Standard Knitting Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1943

48 N.L.R.B. 148 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL
LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION, AFFILIATED WITH TIIE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C4,036.-Decided March 17, 1943
Jurisdiction : garment manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
interference, Restraint, and Coercion: employer's distribution of anti-union
paper, and reading of anti-union notice to employees ; circulation of anti-union
cards not effectively reputed by employer; strike caused and prolonged by
unfair labor practices. .
Remedial Orders : employer ordered to cease and desist from disseminating
anti-union propaganda among its employees by distributing a named publica-
tion, and from permitting the circulation of anti-union literature on its prem-
ises ; employer ordered to cancel all subscriptions it had entered to an anti-
union publication in the names of its employees ; reinstatement and back-pay
awarded unfair-labor-practice strikers.
DECISION
a AND
ORDER
Upon complaint issued pursuant to charges duly filed by Interna-
tional Ladies Garment Workers Union, herein called the Union,
against Standard Knitting, Mills, Inc., herein called the respondent,
a hearing was held before a Trial Examiner, at Knoxville, Tennessee,
from August 14 to 18 and October 16 to 21, 1941, in which the Board,
the Union, and the respondent participated by their representatives.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made on
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence and finds that
no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On December 22, 1941, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report finding that the respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action as set out in the copy of the Intermedi-
ate Report attached hereto. • The respondent has filed no exceptions
to the Intermediate Report. The respondent and the Union have filed
briefs. Oral argument was held before the Board on January 5, 1942,
.in which the respondent and the Union participated. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the briefs, and the entire record"
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and. recoln-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, save as inconsistent with the find-
ings and conclusions set forth below.
48 N. L. R. B., No. 26.
148
STA\iDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 149
I. BACKGROUND
The Union began to organize the respondent's employees in, August
1938. In a previous case 1 involving the respondent, we found that
from the -outset of organizational attempts by the Union, the respond-
ent conducted a campaign against it in violation of the Act. Thus,
we found that the respondent, in August, September, and October
1938, and in January and February 1939, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees by making anti-union statements; by ques-
tioning employees as to, their membership in the Uhion ; by requesting
employees to attend union meetings for the purpose of reporting to it
on the activities of the Union; by urging and warning its employees
not to join or remain members of the-Union; by threatening to dis-
charge its employees if they continued their activities on behalf of the
Union; by countenancing the circulation of an anti-union petition
among its. employees ; and by posting a notice which revealed the re-
spondent's anti-union policy. We further found that during 1938 and
1939 the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire, tenure, terms
and conditions of employment of various employees, in violation of the
Act.
II. INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, AND COERCION
A. "Progressive Labor" and the notice of February 21, 1941
The record in the instant proceeding clearly shows that the respond-
ent has continued its anti -union campaign. We agree with the Trial
Examiner that the respondent violated the Act by causing "Progressive
Labor" to be circulated among its employees from May 1939 to October
1941. The respondent 's purpose by such circulation to discourage
employees from adherence to the Union, and the necessarily discourag-
ing effect of this action , is clear from the character of the paper and
the circumstances attendant upon its circulation . A reading of copies
of "Progressive Labor" shows that it is not a "newspaper " in the usual
sense of the term. Its articles and "news " items are devoted in large
part consistently to attacks on labor unions and union activities in the
vicinity of Knoxville , particularly the Union involved herein, and its
activities at respondent 's plant. General Manager Ashe "carefully"
read issues of the paper before arranging for the subscriptions for his
employees , and received it himself thereafter . So far as the record
shows, the paper has no general circulation apart from this arrange-
ment betweeii its publisher and the ' respondent , and similar arrange'
ments with other employers . As noted above , shortly before the
i Matter of Standard Knitting Mills, Inc and Federal Textile Labor Union No 21751,
affiliated with the Ainei scan Federation of Labor, 25 N. L R B 168, enforced in l' L R B.
v. Standard Knitting Mills, Inc, 123 F. (2d) 58 (C C. A. 6), handed down October 14,
1941.
I/
150 DECLS.IONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RE'LAT--TONS BOARD
respondent first effected the,circulation among its employees, it had
engaged in other unfair labor practices; and as noted below and in the
Intermediate Report it engaged in still, further anti-union conduct
contemporaneously with the circulation of the paper. Under all
the circumstances, we find that the respondent's conduct in having
"Progressive Labor" sent to its employees is.not protected by the First
Amendment, as the respondent contends, since such conduct was part of
its campaign to defeat the Union, and was intended to discourage, and
necessarily had the effect of discouraging, membership therein. _
Similarly, the reading to employees of the notice of February 21,
1941, must be viewed in its setting of prior and subsequent unfair prac-
tices, as well as in the light of Department Manager Gleason's contem-
.poraneous anti-union statement' to the employees. Against such a
background, and in view of the emphasis in the notice on individual
bargaining, and the benefits thereof, it is plain that the "open shop"
policy, referred to in the notice, in practice was designed to cover and
in fact connoted an anti-union policy 2 Under all the circumstances,
we are convinced, and. find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the notice
was designed to discourage and had the effect of discouraging affiliation
with the Union, and that by reading such notice to its employees and
by Gleason's anti-union statement, the respondent engaged in coercive
conduct within the meaning of Section 8 (1)' of the A4.'
B. The anti-union cards
We are also convinced, as was the Trial Examiner, that the respondent
encouraged, assisted in, and permitted the circulation of the anti-union
cards. As noted above, the respondent had persistently sought to
eliminate the Union, and pursuant to such design, inter alia, had
enlisted the aid of "Progressive Labor," which was distributed among
the employees for a period of 2 years prior to the circulation of the
anti-union cards. Imbued with the anti-unionism of the paper, certain
of the respondent's employees sought out the editor thereof and had
him print the cards. Extensive circulation of these cards took place
in the plant. Although such circulation was repeatedly called to the
respondent's attention by union officials and other employees, and while
the respondent repeatedly promised to stop the circulation of the cards,
and instructed its supervisors to do, so, it is clear that the respondent
made no substantial bona fide attempt to stop the cards.
