Piedmont Wagon & Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 967 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

in the Matter of PIEDMONT WAGON & MANUFACTURING COMPANY and
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. 5W-C-19.Decided September ,°24, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On September 29, 1947, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the
Act,2 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. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Respondent's
request for oral argument is denied, inasmuch as the contentions and
position of the parties are sufficiently clear from the record and papers
filed in this case.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.*
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by the Respondent, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the mod-
ifications and additions noted below.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (1) of the Act. In doing so, we rely on the Respondent's threats
to close down its plant if the Union came into the plant and on the
1 The power of the Board to issue a Decision and Order in a case such as the instant one,
where the charging union has not complied with the filing requirements specified in Section
9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act , as amended , was decided by the Board in Matter of Marshall
and Bruce Company, 75 N. L . R B. 90. The Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint
on this basis is'therefore denied.
2 The provisions of Section 8 (1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act, which
the Trial Examiner herein found were violated , are continued in Section 8 (a) (1) and 8
( a) (3) of the Act , as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
* Houston, Reynolds and Gray
79 N. L. R. B., No. 119. 967
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's threats of bodily harm to the union organizer who was
engaged in distributing union literature.
2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, .that the Respondent
discriminatorily discharged George W. Cline in violation of Section
8 (3) of the Act.3
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Pied-
mont Wagon & Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations by laying off, discharging, or refusing to reinstate,any
of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer George W. Cline immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole George W. Cline for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner
set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The
Remedy'";
(c) Post immediately in the Respondent's plant at Hickory, North
Carolina, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report,
marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
8 Tutherow testified that his argument with Cline took place "on the last day before the
holiday" n hich was Monday , December 23, 1946, and not "on the last Friday before the
holiday," as the Trial Examiner found.
4 This notice , however, shall be and hereby is amended by striking from the first para-
graph thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner," and substituting in
lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order ." In the event that this order is enforced
by a decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals , there shall be inserted before the words, "A DE-
CISION AND ORDER," the words, "DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
PIEDMONT WAGON & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 969
Regional Director for the Fifth Region, after being duly signed by
the Respondent's representative, shall be posted immediately by the
Respondent upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for at least
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Joseph Lepie, for the Board.
Mr. M. W. Lynch, of Charlotte, N. C., for the Union.
Messrs. Aiken, Patrick, Murphy/ and Harper, by Messrs. John W. Aiken,
Bailey Patrick, and Joseph L. Murphy, all of Hickory, N. C., for the respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by its Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland),
issued its complaint dated June 3, 1947, against Piedmont Wagon & Manufac-
turing Company, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engag-
ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.' Copies of the complaint, the amended
•charge, and the notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the Respondent
-and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance:
+(1) that the Respondent terminated the employment of George W. Cline on
December 31, 1946, and thereafter refused to reinstate him to his former or
substantially equivalent position of employment because of his membership in
and activities on behalf of the Union; and (2) that by various enumerated acts,
the Respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Thereafter the Respondent filed its answer in which it admitted certain alle-
gations of the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on June 23, 24, and 25, 1947, at Hickory,
North Carolina, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner. At the hearing the Board and the Respondent were
represented by counsel and the Union by a representative. Full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence-
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the end of the Board's case,
the undersigned denied a motion by the Respondent to dismiss the complaint for
want of proof. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties waived oral argu-
' All section references to the Act in this report are those which applied prior to the
amendments made by the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947 (Public Law 101, 80th
Congress ) commonly referred to as the Taft-Hartley Act.
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment before the undersigned. Subsequent to the hearing, counsel for the
Respondent filed a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a corporation duly organized under and existing by
virtue under the laws of the State of North Carolina, operating a plant in
Hickory, North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as the Hickory Plant. At its
Hickory Plant the Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of farm wagons
and furniture. During the past 12 months the Respondent in the course and'
conduct of its business caused to be purchased, transferred, and delivered to its
Hickory Plant raw materials in excess of $100,000, of which more than 50 percent
was transported in interstate commerce through the States of the United States
other than the State of North Carolina. During the same period the Respondent
caused to be manufactured at its Hickory Plant finished products valued in
excess of $100,000, of which more than 50 percent was transported from its
Hickory Plant in interstate commerce to States of the United States other
than the State of North Carolina.
The Respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Congress of Industrial Organizations is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Respondent!
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The discharge of George W Cline aM interference, restraint and coercion
On or about June 27, 1946, George W Cline, then unemployed, approached
John R. Millet toreman of the Respondent's furniture department, in answer
to Respondent's advertisement for cabinet makers. After Cline told Miller that
he had seen the advertisement, Miller said that, if Cline could do the job, he
would employ Cline. Cline inquired as to what the job paid and was told that
the rate was $110 per hour. When Cline stated that he was a cabinet maker,
Miller employed him without further question.
Beside Miller, Cline was the third employee hired in the furniture department.
Tutherow had been employed shortly before Cline at a rate of $1.25 per hour,
a rate which was set by the Respondent's president, Henry S. Leonard. An
employee named Setzer also had been employed prior to June 27.
During the hearing, the Respondent contended that Tutherow was the "sub-
foreman" of the furniture department under Foreman Miller. The testimony
as to the date on which Tutherow had been so promoted was highly indefinite
as was the manner in which the promotion was made. Tutherow testified that
Miller and John F. Rhodes, the plant superintendent, had asked him "if [he)
would look after it while Mr. Miller was gone [absent from the department]"
on the day before Cline was employed. The record is silent on any announce-
2 The findings made in Sections I and II are based upon stipulations entered into by the'
parties at the hearing.
PIEDMONT WAGON & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 971
ment of this promotion having been made to the employees of this department.
Tutherow did lay out the work for the other employees but had no authority
to hire or discharge employees , a fact which he decried later that year when
speaking of his relationship with Cline.
The furniture department at the Respondent 's plant is a minor part of the
business accounting for 10 percent or less of its total volume . The department
had been in existence about 2 years as a sort of one-man show by Miller. It
was not until the middle of 1946 that Miller was given the right to expand it.
Since that time he has increased the number of cabinet makers to approximately
7 or 8. Foreman Miller reported directly , according to his own testimony, to
President Leonard despite the fact that Rhodes was the plant superintendent.
Miller appears to have had almost absolute control in the department as Rhodes
acknowledged that he knew little or nothing about the manufacture of furniture.
Cline worked in the furniture department as a cabinet maker at $1 .10 per hour
until his discharge on December 31, 1946. During this period, Cline was never
criticized about his work by the foreman, the superintendent , or the president
of the Respondent . However, Rhodes testified that he had objected to Foreman
Miller that Cline was being paid the $1.10 rate at the end of Cline's first week
of employment when Rhodes first saw his rate . This criticism by Rhodes was
based solely upon the fact that he considered it impossible for as young a man
as Cline to have had sufficient wood working experience to have become a
qualified cabinet maker . At the time of this criticism , Rhodes had seen none
of Cline's work. The matter was not mentioned to Cline at any time during
his employment.
At about October one cabinet maker and two girls who had been sanding in
the department were discharged . On October 24, 1946, two new cabinet makers
were employed and during the month of November , three others were hired in the
furniture department.
Sometime later in November , or early in December , Cline and Tutherow had
a verbal disagreement in the shop when Tutherow ordered Cline to'put a certain
type of handle on a chest of drawers and Cline refused on the ground that Fore-
man Miller had ordered him to put on a different type of handle . Cline stated
that he was taking his orders from Miller. Tutherow took over the job and
put on the type of handles he wanted.
On December 16, 1946, Frank Albert Evans, an organizer for the Union, began
the Union 's campaign to organize the Respondent 's employees by passing out
leaflets to the employees as they left the plant that evening . Evans was stand-
ing outside the fence which surrounds part of the Respondent ' s plant and in an
open area visible from the plant and from the plant barbecue stand while so
engaged. Cline was one of the employees who accepted a leaflet from Evans that
evening and stopped briefly to speak with him. Everybody in the plant knew that
a Union organizer was present.
