although she sometimes operated a machine. While
working on this contract, Foreman Morris had under his supervision
from 4 to 10 recutters, including Cole.
As described above, on November 26, Harley Watson made and
distributed non-union signs to many employees. He came to the
department where Cole worked. While others put them on, four
recutters-Ruth Cole, Dessie Ferrell, Calera Denson, and Audrey
Gallion would not wear them. When Cole refused to put on a non-
union sign , Watson told her, "Well, that will prove what you are
if you don't wear it." 56
During the latter part of November the Army contract expired. It
was not renewed, and during the following 2 or 3 weeks many
employees were laid off. During the same period eight recutters were
working in this department. In addition to the four above named,
according to the respondent's records in evidence, there were Lois
Coffey, Sallie Hunt, Ethel Short, and Lucille LeMay.
w Watson denied making this statement to Cole. In view of the fact that Watson
admitted reporting union meetings to Gambill , and the superintendent admitted, in
effect, that Watson had served as an informer , we, like the Trial Examiner , place no
reliance upon Watson 's denial.
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On December 2, the four recutters , including Cole, who a few days
before had refused to wear the non-union signs , were laid off,
although Coffey, Hunt, LeMay, and Short were transferred to other
departments.
Cole's lay-off is the only one raised as an issue by the complaint.
(b) The respondent's contention as to her lay-off
It is the respondent's contention that there was no discrimination
in Cole's lay-off, which occurred along with many others in a general
reduction in force.
A number of factors cast doubt upon the validity of this claim.
In the first place, the testimony of Gambill and her forman, Morris,
is in disagreement as to her relative ability as a worker. Morris,
who had immediate supervision over her, testified that Cole's work
was "completely satisfactory." Gambill, however, testified that "she
is very nervous and she is very hard to teach anything. She was
hard to teach to recut. She is a very nervous type and she has a lot
of home worries, and it is just hard for her to grasp anything."
In the second place, in view of Gambill's testimony that other things
being equal seniority governed which was the preferred employee,
the respondent gave no reasonable explanation as to why Sally Hunt,
who had from 3 to 5 months' less seniority than Cole, was selected
instead of Cole for transfer to another department. Nor is there
any testimony in the record as to the employment records of Coffey,
LeMay, or Short, who, according to the respondent's records, were
also transferred at the time of the general lay-off. Gambill admitted
that he could not explain -vihy they were selected for transfer.
Furthermore, Morris admitted that lie had nothing "whatsoever" to
do with the selections for lay-off or the transfer. Harley Watson,
however, who has no supervisory power, apparently had advance
information not shared by Morris.
Cole's testimony is undisputed that when she returned to her place
of work after lunch on December 2, Watson called to her "You might
as well go ahead and finish your bundle, you are going out." Later
in the afternoon Gambill sent for her, and she was laid off.
(c) Conclusions as to her lay-off
Watson's advance knowledge that Gambill was to lay Cole off on
the afternoon of December 2, when considered in the light of the
fact that her own foreman was admittedly not consulted, leads to
the reasonable inference that Watson had conferred with the super-
intendent as to factors relating to Cole other than her workmanship.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 91
Watson 's close association with Gambill in many other anti-union
activities has been established . Like the Trial Examiner, we are
convinced that Watson reported to Gambill the fact that Cole and
others had refused , less than a week before, to wear the non-union
signs he had distributed , and that the superintendent believed on
December 2 that she was it union member or, in any event , sympa-
thetic toward it.
In agreement with the Trial Examiner , we conclude and find that
Ruth Weaver Cole was discriminatorily laid off on December 2
because the superintendent believed her to be friendly toward the
Union.
4. The lay-off of Ethel Brewer
(a) Events preceding the lay-off
Ethel Brewer was hired by the respondent Salant in June 1942,
as a cuff-stitch machine operator. According to Foreman Giles she
was a fair operator. In November, on the occasion above described
when foreladies and others distributed non-union signs, Forelady
Mildred (Logue) Jones gave Brewer one, and told her she must
wear it.57 Brewer refused to put it on.
Brewer joined the Union in October 1943.58 After she joined the
Union her forelady, then Esther Scott, began bringing an unusual
number of shirts back to her for repair .-19
Brewer was laid off on March 1, 1944, by Gambill, who told her
it was necessary because of lack of work.
(b) Contention of the respondent as to the lay-off
Gambill testified that Brewer and two other cuff setters, Jones and
Marlowe, were laid off at the same time because of a new contract
for short-sleeved shirts which had no cuffs. He also testified that
only one "section" was assigned to the short-sleeve work, and that
although this type of work had previously been done by Section 4,
on this occasion he gave it to Section 1, where Brewer worked. When
asked why he chose Section 1 for this work, he testified that if he
remembered "correctly" it was because there were some girls in
Section 1 who were experienced in "felling" short-sleeved shirts. He
57 The forelady's denial of this incident is not accepted as true Jones admitted hav-
ing made and distributed them to others and admitted her antipathy toward the Union.
She further admitted that some of the employees to whom she offered the signs re-
fused to take them, but could not recall their names.
m Brewer testified that she joined the Union about a month before the non- union sign
incident , which occurred November 26.
"Scott was not a witness . Brewer's testimony on this point is undisputed.
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
admitted that he could not recall their names, however. Asked again
why he chose Section 1 for this work, he replied :
Well, we had to put it somewhere.
(c) Conclusions as to the lay-off
After a good deal of confused and confusing testimony as to what
girls were working in Section 1 as cuff setters at the time of the
lay-off, counsel for the Board and for the respondent Salant, near
the close of the hearing, stipulated that at the time of the lay-off
the cuff setters in that section, according to the pay roll, were Marie
Woods, Ethel Brewer, and Lucille Marlow. The stipulation was
entered into without prejudice to the fact that Florine Jones also
had done some work in Section 1.
Gambill laid off Brewer and Jones, both union members, as well
as Marlow, as to whom there is no evidence as to whether or not
she was a member, while Marie Woods, who had worn a non-union
sign, was transferred to another section and not laid off. Although
Jones was a union member, there is no issue raised by the complaint
as to her.
As to relative seniority standings, the evidence shows as follows :
Date Hired
Ethel Brewer ...... ................ .......... 6/2/42
Florine Jones ...... .......................... 8/2/43
Lucille Marlow ................................. 2/15/43
Marie Woods .... ....... ..................... 8/10/43
As to the bearing of seniority upon lay-off selections, Gambill testi-
fied as follows :
Q. All things being equal, the girl who had worked for the
company the longest period of time would be the most preferable
employee, would she not?
A. If she was as good or better than the other one who hadn't
been there as long, yes, sir. . . .
There is no documentary evidence or testimony concerning the
relative workmanship of Brewer and Woods. Gambill testified that
it required from 6 to 7 months for a new employee to become a com-
petent cuff setter. When Woods was transferred out of Section 1
she had had less than 7 months' experience. It is reasonable to infer
that Brewer, who had been hired more than a year before Woods,
was at least as good a worker as she.