We are persuaded to this conclusion by the fact that respondent took
no effective steps to stop the circulation of the cards.. While super-
visors were instructed in this regard and while individual employees
' Cf. Matter of SunTent Luebbert Company, et al., and Textile
Workers Union of Amer-
ica, Local No . 99, C. I . 0., 37 N. L. R. B. 50, 78.
8 N L. R. B. v. Vargentia Electric & Power Co., 314 U. S. 469.
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC . 151
were in some instances similarly instructed, the employees generally
were never informed prior to the strike that the circulation of the cards
in the plant must,cease. In the past the respondent had transmitted
instructions to its employees by having supervisors read notices to them,
as had been done on February 21, 1941, when respondent's supervisors
read to the employees a notice purportedly designed to curb the circula-
tion of union literature in the plant. Admittedly no notice forbidding
the. circulation. of the cards was ever posted or read to the employees.
The respondent further- concedes that employees were never called
'together in groups prior to the strike, and instructed in any manner
concerning the cards.
That the respondent made no bona fide attempt to stop the cards is
apparent from the conduct of its supervisors. Shores, an employee in
the box shop, testified that on Tuesday morning, May 27, 1941, before
working hours, the cards were distributed in that department, and
thereafter she inquired of Department Manager Mays what he would
do about stopping the circulation. Mays disclaimed knowledge of the
cards. Floorlady Meek, who was present, had a card on her table,
which she showed to Mays explaining to him "those are cards put out
by the management." Mays and Meek, who testified concerning this
conversation, did not contradict the foregoing testimony of Shores.
We find that Department Manager Mays and Floorlady Meek not only
failed to make any effort to stop the circulation of the cards, but by
their conduct in Shores' presence on this occasion in question affirma-
tively indicated to employees that the respondent sponsored such cir-
culation. It is likewise clear, as the Trial Examiner found, that
Department Managers Dalton and Clark, and Floorladies Sutton and
Webster made no substantial effort to prevent the circulation of the
cards. Sutton, who, in contradictory and incredible testimony, claimed
to have instructed her employees regarding the cards, herself signed a
card during the strike. Clark, who had been receiving a free subscrip-
tion to "Progressive Labor," admittedly instructed only one employe
regarding the cards, although on numerous occasions in the past he had
read instructions from the respondent to all of the employees under his
supervision.
Furthermore, certain of the respondent's other supervisors affirma-
tively encouraged and assisted in, the circulation of the cards. This is
apparent from the conduct of Floorlady Carter and Assistant Foreman
Steiner, described in the Intermediate Report. Of like character was
the activity of Floorlady Elliott. McDaniel, a witness for the Board,
testified that on Tuesday, the day of the strike, during working hours,
she saw Floorlady Elliott give a bunch of the cards to Hattie Allen,
an employee who was active in circulating the cards. While Elliott
and Allen contradicted this testimony, we credit it, since Elliott herself
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RE'LAT'IONS BOARD
admittedly signed a card, and Allen in-general -made a vague and
unreliable witness.
Finally, during the strike, the respondent, by causing the distribu-
tion of "Progressive Labor" among the employees, continued to en-
courage the circulation and signing of the cards.' The issue of "Pro-
gressive Labor" of May 29, 1941, featured an article which spoke
approvingly of the fact that "hundreds have signed . . . [the cards]
showing that they don't-want to be victims of the labor racket." The
issue of June 5 carried an editorial referringAo "those who are assert-
ing their American rights by signing a petition [the cards] protest-
ing to the Standard management that they do not want to join or be
interfered with by any union. . . ." The issue of June 12 featured
an editorial which specifically praised the circulation of the anti-
union cards, and denounced the circulation- of membership application
cards of the Union.
We find that the respondent, by encouraging, assisting in, and
permitting the circulation of the cards in its plant, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
III. THE STRIKE
We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the strike was caused
and prolonged by the respondent's unfair labor practices. On the
afternoon of May 27, 1941, the respondent's employees spontaneously
ceased work. Their action, as the respondent admits in its brief, was
caused by the continued circulation of the anti-union cards, for which,
as we have found, the respondent is accountable. A conference was
held shortly after the stoppage, at which General Manager Ashe again
assured representatives of the Union that the respondent would put a
stop to the circulation of the "yellow" cards in its plant; thereafter the
employees returned to work for a few hours pending a strike vote taken
and carried at a union,meeting. It is clear, however, that the con-
siderations which motivated the strike vote were no different from
those which occasioned the earlier spontaneous walk-out, and that the
strike which was declared at the union meeting was only a continuation
of the,one which had begun earlier in the day.4
'The Union's primary gii vance remained the circulation of the "yellow" cards. It is
evident that the officers and members of the Union justifiably distrusted the respondent's
assurances, given at the conference following the spontaneous walk-out, that the circula-
tion of the cards would be stopped. As Williams, secretary-treasurer of the Union, testi-
fied, the respondent had repeatedly made such promises before, but there had been "no
action on it " At the conference, General Manager Ashe admittedly gave no specific
instructions to the supervisors present as to what measures they should take to stop the
`cards The respondent's lack of good faith in this regard is demonstrated, moreover, by
its conduct in continuing to encourage the circulation of the cards during the strike,
f
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 153
For a long period prior to the strike, as we have found, the respond-
ent had engaged in a course of conduct which constituted interference
with the employees' freedom to organize for collective bargaining.