Evans returned and continued talking to employees and distributing leaflets
in the same open area on December 17, 18, 19 and 20. Cline held short conver-
sations with him on Monday, Tuesday , and Wednesday , December 17 to 19,
inclusive . Evans was seen doing his organizing work by every officer and super-
visor of the Respondent who testified at the hearing.
On December 16, Putnam, the son-in-law of President Leonard and apparently
the Respondent ' s plant manager , walked over to Evans while he was distributing
leaflets and said to him, "If I were you, I wouldn't give that literature
out . . . "You're on company property , you know." Evans handed him a
leaflet whereupon Putnam turned around, walked back to his automobile which
`972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was parked .a few yards away and from that spot, watched Evans for some min-
utes. During the remainder of the week both Putnam and Leonard spent consid-
erable time observing Evans' organizational efforts from various points both in the
plant and on the grounds from which Evans could be seen. Neither man made any
-effort to conceal his presence or his observation of Evans. Leonard acknowledged
that he had watched Evans organizing while Putnam failed to take the stand or
to deny in any way the testimony adduced as to his activities in this regard.
About a week before Christmas and after Evans had commenced organizing
at Respondent's plant, Leonard told Dolly Huss in the cafeteria or barbecue
stand at the plant that he had seen Cline talking to the Union roan and was
going to fire him for it During this or another conversation with Huss at about
-the same time Leonard stated that, if the Union came into the plant, he would
close the plant down.
Jimmy Pope, a 16-year-old boy and ex-employee of the cafeteria, testified that
he heard the statements. Both Leonard and Huss, an 18-year-old girl whom
Leonard had employed as manager of his individually owned cafeteria at the
plant until he closed it and whom he thereafter employed at another one of his
ventures, denied that the statements had been made. However Pope's testimony
was indirectly corroborated by a number of witnesses both for the Respondent
-and for the Board who had discussed similar reports by Pope at or about the time
of Cline's discharge. Furthermore these statements to all intents and purposes
were identical to the undenied statements made by Leonard's son-in-law, Putnam,
-to Evans, Helms, and Cline on December 31. For the above reasons and because
Pope appeared to be a truthful witness, the undersigned accepts the testimony of
Pope as found above.
Evans' appearances and his leaflets caused considerable comment among the
employees.
The plant was in operation on December 23 and then was closed down for the
Christmas Holidays until December 30.
On the evening of December 30, Evans was again at the plant about 4:30 p. m.
-when the employees left the plant for the day. Cline again stopped and talked
to Evans and another organizer named Helms. Evans inquired whether Cline
was ready to join the Union. When Cline stated that he was, Evans produced
-a membership card which Cline filled in and executed while standing in this
open field some 100-odd feet from the plant. While this act was taking place,
Leonard and Putnam were standing and watching the proceedings from the
plant steps. After executing the card, Cline left Evans and Helms and proceeded
:homeward.
Upon his arrival at the plant the following morning about 10 minutes before
the shift was scheduled to start, Cline discovered that his time card was missing
from the rack. Upon making this discovery, Cline went to, Foreman Miller and
asked him where the card was. Miller told Cline that he did "not know what
It was about" but that Rhodes had given him a check for Cline the previous
-evening. Miller thereupon handed the check to Cline. Cline suggested that
his discharge was due to his having been seen talking with the Union organizer.
Miller reiterated that he did not know "if that was what it was about or not."
Thereupon Cline sought out Rhodes and inquired of him why he was being
-discharged. Rhodes stated that he did not know the reason but gave Cline
permission to see Leonard. A short time later, Leonard appeared at the plant
and Cline asked him why he had been fired. Leonard' s answer was, "Well,
you're just fired, that's all." Cline replied that he was going to look into the
matter and find out why he was fired.
ot
PIEDMONT WAGON & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 973
Cline promptly went to the organizers' hotel in Hickory, told them his story,
made out an affidavit for them and returned to the plant with them for the
purpose of talking to Leonard again.
