Cherry Cotton Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1937

4 N.L.R.B. 731 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of CHERRY COTTON MILLS and LOCAL No. 1824, UNITED
TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-69-Decided December 30, 1937
Cotton Textile Industry-Interference, Restraint , or Coercion : surveillance
of union meetings ; expressed opposition to labor organization ; threats of re-
taliatory action; shut-down of plant-Discruninatzon: closing plant to effect
replacement of active union members with new employees ; discharges-Rein-
statemeflt Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Walter G. Cooper, Jr., for the Board.
Mr. W. H. Mitchell and Mr. Chas. A. Poellnitz, Jr., of Florence,
Ala., for the respondent.
Mr. Ralph Gay, for the Union.
Mi Lester Asher, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF TIID CASE
On February 13, 1936, Local No. 1824, United Textile Workers of
America, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) a charge that Cherry Cot-
ton Mills, Florence, Alabama, herein called the respondent, had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. On February 27, 1936, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, issued its complaint against the respondent,
signed,by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, alleging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
With regard to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that the respondent had discharged and refused to rein-
state Alfonse McDonald, Empress Blaylock, Mary McClure, Ida
Robnette, Maude Coker, and Grady Doyle, all employees of the re-
spondent, because they joined and assisted Local No. 1824, United
Textile Workers of America, a labor organization, and engaged in
concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining and other mutual aid and protection.
731
732 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Copies of the complaint, the accompanying notice of hearing, and
an amended and second amended notice of hearing were duly served
cii the parties. On March 10, 1936, the respondent filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, and on March 16, 1936, it filed a plea to the
jurisdiction and in abatement of the proceedings, and also an
answer to the complaint. The motion to dismiss was based on alle-
gations that the National Labor Relations Act does not extend to the
i elationship between the respondent and its employees, transcends
the commerce powers delegated to the Federal Government, and vio-
lates the Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Amendments to the Constitu-
tion. The plea in abatement alleged that neither the respondent's
business nor its labor relations are in or affect interstate commerce.
The answer of the respondent repeated the allegations that the Act
is unconstitutional and that the respondent's business and operations
are not in interstate commerce. In addition, the answer admitted the
discharge of some of the persons named in the complaint, but averred
that the employment of said persons was terminated for good cause
and not for the reasons stated in the complaint. It further alleged
that'others of those named in the complaint were not discharged,
but voluntarily quit work.
Pursuant to the second amended notice, a hearing -%w as held in Flor-
ence, Alabama, on March 23, 24, 25, and 26, 1936, before Noel R.
Beddow, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board
and the respondent were represented by Counsel; the Union by an or-
ganizer. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was
afforded to all the parties. At the hearing the Trial Examiner de-
hied the motion to dismiss, and also denied the plea to the jurisdic-
tion and in abatement of the proceedings. During the course of the
hearing, exceptions were taken by the parties to various rulings of
the Trial Examiner on objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed these rulings of the Trial Examiner and his rul-
ings on the motion to dismiss and the plea in abatement, and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
As evidence in behalf of the respondent, its counsel requested the
production of the Union membership list for the purpose of showing
the comparative number of Union members employed by the re-
spondent at the time of the hearing. The Trial Examiner reserved
ruling thereon. It is the established policy of the Board not to com-
pel a Union to produce its membership rolls for examination, lest its
members be exposed to possible discrimination by the employer.'
Even assuming that members of the Union were being employed by
1 Matter o f Samson Tire and Rubber Corporation and United Rubber Workers of America,
Local No. 44, 2 N. L. R B 148, 3 56.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 733
the respondent at the time of the hearing , this entire line of evi-
dence is immaterial to the issue of the discriminations against the
six prominent members involved in this case . For these reasons the
motion of the respondent for the production of the Union member-
ship list is hereby denied.
On March 30 , 1936, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Sec-
tion 35, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended, ordered this proceeding to be transferred and
continued before it. Counsel for the respondent presented oral argu-
ment before the Board at Washington, D. C., on April 9, 1936, and
thereafter filed with the Board a memorandum commenting on the
testimony.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE RESPONDENT
The respondent , Cherry Cotton Mills, a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Alabama, has its only mill
and principal place of business in Florence, Alabama. It is engaged
in the business of converting cotton into yarn, and selling and dis-
tributing the yarn. During capacity production, the mill employs
about 400 workers.
Cotton is the principal raw material used in the spinning of the
yarn, and the respondent purchases between 40 to 60 bales each week.
The major portion of this raw cotton is purchased by the respondent
within Alabama , although about 25 per cent of all the cotton used
by it is purchased outside the State. Rayon and yarn containing
wool are also utilized as raw materials to a small extent, and to-
gether with machinery and parts, oil, and veneer packing cases, are
obtained by the respondent in States other than Alabama.
