Southern Silk Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 21, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

SOUTHERN SILK MILLS , INC. and UNITED TExT E WORKERS OF
AMERICA , AFL. Case No. 10-CA-1293. October R1, 1952
Decision and Order
On December 27, 1951, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
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 hereby denied, as
the record, the exceptions, and brief, in our opinion adequately pre-
sent the issues and the positions of the parties. `
The Board 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 Re-
port, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the additions noted below.
1. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the walkout of the
employees on the 2-10 p. m. shift, April 30, 1952, and the two walkouts
on the 10 p. m., April 30-6 a. m. shift, May 1, 1952, constituted con-
certed activity for mutual aid and protection within the meaning of
Section 7 of the Act., We further find that, as the Respondent dis-
charged Roberts, and first suspended and later discharged the other
39 employees because they participated in these work stoppages, the
Respondent interfered with the employees' right to engage in con-
certed activity in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. More-
over, as the suspensions and discharges amount to discrimination in
regard to hire or tenure of employment, we find the Respondent also
violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.2
In addition, we find that the discharge of the 39 employees was also
motivated by Respondent's resentment against the organizational ac-
1 It is not completely clear from the Intermediate Report that there were two walkouts
on the 10 p. m.-(l a. m. shift . Our holding applies to both of these walkouts , as well as
to the walkout on the prior 2-10 p. m. shift.
2 N. L. R. B. v. Kennametot, Inc., 182 F . 2d 817 ( C. A. 3), enfg. 80 NLRB 1481 ; Duro
Test Corporation, 81 NLRB 976. In making this finding , we hold that the employees who
informally joined together to present their complaint to the Respondent fall within the
definition of a labor organization.
101 NLRB No. 9.
1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tivity engaged in by these employees after they were suspended.
Thus, even if the walkouts by these employees did not constitute pro-
tected concerted activity, it is clear that the Respondent's later dis-
charge of these employees in retaliation for their organizational ac-
tivity was violative of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
2. The Trial Examiner also found, and we agree, that the credible
evidence is insufficient to support the allegations that Respondent's
President William Hilleary, through Lloyd Cunningham, offered to
reinstate the employees who had been discharged if they would reject
the Union; or that Production Engineer W. C. Hilleary kept a union
meeting under surveillance. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the com-
plaint with respect to these allegations.
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, Southern Silk
Mills, Inc., Spring City, Tennessee, and its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL, or any other labor organization of the employees, by dis-
criminatorily laying off or discharging any of 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) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist United Textile Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 thereof.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Trial Examiner
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Wheeler Roberts and the employees listed in Appendix
A of the Intermediate Report immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole Wheeler Roberts and the employees listed in Ap-
pendix A of the Intermediate Report for any loss of pay they may have
SOUTHERN SILK MILLS, INC. 3
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner
set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Upon request make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary
to analyze the amounts of back pay due.
(d) Post at its plant in Spring City, Tennessee, copies of the notice
attached hereto as Appendix A . 3 Copies of said notice, to be supplied
by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60)
consecutive days in conspicuous places, including where notices to em-
ployees 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.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that William Hilleary, Respondent's
president, through employee Lloyd Cunningham, offered to reinstate
the laid-off employees if they would reject the Union; and that Pro-
duction Engineer W. C. Hilleary kept a union meeting under surveil-
lance.
MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
Appendix A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant To a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in UNITED TExTU.E
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, or in any other labor organization
of our employees, by discriminatorily laying off, discharging,
and refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or in any
other manner discriminate in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment.
• In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
242305-53-2
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees regarding their
union membership and activity or warn or threaten them that
such activity or membership will result in loss of employment
or other reprisals.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist UNrrED TEXTILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination against them.
Harry Ruffner
Liner Newby
Teddy Manday
Lawrence Hamby
Edward Hollaway
Henry Hill
Frank Knox
Effie Fugate
G. C. Thurman
Virgil Smith
Lois Dye
Evie Jo Fugate
Nettie Romines
Irene Hill
Raymond Wolfe
Jim Thompson
Jim Galloway
Ted Barnett
Eugene Gillum
Dallas Knox
Paul Agee
Howard Laman
Edward Steincipher
Harold Strader
June Schoolfield
Harold Cawood
Wheeler Roberts
Felix Alley
Margaret Strader
Robert Reed
Russell Kincannon
Faye Schoolfield
Floyd Reed, Jr.
