Anchor Rome Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 23, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 956 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL-LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As to (1), the Board does not consider objections not supported by
affidavits or otherwise. As to (2), the Employer's allegation does
not relate to conduct affecting the •results of the election, nor to the
Regional Director's report on objections. Therefore, in accordance
with the recommendation of the Regional Director, we overrule the
Employer's objections, and certify the Petitioner as the bargaining
representative of the employees concerned.
[The Board certified Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Work-
men of N. A., Local No. 149, AFL, as the designated collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees of J. Spevak & Co., Inc.,
Spevak-Stinson Co., Inc., and Dukeland Packing Co., Inc., in the unit
found appropriate above.]
ANCHOR ROME MILLS, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,
CIO. Cases Nos. 10-CA-903 and 10-CA-104.9. November 23,1954
Decision and Order
On November 25, 1953, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and
modifications :
1. The Trial Examiner, relying in effect upon the statutory pro-
scriptions of Section 10 (b) of the Act, found that the Respondent
did not discriminate in violation of the Act against the approximately
341 strikers who applied for employment prior to May 23, 1949. We
agree with the Trial Examiner's results but for different reasons.
The strike which the Board in a companion case 2 had found to be
economic in character ended on January 14, 1949. It was stipulated
that by the end of March 1949 all 341 strikers had applied to the
Respondent for reinstatement to their former or substantially similar
1 The request of the Respondent for oral argument is denied since the record and ex-
ceptions and briefs adequately set forth the positions of the parties.
Z Anchor Rome Mills, Inc., 86 NLRB 1120.
110 NLRB No. 162.
ANCHOR ROME MILLS, INC. 957
jobs. The Respondent refused to reinstate any of the strikers, in-
forming them that it had no vacancies in the plant. In fact no vacan-
cies existed then because the Respondent, as was its right, had perma-
nently replaced all the strikers before the end of the strike.' In view
thereof, the strikers were not entitled to reinstatement.' Accordingly,
as these permanently replaced economic strikers were seeking imme-
diate reinstatement to which under the circumstances they were not
entitled as a matter of law, we find, in accord with our recent
American Snuff 5 decision, that no finding of discrimination within
the meaning of the Act is warranted.
2. As detailed in the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner
found that on five different occasions after May 23, 19497 the Respond-
ent, through its personnel director, Russell, independently violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by inquiries and statements to former
strikers and applicants for employment clearly evincing an intent
and policy not to reemploy any former striker or anyone connected
with the Union. We agree. In reaching his conclusion, the Trial Ex-
aminer properly relied upon, as background evidence, similar state-
ments and inquiries made from the beginning of the strike in July
1948 up to May 23, 1949, the cutoff date imposed by Section 10 (b)
of the Acts In addition to the statements relied upon by the Trial
Examiner, we also rely upon those made on approximately seven
other occasions between May 23, 1949, and December 1952, in which
the Respondent's personnel director and supervisors reiterated this
discriminatory intent and policy against former strikers and union
members.'
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner generally that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily
refusing and failing to hire the 60 strikers listed in Appendix B of the
Intermediate Report.
On August 19, 1949, the Respondent filled its first vacancy by hir-
ing a new employee rather than a qualified former striker." There-
after and up to the time of the hearing in August 1953, 4 years later,
the Respondent filled approximately 1,075 vacancies in its plant. Dur-
ing this period the 60 strikers listed in Appendix B of the Intermedi-
8 N. L. B. B. v. Mackay Radn.o & Telegraph Co., 304 U S. 333, 345-346.
* Ameti seam Snuff Company, 109 NLRB 885, N. L. R. B. v. Penwmoven, Inc., 194 F. 2d
521 (C. A. 3) , and N. L R. B. v. Childs Company, 195 F. 2d 617 (C. A. 2).
Ibid.
e Universal Oil Products Company, 108 NLRB 68; N L . R. B. v. Clausen, 188 F. 2d
439, 443 (C. A. 3), cert. denied 342 U. S. 868; N. L. R. B. v. Superior Engraving Co., 183
F. 2d 783 (C. A. 7), cert denied 340 U. S 930.
7 As this conduct of the Respondent is repetitive of the same conduct found to be viola-
tive of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act , findings of additional violations based on such con-
duct would be merely cumulative in character.
s The Respondent had filled a vacancy in February 28, 1949, at the time the strikers
were seeking reinstatement However , this was an isolated hiring as vacancies did not
generally open up until August 19 and thereafter when the Respondent began hiring in
large numbers.
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ate Report personally applied again for employment. Unlike the
applications made by these strikers prior to the end of March 1949,
hereinabove discussed, their applications during this period were, as
the Trial Examiner found, for "unconditional employment in any
available job." In the course of their new applications, the strikers
did not request any reinstatement rights such as seniority or back
pay; they asked merely for "a job" or for "any kind of work." In
these circumstances and upon the entire record, we agree with the
Trial Examiner that, unlike their prior applications, those made by
the 60 strikers in question after August 19, 1949, were for new em-
ployment and not for reinstatement. However, none of the 60 strik-
ers was reemployed despite the fact that, as previously noted, the Re-
spondent filled approximately 1,075 vacancies during this period.
Indeed, up to the time of the hearing no striker was ever reemployed
by the Respondent.
As applicants for new employment, the 60 strikers had the right
to be considered for employment on a nondiscriminatory basis." The
question to be decided then is whether the Respondent's failure and
refusal to employ any of the 60 strikers was motivated by their partici-
pation in the prior strike and their membership in the Union, or was
merely occasioned, as the Respondent alleges, by the failure of any
of the strikers to apply for reemployment at a time when a vacancy
happened to occur.
As indicated above, the Respondent, through conduct found to be
violative of the Act, unequivocally indicated time and time again that
it did not intend to reemploy former strikers or union members in any
capacity. On August 19, 1949, the Respondent; in filling its first va-
cancy with a new employee rather than with a qualified former striker,
put into actual practice its repeatedly announced discriminatory pol-
icy. From that time on it was apparent that, apart from all other
considerations, the Respondent would not rehire any former strikers,
and, in fact, did not. The practical effectiveness of the Respondent's
unlawful policy was graphically illustrated by the 100 percent failure
of the, Respondent to reemploy a single former striker during the
policy's 4-year operation, when approximately 1,075 vacancies were
filled. In our opinion, it was the continued operation of this dis-
criminatory policy and not the lack of vacancies at the time of appli-
cation that affirmatively prevented the 60 former strikers who applied
after August 19, 1949, from receiving employment. Moreover, under
the circumstances herein, we believe that, once having made their ap-
plication for employment after August 19, 1949,10 it was not neces-
9 Phelps Dodge Corp v N. L. R. B., 313 U S 177, 182-187.
10 Contrary to the Trial Examiner, the record shows and we find that John C. Carter
first personally applied on September 8, 1949; John D. Vanhorn first personally applied
March 1950.
ANCHOR ROME MILLS, INC. 959
sary for the 60 strikers thereafter to repeat the useless gesture of ap-
plying again and again in order to establish the Respondent's respon-
sibility for the discrimination practiced against them.11 Accordingly,
we find that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the
Act by discriminatorily refusing and failing to rehire the 60 strikers
listed in Appendix B of the Intermediate Report in order to fill vacan-
cies for which they were qualified and which arose after their first ap-
plications subsequent to August 19, 1949.11
4. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily failing and
refusing to employ Minnie H. Mize and Ellen Langham, relatives of
former strikers, because the Respondent had extended its discrimina-
tory policy against former strikers to such relatives.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Anchor Rome
Mills, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees by dis-
criminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment of employees.
(b) Interrogating applicants for employment concerning their
union or protected concerted activities in a manner constituting inter-
ference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act; and informing them that they will be denied employment be-
cause of such activities.
(c) In any other 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 Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any
other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activi-
ties, except that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
n In view of our finding herein, we deem it unnecessary, unlike the Trial Examiner,
to reply upon his finding that subsequent to May 23, 1949, the Respondent had modified
its "hiring at the gate policy" and had thereafter discriminatorily applied the new
policy against former strikers
12 Although many of the 60 strikers applied for new employment after the charge was
filed, the charge was broad in scope and alleged generally that the Respondent "on,
before, and after May 15, 1949, discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment" of the 60 strikers involved herein, who were specifically named, among others, in
the charge and as complainants in the complaint . Moreover, the violations alleged in the
complaint were predicated in effect on a continuing discriminatory policy which was put
in force during the period before the charge was filed and continued thereafter. Under
the circumstances , the complaint properly included matters occurring subsequent to the
filing of the charge. See N. L. R. B . v. Union Mfg. Co., 200 F. 2d 656 (C. A. 5).
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to each of the persons named in Appendix, B attached
to the Intermediate Report, including Minnie H. Mize and Ellen Lang-
ham, immediate employment with such seniority or other rights and
privileges as each would have enjoyed had each been employed on the
dates when, absent the Respondent's discrimination against them, the
Respondent would have employed them in accordance with nondis-
criminatory hiring practice.
(b) Make whole the persons named in Appendix B attached to the
Intermediate Report, including Minnie H. Mize and Ellen Langham,
in the manner set forth in section V entitled "The Remedy" of the
Intermediate Report, for any loss of pay each may have suffered as
a result of the Respondent's discrimination herein.