Between 50 ,000 to 60,000 pounds of the finished cotton yarns are
manufactured each week, about 90 per cent, measured both by weight
and value, being shipped by railroad and other carriers to pur-
chasers outside the State of Alabama. Textile mills in Pennsylvania,
Ohio, and Illinois form the principal market for the product of the
respondent , and its cotton yarns constitute the raw material for fur-
ther textile operations such as knitting and weaving . The respond-
ent obtains its customers primarily through factors and commission
merchants having offices in the principal cities of the eastern and mid-
dle western textile markets , and the operations in the mill at Florence
are generally determined on the basis of orders received . The mill
attempts to manufacture its yarns as closely as possible to the spec-
ified shipment dates. In the large majority of shipments , the re-
spondent pays the freight charges to the destination outside the State
of Alabama.
734 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE UNION
Local No. 1824, United Textile Workers of America, formerly affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, affiliated now with the
Textile Workers Organizing Committee and the Committee for In-
dustrial Organization, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees at the respondent's plant, and was organized in or
about September 1933.
III. THE BACKGROUND OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The strike of 1934
On July 17, 1934, the Union, with a membership of about 300,
called a strike at the respondent's mill which later merged into the
,general textile strike of that time. The Union maintained an active
picket line, and the strikers were at all times observed by the plant
supervisors and officials. During the period of the strike, Fred E.
Gamble,2 a mill overseer, circulated a petition to determine which of
the employees wanted to go back to work, but his testimony con-
cludes, "I went to about three or four, but they cursed so much about
it, I didn't go around with it."
When the general textile strike ended on September 25, 1934, the
respondent did not immediately reopen its mill. After carrying on
some discussions with a committee from the Union the respondent
reopened its plant on about October 2, 1934, and the regular employees
were all reinstated.
B. Surveillance of union meetings
The meetings of the Union were held weekly on Saturday after-
noon or evening . During the spring and summer of 1935; John
Gamble, section man or foreman in the speeder department and
brother of the first-floor overseer , made a constant practice of watch-
ing the meetings from a filling station almost directly across the
street from the Union hall. He would arrive shortly before the
beginning of the meeting and would remain standing around the
filling station, or near the store beneath the meeting hall, for the entire
two or two and a half hours that the meetings generally lasted, and
was usually still there when the Union members came out.
After having seen him around the gas station during Union meet-
ings on six or seven occasions , the owner of the premises questioned
him and asked him to leave . John Gamble explained that "he was
looking up into the hall to see what they were doing. He said that
he did not believe in the Union . .." Despite his orders to leave,
the owner of the station found Gamble repeating his practice of
2 Incorrectly refereed to in the complaint as F E Gammon
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 735
watching the Union attendance and proceedings on several later meet-
ing days during August and September, 1935.
Testimony was offered by the respondent in support of its con-
tention that John Gamble had no authority to hire or discharge
employees, and was never instructed by his superiors in his activities
concerning the Union, and never reported what he had seen to any
mill official. The evidence is clear, however, that John who is a
brother of the overseer, Fred Gamble, was considered a section boss
over 16 or 18 workers, had the authority to correct bad work, allow
clays off, and transmit rules from the management. His brother,
Fred, testified, "Well, I never did give him the authority to hire
and fire, but I told him time and time again, of course, if a hand
didn't do the work right, to lay them off, and he let me know it,
and I would pay them up."
Dowell Hendon, mill timekeeper at the date of the hearing, but
formerly overseer of the top floor, stated that John Gamble talked
to him about the Union, and "was all the time talking about this
and that, but he didn't make any report to me or anybody else that
I know of, in particular, but I never did pay any attention to what
lie said, no way." Yet an employee of the mill testified that he had
been told by Hendon, early in 1935, that "the Union could pull
nothing over on him, that he knew everything that happened in the
Local in an hour after they adjourned."
It is significant that the respondent did not call John Gamble as a
witness.
C. The threat of a strike in October 1935
In June 1935 production at the mill slumped severely, and in
August the second shift was taken off. Several individual members
and a committee of the Union spoke to Darby, the superintendent of
the plant, about resuming operations of the second shift, and they
were told, "Well, 'go ahead and get on relief ..." Darby was
reported to have said that "when the government and the Union
run his business lie would shut it down."