Earl Fugate
Harold Garden
Raymond Brady
Frank Cunningham
James A. Smith
Dawes D. Hall
James D. Wilkey
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 their hire and tenure of employment or any
SOUTHERN SILK MILLS, INC. 5
term and condition of employment because of membership in or ac-
tivity on behalf of any such labor organization.
SOUTHERN SILK MILLS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated ----------------- By --------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice mist remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hear-
ing thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-
named Company, a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in
violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein
called the Act, by the Respondent Company, was held in Dayton, Tennessee, on
November 26, 27, and 28, 1951, before the undersigned Trial Examiner.
In substance the complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that in May
1951, the Respondent (1) discriminatorily laid off and discharged certain named
employees 1 in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act ; and (2) by such
discrimination and by interrogation, intimidation, and surveillance interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, to introduce
evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file
briefs and proposed findings and conclusions . General Counsel argued, his
argument appearing in the transcript of the hearing. A brief has been received
from the Respondent. Disposition of the Respondent's motion to dismiss the
complaint, upon which ruling was reserved at the hearing, is made in the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations appearing below.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Southern Silk Mills, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation having its principal
office and place of business in Spring City, Tennessee , where it is engaged in
the manufacture of women's apparel. During 1950 the Respondent purchased
raw materials valued at more than $150,000, of which about 85 percent was
purchased from points outside the State of Tennessee. During the same period
it sold finished products valued at more than $150,000, of which about 85 percent
was sold and shipped to points outside the State of Tennessee.
The Respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
i It was alleged that Wheeler Roberts was discharged on May 1 , that on the same day
the 39 employees listed on Appendix A attached hereto were laid off, and that on May 5
the said employees were discharged.
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America, AFL, is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Events and major issues
There is little dispute in the evidence relating to the major issues in the case-
the mass layoff on May 1 and discharge on May 5 of the 39 employees listed on
Appendix A, attached hereto. The Respondent concedes the action and the
identity of the individuals.
The testimony of the Respondent's president, William Hilleary, establishes
that the "cooling" or air-conditioning apparatus in this small textile plant of
about 200 employees was out of order from about April 25, 1951, until sometime
after the layoff. Hilleary conceded that the room temperatures from April 25
to May 1 ranged from 90 to 97 degrees. It is reasonably inferred and the Trial
Examiner finds that employment for 8 hours in such temperatures constituted
working conditions.
During the early night shift of April 30 a few of the employees decided to, and
did, walk out of the plant to cool off for a few minutes. They shut down their
machines but did not punch the time clock. More employees on the next shift
did likewise, remaining outside in the cooler air for a few minutes and then
returning to their jobs. In all about 40 employees on 2 shifts concertedly and
briefly left their machines.
That such action was concerted is made plain by testimony not only of par-
ticipating employees but also of at least one shift foreman,' V. M. Fairchild,
who testified that before workers on his shift walked out one of them came to
him and said : "I don't want you to think that we are trying to run over you or
anything," and "we are going outside." Fairchild also admitted that employees
had complained about the heat before walking out. Nor is the testimony of
employee Henry Hill credibly contradicted to the effect that Fairchild, who also
went outside, told the employees when asked what he was going to "do about it,"
that "it was just too hot for anybody to work in there," and that he "didn't give
a damn if they stayed out all night."
Shift Foreman Earl Treadway, when asked by employee Wheeler Roberts what
he was "going to do about this," said "I don't aim to do anything. I wouldn't ask
them to go back in there if they sat out there all night." Roberts himself urged
the employees in his group to go back in and finish the shift, and he agreed to act
as spokesman the next day in an effort to get John McCuiston, manager of the
knitting and warping departments, to "cool it down."
Early in the afternoon of May 1 Roberts and several employees came to the
plant before their shift began. Roberts asked McCuiston if "they was going to
cool it down to where we could live in there." McCuiston replied that he didn't
know, but that if they couldn't, the employees "could get out," and he "didn't
give a damn."
Workers reported as usual on the shift beginning at 2 p. in., May 1. After
talking with Roberts, McCuiston reported to Hilleary that employees working
2 At the hearing the Respondent contended , in effect, by declining to agree to General
Counsel 's proposed stipulation , that shift foremen were not supervisors . Testimony of
Hilleary himself deprives the contention of merit . Shift foremen reported the walkout,
selected the employees for layoff , and upon instructions issued by Hilleary , discharged
them.