The respondent's conduct respecting the cards was only the most recent
episode in this anti-union campaign. On the eve of the strike the.
respondent's earlier unfair labor practices remained unremedied and
even then, as well as thereafter, it continued effectively to obstruct the
Union's organizational efforts. Such a persistent course of conduct
leads to and prolongs strikes. We are, convinced that it did so in
this case.,'
While it is true that at the meeting `following the renewal of the
strike, the Union's demand for it collective bargaining agreement was
predominar t in the discussion, such a demand is not decisive in deter-
mining the causes of the strike. The goal of a strike and its cause are
not the. same thing. No reason appears why the respondent should
not be held responsible for the consequences of its unlawful conduct
in the absence of a clear showing that the strike would have continued
even if the respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices. The
respondent has failed to make such a showing.
Moreover, the Union's request for recognition and a contract was
but a manifestation of the employees' reaction to the resp'ondent's
anti-union activities prior to the strike. As the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals has said, "The Union contract in such a case as this becomes
merely the symbol of the employer's acceptance of the Union. If the
contract is refused, we cannot say that the -refusal is the cause of the
ensuing strike, even though doubtless its acceptance would have averted
it. The causes of the strike remain the unfair labor practices which
the employer by his refusal of the proffered covenant of peace indicates
that he will continue." s
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the strike of May 27, 1941,
was caused and prolonged by the respondent's unfair labor practices.7
.IV. THE REMEDY
Since the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies'of the Act.
6 Section 1 of the Act provides :
The denial by employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by em-
ployers to,accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of
industrial strife or unrest, . . .
ON. L. R B v Republic Steel Corp., 107 F. (2d) 472 (C. C. A 3), modified in other
respects 311 U S. 7.
7 Cf. N. L. R B. v. Remington-Rand, Inc, 94 F. (2d) 862 (C C A 2), cert den. 304 U. S.
576; N. L. R. B. v. Stackpole Carbon Co , 105 F. (2d) 167 (C. C. A 3), cert. den. 308
U. S. 605.
154 DECISIONS Or' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We have found that the strike which commenced at the respondent's,
plant on May 27, 1941, was caused and prolonged by the respondent's
.unfair labor practices. In order to restore the status quo before the
strike, we shall order the respondent (1) to offer reinstatement to their
former, or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges, to those employees who went
on strike on May 27, 1941, or thereafter, and who have applied for and
who have not been offered reinstatement, and (2) upon application,
to offer reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and priv-
ileges, to those employees who went on strike on said date, or thereafter,
and who have not previously applied for reinstatement.
The reinstatement of employees in categories (1) and (2) 'above,
shall be effected by dismissing, if necessary, any persons hired by the
respondent after May 27, 1941, the date of the strike, and not in the
employ of the respondent on said date. If thereupon, despite such
reduction in force, there is not sufficient employment immediately avail-
able for the remaining employees, including those employees who are
to be offered reinstatement, all available positions shall be distributed
among such employees without discrimination against any employee
because -of his union affiliation or concerted activities, following such
a system of seniority or other nondiscriminatory practice to such extent
as has heretofore been applied in the conduct of the respondent's busi-
ness. Those employees, if any, remaining after such distribution, for
.whom no employment is immediately available, shall be placed upon
a preferential list and offered employment in their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions, as such employment becomes available and
before other persons are hired for such work, in accordance with such
system of seniority or other non-discriminatory practices as has here-
tofore been followed by the respondent.
We shall order the respondent to make whole those 'employees
who went on strike on May 27, 1941, or thereafter, and who have
applied for and have been refused reinstatement, for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's refusal, if any,
to reinstate them, as provided above, by payment to each of them of
a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned
as wages during the period from 5 days after the date on which he
applied for reinstatement to the date of the respondent's offer of
reinstatement or placement upon a preferential list, less his net earn-
ings," if any, during such period. We shall order the respondent
to make whole those employees who went on strike on May 27, 1941,
or thereafter, who have applied for and who have received reinstate-
ment, for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
8 See footnote 14 of Intermediate Report.
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. -155
respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them within 5 days from
the date of such application, by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to that which he would normally have earned as' wages
during the period from 5 days after the date upon which he applied
for reinstatement- to the date upon which he was reinstated, less his
net earnings, if any, during such period. We shall also order the
respondent to make whole those employees who went out on strike
on May 27, 1941, or thereafter, and who have not previously applied
for reinstatement, for any loss of pay they may suffer by reason of
the respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them, as provided above,
by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which
he would normally have earned as wages during the period from 5
days after the date on which he applies for reinstatement to the date
of the respondent's offer of reinstatement or placement on a prefer-
ential list, less his net earnings, if any, during such period.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Standard Knitting Mills,
Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Disseminating anti-union propaganda among its employees
by distributing, or causing to be distributed, the publication known
as "Progressive Labor," or otherwise ; -
(b) Permitting the circulation of anti-union literature on its
premises; and
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose 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 `ti11
effectuate the policies of the Act : I
(a) Immediately cancel all subscriptions it has heretofore entered
to the paper "Progressive Labor" in the names of any of its employees;
(b) Offer to the employees who went on strike on May 27, 1941,
or thereafter, and who have applied for and have been refused
reinstatement, and, upon application, offer to those employees who
went out on strike on May 27, 1941, or thereafter, and who have not
previously applied for reinstatement, immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially -equivalent positions, without'
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, in the
Y
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manner set forth in' the section entitled "The remedy" above, placing
those employees for whom employment,is not. immediately available
upon a preferential list in the manner set forth in said section, and
thereafter, in said manner, offer them employment as it becomes
available ; -
(c) Make whole the employees ordered to be offered reinstatement,
who applied for and were refused reinstatement by the respondent
after May 27, 1941, for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason
of the respondent's refusal to reinstate them by payment to each of
them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which he would
have earned as wages during the period from the date of the re-
spondent's refusal to reinstate him to the date of the respondent's
offer of reinstatement, or placement upon a preferential list, required
,by paragraph (b) above, less his net earnings, during said -period;
(d) Make whole the employees who went on strike on May 27, 1941,
or thereafter, and who have applied for and received reinstatement,
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respond-
ent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them within five (5) days of their
respective applications, ' as provided in' the section entitled "The
remedy" above, by payment to each of them of a 'sum of money equal
to that which he would normally have earned as wages during the
period from five (5) days after the date on which he applied for
reinstatement to the date of his reinstatement, less his net earnings,
if any, during such period;
(e) Make whole the employees ordered to be offered reinstatement,
and who have not applied for reinstatement, for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the respondent's refusal to reinstate
them, upon application, following the issuance of this Order, by pay-
ment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that
which each would normally have earned as wages during the period
from five (5) days after the date of such application for reinstatement
to the date of the offer of employment or placement upon a prefer-
ential list, required by paragraph (b) above, less his' net earnings
,during said period; -
(f) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant,
and maintain for a\ period of sixty (60) consecutive days from the
date of such posting, notices to its employees stating (1) that the
respondent will not engage in the conduct, from which it is ordered
to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order
and (2) that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs
2 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this Order;
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region-in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Signed at Washington, D. C., this 17th day of March 1943.