The discriminatory discharges set forth in the complaint are
alleged to have occurred during this period of reduced production
in the summer and fall of 1935. In October Darby heard rumors
that the Union was considering a strike vote because of the dis-
charges and the notices received by several Union members living
in mill houses ordering them to vacate. At about noon on Saturday,
October 19, Darby went to the office of Lee Green, Mayor of Flor-
ence, and requested protection for the plant. The Mayor sent a rep-
resentative to the Union meeting held that afternoon, and the voting
of a strike was postponed pending a conference. On the following
morning the Mayor met with about 20 of the Union members, includ-
ing Albert K. Cox, State organizer for the United Textile Workers
736 NATIONAL LAB OR RELATIONS BOARD
of America, and not an employee of the respondent. At this meeting
the Mayor called in one of the city commissioners who was also a
member of the board of directors of the respondent . The Union
presented its complaints and requested a conference with the mill
management.
Mayor Green spoke to J. F. Flagg, then vice-president, and to the
directors of the respondent, and advised them of the desire of I he
Union to discuss the discharges and notices of dispossession with the
plant officials . On October 22 Flagg wrote to the Mayor :
Pursuant to our conversation this afternoon with reference to
a meeting with certain labor groups, the Board of Directors of
the Cherry Cotton Mills have given this matter due considera-
tion, and, under the existing conditions at the mill, do not feel
that the outcome of such a meeting could be of any particular
help or benefit.'
At this time the respondent was negotiating for a mortgage on its
plant to obtain funds with which to continue operations, and the
stockholders were debating whether to approve the proposed loan or
to shut the mill down and liquidate all the assets. The management,
therefore, stated that any meeting with the Union committee was
absolutely unnecessary, and the respondent further contends that
no representation was ever made that the meeting was desired by its
employees , all the requests referring to it conference with Cox and
persons outside the ranks of its own workers. The demand for pos-
session of the mill houses was dropped by the respondent for the
time being, however, and although the management never met with
the Union , no strike vote was taken.
D. The shut -down and resumption of operations
The stockholders of the respondent remained undecided about the
mortgage, and on November 12, 1935, the following bulletins were
posted throughout the plant:
Notice to All Employees:
Due to our inability, up to the present time, to secure suffi-
cient financing for operations , and failure of stockholders to
approve proper financing , we find ourselves without sufficient
funds to operate the mill, and it becomes necessary , very much
to our regret , to closedown our Mill indefinitely . All employees
are, therefore , released from any employment as the work
coming thru runs out, and it will be in order for you to obtain
employment in any other direction you may find.4
-Respondent 's Exhibit No. 1
' Respondent ' s Exhibit No. 2.
DECISIONS AND OItDEItS 737
On about November 22, 1935, the plant did cease operations for
a period of four or five days, but the first shift resumed work about
November 28. The stockholders approved the loan soon afterwards,
and on about December 6,. the second shift was also put back to
work. Many old employees were called back to their jobs by the
foremen, and during December 1935 many new employees were also
added and even "learners" were taken on for the first time in years.
Meda Gandy, a non-Union worker who had long been on the first
shift, complained to Darby about being called on the second shift,
"to give up a day job to a new country hand, like they were bringing
in to learn them", and, according to her testimony, the superintendent
told her, "We shut down and started up under entirely different
arrangements. We shut down for the purpose of hiring who we
pleased. The Union is absolutely not going to run our business,
that is all there is to it." Although Darby took the stand, he did
not deny having made this statement. It is apparent from this
statement and confirmed by the entire record that the shut-down was
to a large extent based upon a policy of driving out of the mill
the active members of the Union and replacing them with new
employees.
Referring to efforts being made to obtain the reinstatement of the
discharged employees named in the complaint, Darby stated in Feb-
ruary 1936, that he had nothing against them, except that "the mill
could not work agitators . . . who were trying to stir up a strike or
something to stop our people from working, or stir up strife among
the help or between them . . . bringing in outsiders here and trying to
stir up trouble."
Production in the mill picked up rapidly during and after De-
cember 1935, and in February 1936 over 100,000 pounds of yarn
were manufactured, the highest figure in nearly ten months. The
many complaints about the quality of the product which were made
by customers during 1934 and 1935 5 also ceased; the respondent's own
testimony showing, however, that it was due to Darby's being relieved
of all office duties, the cleaning up and adjusting of the machinery,
and the transfer of many foremen and supervisory employees.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
None of the actions of the respondent so far discussed are alleged
in the complaint to constitute an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of the Act. They are important, however, in showing the
attitude of the respondent's officials and the motives underlying the
alleged discriminations against the six persons named in the
complaint.e
5 Respondent 's Exhibit No 3.
BNat,onal Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., 91 F . ( 2nd) 458
(C. C. A. 9th, 1937).