SOUTHERN SILK MILLS, INC. 7
the night before had walked out , leaving their machines . Hilleary told the
manager to lay off for the rest of the week all who had participated , except
Roberts, and ordered Roberts' immediate discharge . Through the shift fore-
man, Hilleary 's orders were carried out that same afternoon ; Roberts was dis-
charged by McCuiston and later given a separation slip noting that dismissal
had been for "misconduct."
The next day , May 2, several of the laid -off employees went to Knoxville,
Tennessee , interviewed union officials, and upon return to Spring City promptly
began self-organization , soliciting signatures to union application cards from
their fellow employees. During that week at least two shift foremen were thus
solicited and a union organization meeting was held.
Early Saturday morning, May 5, according to the credible testimony of five
different employees who were not laid off or discharged , McCuiston came to
them separately , asked if they had heard about "the boys" organizing a union,
and stated his belief and fear that Hilleary would not operate under a union
but would close the plant down.
Later the same morning, Hilleary came to the plant and instructed McCuiston
to discharge and pay off all who had been laid off on May 1 . McCuiston and
shift foremen promptly began delivering to employees wherever located their
checks and separation slips stating that the discharge was for "misconduct."
Whether or not the mass layoff and discharge was violative of the Act is
the major issue in the case.
B. Conclusions as to the layoffs and discharges
As to the May 1 discharge of Roberts and layoff of employees listed on Appen-
dix A, Hilleary 's own testimony makes plain that his resentment against their
concerted activities was the motivating cause . He said that he told McCuiston
"we couldn 't have that sort of thing and some definite disciplinary action would
have to be taken and suspend them immediately."
Hilleary claimed that he discharged Roberts because this was his "second
offense." It appears that several years ago-in 1943-after working for the
Company since 1931, Roberts quit his job voluntarily when McCuiston ordered
him to run twice as many machines for the same pay. He was rehired in 1947
and it is undisputed that there had been no complaint about his work or conduct
since then . Clearly there was no similarity in the "offenses" ; even if Hilleary
sincerely believed it to be an "offense" for one of his employees to quit his job
outright , the action was condoned by rehiring, and in 1951 Roberts did not quit,
but merely walked out briefly with others to escape and protest against unbear-
able working conditions . It is more reasonable to infer , and the Trial Examiner
finds, that Hilleary ordered his discharge because he believed Roberts had led
the concerted action , since he acted as spokesman for the employees in protest-
ing the heat conditions to McCuiston.
The activity of the employees , including Roberts, was concerted and protected.
It was clearly a walkout, not a refusal to work while on the job. The shift
foremen were not only appraised of the nature of the complaint , but they also
took part in the demonstration , at least to the extent of going outside with the
employees . That they did not punch their time cards does not alter the nature of
their activity.'
The complaint alleges that the discharge of Roberts and the layoffs of the
others were discriminatory and violative of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the
Act. The undisputed facts support this allegation . By their activity , the em-
2 J. I. Case Company , Bettendorf Works , 95 NLRB 47.
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees in a group were acting in concert for their mutual aid and protection
with respect to conditions of work. That they were not acting, at that time, as
members of or on behalf of the Union is immaterial ; the Respondent's discrimi-
nation against them discouraged group membership and activity and therefore
was violative of Section 8 (a) (3) as well as Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act .4
As to the discharge on May 5 of the employees already "suspended" on May 1,
Hilleary in effect admitted, as a witness, one allegation of the complaint : that
the action was taken because of the walkout. General Counsel also claims that
a coexisting motive was to discourage membership in the Union.
Hilleary claimed that suspending his employees on May 1 "was a burden on
his mind" until the same night when, driving along the highway, he apparently
disposed of the burden by making up his mind "to discharge the group that had
challenged the authority of the mill and shown such insubordination." Also
according to Hilleary he was busy most of the remainder of the week-not with
the working conditions of his employees, but by putting a lot of strawberries in
deep freeze. Nevertheless on Friday night he "lay awake all night trying to
find some justification for not discharging them because these folks have been my
friends." His search was futile. On Saturday be got "up in the morning with
the conclusion there was nothing else to do for the good of the business."
Thus Hilleary's quoted testimony establishes violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
and (1) in discharging the employees, as in the case of the layoffs. Credible
evidence, moreover, convinces the Trial Examiner and he finds that Hilleary
was further incensed because his employees had engaged in self-organzation
during their suspension . That Hilleary was aware of activity in organizing
the Union is reasonably inferred and found not only from McCuiston's warning
to five employees before the discharges, but also from the fact that organization
occurred in a small community and a small mill. It is concluded and found
that, in addition to his own admitted motive, Hilleary discriminatorily discharged
the employees listed on Appendix A to discourage membership and activity in
the Union, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act."