Under the circumstances, we, like the Trial Examiner, find that
by its failure to transfer Brewer who had seniority greater than
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 93
any of the other employees in Section 1 and instead by laying her
off, the respondent Salant had discriminated in regard to her tenure
of employment.
5. The discharge of Nora Newton Fry 80
(a) Events preceding her discharge
Nora Newton Fry was hired by the respondent Salant in October
1941, as a machine operator. On November 26, 1943, as a member
of the union committee, she wore a union card into the plant. Fore-
lady Baxter came to her and asked what she meant by wearing it.
Fry explained that it indicated that she had joined the Union.
Baxter declared, "I am ashamed of you," and wanted to know
whether she was working for the company or "the other side." 61
On March 22, 1944, Fry went home, ill, reporting the fact to Myra
Giles. On the 24th she was still ill, going to a local doctor, and
sent word in to the plant as to her illness. On Saturday, March 25,
she went to Nashville to see a doctor there. On the bus with her
were Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Young, and a girl from Gambill's of-
fice. Fry was unable to see the Nashville doctor without an ap-
pointment. On Monday she did not go to work, sending in word
by another employee that she was still sick, if anyone asked for
her. On Tuesday, March 28, she reported for work, and was sent
by Asa Giles to Gambill. Gambill asked if she had been sick. When
she told him that she had been, he informed her that he under-
stood she "took a trip" over the week end. He asked where she
went, and inquired the name of the doctor she went to see in Nash-
ville. She told him to call the local doctor and see if she had not
been sick the day before. He left, came back, and said he had called
the doctor. The superintendent then asked her why she had not
called in on Monday to report her illness. Fry replied that in the
past she had not been required to report each day she was out ill.
Gambill then discharged her, giving her a separation slip reading:
Discharged for failing to report for work or notifying us reason
for same, irregular attendance in the past, and also, excessive
adjustments.
Fry had previously been out-at one time for several months-
because of illness.
00 Mrs. Fry was named in the complaint before amended to conform to proof and on
many of the documents in evidence as Nora Newton , her maiden name.
41 Baxter admitted having told Fry that she was ashamed of her.
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) The respondent's contention as to her discharge
At the hearing, Gambill claimed only that Fry had been dis-
charged for irregular attendance and failing to "send in word." No
claim was made, no comparative evidence offered, and no explanation
was given as to why Fry had also been charged, on her separation
slip, with "excessive adjustments."
Gambill claimed that a "few weeks" before her discharge he "cau-
tioned her . . . in a very nice way" about her irregular attendance.
He did not claim, however, that he had warned her that she would
be discharged if her attendance continued irregular.
(c) Conclusions as to her discharge
The failure of the respondent to support its charge of "excessive
adjustments," as noted on her separation slip, leads to the reasonable
conclusion that it was groundless, and casts doubt upon the validity
of the other charges thereon. The respondent made no claim and
offered no proof that Fry wilfully remained away from work or
misrepresented the fact that she had been ill. No evidence was
offered by the respondent to refute Fry's testimony that she had
informed her forelady of her illness on the preceding Wednesday
and had sent in word on Friday. The respondent rests the validity
of its charge solely upon the claim that she sent in no word on
Monday, the next working day.62 Nor did it offer any evidence to
show that she was not, in fact, ill on Monday.
Gambill's action in discharging Fry for absence because of unre-
ported illness was directly contrary to the plant policy as described
by Giles in the following colloquy :
Q. Now if a woman tells you that she is sick and she is going
home, do you require her to report or send word to you every
day she is sick?
A. No, sir.
Furthermore, not only was the respondent's action on this occasion
contrary to its usual practice with other employees, but contrary to
its previous practice with regard to Fry herself. She admitted, and
the respondent's records show, that on a number of occasions since
her employment in 1941 she had been absent for varying periods
because of illness. Her testimony is undisputed that she had not
been required to report every day. We, like the Trial Examiner,
find that there is no merit in the respondent's contention as to why
Fry was discharged.
02 Giles testified that he "took up her card" on Monday, because she did not send in
word.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 95
Fry was a union committee member. She had made known her
membership to Forelady Baxter. Hers was one of the only four
discharges made by the respondent Salant at this plant from October
22, 1943, to the time of the hearing. All four of the discharged
employees were union members : Jessie Mae Beard, Ethel Hughes'63
Olene Hollman, and Fry. In agreement with the Trial Examiner,
we conclude and find that Fry was discriminatorily discharged on
March 28 because of her union membership and activity.
6. The alleged refusal to reemploy Annie Mae Rinehart Young
(a) Events preceding the refusal
On January 27, 1943, employee Annie Mae Rinehart obtained per-
mission from her forelady to be off the following 2 days. She went
to Georgia, was married, and wrote to Gambill asking for her separa-
tion slip and cheek. These were forwarded to her.
She returned to Lawrenceburg in February, and on the 23rd of
that month applied at the plant for reemployment. Gambill told
her that he had no work for her at that time, but might have later
on. He then asked her whom she had married. She told him A. C.
Young. The superintendent asked if he was any relation to Tom
Young, the Union's local organizer. She replied that they were
brothers.
Young again applied for work in March, but again Gambill told
her there was no work available for her.
She had been employed as a collar setter, and stated at the hearing
that she did not believe she could do any other kind of work at
the plant.
(b) The respondent's contention
It is the respondent's contention, in effect, that Yoting was refused
a job when she applied only because there was no work for her for
which she was experienced. Giles admitted that she was a good
operator, and that he would "personally" be willing to rehire her
if a collar setter's job was available.
Unrefuted records introduced by the respondent show that only
four persons were reemployed between February 23, when Young
sought reinstatement, and May 30. None of the four was rehired
as a collar setter. There is no substantial evidence that there have
been any openings in this position available for Young since
February 23.
63 Hughes was named in the complaint. She was not a witness and, as noted above,
the Trial Examiner granted a motion by counsel for the Board to dismiss the allegations
as to her.
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Like the Trial Examiner, we conclude and find that, in the absence
of convincing proof that there has been any available vacancy at
the time of or since Young's application for employment, she has
not actually been discriminatorily refused reemployment from
February 23 to the time of the hearing.
Gambill's questioning, however, as to her relationship to Thomas
Young, frequently referred to in defamatory terms by Salant in
his correspondence with the superintendent, plainly constituted inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of the Act.
7. The alleged discharge of Vernell Sawyer
Vernell Sawyer was hired June 1, 1943, as a trimming inspector
under Forelady Stricklin. She joined the Union September 14.
On Monday, October 25, she remained at home, ill. She sent word
as to the reason for her absence to the factory by another girl, but
that employee herself was late for work and failed to notify the
forelady.
Sawyer's time card was not in its usual place when she came to
work the morning of October 26. Stricklin sent her to the office.