738 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alfonse McDonald. Alfonse McDonald was first employed by the
respondent in 1923, when he was 15 years old. Beginning as a
sweeper, after about four months he became a doffer. In 1926 he
quit, and for seven months worked in a wholesale grocery. He again
obtained employment with the respondent late in 1926, and was re-
turned to the job of doffer. After approximately five months he was
assigned to changing spinning frames from one yarn to another.
In about 1928 h6 was made section man in charge of the spooler
room, and also sized yarn and made samples. He was taken from
the spooler room in February 1934, and retained the work of sizing
yarn and making samples.
McDonald was a charter member of Local 1824, becoming its vice-
president at the end of 1933. He was elected president of the Union
early in 1931 and retained this office until the summer of 1935, when
Grady Doyle became president. McDonald was thus in charge of the
1931 strike and instructed the squads on the picket line.
In January 1935, he was discharged. An employee in the mill
accused McDonald of having bothered him during working hours,
and having asked him to join the Union. McDonald went to the
N. R. A. Compliance Board, and, after an investigation, the employee
making the charge changed his story, and McDonald was reinstated
two days after his discharge. Production slumped in February 1935,
and McDonald was laid off. After being without work for several
weeks, he saw Dowell Hendon, overseer of the top floor, who told
him there was not enough work in the mill. When McDonald com-
plained that he was not being treated fairly, Hendon retorted, "Why
don't you hire a lawyer, like you did before, and make us put you
back to work?" McDonald then complained to the Textile Labor
Relations Board, and through the intervention of its representatives,
he was put back to work in April 1935, as a doffer.
He remained as a doffer until August 21, 1935, and then was laid
off again. Nothing was said about the quality of his work; he was
told that production being slack, he was not needed. On September 1
he questiolied his section man, T. S. Richey, about work, and was
advised "that the mill was running short, and they could not give
all them work, and what was working was not getting over one or
two days a week, and I was the last man that was put on doffing, and
he thought it was right to give the older hands the work . . . He
told me if they ever started up where they could use me he would
send after me." In November, McDonald asked Hendon when he
would get his job back, and was told "when they needed me." Me-
Donald further testified : "I went back the 13th day of December,
they had hired another doffer and never sent after me. . . . I said,
`Mr. Hendon, why are you not working me? ... What is the rea-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 739
son you won't work me, because I belong to the Union?', and he said,
`No, not only that, but you don't put out production."' McDonald
was never given any further work at the mill.
Nowhere does the record disclose any denial of these conversa-
tions by the respondent's officials. Instead the contention is made
that McDonald's work was not satisfactory, that he was removed as
section man over the spoolers because of his inefficiency , that he
talked too much when on the job, that as a doffer he was slow and
lazy, and that he violated the rules by repeatedly breaking bobbins.
The evidence does support the position that while McDonald was
in charge of the spoolers there were many complaints concerning the
work put out by that department. McDonald's explanation, how-
ever, that he was at the same time also doing the job of making
samples and sizing yarn, and that he himself asked to be removed as
section man , is not contradicted. McDonald's poor record as section
man early in 1934 does not substantiate the contention of inefficiency
made two years later.
Most of the testimony concerning "talking too much during work-
ing hours" refers to the incident which caused McDonald's two-day
discharge in January 1935. His reinstatement after this episode and
the later intervention by the Textile Labor Relations Board to secure
his return after a lay-off of six weeks , convincingly refutes any
charges of inattentiveness , talking instead of working , or unsatisfac-
tory work prior. to that time.
T. S. Richey , section man in charge of the doffers , characterized Mc-
Donald as being "the laziest white man I ever worked", unable to
keep up with the other doffers, and habitually guilty of breaking
bobbins which were later found on the floor near his machine. The
respondent called an employee , Fred Ruple, who testified that while
McDonald did not talk more than the rest of the hands, he sometimes
lagged behind the witness in doffing. The importance which the
respondent itself attached to this test of efficiency 'is best shown by
the fact that Ruple was laid off six or eight weeks before McDonald.
The testimony of the overseer , Hendon, , disputes the rule concern-
ing bobbins which Richey emphasized. Hendon pointed out that "as
a general rule . . . if a bobbin is cracked so it won't run well, it is
thrown on the floor." The lack of sincerity in the respondent's con-
tention that McDonald was slow, inefficient , and a violator of its rules
is illustrated by the following passages from the record covering
Hendon's examination by counsel for the Board :
Q. Do you know why Alfonse McDonald is not now working
for the company?
