Carthage Fabrics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 541 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION 541
CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF'
AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 11-CA-284 (formerly 34-CA-284).
November £5,19592
Decision and Order
On May 2, 1952, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued his
Intermediate Report in this proceeding, finding that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of certain employees and recommended that the complaint be dismissed
as to them. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report 2 the
exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Carthage Fabrics Corpora-
tion, Carthage, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of
America, CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by
discriminatorily discharging, laying off, or transferring its employees,
or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union views, mem-
bership, or activities; keeping union meetings, activities, and em-
ployees under surveillance; warning employees of, or threatening
them with, reprisals in employment because of their union member-
ship or activity; prohibiting union solicitation or the distribution of
union literature on its parking lot during employees' nonworking time.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the National Labor Relations
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
, We note, and correct , the typographical error on page seven: "1941 " should read
.11951. 11
101 NLRB No. 122.
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self- organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers
Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to James Crabtree, George Faulkner, Jennings Smith,
Frances Sheffield, and John Barber immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without preju-
dice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them
whole in the manner set forth in the Intermediate Report.
(b) Post at its plant in Carthage, North Carolina, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A." 3
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Fifth Region, shall, after being signed by Respondent's representative,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as
it alleges the commission of unfair labor practices by the Respondent
in the discharges of Melton Marley, George Moss, Charles Riddle,
C. Harding Cockinan, Prentice L. Patterson, Edith Cockman, and
Mamie Ruth Phillips.
3 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner ," the words "A Decision and Order." If this Order is enforced by a decree
of a Circuit Court of Appeals, the notice shall be further amended by substituting for the
words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" in the caption, the words "Pursuant to a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
On various dates from March 12, 1951, to September 21, 1951, Textile Workers
Union of America , CIO, the Union , filed charges of unfair labor practices against
Carthage Fabrics Corporation, Carthage, North Carolina, the Respondent. Upon
CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION 543
these charges the General Counsel of the Board issued a complaint on August 28,
1951, and an amended complaint on September 21, 1951. Upon motion a bill of
particulars was supplied the Respondent and an answer duly filed denying the
commission of unfair labor practices.
In substance the complaint, as amended, alleged that the Respondent had dis-
charged 13 named employees because of their union membership and activities
and had warned employees against, questioned them about, threatened them for,
and kept under surveillance, such activities.
Upon due notice a hearing was held in Carthage, North Carolina, on various
dates from October 3 to November 21, 1951. All parties were afforded opportunity
to participate in the hearing, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to intro-
duce relevant and material evidence, to argue the issues orally, and to file briefs
and proposed findings.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
1. FINDINGS OF FACT
From admitted or undisputed facts it is found (1) that the Respondent Com-
pany is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and (2) that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR I ABOR PRACTICES
A. The background
The Respondent's fabric plant at Carthage, North Carolina, was built and is
owned by the citizens of Carthage and leased to the Respondent, a North Caro-
lina corporation. Emmanuel Sontaag, the Respondent's president, is also presi-
dent of a textile mill in New Bedford, Massachusetts, where the employees are
represented by an A. F. of L. union. Some of the equipment for the operation of
the Carthage plant came from the New Bedford mill, without diminution, how-
ever, of the productive capacity of the latter.
The Carthage plant began production operations, on a limited scale, in the
summer of 1950, but full production was not achieved and all looms put into
operation until January 1951. The labor force, apparently in substantial part
inexperienced, seems to have been drawn largely from the surrounding area.
Around December 1950 several employees, among them Thomas Baldwin,
James Crabtree, and George Faulkner, began to discuss the advisability of form-
ing a union in the plant. Baldwin assumed the leadership in the activity until
discharged early in February 1951, and was succeeded by Crabtree, who was
discharged about a month later.
The present case involves the asserted discriminatory discharge of 13 union
leaders or members, among them Baldwin, Crabtree, and Faulkner. In addition
it is alleged that the Respondent 's supervisors or officials engaged in various
threatening acts, surveillance, and interrogation. These assertions the Company
denies , its position being that the terminated employees were either discharged
for cause or quit their employment. As is not unusual in this type of case, much
of the evidence is sharply disputed and a large part of the testimony on critical
issues in direct conflict.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
About the middle of January 1951, Thomas Baldwin contacted Joel B. Leighton,
international representative of the Union, who was headquartered at Rocking-
ham, North Carolina, concerning the organization of the Respondent's employees.
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Activity was then begun in the way of discussion and bringing union literature
into the plant. This activity came to the attention of management.
Thus, sometime in January, employee Charles Riddle found a union-authoriza-
tion card in the plant, which he turned over to Foreman Fred English, his step.
father, at that time a foreman or second hand in the mill. English, in turn, gave
the card to then Assistant Superintendent (now Superintendent) Ceaborn David-
son, telling Davidson that Riddle had found it. Davidson then sought out Riddle
in the plant and asked where he had found the card. Riddle's testimony, in the
main either substantiated or not controverted by Davidson's, is that Davidson
told Riddle :
... Charley, I have always liked you, and I have done all I can for
you . . . you know I have done you some favors and now I want you to do
me a favor. . . . Nobody will know anything about it except me and you,
it will be just between me and you, I'll promise you that. . . . If you see
or hear anything about the Union I want you to let me know what it is.
Riddle replied, "I'll keep my eyes open." On several later occasions Davidson
approached Riddle and asked whether he "had heard anything." Riddle said
that he had not.'
Sometime later, the date is not disclosed, Foreman English found a copy of
a union paper in the mill which he showed to Riddle. The latter told English
that someone had been seen reading it in the plant. Later in the same day
Assistant Superintendent Davidson came to Riddle and asked who it was that he
had seen reading the paper. Riddle replied that there must have been some
mistake or misunderstanding and broke off the conversation.
When the finding of the union literature in the plant was reported to Com-
pany President Sontaag, he called a meeting of the supervisors and instructed
them not to discriminate either in favor of or against employees on the basis
of union activities. President Sontaag's uncontradicted and credited testimony
as to what he told the supervisors is as follows :
At this meeting I impressed the supervisors with the fact that they were
not to treat anyone whom they might suspect, or knew definitely were
implicated in any type of Union activity any differently from any other
employee, and that for a very specific reason. Some supervisors on pre-
vious jobs in their working around mills throughout the country sensitive
about the fact that they may have discharged employees who were active
in the Union, whether it was known to them or not was beside the point, and
unfair labor practices were charged against the Company, and they may have
felt responsible. Therefore, they on other jobs may have given anyone
who was implicated in Union activity a certain amount of immunity on
their jobs, and told to lay off. At this meeting my supervisors were spe-
cifically instructed to treat every employee alike, whether a man was active
in the Union or not had no bearing as to whether he was to remain in the
employ of our Company, discharge was to [be] solely upon the basis of his
work or lack of work.
The General Counsel's evidence establishes, however, that President Sontaag's
views as to the treatment to be accorded union adherents were either not shared
I Davidson's first testimony was that he told Riddle "if you hear anything about it let me
know." He later testified that he said "if you see any more literature or anything why
bring it to me" ; and still later that "if he [Riddle] did see any more of those little cards
laying around to give them to me for I would like to see what it was." Davidson's first
response, the most similar to Riddle's version, seems the most likely.
CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION 545
by all the supervisors, or were misunderstood. Nor was the policy announced
to the employees. This evidence consists in part of testimony, some denied,
some undenied, by various employees, some of them dischargees here, others still
employed by the Respondent, as to various acts and statements of supervisors
in the nature of interrogation, threats, or surveillance. These are related here-
after. In addition there is direct evidence by former Foreman Fred English,
some undenied, and discussed hereinafter, which if true definitely establishes
a deliberate policy among certain of the supervisors, particularly Superintendent
Hurst and Assistant Superintendent Davidson, to stamp out the Union and to
discharge its adherents.
There is testimony by other witnesses as to acts of Hurst and Davidson which
may be of assistance in determining the probative value of English's testimony.
Those will therefore be discussed first.
The formal union campaign to secure authorization cards from employees was
begun under Thomas Baldwin's leadership on February 5, 1951. On the follow-
ing day, February 6, Baldwin was discharged. On February 7, Baldwin began
to pass out union literature and buttons at the plant entrance. Employee Nuby
Welch's undenied and credited testimony is that on the latter day Assistant
Superintendent Davidson asked Welch why he did not "take one of them little
red badges [union buttons] they were passing out outside the mill at changing
time." Welch responded that he had taken some union literature and a badge
"for curiosity." Davidson went on to say that the Union might be "all right
in some places" but that he did not think that it would "help us out any at this
plant" ; and that you "just had to pay fifty cents a week for somebody else to
tell your troubles to the boss man when you could just as easy tell it yourself
and not pay anything."
Sometime later in the day Davidson called Welch into the supply room and
read to him a letter from a commercial concern attempting to locate Baldwin
for payment of a bill, and told Welch that "this was the kind of man that the
Union got to do their work for them."
On February 9, Baldwin again passed out union literature from a position
on a walk, apparently company property, leading from the company parking
lot to the mill proper. Foreman Paul Winn told Baldwin that he would have
to pass out his literature at some place other than company property. Baldwin
then took a position outside the entrance, apparently on the public highway.
As Baldwin was standing there Superintendent Hurst approached employee
Marvin Williams in the plant and, according to Williams, said ". . . Baldwin
is out there in front of the mill giving out papers," and said "get in your car like
you are going home and go on out by where he is at and get me one of those
papers, and drive on up toward town and turn around and come back and bring
the paper out to the shop...." Williams started to get his car but encountered
some delay, and by the time he reached the parking lot Hurst had come out, got
into his own automobile, driven to where Baldwin was standing, and had got
one of the leaflets himself. He then said to Baldwin :
You think you are pretty smart ; don't you? ... We know all about you ...
and we will find out about anyone else in the plant.