However, as Leonard was not in, the group saw Plant Manager Putnam.
Following the introductions, Putnam, in answer to the query as to why Cline
had been discharged, stated that it was "none of [their] d- business" why
Cline was fired, that he [Putnam] did not know why Cline had been discharged,
that Hickory did not need a union and that before the Respondent would allow
a union in the plant, they would close the plant down. Then Putnam called the
organizers a "bunch of Communists" representing a "Communist organization"
and ordered them "to get the hell out of the office." That closed the interview.
On January 2, 1947, Evans saw Leonard on the streets of Hickory in his auto-
mobile and asked him to reconsider the Cline matter. This Leonard curtly
refused to do.
,About 4:15 on the afternoon on January 2, 1947, Evans again appeared at the
plant to continue his organizing work when Putnam again came over to him,
asked if he had not been warned to stay away from company property and
threatened to go over and bodily throw Evans off the property. Putnam then
reiterated his name-calling, charging Evans with being a "Communist" and
threatened to swear out a warrant and have Evans arrested. Evans stated that
he did not like this name-calling but for Putnam to go ahead and carry out his
threats. Evans continued his distribution of literature to the employees who.
were passing by during Putnam's tirade. On this occasion Putnam remained
in close proximity watching Evans for about one-half hour.
Since January 2, 1947, the Union has refrained from attempting to organize
the employees openly at or near the Respondent's plant.
Under the above-found facts about which there is little, if any, conflict in the
testimony, there could be but little question that the Respondent discharged
Cline because of his visible interest in Union organization and the Respondent's
obvious dislike therefor.
However, the Respondent's answer alleged that on December 31, 1946, Cline
was "layed off or discharged" due to "several things, to wit, business conditions
and to the fact that George W. Cline was an inefficient employee," that he was
not an expert cabinet maker and that $1.10 per hour "was excessive and exorbi-
tant pay" for his services. In its answer the Respondent further alleged as
follows : "It is denied that Respondent failed or refused to reinstate George W.
Cline to his former position but alleges that it agreed to do so and that George
W. Cline did not return to his former employment . . ." At the hearing the
Respondent introduced evidence in support of all the above allegations except
the affirmative, and contradictory, allegation that the Respondent agreed to re-
instate Cline to his former employment. It is therefore necessary that these
allegations and the testimony in support thereof be scrutinized.
Superintendent Rhodes testified that the furniture business as a whole suffered
a serious recession during the whole of the second half of 1946 and was especially
bad from October 1946 to early 1947. But he also testified that the Respondent
began its expansion of the furniture department in June 1946, with full knowledge
of the existence of this recession. The facts further prove that in October at the
very depths of this recession, according to Rhodes' testimony, the Respondent
hired two more cabinet makers and added three additional cabinet makers during
November. After Cline's discharge further cabinet makers were added. These
acknowledged facts are conclusive that "business conditions" were not the cause
of Cline's discharge.
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Foreman Miller testified that Cline was not a "first class" cabinet maker'
His testimony cannot be taken at face value because he himself set the rate
and because after setting the rate, he never attempted to change it nor did he
criticize Cline's work in any way. Superintendent Rhodes testified that he
objected to the rate being paid Cline at the end of Cline's first week of em-
ployment. But his testimony must be disregarded because he arrived at this
result on the purely theoretical basis, and without having seen any of Cline's
work, that as young a man as Cline could not have had sufficient wood working
experience at his age to have become an expert cabinet maker. Also Rhodes
never thereafter objected to Cline's rate of pay nor did he criticize Cline's work.
Leonard also testified that Cline was inefficient citing one instance, occurring
about September 1946, when Cline and some other unknown cabinet maker'
were building a fence at the plant barbecue. Leonard believed that this work
took too much time. His testimony became highly suspect after he testified
that, at the time of the incident, he did not even know Cline's name but that
he did know that Cline was a slower workman on that job than the unknown
employee who had been assisting him. Leonard also testified that he had
criticized the rate of pay being given to Cline. Leonard acknowledged knowing
Cline in September when he was working on the fence and when his rate of
pay was discussed but denied knowing Cline when he was seen talking to the
Union organizer. This peculiarity of Leonard's casts considerable doubt on
his credibility in the whole Cline case.