(c) Upon request make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social-security pay-
ment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and the
rights of employment under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its plant in Rome, Georgia, copies of the notice attached
to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix B.713 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Re-
spondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and main-
tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said 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 Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint insofar as it alleges that
the Respondent has violated Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the
Act by discriminating against strikers other than those named in
Appendix B, attached to the Intermediate Report, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN FARMER and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
13 This notice is amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order," and by adding after the word "activi-
ties" in line 2 of paragraph 2 the words " in a manner constituting interference, restraint,
or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, . . In the event that this
order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substi-
tuted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
ANCHOR ROME MILLS, INC.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
961
These proceedings brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations,
Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, are based upon charges filed
by Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, herein called the Union, against An-
chor Rome Mills, Inc., herein called the Respondent. The original charge was,
filed in Case No. 10-CA-903 on November 18, 1949, and duly served upon Re-
spondent on November 23, 1949. An additional charge was filed in Case No.
10-CA-1049 on May 19, 1950, and duly served upon Respondent on May 24,
1950. Thereupon, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on
March 31, 1953, issued a consolidated complaint alleging that Respondent had en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8,
(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint in substance alleges that
(1) Respondent by and through its supervisors interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
by stating that it was useless for strikers to apply for reemployment because it would
never sign a contract with the Union, and would not furnish employment to em-
ployees who engaged in a recent strike at Respondent's plant, (2) Respondent dis-
criminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of approximately 341
strikers listed in Appendix A, attached hereto, to discourage membership in a labor
organization; (3) Respondent discriminatorily refused to furnish employment to
Abraham Thompson because it believed that he was a member of the Union, and
had participated in said strike;' (4) Respondent discriminatorily refused to hire
Minnie H. Mize because of her protected concerted activities with other employees
and because her husband and father were strikers and members of the Union; and
(5) Respondent discriminatorily refused to hire Ellen Langham because of her ac-
tivities on behalf of and membership in the Union, and because her husband was a
striker.
The Respondent filed an answer denying all allegations of unfair labor practices,
but admitted jurisdictional allegations of the complaint with respect to being en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. It also pleads the 6 months'
limitation provided in Section 10 (b) of the Act as a bar to any unfair labor prac-
tices alleged to have occurred prior to May 23, 1949.
Pursuant to notice to all parties, a hearing was conducted at Rome, Georgia, on
August 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1953, before the Trial Examiner, duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and Respondent were represented by
counsel, and the Union by authorized representatives. All parties were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to in-
troduce evidence bearing upon the issues involved. At the close of the hearing
all parties were afforded an opportunity to argue orally upon the record. All parties
were informed concerning their right to file written briefs and/or proposed find-
ings and conclusions. Thereafter counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent
filed written briefs, which have been given due consideration.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Anchor Rome Mills, Inc, is a Georgia corporation, with its principal office and
factory at Rome, Georgia, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of white
duck and special fabrics for industrial and decorative purposes. In its business oper-
ations during the representative year 1952, it purchased raw materials, equipment,
and supplies valued in excess of $500,000, approximately 60 percent of which in
value was purchased outside the State of Georgia and shipped in interstate com-
merce to the Rome plant. During the same period, it manufactured and sold fin-
ished products valued in excess of $3,000,000 of which more than 80 percent in
value was sold and shipped to customers outside the State of Georgia. It is ad-
mitted, and I find, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.2
1In the absence of evidence to support that allegation, it is recommended that the com-
plaint with respect to Abraham Thompson be dismissed
2 Stanislaus Implement & Hardware Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618.
338207-55--vol 110 62
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, admitting to membership employees of the
Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Factual and legal background
On or about October 23, 1945, the Union was certified by the Board as exclusive
bargaining representative of employees in Anchor Duck Mills and Textile Workers
Union of America, CIO, Case No. 10-R-1544. Annually thereafter, including 1947,
Respondent and the Union entered into written collective-bargaining agreements
with respect to wages, hours, and working conditions at Respondent's plant in Rome,
Georgia. On October 16, 1947, the Union filed unfair labor practice charges against
Respondent alleging multiple antiunion activities, discriminatory discharges, and
refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act. At
expiration of the current agreement on March 18, 1948, the parties failed to reach
an agreement on the terms of a new contract, and the Union called a strike, which
continued for a period of approximately 10 months. More than 350 employees
went out on strike. Respondent had little difficulty in replacing the strikers and
operation of the plant was never seriously interrupted. The aforesaid charges were
twice amended, and on May 18, 1948, the General Counsel issued an amended
complaint to include allegations that Respondent by unfair labor practices caused
and prolonged the strike. The strike was terminated on January 14, 1949, and on
February 25, 1949, the Trial Examiner in Case No. 10-CA-84 found an unfair
labor practice strike and ordered that all strikers be reinstated with back pay, etc.
Exceptions were filed by the Respondent, and on October 31, 1949, the Board reversed
certain findings of the Trial Examiner, decreed that the strike was economic through-
out, and that Respondent was not required to dismiss replacements in order to provide
reinstatement for the strikers. It is admitted that all strikers had been permanently
replaced, and following the strike no new employees were hired until August 1949
and thereafter. Charges in the instant case were filed on November 18, 1949,
shortly after issuance of the Board's decision in Case No. 10-CA-84, and served
upon Respondent on November 23, 1949.
B. Hiring policies and practices
At termination of the strike on January 14, 1949, the strikers en masse appeared
at the employment office of Respondent and applied for reinstatement and reem-
ployment. It is admitted that during the months of January, February, and March,
1949, all of the strikers applied. All were informed by the Respondent that it had
no vacancies in its plant. Following the strike and prior to the Trial Examiner's
report in Case No. 10-CA-84, the Union in a series of letters by registered mail
submitted lists of the strikers to Respondent, and requested that their applications
for reemployment be accepted and considered as continuing applications for future
employment. Following the report of the Trial Examiner and prior to his reversal
by the Board, the Union repeatedly submitted lists of strikers requesting their
reinstatement to former or substantially similar jobs with full seniority and other
rights. Many of the strikers, especially in April 1949, applied by registered mail
for reinstatement to their former positions. To all letters both from the Union
and individual strikers, the Respondent by registered mail replied in substance, as
follows :
It has not been our practice to consider or regard applications for employment
as continuing applications, and it is not practical for us to do so. Therefore,
we must decline your request. Should any vacancies occur, we will be glad
to accept and consider any applications made at the time of the vacancy for
such jobs as may then be available.
For many years the Respondent has maintained a practice commonly known
as "hiring at the gate." In a separate building near the entrance to the plant proper
it operates a personnel and employment office under the supervision of a full-time
personnel director. Supervisors within the plant report and call upon the personnel
director to fill vacancies as they occur. All applicants for employment are inter-
viewed and hired by the personnel director or his assistant as needed to fill vacancies.
In recent years there has been a large surplus of textile labor in the area. Respond-
ent does not keep a formal application file and applicants are not required to fill
out a written application except at the time hired. Continuing applications, as a
ANCHOR ROME MILLS, INC. 963
rule, are not accepted. Applicants are required to apply in person for interview,
and applications by telephone are not considered. It is general practice to hire
applicants less than 50 years of age, but there are exceptions to this rule. Prefer-
ence in employment is given to employees in a layoff status for less than 6 months
and to relatives of those already at work in the plant. Operations are seasonal, which
accounts for the fact that more employees are laid off and fewer hired during spring
and summer than at other seasons of the year.
Prior to January 23, 1949, Robert A. Bachman was personnel director and Clyde
Booker was assistant director. On that date Frank L. Russell became personnel
director, but Bachman remained as one of his assistants until August 1949. Russell
adopted the policy of interviewing applicants for employment from 9 a. in. to
12 noon on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. He also frequently posted a sign
"No Help Wanted" to discourage applicants, which was generally disregarded. He
estimated that more than 100 applicants appeared to seek employment on days that
the interviewing was conducted, many of whom were turned away for lack of time
to see them. After the instant charge was filed in November 1949, upon advice
of counsel, the Respondent made a record of strikers who applied for employment
(Respondent's Exhibit No. 10). On that record appear the names of Luther
Thompson (11-22-49), Rose Taff (11-25-49), Paul Wilson (11-28-49; 12-27-49;
1-11-50), J. D. Vanhorn (11-29--49), C. H. Atkins (12-5-49; 12-27-49), D. E.
Allred (12-22-49), Paul Reynolds (12-30-49), Pallie Courson (1-5-50), Lamar
Maxey (1-9-50; 4-23-51; 8-13-51), Homer Blalock (2-11-50), Leo Hall (2-16-50;
2-27-50; 3-28-50), J. C. Carter (3-2-50), James Forsythe (3-7-50; 7-31-50),
Wallace Nelson (3-9-50), Mattie Scruggs (5-11-50), Andy Prince (6-8-50;
7-10-50; 9-20-50; 10-10-50), Irene Henry (7-31-50), Rufus Griffin (7-31-50),
W. Roy Elliott (8-2-50), and A. O. Shores (8-13-51; 3-9-53). The record was
kept by Assistant Personnel Director Clyde Booker, as reported to him by Russell,
and does not include applications by strikers prior to November 22, 1949.
C. The statute of limitations
The Respondent has pleaded the limitation provided in Section 10 (b) of the Act
as a bar to findings of unfair labor practices with respect to the applications of
strikers for reemployment prior to May 23, 1949, and I cannot find from a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that the strikers were at that time new applicants for
employment, but in most part were seeking reinstatement to their former positions
with full seniority rights, back pay, etc., I am constrained to agree with Respondent's
contention. I therefore decline to consider any applications by strikers for rein-
statement or reemployment prior to May 23, 1949, as a basis for finding unfair
labor practices herein. The question remains, however, whether the Respondent
on and after that cutoff date discriminated in hire and tenure of employment with
respect to the strikers who thereafter applied for jobs in the plant when vacancies
occurred.