A. I don't suppose his service is needed , I don't know.
740 NATIONAL LAPIOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. You say you didn't fire him?
A. No, I laid him off.
Q. Why did you lay him off?
A. Until we needed him, work was slack.
On December 13, 1935, or possibly prior thereto, the respondent
hired new and inexperienced doffers, and at the time of the hearing
was employing more men in that department than at the time Mc-
Donald was laid off. The true reason for the refusals to reinstate
was given by the general manager, Darby, when in explaining why
he had termed McDonald an "agitator" he pointed to "the strike we
had, and the trouble we had in the mill with him running around
... He stood out in front of the mill, in front of our office, and
prevented our office force and our foremen from coming into the
mill, and I think he testified himself, that he had charge of all the
crowd there to do such things, and see that such things were done."
The discrimination against McDonald, we find, was based upon his
Union activity and affiliations,, and the discriminatory act took place
on December 13, 1935, when the respondent refused to reinstate him.
Empress Blaylock. First employed by the respondent in 1928.
Empress Blaylock worked on the draw frames for eight years and
for a shorter time on the speeder machines. She was a charter mem-
ber of the Union, the second employee to join up, and during 1934
was on the picket line every night.
She was laid off on August 10, 1935, when the second shift was.
shut down, nothing being said to her about the quality of her work.
Her testimony shows that she came back to the mill in October,
asking for her job, and Fred Gamble told her, "You go back home
and when your job starts up I will send for you." She never re
ceived any word from the mill.
The evidence presented by the respondent is designed to show
that Empress Blaylock did unsatisfactory work, failed to carry out
instructions, whipped up the ends of her draw frames, and is handi-
capped by a crippled right hand, several fingers of which are miss=
ing. Fred Gamble testified that when he laid her off in August and
when he spoke to her in October, he did not promise that she would
have her job back, that he merely told her there was no work for her.
He stated that he had complained to her about her work and the
whipping up of the ends of her draw frames. However, an employee
of the same department, called as a witness by the respondent, tes-
tified that the only complaint about Empress Blaylock had been
made shortly before the strike of 1934, when Gamble had called all
the employees together and made a general criticism of the practice
of throwing up the ends of the draw frames. No complaint since
that time is revealed. Fred Carter, an overseer, declared that Em-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 741
press Blaylock did satisfactory work when under his supervision a
few years before the hearing. The record also discloses that the
condition with respect to her right hand had existed since 1918, and
was not shown to have affected her work.
Cleo Sanderson, a new, inexperienced, and non-Union employee
about 18 years of age, was put to work on the draw frames in place
of Empress Blaylock, sometime in December 1935, when production
was resumed. We find that in failing to reinstate Empress Blay-
lock, the respondent has discriminated against her with respect to
hire and tenure of employment for the purpose of discouraging
membership in Local No. 1824.
Mary McClure. Mary McClure had been employed by the respondent
for 11 years, working on the speeders, draw' frames, combers, and
slubbers. She joined the Union at the time of its organization in
September 1933, and a month later was put on the entertainment
committee. In December 1933, she was made secretary of the Local,
and during the spring of 1935, the office of treasurer was added to
her duties. At the time of the hearing, she was still acting as
secretary-treasurer of the Union. She was a leading figure on the
picket line of 1934 and has been instrumental in obtaining new
members for Local No. 1824.
When the entire second shift was taken off on August 10, 1935, she
was laid off with all the others. She spoke to Fred Gamble soon
afterwards, and he told her that he would try to work her as an
extra. The second shift was used for completing a special order on
August 27, and Mary McClure worked that one night, running comb-
ers. That was the last time she was employed by the respondent.
On the next night, Gamble told her there was no work for her,
but he denies that he told her he would send for her. In the latter
part of September 1935, she went to Darby in regard to obtaining
work and also in regard to a notice she had received to vacate the
mill house. He told her there was no work for her and that it would
be necessary for her to vacate the house. Fred Carter also told her
in February 1936, that he had no work for her. Yet when the sec-
ond shift was reopened, sometime before December 13, 1935, many
new and non-Union employees were taken on to operate the speeders
and draw frames.
The respondent introduced evidence to show that the reason Mary
McClure was not reinstated was because she did not properly clean
her machine, and on occasion was rebuked for leaving her work.
Fred Gamble testified to this effect, and also stated that after she
had worked the one night of August 27, her foreman, "Ed (Stafford)
said she could not do the work, and I told her I could not work her
any more." All the testimony relating to leaving her machine dirty,
however, concerns a period about two months after the 1934 strike,
742 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during which time Ed Stafford also reported her for going away
from her machine and talking to other workers. Stafford testified
that he did not remember that he made any complaints about her
after December 1934. During the last eight months she worked
for the mill, no complaints against her are shown by the record,
and Fred Carter testified that she had worked for him in 1933, for
over a year , and had done good work.