At the office she was sent to Asa Giles. She explained her absence
and expressed her regret that the word she had sent had failed to
reach him. Giles told her to go home and if the "old man" wanted
her back he would send for her. When she had received no call
by Friday, October 29, she went to see Gambill. She explained her
case to the superintendent, but he denied having any knowledge of
it. Sawyer then showed him her union card.
Sawyer's separation notice stated : "Voluntarily quit-stopping
work." Gambill testified at the hearing that Sawyer was given her
separation notice because she "failed to report to work, or notify
us why she didn't report to work," but denied she was discharged.
Gambill admitted that he learned, after investigation, that Sawyer
had sent in word during her absence, as was the custom, and further
admitted "if I was sick, and anyone was a friend of mine, I think
I would take it for granted they would be willing to do it for me
if I would ask them."
The Trial Examiner found that in discharging Sawyer, the re-
spondent Salant was motivated by her union membership. However,
there is no evidence that management was aware of her union member-
ship prior to her discharge; nor does the record warrant an inference
to that effect. While the matter is not free from doubt in view of
the respondent's other unlawful conduct, we are nevertheless not
persuaded upon the entire record, that Sawyer was discharged be-
cause of her union membership. We shall, accordingly, dismiss the
complaint in this respect.
SALANT & SALANT, INC.
8. Alleged disparity in hiring practice
97
The complaint alleged; and the Trial Examiner found, that Earl
Foster was refused employment because his father assisted in signing
up union members. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the
fact that Superintendent Gambill knew that Foster's father was
getting union cards signed throws suspicion on his testimony that
there was no vacancy for male help on August 19, 1943, when Foster
applied for work. However, in view of the stipulation entered into
at the hearing before the Trial Examiner between counsel for the
respondent Salant and the Board to the effect that the respondent
Salant did not request the United States Employment Service for
any male employee from August 1 to October 15, 1943, and in view
of Gambill's testimony that he did not hire any male help until
after August 19, 1943, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner,
that there was no vacancy for Foster on August 19, 1943. We
accordingly find that Foster was not discriminatorily refused
employment.
9. Alleged discriminatory practice set-up by Foreman Giles
The Trial Examiner found that Foreman Asa Giles established the
practice of keeping a memorandum in a little "green book" on derelic-
tions only of union members. Inasmuch as the little "green book"
contains entries regarding union and non-union members, and in
view of the fact that there is no showing that Giles was aware of
the union affiliation of all those listed at the time the entries were
made, we, contrary to the Trial Examiner, conclude that the record
does not warrant a finding that the respondent Salant kept records
on union members for a discriminatory purpose.
10. Conclusions with respect to discrimination in hire and
tenure of employment
Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the respondent Salant
discriminated in the hire and tenure of employment of Jessie Mae
Beard, Olene Hollman, Ruth Weaver Cole, Ethel Brewer, and Nora
Newton Fry to discourage membership in the Union and thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We find further that the respondent Salant did not discriminate
in the hire and tenure of employment of Annie Mae Rinehart Young,
Vernell Sawyer, and Earl Foster or set up a discriminary practice
through Foreman Asa Giles' use of the "Little green book."
686572-46-8
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. Salant's anti-union campaign at Lexington
1. Formation of a local grievance committee
Salant is the chief employer of factory labor in Lexington, a town
of about 2,500 population, which owns the building leased to him
under conditions previously described. As Mayor Joe C. Davis
expressed it at the hearing, the "city" considers itself one of "three
horses hitched to the wagon" of the Salant plant, management and
the employees being the other two.
At about the time Salant conferred with local leaders in other
towns, he discussed the forming of a citizens' committee with Mayor
Davis. Davis admitted that the discussion had occurred, but testi-
fied that he did not recall what was said. Shortly thereafter, Davis
appointed what he called a "grievance committee" and its formation
was announced as follows in the local newspaper, the "Lexington
Progress" :
CITIZENS INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE
At the instance of Mayor Joe C. Davis, representatives of the
local Rotary Club, the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, County
Officials, and other civic-minded citizens met at the City Hall,
at 7:30 p. in., April 23rd, and organized a Citizens' Industrial
Committee, composed of the following members :
Joe C. Davis, Elmer L. Stewart, J. A. Bray, Joe V. Holmes,
F. J. Azbill.
It shall be the purpose and duty of this committee to act as a
board of arbitration in the event any labor difficulties or other
controversies should arise between employers and employees, at
local industries, and particularly at the local shirt factory; to
consider, fairly and impartially, any complaint registered by
either employers or employees; and to maintain normal working
conditions at all times.
Davis admitted that the employees were not consulted before set-
ting up the committee, but said that after it was formed he reported
the fact either to Salant or to the local management. He declared
that he got the impression that management was "not adverse to
such an idea." Davis further admitted that the committee was
formed to "eliminate" such "trouble" and "disturbance" as had
occurred in other towns. We find that Salant was instrumental in
the formation of the committee, which was organized for the purpose
of furthering his anti-union campaign at Lexington.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 99
Following the formation of the committee, Salant addressed Davis
as "Chairman, Citizens Industry Committee." On May 21 he sent
Davis, as to others as above described, data on Martin production
which showed, he claimed, the "effect of the unionization" upon that
plant.
Furthermore, as in other towns, Salant sent various items of anti-
union propaganda to his local manager, H. G. Bagwell, for exhibit
or transmission to his "friends" in Lexington.
2. Manager Bagwell transmits propaganda to employees
Bagwell admitted having passed on, as instructed, some of Salant's
anti-union propaganda to his foremen and employees. For example,
he admitted that employees received the information contained in
a letter Salant sent to him on November 4, which stated, in part :
The only reason for the failure of Martin to get its increase is
that it was organized by the A.C.W.A. and that the union held
up the application (which, under the regulations, had to be
signed by it) so long that several months later we withdrew the
application. . . . The experience of the Martin workers is
something for the other factory people to consider.
3. Conclusions as to the anti-union campaign at Lexington
In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record, we find that
the Lexington committee was formed at Salant's behest, as was the
case at his other plants, and that Salant recognized the committee
as a grievance committee to represent the employees in their dealings
with management. To further his anti-union campaign, Salant also
disseminated various anti-union propaganda to the employees at the
Lexington plant, to the committee, and to local businessmen, as above
described. We find that by such conduct the respondent Salant inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees at the Lexington
plant in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
H. Salant's anti-union campaign at Henderson
It does not appear that organization of Salant's Henderson
employees, up to the time of the hearing before the Trial Examiner,
had progressed to any marked extent. In the spring of 1943, how-
ever, according to the testimony of J. E. Brown, head of the local
bank patronized by Salant, he was informed by Lattie Averitt, man-
ager of the Henderson plant, that an organizer had "contacted" some
of his employees.