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 157
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. John C. MeRee, Mr. Alexander E. Wilson, Jr. and Mr. James W. Dorsey,
for the Board.-
.
Mr. R. B. Kramer, Mr. Len G. Broughton, and Mr.' J. W. Baker, of Knoxville,
Tenn , for the respondent. I
Mr. Joseph Jacobs, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on June 5, 1941, by International Ladies Garment ,
Workers Union, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia), issued its complaint, dated July 24, 1941, against Standard Knitting
Mills, Inc, Knoxville, Tennessee, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of, Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the
complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent
and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged inter alia (a)
that since March 1, 1941, the respondent, by urging its employees to withdraw.
from the Union, and by circulating among them literature derogatory to the
Union and "loyalty cards" which provided that the employee would not join any
labor organization, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; and (b) that on May
27, 1941, as a consequence of the alleged unfair labor practices, a number of
employees commenced a strike which has continued since that date. On August
14,' 1941, the respondent filed its answer, admitting certain allegations of the
complaint concerning its corporate structure and business activities, and ad-
mitting that a number of its employees had gone on strike, but denying that it
had engaged in unfair labor practices. -
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on August 14 to 18 and October 16 to 21,
1941, at Knoxville, Tennessee, before A. Bruce Hunt, the undersigned Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respond-
ent, and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
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 close
of the Board's case, the respondent moved that the complaint be dismissed. This
motion was denied by the undersigned. At the close of the hearing, counsel for
the Board moved to conform the pleadings to the proof, which motion the under-
signed granted. The parties were afforded, but declined, an opportunity to argue
orally before the undersigned. Pursuant to leave granted to all parties, on
November 21, 1941, counsel for the Board filed a brief, and on November 22, 1941,
and December 5, 1941, the respondent filed briefs, which have been given careful
consideration herein.
Upon, the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
1 The transcript does not recite the admission into evidence of Board Exhibit 5. The
undersigned hereby directs the receipt into evidence of this exhibit and its incorporation as
part of the record.
158' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, a Tennessee corporation, is engaged in the manufacture, sale
and distribution of men's and boys'' underwear., It has itsz principal place of
business and plant in Knoxville, Tennessee. • The respondent's plant includes a
cotton mill, knitting, mill,, garment factory, box factory, and warehouse, all
operated - as one integrated unit. - The respondent has approximately 2563
employees.
The principal materials used by the respondent in its operations are cotton,
wool, sateen, chambrics, buttons, facings, thread, and strawboard. During 1940,
the respondent purchased materials approximating $2,725,665 in value, over 60 per
cent of which were shipped to the respondent from outside the State of Tennessee.
During the same year, the respondent sold finished products amounting to approxi-
mately $5,497,978 in value, over 97 per cent of which were shipped to points
outside the State of Tennessee.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies Garment Workers Union is a labor organization affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of
the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR - PRACTICES
A. Dissemination of anti-union propaganda
During the year 1938, employees of the respondent formed a labor organization
which received a charter from the American Federation of Labor as Federal
Textile Labor Union, #21751. During'November 1940, that organization became.
affiliated with International Ladies Garment Workers Union, and has engaged
continuously in activity. among the respondent's employees.
During March or April • 1939, Sam H. Scandlyn, the operator of a printing
establishment and editor of a local weekly editorial paper known as "Progressive
Labor," called upon E. J. Ashe, the respondent's vice president and general
manager." According to Ashe, Scandlyn suggested that the, respondent enter
subscriptions to the paper in the names of various employees. Ashe testified
that Scandlyn stated the paper was "opposed to gangsterism in labor activities.
It is opposed to the wrong things in the labor, movement." Ashe testified further
.that he read issues of the paper and that he discussed the matter with other
representatives of the respondent, saying to them, "I believe this will be a good
thing to 'do, because it will present to our people the facts as laid out here
in this manner, which shows there are some wrong things in labor circles ; there
are some wrong things among labor leaders, and our people should know these
facts, as they go along . . ." Ashe testified further that, the organizational activ-
ities-of the Union having become vigorous, employees were "coerced, intimidated,
(and) threatened" in that they were informed if they did not then join the Union
they might be unable to join later, or "would have to pay a heavy penalty later",
or "would 'be out of a job." Finally, Ashe testified that because of these condi-
tions, the respondent was persuaded to accept Scandlyn's suggestion.