Respondent's testimony tended to indicate that the decision to discharge Cline
was made prior to the time that he signed the Union card and that he was
actually discharged because of the verbal quarrel he had with Tutherow. So
Leonard testified that on December 27, 1946, Sales Manager Rudisill reported
that he, Rudisill, was worried that the Respondent would not be able to meet
its delivery dates on its orders because there was "trouble" in the furniture
department and that some employees were threatening to quit' and that on
either December 27 or 28, he ordered Rhodes to investigate Rhodes testified
that Leonard told him to investigate on December 27 or 28, and that on December
30, he conducted his investigation by speaking to Miller, who told him of a
conversation he, Miller, had had with Tutherow on December 27. Miller testi-
fied that on December 27, Tutherow had reported that either he or Cline were
going to have to leave Respondent 's employ because of an incident between
them which, in Tutherow's words, had occurred "up there a while ago." The
clear import of the quoted words was that the incident had taken place on De-
cember 27. Miller further testified that he reported this conversation to Leonard,
who had testified to no such conversation with Miller but claimed that his infor-
mation came from Rudisill. At about this point in the testimony it was defi-
nitely established, and the parties stipulated, that the plant was closed for the
holidays from December 24 to 29 inclusive. Tutherow took the stand thereafter
and testified that his quarrel with Cline occurred the last Friday before the
holiday, to wit, December 20, and that his report to Miller was made the same
day.
8 Miller appeared reluctant to so testify.
4 Cline testified that Tutherow was the other workman. Tutherow did not deny this in
his testimony.
3 This testimony appears contradictory to the Respondent's theory that "business con-
ditions" caused Cline' s dismissal . As Rudisill did not testify, it is impossible to tell
whether his report was based upon the quarrel between Cline and Tutherow or on some
totally unrelated matters.
PIEDMONT WAGON cE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 975
To add to the already confused situation, Cline had previously testified that his
best recollection was that the quarrel occurred late in November or early in
December but that he "wouldn't say definitely" that the quarrel had not been
"just the Friday" before the discharge. Due to the stipulation as to the holi-
days, the quarrel could not possibly have occurred on the Friday referred to.
,The one apparently disinterested witness, Woods, a former employee of the
Respondent who had voluntarily quit, testified that the quarrel was "a good
while before" Cline was bred. From the various descriptions of the quarrel, it
is clear that all the witnesses were referring to the same incident.
The stipulation as to the date of the holiday demonstrated the inaccuracies
of the testimony of Leonard, Rhodes, and Miller and confirmed the estimates of
Cline and Woods, so that the undersigned finds that the Cline-Tutherow quarrel
occurred a good while before December 31 and in the latter part of November or
early part of December
Further, the testimony of Leonard and Rhodes tended to show that the
decision to discharge Cline was arrived at early on the morning of December
30, and therefore, prior to the time Cline was seen by the Respondent with the
Union organizer that same afternoon According to Leonard and Rhodes, they
decided to discharge Cline early on December 30 because of the Cline-Tutherow
argument, that Rhodes had Cline's check made out and that Leonard signed
said check before noon. However, Rhodes testified that he "forgot" that the
furniture department shift ended at 4:30 p. in., and, therefore, did not give
Miller the check for Cline until after Cline had left the plant that afternoon.
Miller would only testify that Rhodes gave him the check that evening after
Cline left the plant a Rhodes further testified that, after determining to dis-
charge Cline, he removed Cline's time card from the rack and that, after Cline's
check had been made out, he returned Cline's time card to the rack. The one
point on which all parties agree is that Miller handed this check to Cline about
7 a. in. on December 31.