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
That Salant and Averitt were concerned about organization of the
Henderson employees, as to the other plants, is shown by their cor-
respondence. On April 30, 1943, Salant wrote, in part, to Averitt
as follows :
As to how you are to conduct yourself in the event of any union-
ization campaign, I must repeat what I have told all the super-
intendents over and over again. We are responsible for whatever
is done by a superintendent, and for anything done not only by
him but by anybody else in the plant who is in a supervisory
capacity, or who is in a position of authority over anybody else.
Not only you, but they also are regarded as our representatives,
and under the law they are not allowed to advise any employee
not to join the union.
You must impress it upon any committee of citizens that has
been or may be formed that resort to violence is about the worst
thing they could possibly do against us. We will always be
held responsible, no matter whether we have anything to do
with it or not, and no matter if neither you nor any supervisor
is responsible for it, or has any part in it.
On May 6, Salant sent to Averitt a copy of his letter of the same
date to Gambill at Lawrenceburg, in which he stated :
I hope the people of the town and especially the Citizens Industry
Committee are not intimidated from doing what they have a
perfect right to do by the widely disseminated charges that
there is a `reign of terror' in the city.
Sometime before May 21 Salant paid a visit to Henderson, and
steps were taken toward the forming of a local citizens' committee.
Banker Brown admitted that his memory as to dates was imperfect,
but he recalled and testified that Salant had met with him and others
at his bank, where they discussed their plans for organizing "this
committee." He stated that Salant had told them he "couldn't take
any part in" the organization, but had pointed out the difficulties
he was having at the Martin plant. Brown further testified that
the local group told Salant that as far as they knew the employees
in Henderson were satisfied with their wages and treatment, but
if they were not, the committee would take up such questions with
Salant, and that Salant said this arrangement was "satisfactory"
to him. We find that Salant participated in the plan for the forma-
tion of a grievance committee at Henderson.
Brown thereafter testified that so far as he knew, no committee
officially exists, and that he had never met with anyone thereafter.
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 101
Salant's later correspondence, however, establishes the fact that
he has treated the committee as existing. On May 21 he addressed
Brown as "Chairman, Citizens Industry Committee," when he sent
him data on the decrease of Martin production "as showing the
effect of unionization . . . on the production and payrolls."
The committee, according to Brown, consisted of himself, W. A.
McCullum, a local cotton broker, and R. A. Atlee, whose business
connections are not revealed by the record.
On July 8, Salant sent to McCullum a clipping from a New York
newspaper which he said showed "some of the activities of the
A. C. W. A.
That Salant considered the committee as his agent and the city
and county authorities as sharing his interest in the plant is made
clear from his letter to Averitt on August 2, with respect to his
efforts to obtain renewal of a "learner's certificate."
On August 19, at Averitt's suggestion, Salant wrote directly to
Brown about the matter. On September 11 Salant prepared and
sent to Brown a proposed letter for forwarding by "citizens" to
Representative Tom Murray. In his letter Salant made no mention
of having, himself, stopped hiring learners at Martin in March.
As at other plants, Salant sent superintendent Averitt letters con-
taining anti-union propaganda for transmission to his supervisors
and interested citizens. Averitt testified that there was one which
he did not "bring home" to the employees. Like the Trial Examiner,
we find that in other cases Averitt followed instructions and dissemi-
nated the propaganda as directed by Salant.
On March 25, 1943, Salant informed Averitt that his application
for a wage increase at the Martin plant had been held up, due to
the intervention of the Union. "You can see, therefore," Salant
wrote, "how much the Martin people have gained through their
organization." He instructed the superintendent to make this fact,
as well as others, clear to supervisors and employees.
On March 22, 1944, he wrote Averitt that the NWLB was holding
up increases at the "insistence of the A. C. W. A., of which Sidney
Hillman is President and Murray Weinstein, Vice President"; de-
clared that the Henderson employees had the Union and Messrs.
Hillman and Weinstein to thank for the delay, and instructed
Averitt not to hesitate to inform his supervisors and employees as
to reasons for the delay.
Conclusions
We find that the respondent Salant, by participating in the plan
for the formation of a grievance committee, by agreeing to recognize
such a committee as a grievance committee representing its employees
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the Henderson plant with respect to their "treatment and wages,"
by recognizing the existence of the committee and soliciting its aid
on its behalf,64 and by distributing anti-union propaganda to busi-
ness leaders and employees, inciting them against the Union, has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
1. Salant's anti-union campaign at Parsons
Parsons is a small town of about 1,250 population. Salant's shirt
and pants factory is the major manufacturing enterprise in town.
As noted heretofore, one of the buildings occupied by him was built
by the town. According to its mayor, G. H. Goff, the people of
Parsons consider the factory as theirs. Harold White is local
manager of the Salant plant.
That White was aware that some organizational activity was
occurring at Parsons was admitted, in effect, by him when he testified
that although he did not see them, he knew union organizers had
been there and had read their circulars.
As to other plant managers, Salant sent White many letters re-
lating to the wage increases and the Union. On March 25, 1943, he
instructed White to "make clear" to supervisors and employees, as
well as to "Parsons people interested in the plant," his claim that
the application for increases at Martin had been held up by the Union.
Sometime before April 30, although the exact date is not established
by the record, a "grievance committee" was set up in Parsons, similar
in nature to groups formed at about the same time in other towns
where Salant operated. According to its chairman, K. K. Houston,
a department store proprietor, the committee was organized at the
local bank. Committee members, in addition to Houston, were H. L.
Townsend, head of the bank, merchant C. V. Maxwell, grocery man
Tom Jennings, and barber Jerry Barnett.
Houston also testified that he notified Plant Manager White that
they had organized and White agreed to cooperate with them. Also
according to Houston's testimony, no employee grievance has arisen;
nor was the committee organized at the instance of any petition from
the employees.
Salant, however, thereafter kept certain committee members in-
formed of his relations to his employees, either direct or through
his local manager. On April 30 he sent to Townsend the "story"
of his application for wage increases. On July 8 he sent to White
"Although there is no evidence that the Henderson citizens ' committee , headed by
Brown , has ever functioned as a "grievance committee," or has publicly declared itself
as serving on behalf of the employees , it is clear from Salant 's correspondence that
be recognizes its continued existence and has solicited its members for assistance
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 103
a newspaper clipping, on activities of the Union, to be shown to
his "friends" in Parsons.
On May 21 he addressed Houston as chairman of the "Citizens
Industry Committee"-although there is no evidence that the group
ever formally adopted this name, and enclosed data on Martin pro-
duction, which, as Salant claimed, showed "the effect of union organi-
zation" on that plant.
In turn, Houston corresponded with Salant. On March 2, 1944,
he wrote to Salant as follows :
I had visitors last week. They were from the War Labor Rela-
tions Board (sic) and said they were investigating labor
conditions.
They inquired particularly regarding efforts to organize here
and our attitude. They found that some paper clippings were
in town. I just can't remember where they came from but
told them to Read Pegler. [Sic.] They asked about the Griev-
ance Committee and if we had any reaction from you or the
Supt. Mr. White. Of course we have not talked to you about
it but that Mr. White informed us that if there was any griev-
ance he would be pleased to meet us. They were pretty persistent
but went away as they came.