D. Interference, restraint, and coercion
To be considered only as background evidence, uncontradicted testimony shows
that prior to May 23, 1949, supervisors of the Respondent made numerous state-
ments tending to discourage the strikers from applying for reemployment. When
the strike was called in 1948, Second Hand Herbert D. Taylor told Gladys Dearing
that there would never be a job for her if she went out on strike, because the
Company would never sign a contract. When she sought employment at termina-
tion of the strike, Taylor referred to his previous warning and said that he had
nothing for her. When Clif Biggers returned to the plant after the strike and told
Taylor that he hoped to go back to work, Taylor laughed and said, "You fellows
just as well forget about that." In February 1949, Second Hand Taylor told Grady
Lee Baxter that the Company definitely would not use any of the strikers again.
In January 1949 when Harvie G. Gore applied for reemployment, Personnel Di-
rector Robert A. Bachman told him that he was in the wrong place, and there was
no use coming back there looking for a job. When John C. Carter applied, Bach-
man said, "Jessie, old boy, are you out with them too9 Well, I am full up, I can't
use you." When Harvie G. Gore inquired of Second Hand John Young whether
the strikers would be put back to work, Young expressed the opinion that none
would be employed while the present manager was there. Second Hand Elmer
Adams told William T. Brannon he did not think there was any use to apply for
employment-he did not think they would work him any more. Second Hand
Grover Bone stated in the presence of Calvin C. Cochrane and Henry F. Dillard
that the strikers would never be put back to work. Second Hand Hubert Kemp
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
told William E. Shiflett (president of the local union) that he did not think they
would ever work there any more. Kemp also told J. C. Shepherd that he did not
think any of the strikers would ever go back to work. When James Horace Corn-
well inquired of Second Hand Frank Powell whether they could get their jobs back,
Powell smiled and said, "No, I don't think so." C. J. Hart credibly testified that
on March 25, 1949, Personnel Director Frank L. Russell said there was no use
coming back down there because he was not hiring any of the strikers.
Statements made by supervisors after May 23, 1949, may be legally considered as
evidence of unfair labor practices. I credit the testimony of Julia Payton that in
August 1950, Personnel Director Frank L. Russell said that he would not hire her
or any of the other strikers unless he was forced to do so. I credit the testimony
of Charles V. Asttn that on August 4, 1950, when he applied for employment,
Personnel Director Russell first inquired whether he was one of the strikers, and
then said, "Well, I can't use you." I credit the testimony of Annie Davenport that
when she inquired during the winter of 1951 whether any spinners or doffers were
being hired, Russell said he was not putting any strikers back to work. I credit
the testimony of Cecil Harvey Atkins that in 1952 Russell stated in the presence
of Charles Akers that the strikers had a slim chance of getting back to work. I
credit the testimony of Mary Rittenhouse Bradshaw that when she applied for
employment in December 1952, Russell first inquired concerning her relationship to
some of the strikers, suggested that she would probably do like the rest of them,
and said he would not hire anybody connected with the Union.
E. Jobs filled since May 23, 1949
When arranged according to occupational similarity, jobs filled by Respondent
since May 23, 1949, may be classified in groups as follows: 3
1. Opening and picking jobs (7)-consisting of opener operator (1), opener
tender (1), opener helper (2), opener learner (1), picker tender (1), and waste
house man (1).
II. Carding and lapping jobs (152) -consisting of card section man (1), card
overhauler (1), card grinder (2), calender machine operators (5), drawing tender
(11), card tender (11), card stripper (3), spare hand and learner (118).
III. Fly frame jobs (10)-consisting of Blubber tender (9) and spare slubber (1).
IV. Spinning, twisting, and winding jobs (352)-consisting of spinners (15),
spare spinners and trainees (122), doffers (23), twist section man '(1), twister
tenders (2), creelers (6), twister spare hands and trainees (27), filling twister
doffers (3), quill machine operators (4), quiller tenders (4), quill men (5), winder
yarnmen (34), and winders, spare hands, and trainees (106).
VI. Loom setup and maintenance jobs (144)-consisting of shuttle hands (2),
quill skinners (4), machine fixers and loaders (9), change men (7), loom fixers
(40), cleaners (24), drawin hands (3), and battery hands and trainees (55).
VII. Weaving jobs (89)-consisting of weavers (47) and spare hand weavers
and trainees (42).
VIII. Finishing jobs (63)-consisting of shearer operator (1), repackers (2),
folders (3), inspectors (37), and overedgers (20).
IX. Designing and patternmaking jobs (1).
X. Maintenance and service jobs (114)-consisting of warp hands (2), mending
(2), storage (2), oilers (5), cloth rollers (7), overhaulers (10), cloth haulers (13),
filling haulers (6), drawing haulers (3), roving men and haulers (8), yarn haulers
(5), truckdriver and helper (2), janitor scrubbers (3), and sweepers (46).
XI. Supervisory, clerical, and inspection jobs (7).
XII. Miscellaneous jobs (124)-consisting of cafeteria help (10), laundry net
department (2), shop laborers and helpers (12), warehouse yard laborers (30),
yard laborers (9), carpenters, roofers, and brick masons (33), painters and plasterers
(9), plumber and helper (2), electricians helpers (5), firemen (3), and atomizer
man, humidifier man, laboratory technician, shipping clerk, brand wrapper, and
watchmen (9).
F. Refusal to hire strikers
Since the middle of August 1949, the Respondent has hired approximately 1,075
new employees to fill vacancies throughout its plant. It is contended by the Re-
spondent that none of the strikers were hired solely for the reason that they did
not comply with its policy of "hiring at the gate," and failed to apply at any time
3 Numerals in parentheses following a job title or date of hiring indicate the number
of vacancies filled in that classification or calendar period.
ANCHOR ROME MILLS, INC. 965
when an appropriate vacancy occurred . No question was raised as to their quali-
fications to fill the jobs. All strikers were denied employment upon the theory that
no jobs were available when they applied , and as to them the Respondent adhered
strictly to a policy of not accepting continuing applications . With respect to non-
strikers , however , the Respondent did not enforce its policy of "hiring at the gate."
Eva Allen testified without contradiction that she applied for a job as spinner,
and was notified by telephone several weeks later to report for work in August 1949.
Eva Vanmeter testified without contradiction that she applied to Second Hand
Henry Jacobs in the fall of 1949 for employment as a quiller , and about 2 weeks
later was notified to report for work.
Willie Rigsby testified without contradiction that he applied to Second Hand
Pendergrast for employment as a loom fixer , and was notified 2 or 3 months later
in August 1949 to report to the personnel office for work.
Louise Hammonds applied repeatedly for employment , and was later notified by
a plant guard to report for work. Records of Respondent show that she was hired
as a spare spinner on November 29, 1949.
James Otis Perry testified without contradiction that he applied about three times
for employment , and was later notified to report for work in September 1949.
Clara Brown was notified several months after her application to report for work.
Records of Respondent show that she was hired as a spare spinner on January
13, 1950.
Weyman Leonard Kinney applied in July 1949 and was later notified by telephone
to report for work in the spinning room. Records of the Respondent show that
she was hired as a spare spinner on July 27, 1950.
J. T. Poindexter applied in December 1950 and was notified a few days later to
report for work. Records of Respondent show that he was hired as a spare hand
in the spinning room on December 14, 1950.
Forest Edward Jackson applied for employment in July 1950 and was later noti-
fied by a plant guard to report for work. Records of the Respondent show that he
was hired as a loom fixer on December 18, 1950.
James M. (R) Hammonds applied several times for employment and was later
notified to report for work. Records of Respondent show that he was hired as a
machinist on January 8, 1951.
Charles F. Kitchings applied for employment in May 1951. About 2 weeks later
he was notified to report for work. Records of Respondent show that he was hired
as a spare hand twister on May 28, 1951.
Gladys (R) Grace Howard was notified to report for work about 1 month after
applying for employment . Records of Respondent show that she was hired as a
spare spinner on November 13, 1951.
Marion Kerns applied in November 1951 and was notified later to report for work.
Records of Respondent show that he was hired as a'carpenter helper on November
12, 1951.
Charles M. Baker applied in April 1952 and was notified by telephone about 2
weeks later to report for work . Records of Respondent show that he was hired as
a card tender on May 7, 1952.
Johnny J. O'Niell testified without contradiction that during the summer of 1952
he applied for employment and about 1 month later , in September 1952, was notified
by a plant guard to report for work.
James Robert Helms applied twice for employment and found a card on his door
4 or 5 weeks later notifying him to report for work. Records of Respondent show
that he was hired on October 16, 1952, as a weaver.
Gilbert Leroy Cox applied several times for employment. Following the last
application on a Friday in March 1953 , he was notified on Monday to report for work.
I am therefore constrained to find from a preponderance of the evidence that
subsequent to May 23, 1949, the Respondent modified and did not adhere strictly
to a policy of "hiring at the gate " by accepting applications from nonstrikers for
future employment . Having thus modified its policy with respect to nonstrikers,
P find that the Respondent discriminated against any strikers who applied in person
for employment after May 23, 1949, by refusing to consider their applications
likewise for future employment.