Darby explained his labeling of Mary McClure as an "agitator",
by the fact that she had been "bringing in outsiders here and trying
to stir up trouble ", and he attributed to her the presence of Albert
K. Cox, state organizer for the Union , during the threat of a strike
in October 1935. We find that the refusal to reinstate Mary McClure
on and after December 13, 1935, was caused by her prominence in
the affairs of Local No. 1824.
Ida Robnette . An employee of the respondent for 35 years, at the
time of the hearing Ida Robnette was 50 years of age. For the
most part, she worked on the spoolers , but she also had experience
on the twisters and winders . She was a charter member of the
Union, regularly attended all meetings , and, during the strike of
1934, was on the picket line every day and greeted all the officials
as they went into the mill.
She testified that she last worked on September 6, 1935, when she
was laid off by T. S. Richey and told that she was not needed. On
September 9, she returned and asked for work, but was advised that
there still was no work and she would be sent for when needed. In
November , according to her further testimony , she was astonished
when she saw Hendon and Darby about her job, and was told by
each of them that nothing could be done for her , since she had quit.
Although the respondent makes some point of Ida Robnette's
talkativeness , the fundamental reason given for the refusal to rein-
state her is that she had voluntarily quit her job. When told, on
September 9, that there was no work for her, she said to both Richey
and Hendon , "I think I will just quit and go up to Huntsville and
get me a job. " The record clearly discloses the truth of both con-
tentions presented by the respondent. It may be conceded that Ida
Robnette was a very talkative worker. Such a characterization,
however, can have little importance in the face of a record of em-
ployment for 35 years, and cannot overbalance testimony that she
did excellent work and was used for jobs of unusual ' difficulty. As
to the assertion that she.voluntarily resigned , the record also sup-
ports this conclusion. She told many of her neighbors and co-
workers that she had quit and was going to Huntsville to look for-
a new job.
She did not go to Huntsville , however . She stayed on in the
house which the mill owned , expecting to be called back to work.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 743
When she received a notice to vacate her house during November
1935, she talked to Darby and pleaded with him to put her back
to work. Certainly at that time she was making application for
employment , and clearing up any uncertainty as to her intentions.
The answer made to her by the respondent that nothing could be
done, that she should not have quit, was a deliberate attempt to
ignore her request for employment . Moreover, the desire of Ida
Robnette to return to work was well known throughout the com-
munity of mill-owned houses surrounding the plant of the respond-
ent, and continued to be known during all of December . Yet the
record shows beyond a doubt that early in December 1935, many
inexperienced hands were called in from outside the mill neighbor-
hood and put to work in the spooling and twisting departments.
The record also discloses that the mill officials vividly recalled Ida
Robnette 's activity and talkativeness on the picket V line in 1934.
When asked about her part in the strike, Darby stated , "She was
agitating something . I could not say she was active. She was out
there sitting in a chair in front of the mill for probably the two
months, or three months of the strike."
By hiring new employees on or before December 13, 1935, to do the
work which she had been doing for 35 years, we find that the respond-
ent discriminated against Ida Robnette because she was a leading
figure in the activities of the Union.
Maude Coker. Maude Coker was first employed by the respondent
in 1904, but later also worked for other cotton mills in the vicinity.
From 1933 on she had worked for the respondent , generally as a
spinner. She joined the Local about two weeks after it was organized,
took an active part in the strike and picketing in 1934, and regularly
attended all Union meetings.
On November 15, 1935, she was laid off by T. S. Richey, who
stated that the mill was going to. shut down. The mill did shut
down during the following week, but after about six days, the first
shift was put back on, and early in December the second shift was
also reinstated. Maude Coker's 'testimony indicates that she was
told that she would be called back when work started, and since the
mill never sent for her, she did not return to the plant after
November 15.
At the hearing, the respondent's attorney and general manager
both stated that she was a very good employee, and would be given
her job at any time she applied and there was work available. No
explanation is offered for the failure to follow the general community
practice of calling the employees back to work, except the suggestion
that the shutdown notices which were posted throughout the mill on
November 12 , 1935, terminated all employments . As stated above,
the record shows, however, that after that date many other em-
67573-38-vol iv-48
744 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees were called to work by the foremen, and the entire back-
ground of the labor activities of the respondent indicates that the
cessation of operations was in a large measure designed to carry out
the purpose of forcing the active elements of the Union out of the
mill and putting inexperienced workers in their places. All the
officials of the respondent admitted that new employees were taken
on in December 1935, even "learners" were added for the first time
in many years. We find that the failure to reinstate Maude Coker
in December 1935, was a discrimination based upon her Union activi-
ties, and formed a part of a general plan to rid the mill of the leading
Union members.
Grady Doyle. Grady Doyle was first employed by the respondent
in 1928, working for the greater portion of the time on a machine
in the picker room, but also running draw frames in the drawing
department and operating the waste machinery for shorter periods.