Hurst further told Baldwin that he was on company property and ordered him
off. Baldwin argued that he was on the public highway. Hurst also ordered
Baldwin,to move his (Baldwin's) car, which was presumably on the parking lot;
and Baldwin complied. Hurst then told Baldwin that he (Baldwin) "would not
get anywhere here," and added "we are not amateurs in this business, we have
been at it a long time." Baldwin warned Hurst that he had "better leave any of
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the boys alone in there, you will get into a lot of trouble" and the conversation
terminated.
Hurst then backed his car into the parking lot, to where Williams and em-
ployees Wiley Powers and Bill Britt had been watching the incident. Williams
asked Hurst what the leaflet was Hurst replied : ". . . boys don't mess with it;
it is no good . . . if you get tangled up with the Union you will just have to go
somewhere out of this community to work : none of the mills around here will
hire you, Robbins and none of the rest of them, and I would hate to see you boys
get messed up in it." Hurst also said that "the reason the mill was in the south"
was to "get away from such stuff as the Union." Finally, Hurst said ". . . if
you boys can find out anything about the Union I would appreciate it if you let
me know, if they have any meetings or anything let me know... ."
Sometime in February employee Charles Riddle passed a paper around the
weave room soliciting donations for an employee who was ill. A few days later
Howard Welch, head grader or foreman of the cloth room, under whom Riddle
worked, called Riddle aside and asked Riddle what the paper was . Welch told
Riddle that the reason for the inquiry was that "somebody had told Mr. Hurst
that you were passing a paper around through the Weave Room taking up, or
getting up the Union, signing people up for the Union."
About the middle of February 1951, Assistant Superintendent Davidson ap-
proached employee James Crabtree in the plant and told Crabtree, according to
the latter's credited testimony, that he had heard that Crabtree was a "union
man," and expressed surprise and asked in substance whether the report was true.
Crabtree responded that that was his own business and walked away.'
In middle or late February, Ferdinand Sylvia, a union representative, was
assigned by the Union to handle the organizational work at the plant. On Feb-
ruary 28, a union meeting was held at Crabtree's home. On March 6, Sylvia met
Crabtree and employee Melton Marley in the Respondent's parking lot adjacent
to the plant, where they were observed by Superintendent Hurst. On the fol-
lowing day Hurst saw Sylvia parked on the highway near the plant and warned
him to keep his organizational activity off company property. On the same day
Crabtree and Marley were discharged.
The Hickman Incident
Crabtree's discharge evoked comment to employees by Foreman Albert Morgan
and Calhoun Hickman, also claimed to be a supervisor. The Hickman occur-
rence was placed on the day of Crabtree's discharge ; the Morgan incident 3 or 4
days later.
The first question to be decided with reference to the Hickman incident is
whether Hickman is a supervisor. The General Counsel contends that he is ; the
Respondent that he is not. Ex-employees Black and Barber described Hickman
as being a second hand or overseer. His title, however, is that of fixer in the
preparation or copping department, first shift ; a nonsupervisory title. He is
hourly paid, punches a clock, and, according to the Respondent's uncontradicted
and credited testimony, has no power to discharge-an authority possessed by
second hands and overseers-or to hire. On the second shift there is a similarly
titled employee named Moore. As of the time of hearing there were five machines
$ Davidson did not specifically deny asking Crabtree whether he was a union man. He
did testify, however, to a conversation in which he told Crabtree that someone had informed
him that Crabtree had said that the plant needed a union ; that Crabtree asked who had
said it; Davidson responding that he'd rather not say ; Crabtree rejoined, "You can hear
anything"; Davidson then asked whether Crabtree really thought that; Crabtree respond-
ing that that was his business.
CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION 547,
and nine employees in the copping department. According to Hickman's testi-
mony, Superintendent Davidson is the only supervisor over the department.
Hickman maintains the machines in the department. As I understand the testi-
mony, however, he also appears to have some supervisory authority over it.
Thus, orders from Davidson seem to be transmitted to employees through Hick-
man. It is also Hickman's responsibility to see that incoming and outgoing ship-
ments are loaded or unloaded. In discharging that responsibility he appears to
have discretionary authority to select gangs to do the work. He also, according
to the credited testimony of employee Edith Crabtree, keeps the time of employees
in the department, a task he delegated to Crabtree, gives employees their pay
checks, assigns them to work in the department, and questions them about their
absences.
In addition, according to their own testimony, both Hickman and Moore speak
to employees respecting the calibre of their work in the department or make
reports thereon to Superintendent Davidson or Overseer Bridgman, or both.
Thus, according to Moore, he watched employee Jennings Smith at the direction
of Bridgman, made reports concerning Smith's performance ; spoke to Smith
about his performance, and, finally at Bridgman's order notified Smith that be
was discharged. Similarly, according to Hickman's testimony, Superintendent
Davidson asked Hickman several times as to Smith's work and Hickman made
adverse reports.
However the position may be allocated in the Respondent's organizational
tables, the above facts seem to me to establish responsible authority in Hickman
and Moore to direct employees with independent judgment, to evaluate and
report the calibre of their work performance, and thus to make effective recom-
mendations concerning the tenure or status of employees. These functions are
supervisory.
The incident concerning Hickman, as testified to by General Counsel's wit-
nesses Black, Barber, and Patterson, and denied by Hickman, is as follows On
March 7, 1951, as the three employees were unloading a truck, Hickman came
from the inner plant and said that Crabtree had just been discharged because of
the Union. Hickman went on to say that Superintendent Hurst had said that he
would discharge all employees who belonged to the Union, two at a time, until
he had "got rid of all of them." Sometime later, after the truck had been un-
loaded, Hickman said in Barber 's presence that be believed that Barber belonged
to the Union, and that if he did, he "might as well get [his] damn lard bucket
and go home." With minor discrepancies-more corroborative of the occurrence
of the incident than of its fabrication-the testimony of Black, Patterson. and
Barber is consistent as to the substance of Hickman 's remarks . That something
was said I have no doubt. From observation of Black , Patterson, and Barber I
am satisfied that they did not concoct the occurrence out of thin air. But Hick-
man unequivocally denied that he had ever made any statement to anyone at the
mill respecting the Union ; denied the incident In question ; and asserted that
the only time he ever spoke to Barber "about anything was about his feet hurting
him all the time, when you would ask him to do anything." I credit the testi-
mony of Black , Patterson, and Barber.
The Morgan incident , as testified to by employee Marvin Williams, is as
follows. Three or four days after Crabtree's discharge, Foreman Albert Morgan
came to Williams and said that he had a "bad report" on Williams ; that it
"had beep tqld out in the office" that Williams had attended the union meeting
at Crabtree's house. Williams denied it, whereupon Morgan told him that "if
they find out you are messing with it out in the office they will fire you. . . .
242305-53-- 36
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
They have already fired Crabtree and some of the other boys, and they will
fire you too if they find it out."
Morgan denied having had any such conversation with Williams, testifying
that he "didn't even know they had a Union." The latter assertion is implausible.
After the distribution of union literature began at the plant gates early in
February, the union activity could scarcely have been overlooked by anyone in the
plant. The activity and its probable adherents were discussed among the super-
visors and their information exchanged! Williams' testimony reveals him as a
union adherent "scared," as he put it, to talk about the Union, for he "knew"
he "would get fired" if he did, afraid to admit his union affiliation freely or to
express his real views on the Union to his fellow employees, some of whom he
suspected of being "stooges." Despite these fears, Williams is still employed,
has been promoted, and considers himself as having been treated well by the
Company and Davidson ; that he attributed on cross-examination to the fact
that he had carefully concealed his union views. It is apparent from his testi-
mony that, whether justifiably or not, Williams was a man genuinely fearful
of the Respondent's reaction to any union interest or assistance by him. In
such a complex of anxieties, and from my appraisal, I think it improbable that
he would invent the incident about which he testified. I therefore credit his
testimony as to the statements of Foreman Morgan.
About mid-March 1951, Ray Barber and Arthur Taylor were hired by the
Respondent. At the time of hiring, according to Barber's undenied and credited
testimony, Superintendent Hurst, in the presence of Assistant Superintendent
Davidson, told Barber and Taylor that "they were having a labor dispute and
he thought their prices were as high as at other mills, and he didn't want us to
get to messing with it and get our fingers burnt."
Surveillance of Union Meetings
A union meeting was held at James Crabtree's home on February 28, 1951.
During that meeting an unidentified automobile circled Crabtree's house, and
at the conclusion of the meeting a similarly unidentified car "shot out" of the
driveway and disappeared into the dark. There is no evidence, however, con-
necting the occupant of the vehicle or his mission with the Respondent. Super-
intendent Davidson denied engaging in surveillance of the February 28 meeting
and his uncontradicted testimony in this regard is accepted.
There is testimony, however, specifically accusing Davidson of surveilling
other union meetings. During June, July, and August, 1941, some five meetings
were held at the home of employee Joh.i Barber. Barber's testimony is that
during each of those meetings Davidson drove by his house several times. David-
son does not live in or near that neighborhood. In particular, Barber, James
Crabtree, and George Faulkner testified that on the occasion of a meeting on
the evening of August 31 at Barber's home, Davidson, accompanied by an un-
identified person, drove back and forth several times before Barber's house while
Barber, Faulkner, Crabtree, and several others were sitting on the porch. After
Davidson had gone by several times one of the group on the porch took after him
in an automobile. Davidson returned one more time, this time apparently alone.
3 Thus Superintendent Davidson testified, in part, that "... naturally [ the supervisors]
would hear of someone belonging to the Union and they'd tell me and I'd hear of someone
belonging to the Union and I'd tell them." And again : "... on different occasions people
would come and tell me that so and so belonged to the union. .. .
CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION 549
Crabtree and Barber then went in their car to the bend of the road to see if
Davidson had let out his companion there. They did not see him again, how-
ever. Apart from some confusion as to whether Davidson's last pass before the
house was before or after Crabtree and Barber took out after him, the testimony
of Crabtree, Barber, and Faulkner, and their identification of Davidson, was
positive and consistent. Barber's undenied testimony is that on the following
Tuesday he asked Davidson why he had been driving up and down in front of
his house during union meetings, Davidson replying that he had been on his way
to Southern Pines and had got lost. From Davidson's house or the mill, however,
the route to Southern Pines is in a different direction.