Excluding all inquiries by mail or telephone , I find from their uncontradicted
testimony and in part from records of Respondent (Exhibit No. R-10 ) that subse-
quent to May 23, 1949, 60 strikers , hereinafter called discriminatees , substantially
complied with hiring policies of the Respondent and applied in person to the per-
sonnel director or his authorized assistants for unconditional employment in any
available jobs . Each of these applicants was denied employment for the alleged
reason that no jobs were available. Discussion will follow the job group classifica-
tions set forth in preceding subsection E.
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Group I
In the opening and picker jobs group , Burl Hart and Sidney Turner were classi-
fied as picker tender and opener helper , respectively. Turner applied in January
1950 , and again in March or April 1951 . Hart applied in September 1950 and in
August 1952 . Subsequent to their applications , the Respondent hired an opener
tender on February 21, 1952, a waste house man on July 21, 1952 , an opener
helper on October 1, 1952 , an opener helper on November 7, 1952, an opener opera-
tor on November 10, 1952 , and an opener learner on March 5 , 1953. I find that
both of these discriminatees were qualified to fill opening and picker jobs for which
Respondent hired new employees after they applied for unconditional employment.
2. Group II
Paul Wilson , Sr., was classified as a card stripper and had worked at various jobs
in the cardroom continuously since 1945. He applied for employment on Novem-
ber 28, 1949 , December 27 , 1949 , and on January 11, 1950 . The Respondent
hired card strippers on July 10, 1950 , April 29, 1952, and May 13, 1952.
William T . Brannon and Hiram Howard Cronan were classified as card tenders.
Brannon applied in July 950 and in April 1951 . Cronan applied in June or July
1951 . The Respondent hired card tenders in July 1950, February , September, and
October 1951 , and February , May, July, and September 1952.
Nettie M. Edwards and A . O. Shores were classified as drawing tenders. Edwards
applied in April 1951. Shores was classified also as slubber tender and applied
in the spring of 1952 and on March 9, 1953. The Respondent hired drawing tenders
in November 1951 , February , May, June, and December 1952 , and February 1953.
William C. Swindle was classified as a card grinder , and applied in October 1950.
Respondent hired two card grinders in December 1952.
All discriminatees in group II by reason of past experience were also qualified to
hold jobs as spare hands in the cardroom . The Respondent hired 28 spare hands
(card ) throughout the year 1950 , 39 in 1951 , 45 in 1952 , and 6 during the months
of January and February 1953 . I find that subsequent to their applications for
employment , the Respondent filled many jobs in the cardroom that the foregoing
discriminatees were qualified to fill.
3. Group III
Lamar Maxey, Andy H. Prince , and J . Clarence Hart were classified as slubber
tenders? Maxey applied on January 9, 1950 , April 23, 1950, and in April 1952.
Prince applied in March , June 8, July 10, September 20, October 10, 1950, and in
March 1951 . Hart applied on July 25 , 1950 . The Respondent hired slubber tenders
on January 3, May 25, August 21, 23 , and December 11, 1950 , on January 29, 1951,
on May 7, August 13, and September 8, 1952, and on January 18, 1953. I find
as indicated that the discriminatees were qualified to fill the slubber tender jobs for
which Respondent hired new employees after they made personal applications
for employment.
4. Group IV
a. The spinning room
Virginia Ruth Hall , Pallie Courson , Emma White, Mattie Scruggs, Julia Payton,
Mary Frances Hart, and Annie Davenport were classified as spinners . Hall applied
during the latter part of 1949 , early in 1950 , and in May 1953. Courson applied on
January 5 , 1950. White applied in January 1950. Scruggs applied on May 11, 1950.
Payton applied in August 1950. Hart applied in August or September 1950. Daven-
port applied in January, February , or March , 1951 . From August to December
1949, inclusive , the Respondent hired 10 spinners and spare spinners . Respondent
hired 46 spinners and spare spinners in 1950, 35 in 1951 , 39 in 1952, and 7 in
January, February , and March , 1953 . I find as indicated that the discriminatees
aforesaid were qualified to fill the jobs as spinners and spare spinners for which
Respondent hired new employees after they had applied in person for employment.
J. C. Shepherd , Leo C . Hall, James Forsythe , Elmer Cadle , Henry M. Farmer,
and Lee green were classified as doffers . Shepherd applied in January 1950 and in
March 1951 . Hall applied on February 16, 27, March 28, 1950, and in January
4 It also appeared in group II that A. 0. Shores was classified as a drawing and slubber
tender.
ANCHOR ROME MILLS, INC. 967
1951. Forsythe applied on March 7, 1950. Cadle applied in the spring of 1950.
Farmer applied in July 1950. Green applied in May 1950. Respondent hired nine
doffers in January, February, March, April, July, August, September, October, and
December, 1950. It hired eight doffers in January, March, April, October, and
November, 1951. It hired 1 doffer on May 16, 1952, and 1 doffer on December
17, 1952. It hired 1 doffer on January 27, 1 on February 5, and 1 on March 13, 1952.
I find as indicated that the discriminatees were qualified to fill the jobs as doffers
for which Respondent hired new employees after they made personal applications
for employment.
b. The twisting room
Jesse E. Moseley, Cecil Harvey Atkins, William Roy Elliott, and John W. Collum
were classified as twister tenders. Moseley applied in June 1949. Atkins applied
repeatedly in August or September, December 5, December 27, 1949, in May 1950,
and in August 1952. Elliott and Collum applied in August 1950. Each of these
discriminatees were also qualified by experience to fill the job of spare hand in
the twisting room. The Respondent hired 1 twister tender on December 7, 1949,
and I on December 27, 1949.
Paul Reynolds, Homer E. Blalock, George M. Langham, and Rachel Baggett
Johnson were classified as creelers. Reynolds applied on December 30, 1949.
Blalock applied on February 11, 1950. Langham applied during the summer of
1950 or 1951. Johnson applied in November 1952. By reason of experience these
discriminatees were also qualified to hold jobs as spare hand in the twisting room.
The Respondent hired creelers in December 1949, November 1950, January and
March 1951, and in November 1952.
During the period from August 1949 through March 1953, the Respondent hired
a total of 27 spare hands in the twisting room. Hirings were made in August 1949
(1), December 1949 (2), January 1950 (1), April 1950 (1), July 1950 (2), Jan-
uary 1951 (2), April 1951 (1), May 1951 (1), July 1951 (4), October 1951 (4),
November 1951 (3), December 1951 (1), May 1952 (1), September 1952 (1),
December 1952 (1), and March 1953 (1). I find as indicated that the discriminatees.
were qualified to fill the jobs in their respective classifications and twister spare hand
jobs for which Respondent hired new employees after they made applications for
employment.
c. The winding room
Emory Lee was classified as winder section man. By reason of his 5 or 6 years'
experience he was qualified to fill the majority of all lobs in the winding room, cer
tainly that of spare hand. Lee applied for employment during the summer of 1950.
Sally Maynor and Lida B. Case were classified as abbott winders, and by reason of
their experience were certainly qualified to fill jobs as spare hand in the winding
room. Maynor applied in July 1950 and again in October 1952. Case applied in
the spring of 1951. The Respondent hired abbott winders in December 1949 (1),
February 1950 (1), April 1950 (1), October 1950 (2), and June 1952 (1).
William E. Shiflett and John Boswell were classified as yarn men. Shiflett was
president of the local union and head yarn man in the winding room. He applied
in June 1949 and in February 1951. Boswell applied early in 1950. During the
period from October 1949 through March 1953, inclusive, the Respondent hired
more than 30 winder yarn men. Hirings occurred in October 1949 (1), Septem-
ber 1950 (1), October 1950 (2), November 1950 (4), March 1951 (2), April
1951 (1), October 1951 (1), November 1951 (2), May 1952 (1), July 1952 (1),
August 1952 (1), September 1952 (4), November 1952 (5), December 1952 (3),
February 1953 (2), and March 1953 (1).
Irene Henry was classified as tangle yarn hand, and by reason of long experi-
ence was also qualified as winder spare hand. She applied for unconditional em-
ployment in October 1949, June or July 1950, and also late in 1952. The Respond-
ent hired a tangle yarn hand on February 5, 1951. The unemployed status of
Irene Henry was called to the attention of Personnel Director Frank L. Russell
in October 1949. At that time she was evicted from her residence on Loyd Street
in Rome, Georgia, for failure to pay rent. Plant Manager Rice sent Russell over
to help her. Russell bought groceries for her at a cost of $35. She moved to an-
other house on Shorter Avenue. At Christmas time (1949) she appealed to Re-
spondent for aid, and Plant Manager Rice instructed Russell to get her something
for Christmas. Russell furnished her with groceries, meat, candy, fruits, etc. The
same thing occurred at Christmas time in 1950 and 1951. Russell testified that
the main reason for denying her employment was because she was not physically
able to work. I cannot agree with that contention.
,968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lucy Ovelle Barber and Opal Vinson (Rogers) were classified as winder spare
hands. Barber applied in November 1949 and April 1951. Vinson (Rogers) ap-
plied in October 1951 and January 1952. During the period from December 1949
through January 1953, inclusive, the Respondent hired approximately 100 spare
hands and trainees in the winding room. Hirings occurred in December 1949 (2),
January 1950 (1), February 1950 (3), March 1950 (1), April 1950 (2), July 1950
(3), August 1950 (3), October 1950 (8), November 1950 (3), December 1950
(2), January 1951 (4), February 1951 (5), March 1951 (2), April 1951 (1),
July 1951 (2), October 1951 (11), November 1951 (16), December 1951 (2),
January 1952 (1), March 1952 (1), May 1952 (3), June 1952 (5), July 1952 (1),
August 1952 (4), October 1952 (1), November 1952 (3), December 1952 ( 6), and
in January 1953 (1). Foster winders were hired in September 1949 (1), July 1950
(1), and December 1952 (1).