He joined Local 1824 when it was first organized, became a delegate
to the Central Labor Body in May 1935, and was the president of the
Union from about August 1935, up to a few days before the hearing.
He was active during the 1934 strike, being on the picket line every
day, and was generally influential in obtaining new members for the
Local.
About June 27, 1935, he told his foreman, Fred Gamble, that since
he was only working a few days each week, he was not making a
living for his family, and would like to get off his job and go on
relief. According to Doyle's testimony, Gamble told him "it would
be perfectly all right," and that his job would be ready for him when
he got ready to come back. The foreman denied that he had ever
promised Doyle that he would have a job waiting for him, but did
admit that he had granted the permission to lay-off and permit him
to go on relief.
Doyle came back for his job on about October 1, 1935. He testi-
fied that Gamble first spoke to him about a Union member not being
a religious man; reminded him of "last summer when you carried
clubs down here and kept me out of the mill"; asked him if he had
been carrying a petition around protesting against working ten hours
a day at the mill; and then concluded, "I don't guess you ever will go
back to work or ever will have any more job. He said he heard all
I done was talk unionism on the street and on my job, and that that
was the reason I didn't have no job at that time." Gamble contra-
dicted this testimony, and admitted only that he told Doyle there
would be no job for him.
Within a short time afterwards, Doyle also saw Darby and asked to
have his job back. He was told that the mill was running slack and
that there was nothing for him at that time. In January 1936, he
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 745
spoke to Fred Carter, foreman during the illness of Fred Gamble,
and was told that there still was no work, but that Carter would do
all he could for him. Since June 27, 1935, Doyle has never been taken
back to work by the respondent.
The management of the mill contends that Doyle was not efficient,
that he made adjustments of the machinery contrary to the plant
rules, and that his supervisors frequently warned him about his work
and practice of tinkering with the machinery.
In his testimony, Doyle disclosed as the only complaint against him,
that about April 1935, an efficiency man, who had been at the mill a
short time, objected because he adjusted a finishing machine in the
picker department for the change to a different size of cotton. Doyle
testified that no fixer was available, and that Fred Carter later told
him that the efficiency man had nothing to do with production, and if
no fixer could be located, Doyle could get a wrench and adjust the
machines. Carter did not recall having any such conversation con-
cerning the machinery.
The refusal to reinstate Doyle is based upon this incident with the
efficiency man, together with the charge made by Fred Gamble that
on the last day that Doyle worked he again violated the rules and
moved the evener on his machine, causing all the finished laps to run
far too heavy. Gamble testified that "the morning he quit he done
all his dirty work,- there in the morning, and I didn't find out until I
had Donald Lindsey and Paul Poague up, and was about to let them
go. I thought they done it, but they said it was him."
Lindsey and Poague, workers in the picker room on the second
shift, placed the incident as having occurred sometime within a
period commencing about three months after the strike and March
1935. Both testified that when Gamble complained about the heavy
laps, they told him it was not their work. They testified that they
did not say anything about Doyle; that they did not know who made
the laps; and that Lindsey was not even working on Doyle's machine.
It is clear from the record that the charges of inefficiency and vio-
lation of the rules concerning the handling of the machinery were
deliberately fabricated by the respondent after Doyle had been al-
lowed to go on relief. Even • after he requested the return of his
job, he was never advised of the complaints against him. He was
told that there was no work for him, that the mill was running slack.
The record does not indicate that any new employees have been
added to the picking department force. However, some employees
with less experience than Doyle have been recalled for work on the
pickers. Donald Lindsey was first taken on by the respondent as an
employee just a few months before Doyle voluntarily-laid off in June
1935. He was assigned to the second shift in the picking depart-
746 NATIONAL LABOIt RELATIONS BOARD
ment, but in October 1935, was moved to the first shift and was not;
at once replaced on the second shift. Ed Lindsey, who was on the:
first shift and also went off in June to go on relief, was called back
by Fred Carter at the beginning of February 1936, and placed oil
the picking room second- shift. Ed Lindsey has not been employed
by the respondent as long as has Doyle. In addition, workers en-
tirely new to the payroll of the respondent have been added to thz
drawing room staff, although Doyle is familiar with this work.
These circumstances, when viewed in the light of the history of
the respondent's relations with its workers, make it evident that the
accusations of violation of the rules and inefficiency are merely to,
camouflage a discharge designed to remove from among its em-
ployees the president and one of the active members of the Union.