Superintendent Davidson denied engaging in surveillance of meetings at
Barber's house. Upon consideration of the testimony and the other evidence and
from my judgment on the demeanor of the witnesses, however, I conclude that
the testimony of Barber, Crabtree, and Faulkner as to this issue should be, and
it is, credited. In the absence of any reasonable explanation for Davidson's
repeated passing of Barber's house during union meetings, the only plausible
conclusion is that the purpose was surveillance. International Furniture Co.,
98 NLRB 674.
The English-Davidson Stories
Fred English , a foreman for the Respondent at the time many of the above
events were taking place, called as a witness by the General Counsel, testified
to a planned policy of Superintendent Hurst and Assistant Superintendent
Davidson to break up the Union and to discharge its supporters.
English 's testimony, denied only in part, can be summed up about as follows :
Following the discovery of union literature in the plant, the activities of the
Union were discussed at meetings of supervisors, Superintendent Hurst bring-
ing it up, and saying that the Union would have to be stopped and broken up.
Thus, English testified in part as follows:
Q. Do you know how it was that the Union was first discussed in these
meetings, how it came about?
A. Well, I think Mr. Hurst was the first one that said anything about
any Union. He said the Union was trying to get a hold in the mills, or
something like that, and that they would have to get it broke up, that they
would have to get it stopped.
At another time, English testified, Hurst
. . . told me . . . that we'd have to keep on our toes and watch that Union,
that he didn't want it to get a toehold here, said he had seen the Union
start in plants before and ruin the plant.
English testified further that both Hurst and Davidson separately instructed
him to discharge employees if they became involved in union activities ; Hurst
saying that "if a man was union and you knew it," "get a chance to let him go
and let him go"; and Davidson saying to discharge a man "tangled with union
activities, the first chance [English] got." Hurst or Davidson at one time or
another specifically indicated to English five employees implicated in union
activities, and thus eligible for termination (Patterson, Moss, Faulkner, Shef-
field, and Marley).
The expressions attributed by English to Hurst are not denied. Hurst left
the Company's employ about September 15, 1951, but there is no claim that he
was unavailable to testify in person or by deposition.
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Superintendent Davidson denied that he told Foreman English to discharge
any employee because lie belonged to the Union. Davidson's testimony, and
that of all the supervisors who testified with respect to the alleged discrimina-
tory discharges, was that they were unaware of the union membership or ac-
tivity of any of the dischargees. In view of the facts which have been recited
heretofore, this assertion is scarcely credible. Davidson further testified that
his instructions to English and other supervisors, issued around January 1951
when the union literature was first found in the plant, were to the effect that
if employees did not perform their work properly the supervisors should not
refrain from discharging them merely because they might be in the Union.
English is no longer employed by the Respondent, having quit prior to the
hearing because Hurst and Davidson refused him time off to go to Wilmington,
North Carolina, to consult a doctor and to attend to some personal business.
He told them to "take [the] job and go to hell." The incident left English
resentful toward Hurst and Davidson, as he frankly admitted. This resent-
ment must be considered in evaluating English's testimony. On the other hand,
the bias does not warrant an automatic rejection of his testimony. Even a
biased witness-and particularly one who frankly admits his bias-may be
truthful. And Davidson's testimony is that of an interested participant also-
with possible compulsions both personal (individual vindication) and economic
(effect upon his job if his actions cause the Respondent disadvantage). Eng-
lish's interest, on the other hand, would seem, at least on the surface, to be only
personal. There is no apparent economic advantage to him in the fabrication
of his story. But Davidson's interest, either, is no guarantee that his testi-
mony would be untruthful or distorted Capacity for accurate perception, pre-
cise recollection, and truthful narration is dependent in large measure on in-
dividual qualities of intellect or character whose existence or absence is not
always readily discernible. One mind may stoutly resist the corruption of fact
even by multiple important interests impelling it in that direction, while another
may be overborne by a single irrelevant bias. The judgment of the conscien-
tious finder of fact must in the final analysis represent the sum of all rational
elements in the equation, of which biases are only one. But unlike mathematics,
the elements of the table carry no proclaimed value from which the sum can be
automatically calculated.
The possibility exists, of course, that Foreman English may have honestly
misunderstood Superintendent Hurst's and Assistant Superintendent David-
son's directions, and that what he understood as an instruction to discharge
union adherents was no more than a reiteration of President Sontaag's state-
ment that incompetent workmen should be discharged even if they belonged
to the Union. Some portions of English's testimony are susceptible of that sug-
gestion. His over-all testimony, however, refutes such a conclusion, and makes
clear, as I interpret it, that the instruction was that English should find some
pretext for discharging union adherents'
4 Thus the following excerpts from English's testimony :
Q. Mr. English , how did you know that Patterson was going to be fired?
A . I had been told to let him go.
Q. You had been told to let him go?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By whom?
LA. Mr. Davidson.
Q. Did he explain why?
A. He said he was tangled in this union activity.
Q. Did he say how he should be let go?
A. No, he didn 't say how.
Q. Did he give you a reason other than that for letting him go?
A. No reason.
CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION 551
That Foreman English genuinely so understood Davidson's and Hurst's state-
ments seems established by the following incidents. George Faulkner was dis-
charged on March 10, 1951. Sometime before that, apparently in late Febru-
ary, Davidson told English, according to English, to discharge Faulkner if he
could find "anything to let him go for," for the reason that Faulkner was "tan-
gled in this Union mess." English thereupon told employee Charles Riddle, his
stepson, to warn Faulkner. Riddle did so, telling Faulkner in substance that
the Company was looking for an excuse to discharge him'
In addition, as is more fully discussed hereinafter, around May, employees
Barber and Black told Foreman Rowland and Assistant Superintendent David-
son that Foreman English had told them that they were to be discharged because
of the Union. Similarly, on February 5 or 6, English warned Thomas Baldwin
that there were "standing orders" to discharge anyone implicated in the union
activity.
Davidson testified that he did not remember ever telling English to discharge
any employee if the opportunity presented itself. There is therefore no apparent
possibility that English innocently garbled or distorted a nondiscriminatory
order by Davidson regarding the discharge of Faulkner. And there is no
evidence or suggested reason why English should have contrived to warn Faulk-
ner and the others of danger of discharge because of their union activities,
without the ground English asserted for it. The incidents also negate the con-
clusion that English fabricated his testimony following his dispute with David-
son and Hurst out of resentment against them. The only reasonable possibility
is that the messages to Faulkner, Baldwin, Barber, and Black were based upon
Davidson's or Hurst's statements to English.
That Hurst and Davidson were hostile to the Union and sought to ascertain
who its adherents were is evident from the findings that have been made here-
tofore. Such information, as has been seen , was exchanged between the super-
visors. Upon the basis of all the foregoing findings, and from my observation of
the witnesses , I conclude that English 's testimony is entitled to substantial
credit ; and it is found that Hurst and Davidson instructed English to discharge
Footnote 4-Continued
i t R • f n 4
(Davidson ] i just said he was tangled up In union activity and if I could get anything
to let him go for to let him go.
• s s * s s s
Q. I say your understanding was that you were not to let Patterson go as long as
Patterson's work was satisfactory to you?,
A. That wasn't my understanding at that time. He [Davidson ] said to let him go,
because he was tangled with union activities, the first chance I got.
s • r s t s •
Q. Well, [Hurst] didn 't say to fire [any employee ] just because he was Union then,
did he?
A. Yes, he did.
s • ► s s a a
Q. Didn't you say that Mr. Hurst told you to fire people if you had cause to fife
them?
A. If I could find something to fire them for, if they were tangled In this union
activity.
The findings as to the warning to Faulkner are based upon the testimony of English,
Faulkner, and Riddle . There is disagreement , not of critical importance , in the testimony
of Faulkner and Riddle as to the time of this conversation and as to whether it took place
at the door of the plant or inside It.
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union adherents upon pretexts. Even if the discharges were to be conditioned
upon the ascertainment of ground for discharge such instructions were never-
theless unfair labor practices. To single out union adherents as individuals
or as a class and to direct that they be observed until plausible ground for their
discharge can be discovered, is itself discrimination because of union membership
and interference with union activity.
It is found that of the conduct described heretofore, the following constituted
interference with, and restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act: Assistant Superintendent Davidson's
request of employee Charles Riddle to report to Davidson what he saw or heard
about the Union ; Davidson's questioning Riddle as to whom he had seen reading
the union newspaper in the plant ; Davidson's query of employee Nuby Welch as
to why he did not take a union button from Baldwin : Superintendent Hurst's
statement to Baldwin on February 9 to the effect that the Respondent would
"find out about anyone else in the plant." a Hurst's statements on the same day
to employee Williams in the presence of employees Powers and Britt warning
them not to "mess with" the Union under threat of expulsion from the community
and blacklist ; Hurst's request of the same employees to let him know what they
could find out about the Union ; Davidson's questioning of Crabtree as to whether
he was a "union man" ; Supervisor Hickman's statement to employees Black,
Barber, and Patterson on March 7, 1951, to the effect that Crabtree had just been
discharged because of the Union and that Superintendent Hurst had said that
union employees would all be discharged; Hickman's statement to Barber later
the same day to the effect that if Barber belonged to the Union he might as well
"get [his] damn lard bucket and go home" ; Foreman Morgan's warning to
employee Marvin Williams to the effect that he, like Crabtree, would be dis-
charged for "messing with" the Union ; Superintendent Hurst's statement to
applicants for employment Barber and Taylor to the effect that he didn't want
them "messing with" the "labor dispute" and getting their "fingers burnt" ;
Assistant Superintendent Davidson's surveillance of union meetings at employee
Barber's home; and the prohibition by Superintendent Hurst of union solicita-
tion and distribution of union literature on the Respondent's parking lot.