If anything else turns up I will communicate with you or Mr.
White.
Upon receipt of the letter Salant sought further information from
White. On March 13, Salant again wrote to White :
I have your letter of the 9th inst. in which you state that Mr.
Townsend gave Messrs. Catts and Byrd some reprints from New
York papers. What were these reprints and where did Mr.
Townsend get them? Have you any idea who sent these reprints
to Mr. Townsend?
White replied, on March 16:
The reprints mentioned in my letter of 3/9/44 were reprints
from New York paper in November 1941. Some one in New
York sent them to me and I gave them to Mr. Townsend. I am
enclosing one of them.
and enclosed a reprint from a New York newspaper relating to the
"Murder Ring." Admissions by Salant establish that these reprints
were among some 500 which he himself sent out "to our superintend-
ents and to prominent leaders of the communities in which we
operated."
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Conclusions
We find that by the above-described anti-union activities, including,
among others, the abortive attempt to form a grievance committee
to represent the employees at Parsons in their dealings with man-
agement, and the dissemination of anti-union propaganda to busi-
nessmen for the purpose of gaining their assistance in preventing
union organization at the Parsons' plant, the respondent Salant has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
J. Salant's alleged anti-union campaign at Obion
No attempt at union organization has been made at the Obion
plant. No "grievance committee" or "citizens committee" has been
formed and no attempts in these respects have been made.
The complaint alleged , and the Trial Examiner found, that the
respondent Salant violated the Act at the Obion plant by the dis-
semination of anti-union propaganda through the columns of the
Union City Daily Messenger and by distributing anti-union propa-
ganda to local business leaders. We are not convinced that the evi-
dence is sufficient to warrant such a finding . We shall accordingly
dismiss the complaint with respect to the respondent 's plant at Obion,
Tennessee.
K. The respondent Salant's general defenses
Salant admits that he disseminated anti-union propaganda in the
towns where his plants are located. He claims that he did so in
"self-defense" against alleged defamatory statements made by the
Union regarding the payment of less than minimum wages and the
spreading of alleged false rumors to the effect that he had not applied
to the NWLB for wage increases. At the hearing before the Trial
Examiner, Salant stated that the Union started its campaign of
defamations with an article in the Nashville Banner of March 10,
1943. No proof was offered, however, that this article had emanated
from, or at the instance of, any representative of the Union. Nor
does the record support Salant's assertions that the Union engaged
in a campaign of defamation against the respondent. Moreover, as
previously found, Salant's campaign of interference, restraint, and
coercion with the employees' self-organizational rights began before
the printing of the article in the Nashville Banner. In any event,
Salant did not confine his activities merely to correcting misstate-
ments of fact allegedly made by union representatives but incited
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 105
influential citizens against the Union and collaborated with them in
combating the -Union and coercing the employees in their self-organ-
izational activities by various methods heretofore set forth. Like
the Trial Examiner, we find no merit in the respondent's contention.
Nor is there any merit to the respondent's contention that the vari-
out statements made by its representatives are privileged under the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Viewed as a whole,
such statements formed an inseparable part of the respondent's
whole course of coercive conduct.
The respondent Salant also contends that it was privileged to send
anti-union propaganda to individual citizens because they were not
its employees. We find no merit in this contention. As previously
found, Salant made use of the anti-union propaganda, including
threats to move the plants, to further his anti-union campaign by
enlisting the aid of prominent citizens and citizens' committees,
which were formed or revived at his instigation, to combat the Union
and to coerce the employees in the exercise of their self-organiza-
tional rights. These citizens and committees in many instances trans-
mitted to the respondent Salant's employees its threat to move the
plant in the event of the selection of the Union as the employees'
bargaining agent and engaged in other conduct, inspired by Salant's
anti-union propaganda, to coerce the employees to reject the Union.
Salant thus made these citizens and committees his agents in further-
ing his anti-union campaign. The respondent may not evade respon-
sibility for having done indirectly through non-employees what the
Act forbade it to do directly. And even in those instances where
the individual citizens and committees took no action, the respondent
Salant's efforts to induce them to engage in the proscribed conduct
in furtherance of its campaign of interference, restraint, and coer-
cion, is nonetheless a violation of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents, set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operation of the business of the
respondent Salant and the respondent Martin Company, described in
Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead'
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. TIIE REMEDY
Having found that all the respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist there-
1 06 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from and to take certain affirmative action which we find will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent Salant discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of the following named em-
ployees at its Lawrenceburg plant, on the dates appearing opposite
their names :
Jessie Mae Beard ..................
Ruth Weaver Cole .................
Ethel Brewer ......................
Nora Newton Fry .................
Olene Holtman ....................
and at its Martin plant :
Neysa Yates .......................
and at its Union City plant :
Raymond Phillips .................
November 23, 1943
December 2, 1943
March 1, 1944
March 28, 1944
April 25, 1944
June 29, 1943
March 29, 1943
We shall order that the respondent Salant offer immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
at the Lawrenceburg plant to Jessie Mae Beard, Ruth Weaver Cole,
Ethel Brewer, Nora Newton Fry, and Olene Hollman, and at its
Union City plant to Raymond Phillips. We shall further order.
that the respondent Salant make the above-named Lawrenceburg
and Union City employees whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination, by payment
to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount he or she
normally would have earned as wages during the period from the
date of the discrimination against him or her to the date of the offer
of reinstatement, less his or her net earnings85 during such period.
We have previously found that the respondent Salant questioned
Annie Mae Rinehart Young about her relationship to Union Organ-
izer Young and that Pauline Toben revealed her union membership
at the hearing in this proceeding. Since we have found that the
respondent Salant has discriminated in the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of union members, it is reasonable to believe that should
Young and Toben apply for employment with the respondent Salant
es By net earnings is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his
unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of seeking employment elsewhere See
Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union Local 2590 , 8 N L. R B 440 Monies
received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-
relief projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v
N. 4. R. B., 311 U. S, 7,
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 107
they might be refused employment because of their union affiliation.
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act and to prevent the
commission of such unfair labor practices, we shall order the re-
spondent Salant not to discriminate against Annie Mae Rinehart
Young and Pauline Toben upon their application for employment,
because of their union affiliation, activity on behalf of any union,
or relationship to any union organizer.66
We have also found that the respondents Salant and Martin Com-
pany discriminated with respect to the hire of Bobby Killebrew on
December 6, 1943. At an undetermined date during the hearing
before the Trial Examiner, she was reemployed. We shall order
that the respondents Salant and Martin Company offer Neysa Yates
immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially
equivalent position, and that the said respondents make whole Neysa
Yates and Bobby Killebrew for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination, by payment to Neysa Yates
of a sum of money equal to the amount she normally would have
earned as wages during the period from the date of the discrimina-
tion against her to the date of the offer of reinstatement, and to
Bobby Killebrew of a sum of money equal to the amount she normally
would have earned as wages during the period from the date of
the discrimination against her to the date she was reinstated, less
their net earnings during such periods.