The Respondent's attempt to prove that the discharge of Cline stemmed from
the Tutherow quarrel is not convincing. Rhodes' testimony regarding his care
in returning Cline's time card to the rack after the check had been made out is
highly incongruous at the very least, if, in fact, the decision to discharge Cline
had actually been made as of the time Rhodes testified that it was made. The
card was not in the rack the following morning. Even on the Respondent's
Theory there is a complete absence of any explanation why the Respondent
waited from the last Friday the plant worked before the holiday, December 20,
until the morning of December 31 before notifying Cline of his discharge if they
had, in fact, decided to discharge him because of the quarrel. The facts, except
for Rhodes' testimony, would seem to indicate that the check was made out after
Cline had been seen with Evans and Helms and that his time card had been
removed at the same time. This theory of the Respondent, like its other defenses
of "business conditions," "inefficiency" and "excessive and exhorbitant pay"
does not stand up under scrutiny, nor were the witnesses who testified to it con-
vincing either in their testimony or in their demeanor on the stand. The under-
signed, therefore, finds that the Tutherow-Cline quarrel was not the cause of
Cline's discharge.
The facts above found clearly indicate that the reason that Cline was dis-
charged was because he had been seen talking with the Union organizer and
O Even in this cautious testimony , Miller is contradicted by his own signed statement
to the effect that his first knowledge that Cline was to be laid off came "one morning"
when Rhodes gave him a check for Cline.
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because of his obvious interest in union organization as well as because of the
Respondent 's dislike for Unions . The facts lead but to this one conclusion. This
conclusion is confirmed by the attitude and words of Putnam at the time of his
interview with the Union organizers and Cline as well as Leonard's statements.
The undersigned believes, and therefore finds, that the Respondent discharged
George W. Cline on December 31, 1946, in order to discourage membership in the
Union and because it had knowledge of Cline's interest in and membership in the
Union and thereby violated Section 8 (3) of the Act.
The undersigned further finds that Putnam 's activities in vilifying and berating
the Union and its organizers in the presence of employees of the Respondent and
the activities of both Putnam and Leonard in keeping under surveillance the
organizational activities of the Union and its employees, constituted interference,
restraint and coercion in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, 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
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain interference,
restraint and coercion . It will be recommended that the Respondent cease and
desist therefrom.
It has also been found that the Respondent has discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of George W. Cline by discharging him on
December 31, 1946, and thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate him. It will
therefore be recommended that the Respondent offer George W. Cline imme-
diate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent po-
sition ' without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and
make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the
Respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages during the period
from December 31, 1946, to the date of the offer of reinstatement less his net
earnings 8 during the same period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case , the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Congress of Industrial Organizations is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
7In accordance with the Board 's consistent interpretation of the term , the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position " is intended to mean "former position wherever
possible and if such position is no longer in existence then to a substantially equivalent
position ." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan,,
Puerto Rico , Branch, 65 N. L. R B 827.
1 See Matter of Crossett Lumber Co., 8 N. L. R. B. 440 , 497-498.
PIEDMONT WAGON & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 977
2. By discharging George W. Cline, thereby discouraging membership in
Congress of Industrial Organizations, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. 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.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned hereby recommends that the Respondent, Piedmont Wagon & Manu-
facturing Company, its agents, successors and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Congress of Industrial Organizations by lay-
ing off, discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer'George W. Cline immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole George W. Cline for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to an amount determined in the manner set forth in the Section
entitled "The remedy" above ;
(c) Post immediately at its plant in Hickory, North Carolina, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, after being signed by
the Respondent's representative, shall be posted immediately by the Respondent
upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for at least sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees 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 ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommen-
dations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the
Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22, 1947, any party may,
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations,
file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original
and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the
Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including
rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the
original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and Any party may, within'
the same period. file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the
Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of excep-
tions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each
of the other parties. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with
the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203 85. As further
provided in said Section 203.46, should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case
to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions
and order, and all objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed waived.
for all purposes.
THOMAS S. WILSON,
7 rial Examiner.
Dated September 29, 1947.
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 in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organ-
izations , to join or assist CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of.
their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and,
make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimina-,
tion.
George W. Cline
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named'
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
PIEDMONT WAGON & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 979
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
PIEDMONT WAGON & MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By ----------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.