Caldwell Furniture Co., 97 NLRB 1501. In the context of the above acts the
statement of Superintendent Hurst at supervisors' meetings to the effect that
the Union would have to be broken up, and the instructions of Hurst and David-
son to English to discharge union adherents at the first opportunity, constituted
inextricable elements of a program for suppression of the union activity and
thus also interference, restraint, and coercion.
Other incidents recited heretofore on which no finding of interference, re-
straint, or coercion is made are found to constitute protected expression of view,
argument, or opinion, or otherwise not constituting unfair labor practices under
the circumstances involved.
Additional incidents, not related above, elicited in testimony of witnesses for
the General Counsel and assertedly establishing coercive remarks or other re-
straining conduct by representatives of the Respondent, have not been discussed
herein, either because I do not credit the affirmative testimony, or because I
have credited the negative testimony ; or because I believe that the testimony,
even if accepted, does not preponderantly establish a violation of the Act.
6In its context a threat of surveillance of union activity which It could be anticipated
would be relayed by Baldwin to employees.
CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION 553
C. The discharges
1. Thomas Baldwin
Baldwin, a smash hand, was hired in August 1950 at about the time production
operations began. He had some 15 years' experience in the industry.
Baldwin assumed the leadership of the union activity. On February 5, 1951,
the formal campaign to secure authorization cards from employees was begun-
Baldwin distributed cards to others active in the early planning, such as Crab-
tree and Faulkner, and himself solicited employees in the washroom. On Feb-
ruary 5 he signed up nine persons. That afternoon in the parking lot Crab-
tree and Faulkner signed union designation cards which Baldwin witnessed.
On that day or the next Foreman English told Baldwin that he had "better watch
his step," that he thought that the "Company was wise," and that "they" had
"standing orders to fire anyone interested in Union activities if they knew it."
According to Baldwin, Assistant Superintendent Davidson and Second Hand
Broomfield watched him constantly on February 6. Davidson following Baldwin
each time Baldwin went into the washroom. That afternoon Baldwin was dis-
charged, for the purported reason that he disobeyed Assistant Superintendent
Davidson's instructions to brush up some warps.
There is dispute between Baldwin and Davidson as to whether Davidson in-
structed Baldwin to brush up any specific warps. Davidson's testimony is that
he told Baldwin to brush up the warps on 2 particular looms out of the 240 that
Baldwin handled, and that when he ascertained near the end of the shift that
Baldwin had not done it, he discharged him. Baldwin's testimony, on the other
hand, is that as he and another employee sat in the smoking area talking, David-
son came up and told Baldwin to brush up the warps, without indicating any
particular ones. Baldwin's testimony is that he brushed up warps the rest of
the day, passing up some on which the operation was not practicable. The evi-
dence indicates that warp brushing, in some instances, involves a judgment as
to whether possible damage to material or loss of production outweigh the re-
sults to be achieved by the brushing.
Davidson and Baldwin are in agreement that shortly before quitting time
Davidson told Baldwin to report to the office, and when Baldwin did so David-
son told him, in Davidson's words, that he was "going to let him go, that I
couldn't use him any more" ; and when Baldwin asked why, Davidson said be-
cause Baldwin "did not brush the warps up." Baldwin said, according to David-
son, that he had been "brushing warps all day" but did not "brush the two that
[Davidson] told him to." Under further questioning by Baldwin, Davidson told
Baldwin that his "work was unsatisfactory as long as he didn't do what he was
instructed to." Baldwin asked for another chance and Davidson refused.
Baldwin's version is substantially the same except for the conflict as to whether
any specific warps were mentioned. In addition, Davidson told Baldwin that
he had been getting "too many letters regarding Baldwin."' Baldwin's testi-
mony is that when Davidson referred to the letter, "I lost my head" ; and he
physically assaulted Davidson, striking him in the face with his fists. Nearby
employees pulled him away. Davidson asked someone to call the police, but be-
fore they arrived Baldwin left. On the following day Baldwin returned to the
7 Some weeks before, the Company bad received a letter from a commercial concern to
whom Baldwin owed an obligation. Superintendent Hurst had discussed the letter with
Baldwin, later informing Baldwin that he had written the concern expressing confidence-
that Baldwin would discharge his obligation
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant, saw President Sontaag, and according to Sontaag, said he was sorry for
the altercation, offered his apologies, and said that he would "do anything re-
quested of him" to get his job back. Sontaag said that he could not return
"under any circumstances" in view of the assault .8
On the day after his discharge Baldwin began to distribute union literature and
buttons at the plant entrance. Several days later, Assistant Superintendent Da-
vidson told employee Connie Wallace that Baldwin had a "mess going around"
and "If I was you I wouldn't fool with him."
Baldwin's testimony is undenied that prior to his discharge his work had
never been criticized, and that in fact he had been complimented many times.
The uncontradicted testimony of his fellow workers was that he was a "good"
smash hand ; that of Davidson that he was "fair." The only criticism of Bald-
win's work that Davidson voiced in his testimony was that he "never saw Bald-
win brush up any warps except new ones." This is scarcely an assertion that
Baldwin did not brush us warps, a job he was supposed to do when there was
no smashing to be done. Nor is it asserted that any supervisor ever criticized
Baldwin's work prior to his discharge, or any indication that any supervisor
thought it inadequate; a result consistent only with the conclusion that at least
up to the date of his discharge his services were altogether satisfactory.
The Respondent's assertion is that Baldwin was discharged because he did
not follow out Davidson's order to brush up the two warps Davidson had in-
structed him to. In addition the Respondent's testimony is that the supervisors
did not know of Baldwin's union activity until after his discharge. The same
defense of ignorance of union adherence is made as to all the asserted discrimina-
tory dischargees, some of them as late as September 1951. In view of the facts
which have been recited above, I find such a claim contradicted by the evidence.
In Baldwin's case the conclusion that the Respondent was aware of Baldwin's
union activity is compelled from a scrutiny of the facts surrounding his dis-
charge. Hurst and Davidson sought information about the Union ; Hurst
was determined to break up the activity ; the supervisors exchanged informa-
tion as to who they thought were union adherents. The supposition that this
intelligence was of interest only out of motives of curiosity is scarcely per-
suasive. But there is no need to depend upon inferences for clues to the super-
visors' attitudes : English 's testimony makes clear that there was a definite policy
to root out union adherents. And that testimony does not stand by itself. It
is corroborated by the other occurrences taking place about the same time, as
described previously in the testimony of other witnesses.
Against this background the leading union organizer is discharged within 1
day after the Union began its formal campaign to secure members. In the
meantime he had been subjected to observation, and had solicited and signed
up members in the plant. No contention is made-nor could be, in view of the
nature of the defense-that he engaged in union activity on company time.
The ground asserted for the discharge is that, out of the 240 warps under care,
he did not brush up 2 that he had been instructed to. His work had previously
been satisfactory. He was experienced and competent help. The Respondent's
testimony does not disclose that when he was discharged he was asked for any
explanation as to why he had not done what he assertedly had been instructed to
do; he was not given a warning ; and when he asked Davidson for another chance,
8 Baldwin testified, and Sontaag denied, that Sontaag further said that Baldwin would
be "blackballed" "anywhere in this area" because of the incident . Even if it be assumed
that Sontaag made the statement, I do not find it indicative of discrimination, since
Sontaag was referring to the consequences of the assault
CARTHAGE 'ABRICS CORPORATION 555
he was told that Davidson would not give him one. Even on Davidson's version
it does not seem plausible that Baldwin would have been so summarily dis-
charged for the offense he assertedly committed. I conclude that Baldwin
was discharged because of his union activities and that the reason asserted by the
Respondent was merely a pretext therefor.
In view of Baldwin's assault upon Davidson, however, I shall not recommend
his reinstatement or the payment of any back pay to him. The unfair nature
of his discharge no doubt infuriated him, but it did not justify retaliation by
physical violence. This is not the situation where the expressions or actions
of a supervisor are so objectively offensive as to goad an employee of ordinary
restraint beyond the limits of reasonably expectable endurance; nor was it an
act of self-defense. If it were either of those a different result would follow.
Nor was it merely a case of verbal explosion. I think the purposes of the Act
are best effectuated here by withholding reinstatement and back pay from
Baldwin.
2. James Crabtree
Following Baldwin's discharge, James Crabtree, a loom fixer, took over the
leadership among the employees of the union campaign. He was also one of
the initiators of the campaign.
Crabtree and George Faulkner filled out union cards in the parking lot during
a shift change on February 5, 1951, the day the formal campaign began. Crab-
tree passed out union literature and cards among employees, and himself signed
up a number in the Union. Around February 10, Crabtree, Faulkner, and
Patterson attended a union banquet at Rockingham, and later with Barber, a
union rally at Greensboro. On February 8, as Baldwin was passing out union
literature in front of the plant, Crabtree and Faulkner stopped and had a
conversation with him.
It will be recalled that about mid-February Assistant Superintendent Davidson
asked Crabtree whether the report he had to the effect that Crabtree was a union
man was true; Crabtree responded that that was his "own business."
On February 28 a union meeting was held at Crabtree's house. Sometime
later, Foreman Morgan told employee Malvin Williams that he had a "bad
report" on Williams to the effect that Williams had attended the union meeting
at Crabtree's home. On March 6 Crabtree and employee Melton Marley had
a conversation with Union Representative Sylvia in the plant parking lot, where
they were observed by Superintendent Hurst.
Crabtree was hired in June 1950 around the time production operations began.
He was a loom fixer of many years' experience in the industry. As a fixer he
was always a "top pay" employee. For a time Crabtree worked under Foreman
English who found his work satisfactory. During the last 2 weeks of his em-
ployment Crabtree received bonuses for outstanding production. He was the
only fixer on the shift on that side of the mill ever to achieve a 96 percent
production rate. All his fellow employees who testified as to the quality of
his work praised it. Davidson's testimony was that Crabtree "did good work
for a long while" and that he had "ability" as a loom fixer.