We have also found that the respondents Salant and Martin Com-
pany have refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all employees in an appropriate unit at
the Martin plant. On July 27,1944, the respondent Martin Company
signed an agreement with the Union. The respondent Salant, how-
ever, has continued to refuse to sign an agreement with the Union.
Since we have found that the respondent Salant is still an employer
of the employees at the Martin plant, the respondent Salant remains
obligated under the Act to bargain collectively with the chosen
representative of its employees at the Martin plant and to embody
in a signed agreement the terms agreed upon. We shall therefore
order that the respondent Salant, upon request, bargain collectively
with the Union, and, if an understanding is reached, embody any
such understanding in a signed agreement. Although the respondent
Martin Company has meanwhile entered into an agreement with the
Union, we find that in view of the unfair labor practices engaged
in by the respondent Martin Company there is a danger that the
respondent Martin Company might again refuse to bargain with
the Union. To make our order coextensive with the threat and in
06 Cf. Matter of J. G. Boswell Co., 35 N. L. It. B. 968 , enf'd 136 F . ( 2d) 585 (C. C. A.
9) ; Matter of Blair Quarries , Inc., 58 N. L. It. B. 1448 , enf'd 152 F ( 2d) 25 (C C. A. 4).
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order that the
respondent Martin Company cease and desist from such conduct.
We have found that the respondent Salant in June 1943, posted
a no-solicitation rule at the Martin plant and that said rule was in
derogation of the employees' self-organizational rights insofar as it
prohibited union solicitation during the employees' non-working
time. Although the sale of the Martin plant to the respondent Martin
Company took place in September 1943, there is no showing that the
no-solicitation rule had been removed or rescinded. In view of the
relations between the respondents Salant and Martin Company
hereinabove found, it is reasonable to infer that the rule was still in
force at the time of the hearing before the Trial Examiner. We
shall, accordingly, order the respondent Martin Company also to
rescind this rule insofar as it prohibits union solicitation on the
employees' non-working time.
As we have found, the respondent Salant has engaged in an in-
tensive and extensive campaign to defeat the self-organizational
rights of its employees in its Tennessee plants. For example, it
attempted to defeat the first sign of self-organization at the Martin
plant by locking out its employees. Thereafter, it refused to bargain
with the Union and sold its Martin plant in order to avoid its
statutory obligation to bargain with the Union. In most of its
plants, it was instrumental in forming or reviving, or attempting the
formation or revival of, local citizens' grievance committees to aid
it in its anti-union campaign. It cooperated with these committees,
recognized them as grievance committees representing its employees
in dealing with management on wages, hours, and working con-
ditions, and incited the committees as well as prominent local business-
men to engage in anti-union activities by furnishing them with
anti-union propaganda. At many of the plants employees were
discharged and refused reinstatement, transferred, and laid off be-
cause of their union membership and activities. In addition, at the
Martin plant the respondent Salant instigated, kept alive, and made
use of the anti-union campaign of the respondent Shatz, brought
about a decline in employment opportunities because the Union had
been selected as the statutory collective bargaining representative
and in order to coerce employees at its other plants into rejecting
the Union by threatening similar treatment, and prohibited union
solicitation on the employees' non-working time; at the Union City
plant, it engaged in surveillance and questioning of its employees
concerning the Union, advertised the sale of the Martin plant as
a threat to self-organization, enlisted the aid of a local editor in its
anti-union campaign, and refused to provide protection to a union
employee against assaults by non-union members on the plant
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 109
premises; at the Paris plant, it prohibited union solicitation on the
employees' non-working time, caused misinformation with respect
to the Union's conduct in holding up wage raise applications to reach
Tennessee congressmen and senators, enlisted the aid of a local editor
in its anti-union campaign, permitted the holding of a straw poll
on plant premises, and through a foreman assaulted a union organ-
izer; and at the Lawrenceburg plant, it engaged in spying on union
activities, condoned and participated in anti-union demonstrations
at the plant, engaged in harassment and surveillance of union mem-
bers, failed to provide union members at the plant with reasonable
protection against assaults by non-union members, and distributed
wage increases prior to NWLB authorization.
We are convinced and find that the respondent Salant has demon-
strated an "attitude of opposition to the purpose of the Act to protect
the rights of the employees generally." 67 In view of this attitude
there is a danger that the respondent will in the future engage in
conduct proscribed by the Act. We therefore deem it necessary in
order to effectuate the policies of the Act to order the respondent
Salant to cease and desist from in any other manner interfering
with the rights guaranteed to employees in Section 7 of the Act.
We have found that the respondent Salant has not discriminated
as to the hire and tenure of employment of Annie Mae Rinehart
Young, Daisy Helms, Earl Foster, and Vernell Sawyer, and has not
committed any unfair labor practices at its Obion plant. We shall
accordingly order the complaint to be dismissed in these respects.
In view of our finding that the respondent Salant exercises sub-
stantial control over the labor relations of the employees of the
respondent Martin Company and in view of the respondent Martin
Company's unlawful conduct in refusing to bargain with the Union,
in refusing to reinstate an employee because of her union activities,
and in refusing to hire an applicant for employment because of her
union activities, there is a danger, and it is reasonable to infer, that
the respondent Martin Company will in the future interfere with
the self-organizational rights of its employees, generally. In order
therefore to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the
respondent Martin Company to cease and desist from in any manner
interfering with the rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7
of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
67 May Department Stores Company v. N. L R B , 326 U 8 376.
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Citizens Industrial Committee, Martin Industrial Com-
mission and Joe Shatz are employers within the meaning of Section
2 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Jessie Mae Beard, Ruth Weaver Cole, Ethel Brewer, Nora
Newton Fry, Olene Hollman, and Raymond Phillips, thereby dis-
couraging membership in the Union, the respondent Salant and by
the same conduct with regard to Neysa Yates and Barbara Killebrew,
the respondents Salant and Martin Company, have engaged in and
are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act.
4. All production and maintenance employees at the Martin plant,
including machinists and watchmen but excluding executive, adminis-
trative, and clerical employees, and principal supervisory employees
who have the right to hire and discharge, constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America was on March 15,
1943, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive bargaining
representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of
the Act.
6. The respondent Salant, by refusing on April 5, 1943, and at
all times thereafter, and the respondent Martin Company by refus-
ing from September 27, 1943, to July 27, 1944, to bargain with the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the aforesaid unit, respectively, have
engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
7. (a) The respondents Salant, Martin Commission, and Joe Shatz,
by interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees of the re-
spondents Salant and Martin Company in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the
Act.
(b) The respondents Salant and Lawrenceburg Committee have
engaged in similar conduct with respect to the employees of the
respondent Salant at Lawrenceburg.