In May 1939, in the names of various employees, the respondent entered'approx-
imately 300 subscriptions to the paper, and shortly thereafter increased the num-
ber of subscriptions to between 600 and 700. As stated above, the respondent has
approximately 2563 employees. It was the responodent's intention to have the
1a Scandlyn, although duly served with a subpoena, did not appear at the hearing.
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 159
papers sent to approximately 1% of its employees for an indefinite length of
time, and thereafter to have the subscriptions rotated among the employees so
that all would eventually receive the paper. It appears, however, that this plaii,
was never adopted, and that the 000 to 700 employees whose names were given
to Scalidlyn still receive the paper. Nevertheless, the record is clear that various
employees who receive it pass it on to other employees, and that it has a general
circulation among them. Ashe himself has received the paper regularly. The
respondent took no steps to inform its employees that it had entered the sub-
scriptions, audit does not appear that the employees know of the arrangement
with Scandlyn. Indeed, various employees who receive the paper testified that
tliay were unaware of the arrangement. Since May 1939, the respondent has
paid $2,291 for the subscriptions, the last payment having been made in June
1941
Various clippings from and issues of the paper were received in evidence.
An examination of them establishes that "Progressive Labor" is a pronounced
anti-labor propaganda organ. It is replete with attacks upon the Union, its
organizers, and organized labor in general. In the issue of November 28, 1940,
it is stated that the Union's organizers are interested only in collecting dues for
their personal use, that their interest is "the fat monthly dues that will roll in
if and when they.get -these mills thoroughly DISorganized and led into the
fold of the ILGWU." In the issue of November 14, 1940, there appears an attack
upon David Dubinsky, president of the Union, in which it is stated that the
employees of the respondent should ignore the efforts being made to persuade
them to join the Union, that "David Dubinsky is no exception to the rest of the
Reds who are raising hell in the ranks of labor," and that the "only thing the
workmen (of the respondent) there will get out of the unionizing . . . will be
to bring trouble on themselves and their families ; to put monthly dues on the
barrel head for a lot of lazy, trouble-making, whisky-soaking labor agents ..."
In the issue of May 8, 1941, further attacks are made upon the Union. Therein
it is stated that the employees of Appalachian Mills, a local plant, had selected
the Union as their representative for purposes of collective bargaining, but that
they would regret this action during'a period "of leisure in the next 0 months,
when they are called out on strike, that will surely be called by these MIS-
leaders . . ." The issue of May 15, 1941, contains further extremely offensive
attacks, some of which is unprintable obloquy, upon Dubinsky and upon organized
labor.' Subsequent issues of the paper continued these attacks, and played an
effective part in combating the strike, as discussed below.
2 Said'article is in part as follows
Dave's Record . .
Last week's issue of the official "organ" of the Central Labor Union chionicied the fact
that the International, Independent, Indefatigable Ladies Garment workers of the world,
including Russia, that one David Dubinsky, head of this same IIILGWUR, had assured the
recently organized unions in Knoxville of this Communistic organization that they will
receive every aid, help, and assistance needed to make their union both strong and great,
O ship of State! . . . (sic)
s s s * s s a
Dubinsky . . . does not believe in marriage ; he thinks that woman should be
the common property of the state for the use, pleasure, and benefit of the men when they
"choose" to select one.
);vs, this is the record of one David Dubinsky, the man who stands high in the estima-
tion of the present national administration , yes, this is the man who is head of the ILGWU
which has recently raped and debauched the mills of this city and section. David is not
in this game for his health ; it might be called to the attention of those innocent mill
workers who recently voted to go into this Communistic-ally-inclined labor racketeering
gang that David will be the one who will say what will become of their monthly dues, and
it must not be thought that David will side-step any of the swag. No, dear reader, David is
not in it for his health. -
•
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ,BOARD
The respondent asserts that , in entering the subscriptions to "Progressive
Labor," it was motivated by the methods which the Union had adopted in its
efforts to organize the plant . According to Ashe, the union members "coerced"
and "intimidated" employees in their organizational efforts by making statements
as set forth above. This assertion is not- meritorious . Such statements on the
part of union members, if untrue, do not constitute justification for the respond-
ent's having entered the subscriptions . Upon the pretense of enlightening em-
ployees on the matter of asserted misrepresentation by union organizers, an
organizational matter, with which the respondent had no right to concern itself,
the respondent went further and over a period exceeding 2 years caused repeated
antiunion statements to be made to its employees. The respondent , by causing
"Progressive Labor" to be distributed among its employees , adopted the language
of the paper as its own . In its brief the respondent asserts such distribution is
within the protection of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This contention is without merit 3 By causing "Progressive Labor" to be dis-
tributed among its employees , the respondent clearly interfered with. restrained,
and coerced the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act
• About February 21, 1941 , the supervisory employees of the respondent read
to the employees a notice from the respondent .' At the time J C. Gleason,
manager of the finishing and sewing department , read the notice to a group of
3 Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Elkland Leather Co., 114 F. ( 2d) 221 (C C. A. 3), enf'g Matter of,
Elkland Leather Company , Inc and National Leather Workers' Association , Local No 37,
8 N. L. It B. 319 , N. L. It. B v. Federbush Co , 121 F ,- (2d) 954 (C. C. A. 2), enf'g Matter
of The Federbush Co , Inc and United Paper Workers , Local Industrial Union No. 292,
affiliated with the C. 1. 0., 24 N. L. R. B., No . 88; N. L R B. v Luxuray, Inc., - F. (2d)
(C. C A 2), enf'g as mod Matter of Luxuray, Inc. and International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, 16 N. L. R. B. 37
*Cf. Matter of John J Oiiphton et at and Textile Workers Organizing Committee
(C I O ), 20 N L R B 301, enf 'd as mod, Oughton v . N L R B, 118 F ( 2d) 494.