Crabtree was discharged on March 7, 1951, by Foreman Morris Broomfield,
who refused to give Crabtree any reason for his termination. Crabtree then
called over several employees to witness the fact that Broomfield declined to
state any grounds. Crabtree then saw Superintendent Hurst and Assistant
Superintendent Davidson and inquired of them the reason for his discharge.
Hurst replied that he did not know. Davidson gave no response at all. Some-
time later Crabtree received a statement from the Respondent for unemploy-
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment compensation purposes to the effect that he had been "uncooperative" and
his "work unsatisfactory."
On the day of Crabtree's discharge, it will be recalled, Supervisor Hickman
told employees Black, Barber, and Patterson that Crabtree had been discharged
because of the Union. Several days thereafter Foreman Morgan made a similar
statement to employee Williams in warning Williams that the same fate would
befall Williams for "messing with" the Union.
Broomfield testified that the reason for his decision to discharge Crabtree,
in which Davidson concurred, was that Crabtree was disagreeable and "hot
headed," and that he did not stay on the job as much as he should have, and
neglected his work.
The testimony of the Respondent's witnesses, in sum, is that Crabtree did
not care for his looms properly, resulting in excessive " flagging" ( placing of
a signal flag on a loom by a weaver or supervisor to call a fixer's attention to it)
of looms shortly after Crabtree went off duty ; failure to attend to defective
loom conditions which were specifically called to his attention; displaying irrita-
tion and displeasure when matters were called to his attention ; spending sub-
stantial time "griping," smoking, talking, and neglecting his job ; and asking
supervisors on other shifts whether they had complained about his work.
Each fixer has a group of looms which he is responsible for keeping in running
order. As the shifts change the incoming supervisors check the conditions of
the loom and the cloth and if they find a condition which should have been
remedied on the prior shift leave notes or memoranda about it. Such notes or
memoranda were at times left regarding Crabtree's looms, as they apparently
were with respect to other fixers, weavers, or other employees.
To the claim that Crabtree did not take proper care of his looms, I can give
no credence. It is contrary to that of weavers and other employees who worked
on them. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Crabtree and his weavers would
have got production bonuses if he did not service the machines properly. The
supposition (suggested as a possible explanation) that Crabtree was so skilled
a fixer that he patched machines in order to get by the shift and left the needed
basic repairs for subsequent shifts, is contrary to the testimony of fellow em-
ployees who worked on those same machines. And if, as is asserted , Crabtree
neglected his job, it admittedly would have affected production on his looms.
Nor is his high production explained away by the fact that quality was not then
a prime factor in the payment of a bonus. There is no evidence or suggestion that
the quality of the cloth produced on Crabtree's looms was lower than others.
Moreover, quality of cloth was not, as some of the Respondent's testimony seems
to suggest, a matter of no importance. Defective fabric was regularly called to
the attention of the weaver and, as will be seen, employee C. Harding Cockman,
a weaver, was discharged some 2 weeks after Crabtree because of an incident
arising over improperly woven cloth. I can therefore give no weight to the
contention that Crabtree did not take proper care of his machines . That there
were criticisms of it, I do not doubt. But I find no basis for concluding that they
were any more substantial in Crabtree's case than in the case of the normal
employee!
It seems likely, also, that Crabtree was not always a paragon of diplomacy
when some of these matters were called to his attention. He impressed me as a
person of independent attitudes who might not always take kindly to fancied
criticism, particularly if he thought he was right. On one occasion, on February
8 See the testimony of Assistant Superintendent Davidson on cross-examination, for
example : "Well , it's possible that we have other notes just as bad down there on other
employees "
CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION 557
3, 1951 , when Broomfield spoke to him about repairing a loom , Crabtree admittedly
threatened to quit because he thought he was being "rushed" Broomfield talked
him out of it, telling Crabtree in effect that he was doing the best job of any of the
fixers, and that he did not wish to lose him. Similarly in mid-February Davidson
also complimented him on his work . It is also true that on at least one occasion-
more according to the Respondent-Crabtree sought to ascertain what supervisors
on other shifts had left notes respecting work assertedly done by Crabtree.
In view, however , of the generally good quality of his work performance, as
manifested by his production bonus , the testimony of his fellow employees, his
admitted capabilities, and the fact that up to shortly before his discharge, his
performance was admittedly good, and the complimentary statements of his
supervisors, I am persuaded that Crabtree's asserted temperamental qualities
were not the substantial cause of his discharge.
As Foreman English 's testimony establishes , union adherents had been singled
out for discharge. As the leading union adherent following Baldwin's discharge,
Crabtree was the next natural candidate. That he was discharged for such
cause is directly indicated by the statements of Supervisors Hickman and Morgan.
Thus there is direct evidence as to the establishment of the discriminatory policy,
the absence of substantial nondiscriminatory motivation for the discharge, and
-assertion thereafter that the discharge was in fact pursuant to the discriminatory
policy. It is therefore unnecessary to reply solely upon inference-compelling
though it is-to conclude that Crabtree was in fact discharged because of his
union activities . It is found that he was.
3. George Faulkner
Along with Baldwin and Crabtree, George Faulkner was one of the organizers
of the Union. He attended the union banquet at Rockingham on February 10,
1951, with Baldwin, Crabtree, and Patterson. On February 5 he signed a union
card in the plant parking lot. After the campaign to secure authorizations began
lie signed up 10 or 12 employees in the Union.
Faulkner was a tying -in machine operator. He was hired in June 1950. Some-
time after the campaign began, Assistant Superintendent Davidson handed
Faulkner a four- or five-page booklet entitled "What the Union Can do for you."
The last page bore the word "Nothing." The intervening pages were blank.
Faulkner read the booklet , handed it back , Davidson laughed , and went on. As
has been previously indicated , about late February , Davidson told Foreman
English to discharge Faulkner if he could "find anything to let him go for" for the
reason that Faulkner was "tangled in" the "Union mess." Based on that , English
told employee Charles Riddle , his stepson , to warn Faulkner that the Respondent
-was looking for an excuse to fire him. Riddle then told Faulkner that the Re-
spondent was looking for an excuse to discharge him.
Around Thanksgiving 1950, Faulkner complained to Superintendent Hurst
that he was being given all the most difficult tying-in jobs. Hurst responded that
this was because Faulkner could do a better job than the others. Around the
first part of 1951, Faulkner wished to change shifts, but Davidson would not
permit him to do saying that he liked Faulkner 's work and wanted him on the
:first shift.
Faulkner was discharged on March 10, 1951, by Superintendent Hurst. The
only reason Hurst gave was that Faulkner was being paid more than any other
tying machine operator, and that his work was "not satisfactory."
There is no testimony from the Respondent as to the reason for Faulkner's
discharge. For a period of about 2 weeks in January , Faulkner worked on the
second shift under second shift Overseer Bridgman and second shift Foreman
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rowland. The testimony of Bridgman , affirmed by a contemporary memo, was
that Rowland had told Bridgman that Faulkner had refused to put a race plate
on a machine on the ground that it was not his job to do so ; that Faulkner did
not follow instructions and "didn't seem to want to cooperate." Bridgman's
further testimony, however, was that Faulkner "straightened out" thereafter.
On the other hand, Foreman Rowland testified that the only difficulty he had with
Faulkner was the incident where Faulkner refused to put on the race plate;
that Rowland went in search of Bridgman to complain, but while he was doing
so someone installed the race plate. Whether it was Faulkner's job to put on
the plate is not altogether clear, there being testimony by Crabtree that this is
the loom fixer's responsibility. But whatever the fact, the incident seems trivial
in nature and remote in time in view of the above testimony.
Faulkner and Foreman English once had a dispute as to whether Faulkner
should take orders from English but this, according to English, was ironed out,
and he found Faulkner a satisfactory employee. The only other incident in-
dicative of any dissatisfaction with Faulkner's work is the testimony of Bridg-
man, again corroborated by a memo, to the effect that in early March he com-
plained that Faulkner, who was on the first shift, did not clean the tying machine
when leaving it for the second shift.
As has been seen, however, there is no testimony that any of these incidents
were factors in Faulkner's discharge. Faulkner had been specifically pointed
out to Foreman English as a union adherent to be discharged. In the absence
of testimonial assertion of justifiable ground for his discharge, the absence of
any substantial nondiscriminatory ground therefor, and the prominence of his
union activity, the circumstances compel the conclusion that Faulkner was dis-
charged because of the union activity ; and it is so found.
4. Melton Marley
Marley, a utility man, was one of those mentioned by Assistant Superintendent
Davidson to Foreman English, as being identified with the union activity.
On March 6, 1951, Marley was observed by Superintendent Burst talking, to
Union Representative Sylvia in the parking lot. On the following day, March 7,
Marley was discharged.
Marley's job consisted in part of hauling trash from the plant floor to the
incinerator in the rear of the building. He had been instructed by Davidson to
look for salvageable parts before burning the trash. A few days before March
7, Superintendent Hurst had called Marley's attention to some filling bobbins
and other items burning in the trash and he told him that such material should
be salvaged and not burned.
On the morning of March 7, Marley was summoned to the incinerator where
Hurst showed him a number of salvageable items burning, and then told Assist-
ant Superintendent Davidson to discharge him.
On the basis of the above facts it is found that the substantial evidence indi-
cates that Marley permitted salvageable material to be burned in the incinerator
after being warned before. It is consequently found that the evidence does not
warrant the conclusion that his discharge was for union activities."
]U The above findings of fact are made on the basis of a reconciliation of all the testimony
with reference to Marley's discharge Marley testified that the materials were in fact not
salvageable, but I credit the Respondent's contrary testimony. The Respondent also intro-
duced testimony to the effect that Marley was in general a poor performer. Some of this
testimony is attacked, in turn, upon the ground that it, palpably falsely, is bottomed upon
asserted observation by supervisors over a period of at least a week, when Marley in fact
worked under those supervisors for only 1 night. In view of my disposition of the case,
it is unnecessary to decide the larger issue of Marley' s general performance.
CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION 559
5. George Moss
Moss , a tying-in machine operator .on the second shift, joined the Union on
February 7,1951, passed out cards, and signed up employees in the Union. Fore-
man English identified him as one of the union adherents slated for discharge.