I find as indicated that the foregoing discriminatees were qualified to fill jobs in
the winding room in their respective classifications and winder spare hands for which
Respondent hired new employees after they made personal applications for
employment.
5. Group V
Whether or not specifically classified in the warp yarn preparation jobs, I am of
the opinion that those discriminatees found qualified in group IV as twister tenders,
creelers, and winders were also qualified to fill jobs in group V such as warper
,creeler. Respondent hired new employees to fill jobs as warper creeler in February
1950 (1), October 1951 (2), November 1951 (2), and December 1952 (1). In
this group the Respondent also hired slasher tenders and helpers in June 1950 (1),
April 1952 (1), August 1952 (2), and December 1952 (1).
6. Group VI
John C. Carter and Claude Castleberry were classified as loom fixers . Carter
applied on September 18, 1949, and on March 2, 1950. Castleberry applied in
May 1951. During the period from April 1950 through March 1953, inclusive,
the Respondent hired approximately 40 loom fixers. Hirings occurred in April
1950 (1), June 1950 (1), October 1950 (1), November 1950 (2), December 1950
(3), July 1951 (1), November 1951 (1), December 1951 (3), January 1952 (3),
February 1952 (1), March 1952 (4), April 1952 (2), May 1952 (3), June 1952
(1), August 1952 (3), September 1952 (2), October 1952 (2), November 1952
-(3), January 1953 (1), February 1953 (1), and March 1953 (1). The loom fixer
is a highly skilled worker, and is qualified by experience to fill many other jobs in
the weave room such as weaver, spare hand, etc. Both Carter and Castleberry
had approximately 13 years' experience as textile workers. I find, therefore, that
they were qualified to fill jobs in their classification, weaver, spare hand, and many
other jobs in the weave room for which the Respondent hired new employees after
they applied in person for employment.
Dorothy Shiflett was classified as battery hand. She applied in February 1951.
During the period from October 1949 through March 1953, the Respondent hired
more than 50 battery hands. Hirings occurred in October 1949 (1), December
1949 (1), May 1950 (1), June 1950 (1), November 1950 (2), January 1951 (4),
February 1951 (1), March 1951 (2), April 1951 (2), May 1951 (1), October
1951 (4), November 1951 (4), December 1951 (1), January 1952 (3), February
1952 (4), March 1952 (4), August 1952 (5), September 1952 (8), November
1952 (1), January 1953 (2), February 1953 (1), and March 1953 (1). Ifind that
Dorothy Shiflett was qualified to fill the job of battery hand for which the Re-
spondent hired new employees after she applied in person for employment.
Lloyd Castleberry was classified as ^a quill skinner or stripper. He applied in
February 1951. Thereafter, the Respondent hired quill skinners in October 1952
(2), November 1952 (1), and February 1953 (1). Castleberry was undoubtedly
qualified to fill other low-skilled jobs in the loom setup and maintenance jobs for
which little experience was required such as battery hand and loom cleaner. As
heretofore shown, the Respondent hired more than 50 battery hands during the pe-
riod from October 1949 through March 1953. It hired loom cleaners in October
1951 (1), January 1952 (1), February 1952 (2), March 1952 (1), April 1952 (1),
June 1952 (1), and August 1952 (1). During the period from February 1951
through December 1952, the Respondent hired cleaners of occupational similarity
in March 1951 (1), July 1951 (2), January 1952 (1), February 1952 (3), August
1952 (1), September 1952 (1), and December 1952 (3). I find that Lloyd Castle-
berry was qualified to fill the jobs of quill skinner, battery hand, and cleaner for
ANCHOR ROME MILLS, INC. 969'
which the Respondent hired new employees after he applied in person for uncondi-
tional employment.
7. Group VII
Eula R . Robertson , H. Luther Thompson , John D. Vanhorn , Charlie Vinson,
Effie Locklear, Harvie G. Gore, Herman Hyde , Alma Pugh Bright, and Bill C.
Duck were classified as weavers . Each of these discriminatees by reason of experi-
ence were also qualified to fill jobs as spare hands in the weave room . Robertson
applied during the summer of 1949 and again in the summer of 1951; Thompson
applied in November 1949; Vanhorn applied in November 1949, March 1950, and
in the summer of 1951 ; Charlie Vinson applied in March 1950; Locklear applied"
in June 1950 ; Gore applied in January 1951 ; Hyde applied in March or April 1951;
Bright applied during the winter of 1952; and Duck applied in February 1953 and in
April 1953 . During the period from December 1949 through March 1953, the
Respondent hired approximately 89 weavers and spare hands in the weave room.
Hirings occurred in December 1949 ( 1), January 1950 (2), August 1950 ( 3), Sep-
tember 1950 ( 4), October 1950 ( 2), November 1950 ( 8), January 1951 ( 2), May
1951 ( 2), October 1951 ( 1), November 1951 ( 1), December 1951 ( 1), January
1952 (4), February 1952 ( 6), March 1952 ( 6), May 1952 ( 1), June 1952 (1),
July 1952 ( 1), August 1952 ( 8), September 1952 ( 1), October 1952 ( 7), Novem-
ber 1952 ( 5), December 1952 ( 4), January 1953 ( 3), February 1953 ( 5), and
March 1953 ( 2). I find that the discriminatees were qualified to fill the jobs of
weaver and weave spare hands for which the Respondent hired new employees after
they applied in person for employment.
8. Group VIII
M. R. Lambert was classified as "baling and burlapping" in the finishing depart-
ment. By reason of experience he was also qualified to fill jobs as spare hand in
weaving, creeling , and sweeper . He applied for unconditional employment in
March 1950, and again either in December 1952 or January 1953. The record
shows few , if any, jobs filled by the Respondent in his specific classification. Else-
where herein, however, it appears that the Respondent filled numerous jobs as spare
hand in weaving, creeling , and as sweeper for which this man was qualified. It is
highly probable that he was also qualified to fill two repacking jobs filled by Respond-
ent in November 1951. I find, therefore , that Lambert was qualified to fill the jobs
of spare hand in the weave and finishing rooms, creeling in the twisting room, and
sweeper for which the Respondent hired new employees after he applied in person
for unconditional employment.
Annie Johnston (Cook) was classified as inspector . She applied for employment
in February 1953. During the period from April 1950 through March 1953 the
Respondent hired approximately 37 employees in this classification. Among these
hirings the Respondent hired inspectors on February 5, 1953 (1), February 17,
1953 (1), February 26, 1953 (1), March 10, 1953 ( 1), and March 11, 1953 (1).
I find, therefore , that Annie Johnston (Cook) was qualified to fill the jobs of
inspector for which the Respondent hired new employees after she applied for
employment.
9. Group X
Charles V. Astin and Wallace Nelson were classified as oilers in the maintenance
and service group . Astin had been employed by the Respondent for 6 years prior
to the strike , and applied for reemployment in August 1950. Nelson had been in
employment of Respondent for approximately 16 years, and applied for reemploy-
ment in 1950 . Respondent hired oiler cleaners and lubrication crewmen in Decem-
ber 1950 ( 1), January 8 , 1951 ( 1), February 9, 1952 ( 1), February 21, 1952
(1), and October 16 , 1952 ( 1). These men were undoubtedly qualified to fill the
jobs of sweeper . I find, therefore , that these discriminatees were qualified to fill the
jobs of lubrication men and sweepers for which the Respondent hired new employees
after they applied for employment.
Fannie Mae McCombs was classified as sweeper , and had also worked in the
cafeteria . She applied during the summer of 1950 and in June 1952 . During the
period from April 1950 through February 1953, inclusive, the Respondent hired
approximately 46 sweepers and 10 workers for the cafeteria and lunch wagon.
Sweepers were hired in April 1950 ( 2), June 1950 ( 2), August 1950 ( 3), September
1950 ( 1), October 1950 ( 8), November 1950 ( 5), January 1951 ( 2), April 1951
(3), July 1951 ( 2), September 1951 ( 1), October 1951 (3 ), November 1951 (1),
May 1952 ( 1), July 1952 ( 1), August 1952 (4), September 1952 (2), October 1952
'970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
{1), November 1952 (1), December 1952 (1), and February 1953 (2). Cafeteria
and lunch wagon workers were hired in July 1950 (1), September 1950 (2), October
1950 (2), January 1951 (1), February 1951 (1), April 1951 (1), October 1951
(1), and December 1952 (1). I find that Fannie Mae McCombs was qualified to
Ell jobs as sweeper and cafeteria worker for which the Respondent hired new
employees after she applied for employment.
D. E. Allred was classified as cloth hauler. He was also qualified to fill the jobs
of drawing hauler, filling hauler, roving hauler, and yarn hauler. He applied for
unconditional employment in November 1950 and February 1951. During the
period from January 1950 through February 1953, the Respondent hired 13 cloth
haulers, 3 drawing haulers, 6 filling haulers, 8 roving haulers, and 5 yarn haulers.