It is further found that McCuiston's interrogation of employees and accom-
panying warning of the plant's closing constituted interference, restraint, and
coercion.
C. Other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
Shortly after organization of the Union began, W. C. Hilleary, the plant pro-
duction engineer and son of the president, asked employee Glen Larson how he
"felt about the Union." Such interrogation, as the Board has found, is vio-
lative of rights guaranteed employees by the Act e
Roselle Starring, manager of the dyeing and finishing department, after the
discharges, told employees Larson and Baldwin that the plant might close if the
Union came in .' This remark, made by a management representative, was
clearly coercive.
4 The office Towel Supply Company, Incorporated , 97 NLRB 449 ; Duro Test Corpora,
tion, 81 NLRB 979.
5 In his brief , counsel for the Respondent claims that the "misconduct" alleged on the
separation slips included other "offenses," including claims that "someone deliberately
jimmied the control, siphoned water out on the floor and planned the walkouts." No
credible evidence was offered by the Respondent to support a finding that any one or more
of the 40 employees involved tampered with or damaged any property.
6 Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358.
Starring's denials as to making these remarks is not accepted as credible . As found,
Hilleary discharged 39 employees to discourage union membership.
SOUTHERN SILK MILLS, INC. 9
D. Other allegations of the complaint
The complaint alleges that Hilleary, the Respondent's president, through
employee Lloyd Cunningham, offered to reinstate his laid-off employees if they
would reject the Union. Cunningham's testimony fails to support this con-
tention, and Hilleary denied having made such an offer. The Trial Examiner
concludes and finds that the credible evidence is insufficient to support the alle-
gation of the complaint.
It is also alleged that in June 1951, Production Engineer W. C. Hilleary "kept
under surveillance" a union meeting. Hilleary readily admitted attending a
meeting, and Union Counsel Jacobs as readily admitted that Hilleary left when
so requested by him. It appears that in going to the meeting, young Hilleary
seriously accepted an invitation admittedly made "jokingly" by Jacobs, the same
day, while both were attending a Board hearing. Under the circumstances de-
scribed by Jacobs himself the Trial Examiner finds the evidence insufficient to
establish "surveillance" of the sort proscribed by 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 ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce. It will be recommended that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent, by the layoffs and discharges described
above, discriminated against certain individuals in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment in violation of the Act. It will therefore be recommended
that the Respondent offer to Wheeler Roberts and the employees listed on
Appendix A immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions,' without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to that which he would normally have earned less his net earnings,' which
sum shall be computed on a quarterly basis during the period from the discrimi-
natory discharge to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement." It will also be
recommended that the Respondent make available to the Board, upon request,
payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amount of back pay
due."
The discrimination found herein indicated a purpose to limit the lawful
concerted activities of the Respondent's employees. Such purpose is related to
other unfair labor practices, and it is found that the danger of their commission
is reasonably to be apprehended. It will therefore be recommended that the
8 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York , .an Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440.
'O F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
11 Ibid.
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Textile Workers of America, AFL, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Wheeler
Roberts and the employees listed on Appendix A, attached hereto, thereby
discouraging membership in a labor organization , the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed by 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.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
Harry Ruffner Irene Hill Felix Alley
Liner Newby Raymond Wolfe Margaret Strader
Teddy Manday Jim Thompson Robert Reed
Lawrence Hemby Jim Galloway Russell Kincannon
Edward Hollaway Ted Barnett Faye Schoolfield
Henry Hill Eugene Gillum Floyd Reed, Jr.
Frank Knox Dallas Knox Earl Fugate
Effie Fugate Paul Agee Harold Garden
G. C. Thurman Howard Laman Raymond Brady
Virgil Smith Edward Steincipher Frank Cunningham
Lois Dye Harold Strader James A. Smith
Evie Jo Fugate June Schoolfield Dawes D. Hall
Nettle Romines Harold Cawood James D. Wilkey
BLUE MOUNTAIN MILLS AND DAYVILLE LUMBER COMPANY and LUM-
BER AND SAWMILL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. 2545, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL.
Case No. 36-CA-2P9. October 21,195$
Decision and Order
On February 11, 1952, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued
his Intermediate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its en-
tirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
101 NLRB No. 11.