Moss was discharged on March 9, 1951, under the following circumstances, as
be described them. Moss was sitting before his machine, which was in oper-
ation , with his foot up on the bar of the frame. Foreman Rowland came by,
and in angry voice, "hollered" at Moss to take his foot down. Moss asked Row-
land if he were "trying to make [Moss] mad." Rowland responded, "No, I just
want you to get your foot off that machine and quit messing it up." Rowland
went on to say, "You fellows have been running things your way around here,
but we are going to show you who is running it." Moss then asked Rowland if
there was anybody who could give him his pay. Rowland asked, "Have you
quit? Moss said, "If you pay me off I have," and with that shut down his
machine. Rowland went to the office to see if he could get Moss' pay, but
returned and said that, there being no one in the office that night, Moss could
nqt. get his money until the next morning . Moss then said that in that case
he'd keep on working, whereupon Rowland told him to "get your things and get
out of here."
As Moss left the plant he passed some union cards to employee Jennings Smith,
at the same time telling Smith that he had "quit."
The Respondent's testimony is that Moss quit. Accepting Moss' testimony-
some of the details of which are denied by Rowland-I find that, whether he
quit or was discharged, no unfair labor practice is established in his termination.
Whether the machine was delicate or tough-a disputed issue-and whether
others had put their feet on it or not, there was scarcely provocation in Row-
land 's order for Moss to have taken such decided umbrage. Having gone to the
extent of sending Rowland to get his pay, it is understandable that Rowland
might refuse to let him withdraw his decision to quit, even if he did so. It is
quite possible that if the incident had not arisen, Moss might have been dis-
charged on some pretext, as English 's testimony suggests. But in view of the
circumstances of the termination, I cannot say with any degree of conviction
that the present incident was such a pretext.
6. Jennings Smith
Smith, a quill cleaner on the second shift, was hired in November 1950, joined
the Union in February, and was discharged on March 9, 2 hours after Moss was
terminated. As Moss walked off the job he handed six or seven union cards
to Smith. As he did so, Smith said "look out"; Overseer Bridban, second hand
Rowland, and Robert Moore, Smith's supervisor, were at that moment within
several paces, coming in their direction. Smith pocketed the cards and Moss
went on. This was about 6 p. m. At about 8 p. m. Moore came to Smith and
told him in substance that he was terminated. Smith asked why, but Moore
would give no reason , merely reiterating the notice of termination n
On the following day Smith came back to the plant office and asked to see
Overseer Bridgman in order to learn the reason for his discharge, but was told
u Though the versions of Smith and Moore are not identical as to what was said at the
time of discharge, the differences appear to be complementary, rather than contradictory.
Specifically, Smith's testimony is that Moore told him that he did not need him any more,
and when Smith, understanding that he was discharged, asked why, Moore told him "just
get your hat and go home." Moore's version is that he told Smith that he was terminated
but that he could work till the end of the shift "if he wanted to" ; Smith responding that
he would "just get my coat and go now ." Neither Smith nor Moore denied the version of
the other. I accept both accounts.
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he could not see him. Some days later he returned to the office for a_
separation slip, and was given one which stated as the reason for discharge
that he had walked out of the plant before changing hours. Smith denied, and
there is no contrary evidence, that he had ever voluntarily left a shift before
quitting time.
The Respondent's evidence and testimony of supervisors is that Smith was a.
consistently poor workman over a period of 3 months prior to his discharge; that
his performance had been observed by Moore at the direction of Overseer Bridg-
man, and by Supervisor Hickman, who reported adversely on it. Both Bridgman
and Moore then assertedly talked to Smith in an effort to "straighten him out,"
Bridgman speaking to him 3 or 4 days before the discharge and, there being no^
subsequent improvement, Bridgman told Moore to discharge him. Bridgman
characterized Smith's departure as constituting a "quitting," however, rather
than a discharge, since he left before the end of the shift.
Smith's work may not have been altogether satisfactory. There is a memo-
in evidence from Assistant Superintendent Davidson to Overseer Bridgman,
dated February 15, expressing criticism of Smith. The manner and timing of
his discharge, however, is not altogether consistent with the defense that he was
terminated because of his work performance. It scarcely seems likely that
the Respondent would have tolerated such consistently bad performance as its
testimony indicates, over a period of 3 months before taking action. Moreover,
if as the Respondent's testimony suggests, Smith's work performance had been
the subject of such real concern over that period as to warrant observation,
discussions between supervisors, and discussions with Smith himself-the last
only 3 or 4 days before his termination-and this concern and failure to improve
were genuinely the basis for the decision to terminate him, the failure to assign
any ground when Smith asked for an explanation is inexplicable. Finally, when
Smith was given a separation slip 2 weeks later, the explanation given for his
termination was not his work performance, but a baseless one, namely, that he
had walked off the job. For these reasons I cannot accept the assertion that the
decision to discharge Smith was based on dissatisfaction with his work. The
whole episode suggests that the decision was made suddenly without considera-
tion of plausible legitimate justification. In such a circumstance the only reason-
able conclusion is that Smith was discharged because he was observed accepting
the union cards from Moss as the latter was leaving the building. It is so found.
7. Frances Sheffield
Sheffield, a sister of Melton Marley, was hired in September 1950 and discharged
on March 20, 1951. She joined the Union on February 8, Thomas Baldwin
signing her up in an auto outside the plant. She distributed union literature.
A battery filler, Sheffield's work was described by Respondent's witnesses as "very
good" or "fair."
On March 6, 1951, Sheffield was injured on the job and was out until March 20,
1951. During her absence another battery filler was transferred to her job from
a different shift. On March 20, 1951, Sheffield returned to work, presenting a
medical certificate to Foreman English. English consulted Assistant Super-
intendent Davidson. According to English, Davidson told him that Sheffield
was involved in union activity like her brother, Marley, and that English should
lay her off temporarily.
English then referred Sheffield to Foreman Broomfield, who told her that he
had had to put someone else in her place, that he was unwilling to displace her
successor, who worked regularly, with Sheffield who did not ; that he had
nothing else for Sheffield at the moment, and thus would have to lay her off;
CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION 561
but that he would recall her as soon as he had an opening . Sheffield said that
she guessed that she was "union fired " ; Broomfield made no response.
In June, hearing that the Respondent was hiring battery hands, Sheffield
applied for employment but was told that there was nothing available. She
received similar answers upon application in July, August, September, and
November. She has never been recalled, though turnover in the plant is high.
The reason ascribed by the Respondent for not putting Sheffield back to work
is her excessive absences, Broomfield assertedly being unwilling to replace her
successor, who worked regularly, with Sheffield, who worked irregularly. I thus
conclude that Sheffield was discharged.
President Sontaag's testimony, based on plant records, which I deem more
reliable than Sheffield's possibly faulty recollection, reveals that during the 25
weeks of her employment, from the time of her hiring up to the date of her
injury, Sheffield was absent at least 1 day in each of 9 weeks, on a number of
occasions assertedly without notice. Sheffield admitted absences in 4 of those-
weeks, all admittedly for good cause, with notice and permission.
That unexplained absence without notice was a cause for concern on the part
of the Respondent is established by a list of terminations, excluding those here
involved, for the period from July 1950 to November 1951, and the reasons
therefor, introduced into evidence by the Respondent. This exhibit discloses
that of the discharges during that period of time, almost 50 percent was either
in whole or in part for absenteeism ; usually coupled with the notation that the
employee's work was also otherwise unsatisfactory, or the absences unexplained,
without notice, or after warning. There are no reasons other than absences
cited in the evidence for dissatisfaction with Sheffield. As has been indicated,
her work was described as "very good" or "fair" by the Respondent 's witnesses-
Under ordinary circumstances, and lacking background of hostility to union
organization, and efforts to eliminate it, the Respondent's evidence would impel
a finding that Sheffield's discharge was probably for the reasons advanced by
the Respondent. But in the instant case, the Respondent's supervisors' policy
of opposing the Union even to the extent of discharging union adherents, makes
Sheffield 's case suspect.
Several significant facts stand out with respect to the discharge. The first is
Davidson's statement to English when the latter asked what should be done with
Sheffield. In the second place, the absence was for cause-injury on the job-
of which the Respondent knew. Thirdly, the Respondent was specifically
notified that Sheffield would be out for some time. When she returned, she
presented a medical certificate. Under such circumstances, the absence being
without fault on her part-indeed occasioned by her service with the Respond-
ent-one would normally suppose that the Respondent would have felt under a
moral obligation, at least, to have restored Sheffield to her own or some other-
job. It is notable, too, that there is no evidence that Sheffield was ever warned
about her absences, an omission suggestive only of the conclusion that in her
case they were not occasion for supervisory concern. In this respect it may be
significant that only one of the absence periods fell in a week following the
formal opening of the union campaign : the week of February 17. If unex-
plained absences prior to March 6-the date of Sheffield 's injury-were seemingly
not deemed important enough to warrant at least a reprimand or warning, it is
difficult to understand why a legitimate and justifiable absence after that date
was so serious as to impel her discharge or layoff. Finally, Sheffield was
not recalled, although Broomfield promised her that he would do so; nor was
she hired on subsequent applications for employment, despite the fact that
turnover is high. There is no explanation by the Respondent for either omission.
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of all the above considerations, it is my judgment that the conclusion
that Sheffield was terminated for absenteeism is preponderantly overborne by
the conclusion that she was discharged for her union activity. It is so found.
8. Charles Riddle
Riddle was hired in April or May 1950 before the plant went into production.
As has been previously described, after Riddle had found the first union litera-
ture in the plant in January 1951, Assistant Superintendent Davidson asked him
in substance to let Davidson know what he could learn about the union activity,
Riddle responding that he would keep his eyes open. Davidson asked Riddle
several times later whether he had heard anything, Riddle responding that he
had not.