Hirings occurred in January 1950 (1), March 1950 (1), April 1950 (1), August
1950 (3), October 1950 (2), November 1950 (1), December 1950 (2), April 1951
(3), May 1951 ( 1), June 1951 (1), October 1951 (1), November 1951 ( 1), De-
cember 1951 (1), April 1952 (1), August 1952 (1), September 1952 (3), October
1952 (3), November 1952 (2), January 1953 (2), and February 1953 (3). I find
that D. E. Allred was qualified to fill the jobs of cloth hauler, drawing hauler, filling
hauler, roving hauler, and yarn hauler for which Respondent hired new employees
after he applied for employment.
William Grady Shedd was classified as roving man or roving hauler. He had
approximately 20 years' experience as a textile worker and was qualified as utility
man or spare hand in spinning , spooling, twisting , winding, or sweeping . He applied
for unconditional employment in January 1953. I find that he was qualified to
fill the foregoing jobs of hauler, spare hand in the spinning, twisting, and winding
jobs of group IV, supra, or sweeper, for which the Respondent hired new employees
after he applied for employment .5
G. Refusal to hire Minnie H. Mize
Mrs. Minnie H. Mize is classified as a spinner , and has worked at intervals for
the Respondent since 1924. She is also qualified by experience in jobs such as
doffing, creeling, spooling, and oiling. In February 1948 she requested sick leave,
and went to Florida for a period of 3 weeks to recuperate. She reported back to
work on March 8, 1948, but 3 or 4 days later on March 12, 1948, was stricken
with ptomaine poison and gall bladder infection , and was forced to quit working
for a while. Thereafter, on March 18, 1948, the strike was called at Respondent's
plant, and both the husband and father of Mrs. Mize joined the Union and the
strike. In August 1948 while the strike was on, Mrs. Mize applied to the Respond-
ent's personnel director, Robert A. Bachman, for reinstatement in her job. Bachman
sent her to see Overseer W. A. Scott and Supervisor Tommie Holcomb in the spin-
ning department. Overseer Scott informed her that she had been permanently
-replaced by another spinner (Effie Tanner), because he considered her on strike
with her husband and father. Remonstrating that she was not a striker, she reminded
Supervisor Holcomb that he had agreed to hold the job open for her until recovery
from her sickness. Thereupon, Overseer Scott agreed to send for her when he
needed a spinner on the third shift , and instructed her to file application for the
job in the personnel office. Personnel Director Bachman refused to accept the
application , saying "Minnie , Will knows we don't fill out applications here." In
the early spring of 1952, she called Supervisor Holcomb and again requested employ-
ment. Holcomb instructed her to see Personnel Director Frank L . Russell . Russell
then declined to employ her for the alleged reason that he already had more spinners
than were needed in the plant. As heretofore shown, the Respondent hired 39
spinners and spare hands in 1952. Of this number, 4 were hired in February, 2
in April, and 4 in May 1952. I find that Minnie H. Mize was qualified to fill the
jobs of spinner and spare hand for which the Respondent hired new employees after
she applied for reemployment.
H. Refusal to hire Ellen Langham
Ellen Langham was classified as an overedge machine operator in the laundry net
-room, and has worked for the Respondent at intervals for the past 20 years. She
was laid off in March 1947, and remained in that status until the strike began in
March 1948. She claimed seniority over new employees. Her husband joined the
s Groups IX and XI have been omitted because the record does not show that the dis-
criminatees were qualified for those jobs, and only a few new employees were hired to
-fill those classifications.
ANCHOR ROME MILLS, INC . 971
Union and performed duty on the picket line . During the strike Supervisor Holcomb
offered her a job in the weave room to replace a striker . This she refused to do,
but requested her old job back in the laundry net room. After the strike in October
1949 she applied to Assistant Personnel Director Clyde Booker for unconditional
employment. Three or four weeks later she applied to Personnel Director Frank L.
Russell , and explained to him that she had been laid off about 11 months prior
,to the strike, and was not a striker. Russell sent her to see Supervisor Henry
Jacobs in the net room. Jacobs instructed her to come back on the following
Wednesday. When she returned, as directed, Jacobs informed her that his superior,
Supervisor Holcomb , was not honoring seniority in employing new employees. She
waited about 2 hours without success to see Supervisor Holcomb, and later reached
him by telephone. Holcomb refused to hire her, said her seniority would not be
honored, and that he was hiring whoever came along when there was an opening.
On several later occasions she applied for employment, but was never accepted.
During the period from February 1950 through May 1951, inclusive, the Respondent
hired approximately 20 overedge machine operators in the laundry net room and
elsewhere. During 1950 hiring occurred in February (3), August (1), September
(5), December (6); and during 1951 in February (1), March (3), and in May (1).
In the laundry net department two additional employees were hired in February
1953 (1), and March 1953 (1). I find that Ellen Langham was qualified to fill
the jobs of overedge machine operator and additional jobs in the laundry net room
for which the Respondent hired new employees after she applied for reemployment.
Concluding Findings
Excluding all conduct of the Respondent prior to May 23, 1949, I find from
a preponderance of the evidence that Frank L. Russell, personnel director for the
Respondent, interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as follows:
(1) By stating to Julia Payton in August 1950 that he would not hire her or
any of the other strikers unless he was forced to do so.
(2) By inquiring of Charles V. Astin whether he was one of the strikers when
.he applied for employment on August 4, 1950, and saying "Well, I can't use you."
(3) By stating to Annie Davenport in 1951 that he was not putting any strikers
back to work.
(4) By stating to C. H. Atkins and Charles Akers in 1952 that the strikers had a
slim chance of getting back to work.
(5) By inquiring of Mary Rittenhouse Bradshaw concerning her relationship to
strikers when she applied for employment in December 1952, and saying that he
would not hire anybody connected with the Union.
I recognize the legal right of the Respondent to adopt a policy of "hiring at the
gate," thereby requiring all applicants for employment to appear in person and be
interviewed with respect to their qualifications for prospective jobs. It had the
right to decline applications by mail or telephone , and to refuse to accept continu-
ing applications , provided such policies were applied without discrimination on
account of concerted activities within the protection of the Act. The activities
engaged in by the discriminatees on behalf of the Union including the economic
strike were protected activities within the meaning of the Act. The occurrence
and filling of vacancies in its plant were peculiarly within the knowledge and control
of the Respondent . By the simple expedient of strictly enforcing as to strikers a
rule of not accepting continuing applications , the Respondent excluded the dis-
criminatees from employment in any and all vacancies that occurred . At the same
time it did not enforce that policy with respect to nonstrikers whom it desired to
hire, and frequently tendered vacant jobs to such persons long after they applied
for employment . There is no substantial evidence that Respondent adopted a policy
of excluding persons more than 50 years of age from employment in its plant.
The group of discriminatees herein named collectively represented a body of skills
and training of which an employer in need thereof, under accepted industrial hiring
practices would normally and readily avail itself. Each of them was experienced
in one or more jobs for which new employees were hired after they applied for
employment. All of them had a previous record of satisfactory employment, and
many had served the Respondent honestly and faithfully for a long period of years.
There is no substantial evidence that those over 50 years of age were physically
or mentally disqualified to perform the work in jobs according to previous classifica-
tion or similar jobs. The record establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that
following their personal applications for employment job openings were available
which each of them was qualified to fill. Despite this circumstance , none of the
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discriminatees was offered employment or hired by the Respondent. In response
to all of their applications, the Respondent invariably said there were no vacancies.
Absent a discriminatory policy, I am convinced and conclude that Respondent would
have considered the application of strikers, as well as those of the nonstrikers,
for present or future employment.
I find, therefore, that the Respondent failed and refused to hire the 60 strikers
listed in Appendix B attached hereto because of their concerted activities on behalf
of a labor organization and because they engaged in an economic strike from March
18, 1948, to January 14, 1949. Thereby the Respondent discriminated in regard
to hire and tenure of employment to discourage membership in a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
Under the circumstances of this case, it is no less impelling that Respondent refused
to hire and otherwise denied employment to Minnie H. Mize and Ellen Langham
because of their relationship to strikers and because of their real or fancied sym-
pathies for the Union and the strike. I find, therefore, that Respondent discriminated
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment to discourage membership in a labor
organization.
IV. EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with operations of Respondent described in section 1, 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. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire of the 60
strikers named in Appendix B attached hereto, and also in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Minnie H. Mize and Ellen Langham, it will be recom-
mended that Respondent offer to each of them immediate employment with such
seniority or other rights and privileges as each would have enjoyed had each been
employed on the dates when, absent the Respondent's discrimination against them,
the Respondept would have employed them. It will also be recommended that the
Respondent make them whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered as the
result of the Respondent's discriminatory refusal to hire them from the respective
dates of discrimination against the discriminatees, including Minnie H. Mize and
Ellen Langham, to the dates when each is offered employment. The date from
which back pay shall run in favor of each discriminatee shall be determined upon
compliance with the recommended order herein by fixing the date on which each
would have been employed by the Respondent in accordance with nondiscriminatory
hiring practices The computations for loss of pay as recommended herein shall
be made on a quarterly basis in the manner provided in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal
to that which these employees would normally have earned for each quarter or
portion thereof, their net earnings,7 if any, in other employment during that period.
Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability
for any other quarter. It will also be recommended that the Respondent make
available to the Board and its agents, upon request, payroll and other records nec-
essary to facilitate the computation of back pay due hereunder.8
The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent in my opinion disclose
a fixed purpose to defeat the objectives of self-organization by its employees. Be-
cause of Respondent's past unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, I am con-
vinced that the unfair labor practices found herein are potentially related to other
unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and that a danger of their commission
in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's past conduct. The pre-
ventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the recommended order herein
is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interde-
pendent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, I shall
6 Cf Texile Machine Works, Inc, 96 NLRB 1333
7 See : Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440; Republic Steel Corp. v. N. L. R. B ,
311 U S 7
8 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
ANCHOR ROME MILLS, INC. 973
recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
,of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of the employment of the
persons named in Appendix B attached hereto, including Minnie H. Mize and Ellen
Langham, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.)
Appendix A
(List of strikers not rehired)
Abrams, James D., (Spin) Spare.
Abrams, J. Robert, Cleaning & Gen.
Help.
Adams, Aubie L., Battery Hand.
Adams, Irene, Warper Creeler.
Adams, R. B., Weaver.
Adams, Roy H., Weaver.
Adams, Rosa W., (Spin) Spare Hand.
Allen, James F., (Card) Spare Hand.
Allmon, Farris, (Spin) Section Man.
Allred, D. E., Cloth Hauler.
Amerson, Char. George, (Twist) Spare
Hand.
Amerson, Charlie M., Roving Man.
Argo, Ottie, Doffer.
Astin, C. V., Oiler.
Atkins, C. H., Twister Tender.
Atkins, Gertha R., Twister Tender.
Bailey, Robert Carl, (Spin) Spare Hand.
Barber, Ovelle M., Relief Hand on
Abbott Winder & Quillen
Battles, Doris A., Battery Hand.
Battles, Frank, Weaver.
Battles, James H., Quill Skinner.
Battles, John, Tie in Machine.
Battles, Norman, Loom Fixer.
Baxter, G. L., Loom Fixer.
Beck, Homer, Drawing Tender.
Beck, Rudy, Spinner.
Bennett, Mildred, Warper Creeler.
Biggers, Clif D., Humidifier Man.
Blalock, Homer E., Warper Creeler.
Booker, Martha, Roller Picker.
Boozer, Albert, Card Tender.
Boozer, Mae, (Weave) Spare Hand.
Boozer, Van, Card Grinder.
Boswell, John, Yarn Man.
Branham, Stella, Twister Tender.
Brannon, I. G., Picker Section Man.
Brannon, Wm. T., Card Tender.
Bray, Kathleen, Sweeper.
Bright, Alma Pugh, Weaver.
Brooks, Elmer, Weaver.
Brooks, Eva, Winder.
Brown, Eula, Spinner.
Brown, Nora W., Weaver.
Burch, Luther, Filling Hauler.
Burch, William G., Card Tender.
Busby, Myrtle, Yarn Checker.
Byrd, J. L., Loom Fixer.
Cabe, J. W., Twister Creeler.
Cabe, Lois, Warper Creeler.
Cadle, Elmer, Doffer.
Cantrell, Richard, Inspector Helper.
Carnes, Grover, Twister Tender.
Carter, J. C., Loom Fixer.
Case, Lida B., Abbott Winder.
Cason, Minnie, Sweeper.
Casteel, Clem, Filling Twister Creeler.
Castleberry, Claude, Loom Fixer.
Castleberry, H. Grady, Loom Fixer.
Castleberry, Lloyd, Quill Skinner.
Clark, Verdia W., (Card) Spare Hand.
Clements, Flaura, Spinner.
Clemons, Wm. (Bill), Weaver.
Cochrane, Calvin C., Twister Doffer.
Coheley, James Melvin, (Twist) Spare
Hand.
Collier, Mattie A., Spinner.
Collier, Wm. Henry, Twister Tender.
Collum, Henry D., Filling Twister.
Collum, John W., Twister Tender.
Cook, H. E., Waste Machine.
Cooley, M. Ray, Yarn Hauler.
Cornwell, Horace, Beamer Tender.
Cornwell, John L., Weaver.
Cotton, Luberta, Janitress.
Courson, Pallie, Spinner.
Cowart, Clarence, General Cleaner.
Cowart, Cordelia, Spinner.
Cowart, Sarah, Spinner.
Crabbe, Gaynelle, Foster Winder.
Craton, Hoyt, Weaver.
Cronan, Hiram H., Card Tender.
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cronan , W. P., Card Tender.
Cropper, Wm. H., Yard Laborer.
Dammond , Marie, Sweeper.
Davenport , Annie Dell, Spinner.
Davenport , Kate W., Tangle Yarn Hand.
Davenport , Raymond , Doffer.
Dearing , Gladys, Spinner.
Defoor , Buren, Spinner.
Dickson , Nancy, (Wind ) Spare Hand.
Dillard , Henry F., Twister Doffer.
Dorsett, Donald , Roving Man.
Dorsett, Edrie, Spinner.
Dorsett, Wm. H., Slubber.Tender.
Duck, Bill C., Weaver.
Edmon, Samuel L., Waste Machine.
Edwards, Herman Lee , Winder Yarn
Man.
Edwards, Mattie, Overedger.
Edwards, Nettie, Drawing Tender.
Elliott, Wm. Roy, Twister Tender.
Emfinger, W. D., Weaver.
Faine, Lou Ola, Sweeper.
Farmer, Gussie Mae, Sweeper.
Farmer, Henry M., Doffer.
Ferguson, Ida, Foster Winder.
Forsythe, James, Doffer.
Foster, Adell, Sweeper.
Fountain , Edna, (Wind ) Spare Hand.
Gazaway, Leone B., (Weave) Spare
Hand.
Gibson, Evia H., Sweeeper.
Gilliam, Violet, Spinner.
Glass, Lee, Blow Off Man.
Glass, Mary Bell, Spinner.
Gore, Harvie G., Weaver.
Graham, Margaret Ruth, Foster Winder.
Grant, Mary C., (Spin) Spare Hand.
Grant, Virgil, Twister Doffer.
Green, Lee, Twister Doffer.
Greene, Annie Laura, Sweeper.
Griffin, Rufus L., Slasher Tender.
Hall, David S., Doffer.
Hall, Leo C., Doffer.
Hall, Virginia Ruth , Spinner.
Hamilton , Azzie Lee, Twister Tender.
Hand, J. A., Blow Off Man.
Haney, Thomas B., Roving Hauler.
Harris, F. F., Loom Fixer.
Harris, Mamie, Sweeper.
Harrison, Charlie, Janitor.
Hart, Burl, Picker Tender.
Hart, J. Clarence, Slubber Tender.
Hart , Mary Frances, Spinner.
Haywood, Catherine, Sweeper.
Henry, Irene , Tangle Yarn Hand.
Hines, Mary M., Sweeper.
Hines, Rena, Sweeper.
Hines, Robert, Janitor.
Holmes, Robert W., Winder Yarn Man.
Houston, Eleanor , Sweeper.
Howard, Pollie, Foster Winder.
Hulsey, Inez , Spinner.
Hunter , Mary Jane, Spinner.
Hyde, Herman, Weaver.
Ingram , Eugene, Roving Man.
Jackson, Joe, Filling Hauler.
Jackson , Oscar M ., Slasher Helper.
Jacobs, George P., Twister Section Man.
Jacobs, Sherman Lee , Drawing Hauler_
Johnson , Emma M., Foster Winder.
Johnson , Lester, Humidifier Man.
Johnson , Lillie Mae, Spinner.
Johnson, Richard , Weaver.
Johnston , Annie ( Cook ), Inspector.
Johnston, Rachel Baggett, Creeler.
Jones, Bessie H., Spinner.
Jones, Garlin , Spin-Section Man.
Jones, G. Jeff, Filling Twister.
Jones, John C., Spin-Section Man.
Jones, S. E., Yarn Room Man.
Keith , Annie E., (Wind ) Spare Hand.
Kent , Marion , Opener Helper.
Kent , Shirley Mae, Sweeper.
King, Samuel K ., Doffer.
King, Mary C., Sweeper.
Knowles, Tempy Lee, Weaver.
Lambert, M. R., Baling & Burlapping.
Lambert, Richard, Quill Skinner.
Lane, Elmer T., Roving Hauler.
Langham, Dock, Winder Yarn Man.
Langham, Ed, Twister Creeler.
Langham , George M., Twister Creeler.
Langham, Jim, Weave-General Help.
Lanning, Flossie , Roller Picker.
Lanning, Leon , (Twist ) Spare Hand.
Lee, Emory, Wind-Section Man.
Little, Sarah , Spinner.
Locklear, Effie, (Weave)-Spare.
Lovelace, Florine B., Foster Winder.
McArver, Margaret, Sweeper.
McBurnett , Henry T., Winder Yarn,
Man.
McCary, M. Thomas, Quill Mach. Op.
McCollum , O. H., Doffer.
McCombs, Carrie, Sweeper.
McCombs, Fannie Mae, Sweeper.
McCrary, Elizabeth, Foster Winder.
McDaniel, Harper, Cleaning & Gen..
Help.
McGhee, Rosie E., Sweeper.
Martin , J. C., Tie In Machine.
Matheny, Maggie, Foster Winder.
Maxey, Lamar, Slubber Tender.
Maxwell , Jessie Pat, Slubber Tender.
Maynor, Sally, Abbott Winder.
Mewborn, Iona, Spinner.
Milam, L. D., Roving Hauler.
Milstead, Gerald Lee, Winder Yarn_
Man.
Mize, Evelyn G., Spinner-Spare.
Mize, John J., Spin-Section Man.
Moody, Max, Card Tender.
Morgan, Bessie, Sweeper.