5 This notice is as follows :
A MESSAGE TO OUR EMPLOYEES
We would like to express to you our thoughts on certain matters We are advised
by a number of our employees that consider able pressure is being bi ought on them to
become members of a labor union - These employees want to know whether it is necessary
to join this union in older to continue to woik at the Standard Knitting Mills
Under the , law each of you have the right to decide , without interference from anyone,
whether you will or will not join this , union or any other organization and we lieiewith
advise you of your rights in this mattes
We wish to repeat the statement we have made heretofore , that this is an open shop
and will continue to be an open shop We consider the closed shop to be undemmociatic
and un -American
We understand there has been active solicitation and, in some cases, intimidation, to
encourage union membership , on Company property and even during working hours.
These practices must be discontinued , as they aie it violation of the rules of the mill. If
any employee is so annoyed in the future , we will appreciate such violation of the rules
of the null being biought promptly to our attention.
A certain committee this week requested an appointment with us and we declined to
meet with this Committee but did meet with the Chairman of the Committee and advised
him that we stand ready to consider and straighten out to the best of our ability, any
complaint lie might have to offer regarding his work or the operation of his Department.
We asked him to advise each member of his Committee that we would see each of them
individually regarding any problem they might have in their respective Department. We
have every reason to believe that the majority of our employees are not membeis of,-and
ado not wish to become members of, a labour union and until such time as our employees
%ote to the contrary, we will not receive any General Committee , as we know such a
Committee does not represent the majority of our employees . Should our employees be
asked to vote on this question of representation , the voting will be conducted under the
rules prescribed by, and under .the supervision of, the United States Government, the
ballot will be a secret one and no one will ever know how you voted Therefore , if such
a vote were ever requested, remember that you will be permitted to vote the way your
\
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, IN C. 161
employees, he made various extemporaneous remarks. Kathleen Dyer, a witness
for the Board, testified that Gleason told "us there were a lot of things that he
had been wanted (sic) to get off his chest for a long time, ., . that France
failed because of the internal strife among the people of France, and he did
not want any strife among the . . . (respondent's employees), that he knew
under the Wagner Labor Bill, we had a right to organize, although the mall didn't
'like it, but, of course, there would be no discrimination." [Italics supplied]
Although Gleason was a witness, he did not deny the remarks attributed to him
by Dyer, and the undersigned accepts her testimony as true. General Manager
Ashe testified that the notice was read to the employees in an effort to stop the
circulation of union application cards on the respondent's premises. It is clear,
however, that this reason did not play a large part in motivating the respondent
to read the notice. A comparatively small portion of the notice is devoted to
the matter of solicitation of union members in the plant The notice places
emphasis upon individual bargaining and upon the "advantages" obtained by that
method of dealing with the respondent. A perusal of this notice in the light of the
extemporaneous remarks made by Gleason leaves no doubt that it was read in an
effort to discourage union activity among the employees The undersigned finds
that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The strike
The Union's organizational efforts met opposition on the part of various em-
ployees. This opposition was crystallized by the acts of several employees in
having printed and in distributing throughout the plant numerous anti:inion
cards. As discussed below, the circulation of these cards vas a factor in the
Union's decision, on May 27, 1941, to call a strike. The cards are as follows:
To the Management of Standard Knitting Mills.'
GENTLEMEN :
I, the undersigned employee of the Standard Knitting Mills, wish to express
to you my desire to continue the, friendly relations that have existed since I
have been in your employ. I am opposed to giving any one else the right of
looking after my affairs, as to wages and working conditions, and urge that you
continue to allow me to exercise my American Right to work without union
interference.
Signed --------------------
Employed in ----------_- Dept
conscience dictates without being influenced by anyone or without anyone knowing how
you voted
Please always remember that if you have any suggestions or complaints to offer or if
you ever feel you have been unfairly treated, we have an established plan whereby your
complaint will be sure of receiving fair consideration and adjustment. This plan is to
first bring your complaint to your forelady or foreman and if this does not produce results,
go direct to your Department Manager . . . Surely this plan insures fairness to all.
a s a w
The advantages we, enjoy here in our plant, such as the "Service Plan", "Vacation
Plan", etc., have been made possible through your cooperation and we are sure we may
expect this cooperation now and in the future, as in the past
Sincerely,
By E J MCMILLAN,
E J. Asia
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC.
By H. A. FIENEGAR,
It. L. ASHr.
FEBRUARY ?,1st, 1941
162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RE'LATIO'NS BOARD -
These cards, 2500 in number, were printed by Scandlyn Printing Company, pub-
lisher of "Progressive Labor," at the request of Mrs. C E Stephenson and six other
production employees. She testified that about the first part of May 1941, she
discussed with several employees a method of ascertaining the strength of union
sentiment in the plant.° On May 20, 1941, one week prior to the strike, Stephenson
called'upon Scandlyn at his printing establishment and conversed with him about
the possibility of having such cards printed. On the following day, accompanied
by six other employees, Stephenson returned to Scandlyn's office and arranged
with him to have the cards printed at her expense. These seven employees and
Scandlyn decided upon the language of the cards. - On Friday, May 23, Stephenson
returned to the printing establishment and received the cards 7 On that day,the
cards were distributed among some of the individuals who had accompanied
Stephenson, and less than 100 were signed over the week end. On the following
Monday, May 26, circulation of the cards within the plant commenced. On that
and the following day, over 600 cards were signed in the plant. The evidence
establishes that several employees went throughout particular departments in the
plant, while other employees remained at or near their usual places of work,
soliciting signatures.