Riddle joined the Union February 6, 1951, the day Thomas Baldwin was dis-
charged, Baldwin signing him up in the waterhouse. Later in February, Fore-
man Howard Welch called Riddle aside and questioned him about a paper Riddle
had passed around the weave room several days before. Riddle replied that he
had been soliciting contributions for an employee who was ill. Welch expressed
himself as satisfied with the explanation but said that he wanted to be sure
because "somebody had told Mr. Hurst that you were . . . signing people up
for the Union."
Around late February, as has been related, Riddle warned George Faulkner
that he was being watched.
At about this time Riddle was transferred to a job on the stitching machine
and, according to his testimony, the supervisors began to "ride" him; finding
fault with each trifling thing he did. Then, several days after the incident
with Foreman Welch, Davidson notified Riddle that he was transferring him to
the third shift. Riddle thereupon sought out Joseph Winn, third shift overseer,
and asked what he was to do on the third shift. Winn said that he had nothing
open but loom cleaning, a job which Riddle described as a "scrub" job and the
"nastiest" in the plant. (Prentice Patterson, John Barber, and Melton Marley
whose asserted discriminatory discharges have been or will be discussed were
or had been loom cleaners.) Riddle said that he would not take such a job, and
thereupon quit.
After the plant went into production Riddle worked on a number of different
jobs in the plant. The testimony of his supervisors was that his performance
was poor on all of them and that he was shifted around in , order to find a
suitable job. His last employment was as cloth boy, doffing rolls from the looms.
This job could be performed in 5 hours of diligent work. Riddle's partner, who
was interested in learning to weave, sought to induce Riddle to do the operation
in the shorter time, in order to learn weaving during the rest of the shift.
Riddle, however, uninterested in weaving, preferred to spread the work over the
entire workday. His partner complained to the supervisors, even going so far as
to ask that the weave room be divided between himself and Riddle. It was from
this job, on the first shift, that Riddle was transferred to the third shift, to
clean looms.
The General Counsel's position apparently is that Riddle was transferred in
order to make his position intolerable and thus to induce him to quit ; in sum,
a constructive discharge. The loom-cleaning job was no doubt less desirable
from the standpoint of esthetics than that of cloth doffer; but it seems scarcely
to have been an intolerable one. Other employees performed it. There is no
evidence that Riddle's physical condition was such as to make it impossible
or difficult to perform the loom-cleaning work ; nor evidence that the transfer
CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION 563.
involved a reduction in wages or other perquisites or privileges. I am therefore
of, the opinion that the record does not establish discrimination against Riddle
in the transfer.
9. C. Harding Cockman
Cockman, a weaver with some 8 years' experience, was hired February 1,
1951, worked 7 weeks, and was discharged on March 22. During his short period
of employment he earned bonuses for production on at least 2 occasions. Cock-
man joined the Union in mid-February at the instance of James Crabtree, so-
licited 8 or 10 employees, and signed up 3 or 4.
From the loom, woven cloth is taken into the cloth room. for final inspection.
When defects are discovered the weaver involved is called into the cloth room
and shown them. This happens quite often, and it appears from the testimony
that at some time or other virtually every weaver has produced bad cloth.
On March 22, Cockman was called into the cloth room. by Overseer Winn and
Foreman Morgan and shown a roll of cloth from his loom, containing about 30
yards of misreed . A misreed is a plainly apparent and avoidable defect result-
ing from improper joinder of threads in the loom. It is the weaver's respon-
sibility to prevent and eliminate misreeds.
The looms weave automatically. The weaver's primary function is to see that
the loom produces cloth of acceptable quality, and if it ceases to do so, either
to see that the matter is remedied, or to shut the loom down. It is not disputed
that the defective cloth was woven on Cockman's loom and during his shift.
It required about 6 hours for the loom to weave the 30 yards of misreeded fabric.
There is no substantial dispute as to what was said when Cockman was shown
the defective roll. Overseer Winn asked him whether that was "the best that
he could do." Cockman said that with the help that he had (a reference to a
helper about whom Cockman had previously complained), Winn couldn't expect
anything better. Cockman asked whether Winn was not satisfied with his
work and when Winn suggested that he was not, Cockman retorted, "Well then,
why don't you fire me?" One word apparently led to another, until finally
Winn said that Cockman apparently had no interest in the job, and that if he
couldn't "run the job like he should" Winn would "rather" that Cockman go home.
With that Winn walked into the office. Cockman followed him and asked for a
statement in writing as to why he was fired. Winn thereupon wrote out the
following statement : "Work dissatisfactory and smoking too much on the job."
It seems evident to me that the discharge of Cockman resulted from the
antagonisms, heat, and stubbornness on both sides which developed in the dis-
cussion over the defective cloth. This negates the inference that Cockman's
union activity played any part in Winn's decision to discharge him. It is there-
fore unnecessary to resolve the disputed question as to whether, apart from the
above incident, Cockman was a satisfactory employee.
Similarly, since it was admittedly Cockman's responsibility as weaver to see
to it that the loom was producing cloth of acceptable quality, it is unnecessary
to determine whether, as Cockman asserted, it was his helper who caused the
loom to misreed."
'a Harding's wife, Edith Cockman, testified that sometime after Harding's discharge,
Foreman Morgan, in response to inquiry from her as to whether he thought that Harding
was discharged "on account of his job," told her that he did not think so, adding that "they
must have had something else against him." Morgan denied Edith Cockman's testimony.
Assuming the truth of her version, I do not find Morgan's statement to have any substantial
probative value on the issue of Harding Cockman's discharge.
242305--53--37
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
10. Edith Cockman
Edith Cockman, the wife of C. Harding Cockman, and a battery filler, was
discharged on May 3, 1951. She joined the Union in late February. According
to Mrs. Cockman, after her husband's discharge, Overseer Winn's attitude toward
her changed : Winn "acted like he didn't want to see me."
Following Harding Cockman's discharge Mrs. Cockman was absent on several
occasions without notice, each time explaining the circumstances to Overseer
Winn the next day. On the next to the last occasion Winn merely shook his
head at the explanation and walked away. Sometime during this period Mrs.
Oockman also asked Winn for a transfer from the third shift to the first or the
second. He responded that he would see Assistant Superintendent Davidson
about it, but she heard nothing further.
On May 2, Mrs. Cockman overslept and again was absent without notice.
When she came in the following day her second hand told her that Winn said
that he "would have to let her go." Mrs. Cockman said, "Good, it's no more
than I have been expecting." She was given a separation slip stating that she
was discharged for absences without notice.
Upon this evidence, I see no substantial ground for concluding that Edith
Cockman was discharged for union activity.
11. Mamie Ruth Phillips
Phillips, a battery filler on the second shift, was hired on November 5, 1950,
and laid off on June 7, 1951. She joined the Union in mid-March and spoke
favorably about it to other women employees.
Around late April, Assistant Superintendent Davidson transferred Phillips
from battery filling to the cloth room as an inspector. This was cleaner work
and at the same rate of pay, but Phillips did not like it. She asked to be
returned to battery filling, and her request was granted. She worked for several
days, during which time the battery load was increased from 96 to 120 looms,
necessitating 1 less battery hand. Davidson then told Phillips that he could
no longer use her on the first shift and offered her the same job on the second
shift. Phillips refused it. Davidson then laid her off, telling her that after 3
weeks she could come back on the first shift. She has never been recalled.
According to Davidson, Phillips was laid off because she was the junior battery
filler. Though Phillips' testimony is that she was replaced by a battery filler
from the third shift, I assume that she was referring to the time she went into
the cloth room, and not the time she was laid off. There is no explanation from
Davidson as to why he did not recall Phillips as he had promised. Davidson's
explanation of the original transfer is that Phillips was a "trifle slow" on battery
filling and she was put into the cloth room to make an inspector out of her.
While there are some aspects of the Phillips' case which are puzzling and
not completely explained, such as the failure to recall her, I do not see any
convincing evidence indicating that she was discriminated against. Thus, she
could have remained in the cloth room had she desired, and presumably could
have returned to that job at the time of her layoff. That work was evidently no
more onerous than battery filling. In addition, she was offered the second shift
job of battery filling. No doubt the first shift was more desirable from the
standpoint of convenience than the second. But it was the same job, and the
degree of Phillips' union activity does not seem to warrant the conclusion that
she was being subtly discriminated against. I find that the evidence does not
establish discrimination as to her.
CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION 565
12. Prentice L. Patterson
Patterson, a cleaner, was hired in September 1950, and was one of those active
in the original union group. He was specifically named by Davidson to Foreman
FJnglish as one of those who should be let go because of his union activities, at
the first opportunity.
Patterson was present when Melton Marley was discharged on March 7. At
that time Superintendent Hurst told Patterson, in what context is not clear,
that Patterson did a "hell of a lot of talking" and he (Patterson) would "probably
get along better" if he didn't. Later in the day Hurst also told Patterson that
"that little old mess that's going around on the outside, I don't think that will
ever amount to anything here." During some further discussion at that time
Patterson told Hurst that he wished to learn to weave or to fix and that if he
could not, he did not wish to stay at the plant.
Several days later Davidson told Patterson that he had an opening on the
third shift for Patterson to learn to weave. Patterson said that he would try
it, but that he did not know whether he would be able to handle the job because
of inability to sleep in the daytime.
Patterson then went on the third shift under Overseer Winn and worked for
several days. His testimony was that he was unable to do the job because he
was given too many looms and was unable to sleep days. On the other hand
Overseer Winn's testimony is that Patterson's work was satisfactory. After
several days Patterson was out sick for a period of time. When he returned
to work he asked Davidson to transfer him back to the first shift because he
could not sleep in the daytime. Davidson said that he had no learner openings
on the first shift. After some further discussion, Davidson called in Winn, and
in the presence of Patterson, told him that Patterson was leaving ; that the
work was too hard, that he could not sleep in the daytime, and that he was going
back to work for the State.
On the above facts I find no basis to conclude that Patterson's separation was
pursuant to the design to discharge him. He wished to learn to weave; he was
given the opportunity but could not stand the hours. There is no showing that
there were weaver openings on the first shift which he could have filled. It
will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to him also.