Morgan, Martha , Sweeper.
Morris, Eva, Sweeper.
Morris, Helen , Creeler.
Moseley, Geneva, Abbott Quillen
Moseley, Jesse E., Twister Tender.
Mullins, Ruby, Twister Tender.
Mullis, Essie, (Weave)-Pare Hand
Mullis, J. Morris, Doffer.
Murphy, Herbert D., Twister Creeler..
Nails, Mildred , Drawing Tender.
Nelson, Wallace, Oiler.
ANCHOR ROME MILLS, INC.
Nichols, Ruby, Warper Creeler.
O'Bryant , Nola, Spinner.
O'Neil , Ada S ., Sweeper.
Orr, Mamie Lou, Scrubber.
Orr, Theodore , Janitor.
O'Shields, S . Ed., Quiller Yarn Boy.
Owens, Freeman L., Weaver.
Owens, Gertie Mae, (Spin ) Spare Hand.
Owens, Guy, Weaver.
Owens, Ludie, Abbott Quillen
Padgett, Marion A., Filling Twister.
Parker, Charlie , Drawing Hauler.
Parris, J. T., Opener Tender.
Pate, Guy, Slubber Tender.
Pate, Robert M ., Drawing Tender.
Pate, Thomas L., Drawing Tender.
Payne, Eleither B., Battery Hand.
Payton, Julia, Spinner.
Payton, Lewis, Twister Doffer.
Peppers, John L., Battery Hand.
Peppers, Kathleen, Abbott Winder.
Pierce, O. W., Twister Doffer.
Pilgrim, Bernice, ( Weave)-Spare
Hand.
Pilgrim , Frank, Card Tender.
Pilgrim, Lillie Mae, Warper Creeler.
Pilgrim, Teamus, Weaver.
Pilgrim, W. Harrison , Weaver.
Plemons, J. H., Weaver.
Plemons, Lonnie G, Loom Fixer.
Plemmons, W. H., Card Tender.
Powell, Wm. Henry, Doffer.
Powell, W. W., Roving Hauler.
Prince, Andy , Slubber Tender.
Proctor, Kate, Spinner.
Pruitt, Norman, Roving Man.
Pryor, Mary Lou, Sweeper.
Pullen, James A., Battery Hand.
Purdue, Florence , Janitress.
Ray, Curtis W., Twister Creeler.
Reynolds, Paul , Twister Creeler.
Rittenhouse , Homer, Slubber Tender.
Rittenhouse, Lillie, Drawing Tender.
Rittenhouse , Mable, Drawing Tender.
Roberson , Len W., Card Grinder.
Robertson , Eula R., Weaver.
Romines, Jessie Mae, Spinner.
Roper, Josie, Sweeper.
Rowden , Frances, Spinner.
Russell , Walter F., Rayon Picker
Tender.
Sams, Pattie, Sweeper.
Scruggs, Ellen , Spare Hand-Winding
Dept.
Scruggs, Mattie , Spinner.
Self, Elmer, Loom Fixer.
Self, Julia, Battery Hand.
Self, L . C., Quill Skinner.
Sewell , J. Albert, Picker Tender.
Sewell , Mae, Abbott Winder.
Shaw, James H., Doffer.
Shedd, Carrie, Abbott Winder.
Shedd, William Grady, Roving Man.
Shelton, Carl H , Doffer.
Shelton, Della, Foster Winder.
975
Shelton, Emery B., Box Boy.
Shepherd , J. C., Doffer.
Shiflett, Dorothy, Battery Hand.
Shiflett, Margaret , Weaver.
Shiflett, Robert, Filling Twister Creeler.
Shiflett, William E., Head Yarn Man.
Shores, A. 0., Drawing & Slubber
Tender.
Sims, Horris , Weaver.
Simard, Alice , Spare Hand-Winding
Dept.
Smith , Albert C., Drawing Hauler.
Smith , Charlie F., Oiler.
Smith , Elbert W., Doffer.
Smith , J. 0., Quill Skinner.
Smith, Katherine , ( Spin)-Spare Hand.
Smith, Margaret lone, Foster Winder.
Smith, Moultrie , ( Card ) -Spare Hand.
Spears, John Albert, Drawing Hauler.
Spivey, Zelmon , Sweeper.
Spratling , Helen M ., Battery Hand.
Stevens, Arthur, Card Tender.
Studdard , John W., Card Tender.
Sullins, Beatrice , Abbott Winder.
Sullins, Gordon , Filling Hauler.
Sullins, Harrison S., Quill Skinner.
Sutherland , Hershel, Card Tender.
Sutton , Bernice S., Abbott Winder.
Swann, Ruby M., Foster Winder.
Swindle, William C., Card Grinder.
Terry, Adolphus , Loom Cleaner.
Thompson , Abraham, Yard Laborer.
Thompson, H. Luther, Weaver.
Thompson , Wm. N., Doffer.
Tolbert, Avis , Weaver.
Tolbert, Lennie R., Abbott Winder.
Tolbert, Wm. N., Winder Yarn Man.
Tucker, Arthur C., Cloth Hauler.
Turner, Clarence , Drawing Tender.
Turner, David, Oil and Band.
Turner, Sidney, Opener Helper.
Vanhorn, Doyle, Weaver.
Vanhorn, John D., Weaver.
Vanhorn, Wm. Ralph , Twister Doffer.
Vanhorn, Ruby, Spinner.
Vasser, Laura, Spinner.
Vasser, Luther, Twister Creeler.
Vines, Harvey, Weaver.
Vinson, Charlie , Weaver.
Vinson, Dollie, Spinner.
Vinson, Opal , (Wind)-Spare Hand
Waits, Ernest L., Twist-Section Man.
Waits, Louise , Spinner.
Walker , Daisy, Scrubber.
Watters, Eulalia , Sweeper.
Watters, James, Opener Helper.
Whistenant , Wm. Ernest , Warp Man.
White, Emma, Spinner.
White, Ruth , Spinner.
Wilkey, Hubert, Yarn Hauler.
Williamson, Kate, Yarn Checker.
Wilson, Carl, Oil & Band.
Wilson, Gauda Bell, Spinner.
Wilson, Paul, Sr., Card Stripper.
Wilson , Woodrow R., Card Grinder.
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Woods, William P., Rayon Picker Wright, Edward S., Drawing & Slubber
Tender. Tender.
'Wooten, D. 0., Quill Machine Young, Gordon Lee, Doffer.
Wooten, W. A., Cloth Hauler. Young, W. M., Weaver.
Worley, Siller G., Warper Creeler.
Appendix B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Textile Workers Union of America,
CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discriminating in
regard to hire of employees.
WE WILL NOT interrogate applicants for employment concerning their union
or protected concerted activities, and will not inform them that they will be
denied employment because of their union or protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor or-
ganizations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or
all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees listed below immediate and suitable em-
ployment with such seniority or other rights and privileges as each would have
enjoyed but for the discrimination against them, and make them whole for
any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination:
Burl Hart
Sidney Turner
Paul Wilson, Sr.
William T. Brannon
Hiram Howard Cronan
Nettie M. Edwards
A. O. Shores
William C. Swindle
Lamar Maxey
Andy H. Prince
J. Clarence Hart
Virginia Ruth Hall
Pallie Courson
Emma White
Mattie Scruggs
Julia Payton
Mary Frances Hart
Annie Davenport
J. C. Shepherd
Leo C. Hall
James Forsythe
Elmer Cadle
Henry M. Farmer
Lee Green
Jesse E. Moseley
C. H. Atkins
William Roy Elliott
John W . Collum
Paul Reynolds
George M. Langham
Rachel Baggett Johnson
Emory Lee
Sally Maynor
Lida B. Case
William E. Shiflett
John Boswell
Irene Henry
Lucy Ovelle Barber
Opal Vinson (Rogers)
John C. Carter
Claude Castleberry
Dorothy Shiflett
Lloyd Castleberry
Eula R. Robertson
H. Luther Thompson
John D. Vanhorn
Charlie Vinson
Effie Locklear
Harvie G. Gore
Herman Hyde
Alma Pugh Bright
Bill C. Duck
M. R. Lambert
Annie Johnston (Cook)
Charles V. Astin
Wallace Nelson
Fannie Mae McCombs
D. E. Allred
William Grady Shedd
Minnie H. Mize
Homer E. Blalock
Ellen Langham
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the aforementioned
Union, or any other labor organization, or to refrain from such activities except
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION 977
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment against any employees be-
cause of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
ANCHOR ROME MILLS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION and LOCAL 1035, INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS, CIO.
Case No. 13-CA-1477. November 23,1954
Decision and Order
On November 30, 1953, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and 8 (a) (1) and
recommending that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report, the conclu-
sions and finding therein, and rulings upon motions and objections
made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing. The General Counsel
filed a statement in support of the Intermediate Report and excep-
tions to its failure to make other requested findings and conclusions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Peterson, Rodgers, and
Beeson].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions thereto, and the entire record in the case,
and finds merit in the Respondent's exceptions.
As described in the Intermediate Report, following a consent elec-
tion, bargaining negotiations were begun between the Respondent and
the Union the first part of March 1953. At that time, A. F. Siebert,
Respondent's founder and president, was absent from the city on an
extended business-vacation trip. The Respondent's negotiators were
Reginald Siebert, the president's son and Respondent's executive vice
president, Lester Erickson, Respondent's vice president in charge of
110 NLRB No. 167.
338207-55-vol. 110--63