The respondent's plant is divided into departments which are supervised by,
department managers, their assistants, and foremen. In addition, the department
managers are aided in performing their supervisory functions by employees termed
"floor] adies." The department managers are responsible to the plant's two super-
intendents, H. A. Henegar and Robert Ashe, who, in turn, are responsible to
General Manager Ashe.
About 10 o'clock a. in. on Monday, May 26, Harry D. Williams, secretary-
treasurer of the local, learned of the circulation of the cards inside the plant.
Williams reported the matter to H.^ W. Cornwell, assistant department manager
and foreman of the knitting department, in which Williams worked. Cornwell
reported to General Manager Ashe, who telephoned Williams and stated that the
circulation would be stopped. Ashe's statement to Williams was in accordance
with a rule that literature dealing with organization of the employees must not be
distributed on the respondent's premises. About noon on Monday, W. T. Dalton,
manager of the folding department, informed Superintendent Henegar that cards
were being circulated. At that time Dalton possessed one of the cards, and he
was instructed by Henegar to send word through the some channel the card had
traveled in reaching him that the circulation of such cards was in violation of plant
rules Thereupon, Henegar wrote a message to General Manager Ashe, informing
him of the matter, and left the city to attend to other business. This message was
received by Ashe as he left the plant for lunch. Upon his return he was met by
Sheridan Pique, president of the local, who complained to him about the circulation
of the cards General Manager Ashe assured Pique that the circulation would be
stopped. Shortly thereafter, Superintendent Ashe advised General Manager Ashe
that he had informed all department managers under his supervision that they
should stop the circulation.
Circulation of the cards inside the plant was promoted vigorously on Monday
and Tuesday. About 8: 30 o'clock Tuesday morning, E. J Ashe, Robert Ashe, and
Henegar met in the plant. These individuals testified that 'they decided Super-
intendents Henegar and Ashe should contact the department managers under them
0 Stephenson and other nitnesses for the respondent testified that about this time
various union members told employees that the Union represented a majority of the em.
ployees and that failure to join the Union would result in loss of their jobs or increased
initiation fees at it later time
'None of the visits to Scandlyn was made during working hours.
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 163-
and state that the cards should not be circulated in the plant. The respondent
made no effort, however, to ascertain who was circulating the cards, deciding,
according to General Manager Ashe, "that the most effective way would be for
them to contact their department managers with definite instructions, which had
been previously given," that circulation should cease. This meeting terminated
about 11 o'clock, the hour at which most employees go to lunch, and Henegar made
a hurried trip through the division of the plant under his supervision but was able
to find only one department manager at work. Henegar told that department
manager, • Walter Clark, to inform employees under him immediately after his
return from lunch that the circulation should cease. Thereupon, Henegar went
to lunch.
As the employees ceased work for lunch, Williams again received reports
concerning the circulation. Reports were also made to Pique. At about noon,
Pique called upon General Manager Ashe and reported that the employees were
much concerned about the continued circulation, and demanded that it cease.
During this conversation Clayton Phelps, an employee, came in and reported
that floorladies and others were participating in the circulation. Phelps stated
that the circulation was taking place in the department over which Clark was
manager. Clark had gone to lunch subsequent to his conversation with Henegar,
related above Ashe telephoned Clark at his home and advised him to take
such steps immediately upon his return to the plant.8 After telephoning another
supervisory employee and requesting that he exert efforts to stop the circula-
tion, Ashe informed Pique that he desired to' play golf. Pique, relying upon
Ashe's assurance that the circulation would be stopped, stated that he saw no
reason why Ashe should not leave the plant. Ashe, however, was unable to
complete his game of golf. While at the golf course he received a telephone call
advising him that employees in various departments, in protest against the
continued circulation, were striking. Ashe immediately arranged a meeting
between the department managers and a union committee, which was held that
afternoon. In the meantime, due to the'efforts of McMillan, the respondent's
president, Superintendent Ilenegar, and union officials, some employees returned
to work.
At about 4 o'clock that afternoon E J. Ashe, Robert Ashe, Henegar, McMillan,
and various department managers and foremen met with a union committee
of five. Other department managers and foremen who had completed their work
for the day were not present The department managers and foremen were
questioned by the respondent's officers,and members of the union committee.
According to General Manager Ashe, the supervisory employees, "with the ex-
ception of two or three, stated that they had not seen any yellow cards dis-
tributed in their departments." Ashe testified further that Dalton, the de-
partment manager who had informed Henegar of the circulation on Monday,
stated he,had seen six cards and had obtained them; and that Carson Mays, a
supervisory employee, stated although he had seen a card, he did not attach
significance to it, and that he had not seen' cards circulated. This, testimony
was corroborated by Williams, and the undersigned accepts it as true. During
the meeting, the respondent's representatives asked the union committee to
persuade the employees to return to work, saying that the circulation of anti-
union cards would be stopped.' Williams stated, however, that the respondent
8 As discussed below, Clark failed to carry out fully the instructions of General Man-
ager Ashe and Superintendent Henegar. -
521247-43-vol. 48-12
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION S BOARD
had repeatedly promised to stop the circulation, that it had not been ceased,
and that the Union demanded a definite guarantee that it would be stopped.
According to Superintendent Ashe, the principal matter discussed at this meet-
ing was the matter of the cards. Near the end of the meeting, however, Earl
Norris, a member of the union' committee, stated that although the cards were
the cause of the difficulty, the Union would not be "satisfied" unless it obtained
a collective labor agreement. General Manager Ashe replied that the respondent
woud not enter into negotiations for a collective agreement until it had been
determined in a Board election that the Union represented a' majority of the
employees. At about 6 o'clock, the meeting terminated in order that the union
committee could attend a union meeting scheduled for 6:30 o'clock at which the
circulation of the cards was to be discussed. The employees then on strike
were. urged to return to work and await a decision to be made at that meeting.