By reason of his seniority, Doyle should have been reinstated or
February 3, 1936, at the time Ed Lindsey was called back to work-
Although we have found that Ida Robnette voluntarily left the,
respondent's employ, the refusal to accept her application for em-
ployment and to offer her a position was based upon her union ac-
tivity and constituted an unfair labor practice by the respondent_
In accordance with the foregoing findings of fact, the Board con-
cludes that by refusing reinstatement to Alfonse McDonald, Em-
press Blaylock, Mary McClure, Maude Coker, and Grady Doyle,
and by refusing employment to Ida Robnette, and thus discriminat-
ing against its employees and applicants for employment with respect;
to hire and tenure of employment, the respondent has discouraged
and is discouraging membership in Local No. 1824, United Textil-_
Workers of America, and that by such acts the respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We further find
that at the time of the hearings in this proceeding none of these sis
individuals had obtained any other regular and substantially equiva-
lent employment.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 'UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Sectiora
IV above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above. have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
In addition to an order to cease and desist from its unfair labor
practices, we shall affirmatively require the respondent to offer rein-
statement and present employment to the six persons named in the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 747
complaint, against all of whom we have found discrimination. All
those named in the complaint are also entitled to back pay from the
dates of the discriminatory acts, less any amounts earned by them
in the meantime. We have already indicated above that the dates
of the discriminatory acts are clearly established by the evidence to
be December 13, 1935 in the case of Alfonse McDonald and February
3, 1936 in the case of Grady Doyle. As to the remaining individuals
named in the complaint, the record does 'not specify the exact date
of the discriminatory acts, but the testimony does establish that new
employees were taken on to do the work of these particular persons
early in December 1935, and that the second shift started about De-
cember 5. The date of December 13, on which day a new man was
hired to take the place of McDonald, is later than the time set by the
corroborating testimony, and we shall find that the discriminatory
acts againts all the persons named in the complaint, with the excep-
tion of Grady Doyle, occurred on December 13, 1935.
This proceeding was transferred and continued before the Board
on March 30, 1936, and no Intermediate Report has been filed by the
Trial Examiner. While in the normal case we should order the pay-
ment of back pay from the date of the discrimination to the date of
the offer of reinstatement or employment, in this case, because of the
long delay after its transfer to the Board, we shall not require pay-
ment between the date of such transfer and the date of this decision.
In each instance, therefore, back pay will be ordered from the date
of the discriminatory act to March 30, 1936, and from the date of
this decision to the time of such offer of reinstatement or employ-
ment, less any amounts earned during such period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(1) Local No. 1824, United Textile Workers of America, is a labor
organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
(2) Alfonse McDonald, Empress Blaylock, Mary McClure, Maude
,Coker, and Grady Doyle were at the time they ceased working, and
at all times thereafter, employees of the respondent, within the
meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
(3) By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Alfonse McDonald, Empress Blaylock, Mary McClure, Ida
Robnette, Maude Coker, and Grady Doyle, thereby discouraging
membership in the labor organization known as Local No. 1824,
United Textile Workers of America, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
748 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(4) By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of -the Act.
(5) The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices,
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ent, Cherry Cotton Mills, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from discouraging membership in Local No.
1824, United Textile Workers of America, or any other labor organi-
zation of its employees, by discharging, threatening to discharge, or
refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or refusing to hire any
applicants for employment, or discriminating in any other manner
against them in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other
condition of employment.
2. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
3. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Alfonse McDonald, Empress Blaylock, Mary McClure,
Maude Coker, and Grady Doyle immediate and full reinstatement to
their former positions without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges ;
(b) Offer present employment to Ida Robnette, comparable as to
wages, general duties, and general conditions of employment with
the position formerly held by her;
(c) Make whole Alfonse McDonald, Empress Blaylock, Mary
McClure, and Maude Coker for any loss of pay they have suffered
by reason of the refusal to reinstate them, and Ida Robnette for any
loss of pay she has suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimina-
tion in regard to her hire, by payment to each of them, respectively,
of a sum of money equal to that which each would normally have
earned as wages during the periods from December 13, 1935, the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 749
date of the discriminatory acts; to March 30, 1936, and from the date
of this decision to the time of such offer of reinstatement or employ-
ment, less the amount earned by each of them, respectively, during
such periods;
(d) Make whole Grady Doyle for any loss of pay he has suffered
by reason of the refusal to reinstate him, by payment to him of a sum
of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as
wages during the periods from February 3, 1936, the date of the
discriminatory act, to March 30, 1936, and from the date of this
decision to the time of such offer of reinstatement, less any, amount
earned by him during such periods ;
(e) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
throughout its mill in Florence, Alabama, stating (1) that the re-
spondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and (2) that
such notices will remain posted for a period of at least thirty (30)
consecutive days from the date of posting;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within ten (10) days of this Order what steps the respondent has
taken to comply herewith.