(c) The respondent Salant, by the acts set forth above in Section
3 and 6, and by causing and attempting to cause citizens and public
officials of Martin, Union City, Lawrenceburg, Henderson, Paris,
Parsons, and Lexington to interfere with, restrain, and coerce the
employees of the respondent Salant at the above-named cities, has
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 111
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
9. The respondent Salant has not discriminated as to the hire and
tenure of employment of Annie Mae Rinehart Young, Daisy Helms,
Earl Foster, and Vernell Sawyer, and has not committed any unfair
labor practices at its Obion plant.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (e)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that
A. The respondent Salant & Salant Inc., New York, New York,
and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America as the exclusive representative of all production
and maintenance employees at the Martin, Tennessee, plant, in the
unit described in paragraph A, 2 (a), of this Order, and from
refusing to embody in a signed agreement terms upon which an
understanding had been reached;
(b) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, or any other labor organization, by discharging, refus-
ing to reinstate or to transfer, laying off and locking out any of its
employees, or by discrimination in any other manner in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment;
(c) Discriminating against the employees at the Martin plant with
respect to restriction of employment opportunities and output;
(d) Engaging in surveillance of and spying upon union activities;
(e) Permitting physical assaults upon, or threats of physical vio-
lence to, employees in any of its plants, for the purpose of discour-
aging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
or any other labor organization ;
(f) Soliciting through the dissemination of anti-union propa-
ganda or in any other manner; and using the assistance of the re-
spondents Joe Shatz, Martin Industrial Commission, the Citizens
Industrial Committee, or any other person or groups of persons, for
the purpose of violating the Act;
(g) In any manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self -organization , to form
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activites, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America as the exclusive representative of all pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Martin, Tennessee, plant,
including machinists and watchmen, but excluding executives,
administrative and clerical employees, and principal supervisory
employees who have the right to hire, and discharge, in respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached on any such mat-
ters, embody any such understanding in a signed agreement;
(b) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their senior-
ity or other rights and privileges, to the following named employees :
Neysa Yates
Raymond Phillips
Jessie Mae Beard
Ruth Weaver Cole
Olene Holtman
Ethel Brewer
Nora Newton Fry
(c) Upon application for employment by Pauline Toben and
Annie Mae Rinehart Young, determine the question of such employ-
ment without discriminating against them because of their union
affiliation, activity on behalf of any union, or relationship to any
union organizer;
(d) Make whole the employees named in paragraph 2 (b) above,
in the manner set forth in the Section of this Decision entitled "The
remedy," for any loss of pay they may have suffered;
(e) Withdraw and withhold recognition from the citizens com-
mittees at Lawrenceburg, Martin, Parsons, Henderson, Lexington,
and Union City, by whatever name they may be known, as repre-
sentatives of the employees at the respective plants for the purpose
of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of
employment ;
(f) Afford all its employees at all times reasonable protection
from physical interruption of their work and physical assaults or
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 113
threats thereof directed toward discouraging membership in or
activities on behalf of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America
or any other labor organization ;
(g) Rescind immediately its rule against solicitation insofar as
it prohibits union solicitation in the Martin and Paris plants during
the employees' non-working time;
(h) Make whole all employees at the Martin, Tennessee, plant for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent
Salant's discriminatory lock-out on March 1 and 2, 1943;
(i) Post for a period of at least 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places at its Lawrenceburg and Martin plants, notices to be prepared
by the respondents Lawrenceburg Committee, Martin Commission,
and Joe Shatz, in accordance with the provisions of the Order
directed against them;
(j) Post at its plants at Martin, Lawrenceburg, Union City, Lex-
ington, Paris, Henderson, and Parsons, Tennessee, copies of the
notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of such notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent Salant's representative, be
posted by the respondent Salant immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for 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
respondent Salant to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material;
(k) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent Salant has taken to comply herewith.
B. The respondent Martin Manufacturing Company, Inc., Martin,
Tennessee, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, or any other labor organization of its employees, by
refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or to hire any 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
their employment;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America as the exclusive representative of all production
and maintenance employees at the Martin, Tennessee, plant, includ-
ing machinists and watchmen, but excluding executive, administrative
and clerical employees, and principal supervisory employees who
have the right to hire and discharge, and from refusing to embody
686572-46-9
114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
into a signed agreement terms upon which an understanding had
been reached;
(c) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America or any other labor organization , 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 as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer immediate reinstatement to Neysa Yates to her former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her senior-
ity or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Neysa Yates and Bobby Killebrew, in the man-
ner set forth in the Section of the Decision entitled "The remedy,"
for any loss of pay they may have suffered because of the respond-
ent's discrimination against them;
(c) Rescind immediately the rule against solicitation insofar as
it prohibits union solicitation in the Martin plant during the
employees' non-working time;
(d) Post at its plant at Martin, Tennessee, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix B." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent Martin Company' s representa-
tive, be posted by the respondent Martin Company immediately upon
receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous place, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the respondent Martin Company to insure that such notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent Martin Company has taken to comply herewith.
C. The respondent, the Citizens Industrial Committee, of Law-
renceburg, Tennessee , and its officers , agents, members , successors
and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Holding itself out as a committee to represent the employees
at the Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, plant for the purpose of dealing
with the respondent Salant concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment : '
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 115
(b) Interfering with the self-organizational rights of the em-
ployees at the Lawrenceburg , Tennessee, plant to join or assist the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, or any other labor
organization , by holding or sponsoring anti -union rallies.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Publish in the local newspaper and post at the respondent
Salant 's plant in Lawrenceburg , Tennessee , copies of the notice at-
tached hereto, marked "Appendix C." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region , shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent , The Citizens Industrial Com-
mittee's representative , be posted by the respondent Salant im-
mediately upon receipt thereof , and maintained by it for 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 respondent Salant to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent , The Citizens Industrial Committee , has taken to comply
herewith.
D. The respondent Joe Shatz , Martin , Tennessee , his agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Reporting to the respondent Salant and its officers , agents,
successors , or assigns , on union activities at the Martin plant;
(b) Interfering with the self -organizational rights of the em-
ployees at the Martin , Tennessee , plant , by circulating or aiding in
the circulation of petitions among the employees at the Martin plant
for the purpose of discouraging membership in or securing defections
from the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , or any other
labor organization.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Publish in the local newspaper and post at the respondent
Salant's plant in Martin , Tennessee , copies of the notice attached
hereto , marked "Appendix D." Copies of said notice , to be furnished
by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the respondent Shatz , be posted by the respondent
Salant immediately upon receipt thereof , and maintained by it for
sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent Salant to insure
116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent Shatz has taken to comply herewith.