13. John Barber
Barber, who worked at several jobs in the plant, mainly loom cleaning and oil-
Ing, was hired in mid-January 1951 on the first shift. At the time he was hired
he told Assistant Superintendent Davidson that he wanted the first shift because
he lived in an isolated section and did not wish to leave his wife alone at night.
He joined the Union on February 5 at the solicitation of Thomas Baldwin,
attended the Union's Rockingham and Greensboro functions, and the union
meeting at Crabtree's home, referred to heretofore, passed out leaflets, and was
Instrumental in signing up about 10 employees. Union meetings, surveilled by
Assistant Superintendent Davidson, were held at Barber's house in June, July,
and August. On March 7, 1951, Supervisor Hickman told Barber and employees
Black and Patterson that Crabtree had just been discharged for joining the
Union and quoted Superintendent Hurst as saying that he would discharge all
who belonged to it. A few minutes later Hickman said that he thought that
Barber belonged to the Union and told Barber "if you do . . . you might as well
get your damn lard bucket and go home."
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Barber worked on the first shift as a cleaner, and later as an oiler, until
September 2, 1951, when he was transferred to battery filling on the third shift
under circumstances and for reasons which are disputed . After several days'he
quit because he could not work the night shift and could not perform the job.
His work on the first shift, under Assistant Superintendent Davidson, Fore-
man English , and Foreman Rowland who succeeded English , was satisfactory."
Under Foreman English, Barber had been learning to weave in his spare time.
However, the day that Foreman Rowland took over, around May, he forbade
Barber to weave until all his other work was done ; at the same time, accord-
ing to Barber , imposing such work upon him that Barber had no spare time.
Several days later, Rowland called Barber into the office and told him that
he had "been hearing some mighty bad things " about Barber , and that "people"
had told him that Barber had a "bad record" in Carthage. Barber asked what
it was that he had heard, and from whom ; but Rowland declined to elaborate.
Barber protested, and suggested that the reason for Rowland's treatment of him
was that Barber "talked to Crabtree." "
Thereafter, according to Barber's credited testimony, denied by Rowland,
Rowland began to watch Barber and employee Arthur Black continuously, ob-
serving Barber through the looms and following him into the washroom. Some
time thereafter Barber and Black informed Rowland that they were quitting
because Foreman English had told them that Rowland was going to discharge
them because of the Union. Rowland responded that he was not concerned
with the Union and that as long as they ran their job, he "didn't care what they
did." Rowland then took Barber and Black to Assistant Superintendent David-
son, and the two employees were persuaded to remain at work."
On August 31, 1951, a union meeting, surveilled by Davidson, as previously
described, was held at Barber's home. On the next working day Barber was
told by Rowland that he could report to the third shift or go home. Barber
asked why , and at whose order; Rowland replying that he did not know. Bar-
ber went home, returned later , and made inquiries of Davidson . The latter
said that he was going to need one less oiler on the first shift , and that the third
shift needed battery fillers. Barber protested that he could not work the night
shift because of his wife , pointing out that he had previously told this to David-
son. He then observed that the reason for Davidson's action was that Barber
was active in the Union . Davidson responded "I don't know a damn thing about
the Union ." Barber asked why if that was so Davidson had ridden up and down
before his house on the previous Friday and other union meeting nights . David-
son replied that he was on his way to Southern Pines and had got lost . David-
10 Foreman Rowland testified that Barber 's work was not satisfactory ; that he repri-
manded Barber "quite often" about it, and even spoke to Davidson concerning it. On the
other hand , Davidson 's testimony is that Barber "did his work very well." Barber denied
that his work was ever criticized . Employee Wallace , who began to teach Barber to weave
under Foreman English , found him interested , cooperative , and a hard worker . In this
state of the testimony , and upon observation of the witnesses , I cannot credit the assertion
that Barber 's work was deficient or the subject of complaint or criticism.
14 Rowland admitted having had this conversation, but denied that it had any connection
with Barber 's union activity. Rowland's testimony was that as be was getting some
gasoline at a gas station one day a man whose name he did not know approached him and
said that Barber was "not a very good fellow " and "had a bad record." The informant did
not elaborate and Rowland asked no questions ; he thanked the man and drove off. Row-
land's reason for calling in Barber, he testified, was to help him and to urge him to belie
any bad record in the town by , his work in the plant ; be did not want the bad record to
"get in the mill."
1s The findings as to this incident are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Rowland
and Davidson.
CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION 567
son reiterated that Barber would have to go on the third shift or be laid oft ;
Barber protesting that he could not do the job, but finally saying that "I've got
to do something," and "I 'll try to do the best I tan." 1°
When Barber reported to the third shift he found a woman working the job-
filling batteries . She was taken off it and put on weaving, over Barber 's protest
that she had only been employed 3 months in contrast to his 7 or 8. Barber
worked the job 2 nights but was unable to perform it, lacking the manual
dexterity required. In most textile plants such jobs are reserved for women for
that reason , though on occasion men have done it in the Respondent 's plant.
In, the meantime Barber was looking around for another job. He finally quit on
Thursday night, September 5.
The reasons assigned by the Respondent for the transfer of Barber to the
third shift do not stand up under examination. Davidson was aware that he
could not work the third shift. Nevertheless he ordered Barber to it. Though
the number of oilers on the first shift was assertedly cut down, the services of
two men are still required at times to perform that job. Davidson testified that
one of the reasons for putting Barber to filling batteries was that he wanted to
learn to weave , and that ability to fill batteries was a prerequisite for that job.
But, as has been seen, Barber had been successfully learning to weave under
English, without experience at battery filling. But Rowland's testimony is that
Barber was transferred to the third shift because there was no other job for
him on the first : Barber showing no interest in weaving, though Rowland tried
to interest him in it. This testimony not only contradicts Davidson's but is
irreconcilable with the undenied fact that Rowland stopped Barber's attempts
to learn to weave. Moreover, when Barber went on the third shift, a woman
battery filler of less seniority than he was put on weaving, and Barber put on
the battery filling job. As he had predicted, he could not handle the job.
In view of the above-stated facts the only reasonable conclusion that can be
drawn is that the transfer of Barber to the third shift was made with the
knowledge that he could not work it; that he was thus constructively discharged,
and that the reason for such action was because of his union activities. Todd
9hipiards Corp., 98 NLRB 814. It is so found. The action of Rowland and
Davidson in persuading Barber and Black to remain at work in June or July
when they announced that they were quitting because of fear of discharge for
union activities, does not negate the conclusion of violation. At that time charges
had already been filed and served on the Respondent alleging the discriminatory
discharge of six of the employees here involved. In such a circumstance it
would scarcely have been prudent to have permitted Barber and Black to have
left their employment for the reason they stated.
General Conclusions
It is found that the Respondent discriminated in the hire, tenure, and condi-
tions of employment of employees Thomas Baldwin, James Crabtree, George
Faulkner, Jennings Smith, Frances Sheffield, and John Barber, thereby discour-
aging membership in the Union, and interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 17
78 The findings in the above paragraph are based on Barber 's testimony , uncontradicted
save for Davidson 's general testimony that be did not know of any aversion on the part of
Barber to the third shift.
17 Since the supervisors engaged in unfair labor practices and discriminated against em-
ployees because of the Union, President Sontaag's actual policy of nondiscrimination is not
a defense . In a situation such as the present, where there is widespread ignoring of a
stated neutrality policy , and the policy itself is not announced to the employees, the
Respondent must bear the responsibility for the actions of its supervisors.
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is further found that the evidence does not preponderantly establish that
Melton Marley, George Moss, Charles Riddle, C. Harding Cockman, Prentice L.
Patterson, Edith Lockman, and Mamie Ruth Phillips were discharged because
of their union membership or activities. It will therefore be recommended that
the complaint be dismissed in this respect.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UNON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow thereof.
IV. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that It cease and desist therefrom and that
it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminated in regard to the hire, tenure, and con-
ditions of employment of H. Thomas Baldwin, Jr., James Crabtree, G eorge Faulk-
ner, Jennings Smith, Frances Sheffield, and John Barber, it will be recommended
that the Respondent offer reinstatement to Crabtree, Faulkner, Smith, Sheffield,
and Barber to their former or substantially equivalent positions without preju-
dice to their seniority and other rights and privileges ; and further that it make
them whole for any losses suffered because of the discrimination, by payment to
each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have
earned as wages from the date of such discrimination to the date of the offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings during that period. Such computation shall
be in accord with the Board's usual policies. See Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB
440, 497-8; F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289.
As has been indicated heretofore, because of Baldwin's assault upon Assistant
Superintendent Davidson at the time of his discriminatory discharge, a recom-
mendation of reinstatement and back pay will not be made in his case ; for the
reason that contrary action would, in my judgment, tend to encourage resort
to violent self-help, rather than to the orderly and peaceful processes of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union 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 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 , tenure , and terms and conditions of
employment of Thomas Baldwin, James Crabtree, George Faulkner, Jennings
Smith, Frances Sheffield, and John Barber, thereby discouraging membership
in the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and Is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
CARTEiAGE FABRICS CORPORATION 569
5. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices by discharging
Melton Marley, George Moss , Charles Riddle, C. Harding Cockman, Prentice L.
Patterson, Edith Cockman, and Mamie Ruth Phillips.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union views,
membership, or activities ; keep union meetings, activities, or employees
under surveillance ; warn employees of, or threaten them with, reprisals
in employment because of their union membership or activity ; or prohibit
union solicitation or the distribution of union literature on our parking lot
on employees' nonworking time.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by
discharging, laying off, or transferring any of our employees, or in any
other manner discriminate against them in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to James Crabtree, George Faulkner, Jennings Smith,
Frances Sheffield, and John Barber immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them.
WE WILL permit union solicitation and distribution of union literature
on our parking lot during employees' nonworking time.
All our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming members of
the above-named union or any other labor organization, except to the extent
that the right to refrain may be affected by a lawful agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment.
CARTHAGE FABRICS CORPORATION,
Employer.
By----------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated --------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.