E. The respondent Martin Industrial Commission, Martin, Ten-
nessee, and its officers, members, agents, successors and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Holding itself out as a committee to represent the employees
at the Martin, Tennessee, plant for the purpose of dealing with the
respondent Salant concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(b) Interfering with the self-organizational rights of the em-
ployees at the Martin, Tennessee, plant, by campaigning against
and urging the employees not to join, or to withdraw from, the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America or any other labor
organization.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Publish in the local newspaper and post at the respondent
Salant's plant in Martin, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix E." Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the respondent Martin Commission's representative,
be posted by the respondent Salant immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for 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
respondent Salant to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Order
what steps the respondent Martin Commission has taken to comply
herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent Salant has
discriminated against Earl Foster, Daisy Holms, Annie Mae Rine-
hart Young, and Vernell Sawyer, within the meaning of Section 8
(3) of the Act and insofar as it alleges that the respondent Salant
has committed unfair labor practices at its Obion plant, within the
meaning of the Act.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, concurring in part; dissenting in part:
I concur in this decision, except in one minor respect.
I am constrained to disagree with my colleagues' finding that the
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 117
respondent Salant discharged Nora Newton Fry at its Lawrenceburg
plant because of her union membership and activity. A few weeks
before her discharge Superintendent Gambill had cautioned Fry
about her irregular attendance. Fry was absent from work from
March 22 until Tuesday, March 28, 1943. Although she had sent
word in to the plant of her illness the first few days, she failed to
report on Monday, March 27, that she was out ill. These facts are
not in dispute. It is also well known that dictates of sound business
management require such reports to enable the employer to arrange
for replacements and keep the plant in full operation. Under these
circumstances I feel that there is no warrant for finding that in
discharging Fry the respondent was motivated by any other con-
siderations than her irregular attendance and failure to send in word
of her absence, as the respondent contended at the hearing.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON, concurring in part; dissenting in part :
I concur in this decision, except in one respect.
I disagree with my colleagues' finding that the respondent Salant's
discharge of Vernell Sawyer at the Lawrenceburg plant was not dis-
criminatory and with the dismissal of the complaint in this respect.
In view of the inconsistency between Superintendent Gambill's testi-
mony that Sawyer was not given her separation notice because she
"failed to report to work or notify us why she didn't report to work"
and the statement on her separation slip that she quit voluntarily;
the fact that upon subsequent investigation Gambill learned that
Sawyer was out sick and had sent word to that effect through an
employee who had failed to transmit her message; and the fact that
the respondent had not previously strictly enforced its rule requiring
employees to send word in with respect to their absence, I agree
with the Trial Examiner and would find that in sending Sawyer
home on October 26, 1943, and refusing her reemployment on October
29, 1943, the respondent Salant was motivated by her union activities.
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 discriminate against the employees at the Martin
plant with respect to restriction of employment opportunities
and output.
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We will not engage in surveillance of and spying upon union
activities.
We will not solicit through the dissemination of anti-union
propaganda or in any other manner, and we will not use the
assistance of, Joe Shatz, the Martin Industrial Commission, the
Citizens Industrial Committee of Lawrenceburg, or any other
person or groups of persons, for the purpose of violating the
National Labor Relations Act.
We will withdraw and withhold recognition from The Citi-
zens Committee at Lawrenceburg, Martin, Parsons, Henderson,
Lexington, and Union City, Tennessee, by whatever name they
may be known, as representatives of the employees at the respec-
tive plants for the purpose of dealing with us concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment.
We will afford all our employees at all times reasonable pro-
tection from physical interruption of their work and physical
assaults or threats thereof directed toward discouraging mem-
bership in or activities on behalf of Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America or any other labor organization.
We hereby rescind our rule against solicitation insofar as it
prohibits union solicitation in our Martin and Paris plants dur-
ing our employees' non-working time.
We will offer to Neysa Yates, Raymond Phillips, Jessie Mae
Beard, Ruth Weaver Cole, Olene Hollman, Ethel Brewer, and
Nora Newton Fry immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to any seniority or other right and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the discrimination.
We will make whole all our employees at the Martin, Tennes-
see, plant for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result
of the lockout on March 1 and 2, 1943.
We will, upon application for employment by Pauline Toben
and Annie Mae Rinehart Young, determine the question of such
employment without discriminating agaiiast them because of
their union affiliation, activity on behalf of any union, or rela-
tionship to any union organizer.
We will bargain collectively, upon request, with the Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein
with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached em-
body such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargain-
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 119
ing unit is : all production and maintenance employees at the
Martin plant, including machinists and watchmen, but excluding
executive, administrative, and clerical employees, and principal
supervisory employees who have the right to hire and discharge.
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America or any other labor organization,
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.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of
the above-named union or any other labor organization. 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.
SALANT & SALANT, INC.,
Employer.
Dated .................. By....................................
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE : Any of the above-named employees presently in the armed
forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after dis-
charge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX B
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 hereby rescind our rule against solicitation insofar as it
prohibits union solicitation in the Martin plant during the
employees' non-working time.
We will offer to Neysa Yates and Barbara Killebrew immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We will not refuse to bargain collectively, upon request, with
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described
herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment, and we will not refuse to embody
in a signed agreement any terms upon which an understanding
has been reached. The bargaining unit is : all production and
maintenance employees at the Martin plant, including machinists
and watchmen, but excluding executive, administrative, and
clerical employees, and principal supervisory employees who
have the right to hire and discharge.
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, or any other labor organization,
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.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
MARTIN MANUFACTURING CO.
Employer.
Dated .................. By....................................
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE : Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the
armed forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after
discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX C
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO
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
the employees of Salant & Salant that :
We will not hold ourselves out as a committee to represent the
employees at the Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, plant, for the pur-
pose of dealing with the respondent Salant concerning grievances,
SALANT & SALANT, INC. 121
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment.
We will not hold or sponsor anti-union rallies interfering
with the self-organizational rights of the employees at the
Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, plant to join or assist Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America or any other labor organization.
All employees are free to become or remain members of this
union, or any other labor organization.
THE CITIZENS INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE OF
LAWRENCEBURG, TENNESSEE.
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.
APPENDIX D
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, I hereby notify the
employees of Salant & Salant that :
I will not report to Salant & Salant, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, or assigns, on union activities at the Martin, Tennessee,
plant.
I will not interfere with the self-organizational rights of the
employees at the Martin, Tennessee, plant, by circulating or aid-
ing in the circulation of petitions among the employees at the
Martin plant for the purpose of discouraging membership in or
secure defections from the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America or any other labor organization. All employees are
free to become or remain members of this union, or any other
labor organization.
JOE SHATZ
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.
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX E
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO
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 the
employees of Salant & Salant that :
We will not hold ourselves out as a committee to represent the
employees at the Martin, Tennessee, plant for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent Salant concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
We will not interfere with the self-organizational rights of the
employees at the Martin, Tennessee, plant, by campaigning
against and urging the employees not to join or to withdraw
from the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America or any
other labor organization. All employees are free to become or
remain members of this union, or any other labor organization.
MARTIN INDUSTRIAI. COMMISSION
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.