At the union meeting it was decided to call a strike immediately. Accordingly,
at approximately 8: 30 o'clock p. in., members of the Union left the plant and a
picket line was established Within 2 hours thereafter the union committee met
with representatives of the respondent in an effort to settle the difficulties. At
this meeting the union committee stated that the striking employees would not
return to work unless a collective labor agreement were entered into with the
Union. General Manager Ashe replied that the respondent would not enter into
such an agreement unless the Union were selected by a majority of employees,
at an election conducted by the Board, as their representative. Williams, on
behalf of the Union, replied that an election could be conducted on the street
where the striking employees were assembled The parties being unable to
settle their differences, the strike continued, and on the following day the entire
plant was closed down. For a period of approximately 3 weeks, the plant did
not operate. Thereafter it commenced, operations, but the strikd has continued
and a picket line is still maintained.
The respondent contends that the strike was called in an effort to force it to
bargain with the Union, as the exclusive representative of its employees The
evidence is clear that the Union was motivated in part by a desire for a collective
labor agreement. On the other hand, it is manifest that the immediate difficulties
between the respondent and the Union had been caused by the circulation of the
anti-union cards inside the plant. According to Williams, "that is what the strike
was over." Upon all the evidence, the undersigned believes and finds that a moti-
vating cause of the strike was the continued circulation of the cards, and that the
strike-would not have occurred had not such circulation taken place.
The respondent contends further that the cards were circulated without its
consent and against its will, and that it took as effective steps to stop their circula-
tion as it had taken with respect to circulation of union literature. This con-
tention is not supported by the record. In the first place, the evidence establishes
that the respondent, in reading notices to its employees, took definite steps
through its entire supervisory force to stop the circulation of union literature.
On the other hand, no notice prohibiting the circulation of anti-union cards was
read to' the employees. Secondly, the ineffective manner in which some super-
visory employees, who' were so instructed, endeavored to stop the circulation of
the cards is demonstrated by the testimony of Department Manager Dalton who,
as related above, obtained several of the cards when they were being circulated.
Dalton received the cards from an employee, Katie Betterton, who was under
his supervision. She disclosed to Dalton that she had received them in the
cutting room, a division of the plant over which Dalton does, not have super-
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 165
vision. Although Dalton had received instructions from Henegar to stop the
circulation "by all means," he testified that he did not pursue the matter ^
further because "I don't run the other fellows' rooms." Dalton testified further
that he told Roselle Sutton, a floorlady who assists in supervision of employees
under him, to tell all employees under her supervision to cease circulation of
the cards. Sutton had reported to Dalton that an employee named Scott had
circulated them. Sutton's testimony is contradictory. Thus Sutton at erne
point testified that Dalton told her only to inform Scott of the rule prohibiting
circulation of the cards. Sutton also testified that Dalton told her to tell any
employees who received cards not to sign them, but she was unable to name any
employee to whom she gave such message. During the course of the strike,
Sutton signed a card. because, as she testified, "I thought we would get a pay
day sooner." Department Manager Clark displayed a similar attitude. As
related above, Clark was directed by General Manager Ashe and Superintendent
Henegar to take steps to stop the circulation of the cards Clark testified, how-
ever, that he reported these instructions to only one employee, that thereafter
Pique complained to him about the circulation of cards among employees under
him, and that some such employees were among the first to strike because of the
continued circulation. Clearly, no substantial effort was made by Dalton, Sutton,
or Clark to prevent the circulation. Finally, under the rule that no union or anti-
union literature should be circulated in the plant, it should have been unnecessary
for the supervisory employees to be instructed to stop the circulation of the cards.
The rule was well known to them. Nevertheless, it is clear that various super-
visory employees participated in the distribution of the cards by themselves signing
them and that other such employees, while not participating in the circulation,
watched but did not attempt to stop it. On Monday and Tuesday preceding the
strike, cards were circulated in the finishing department. Etta Payne, an employee
in that department, testified that various cards were circulated therein, and that
one was,signed by Opal Sumpter, an employee, in the presence of Gladys Carter,
floorlady. According to Payne, Carter did not speak, but smiled approvingly at
Sumpter. Payne testified further that on previous occasions, Carter had taken,
from the employees various notes or slips of paper which they had passed around,
but that she made no effort to stop the circulation of the cards. Payne's testi-
mony was corroborated by Mary Jones, an employee in 'the finishing department,
who testified that other cards were signed in the presence of Carter, who made
no effort to stop the circulation. Carter was not a witness, and this testimony
is not denied. 'Accordingly, the undersigned accepts it as true. Lela Morton, an
employee in the finishing department, testified that numerous cards were circulated
in the plant before the strike in the presence of Claudia Webster, floorlady. Mor-
ton testified further that the cards were passed out openly and that Webster, being
in the room, could have seen the circulation. Webster, however, was not a witness,
and this testimony is not denied. Under these circumstances, the undersigned is
satisfied that Webster witnessed the open distribution of the cards.' -
In addition to_ Sutton, other supervisory employees signed anti-union cards.
Floorlady Elliott testified that she signed a card before working hours on Monday,
May 26. Other cards were signed by Floorladies Gladys Carter, whose activities
are described above, Selma French, and Oasey Varnell. Varnell, French, and
9In addition to the above evidence respecting circulation of cards in the presence of
floorladies, there is in the record contradicted evidence respecting the activity of other
such employees while the cards were being circulated The undersigned deems it unneces-
sary to resolve these conflicts. 4
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carter were not witnesses It is a reasonable inference that these individuals
signed cards prior to the strike. The undersigned so finds.'0
As related above, over 600 anti-union cards were signed on and before Tuesday.
A total of 1300 to 1500 of the cards were signed, however, the balance while the
plant was closed On Wednesday, May 28, as the employees gathered outside
the plant, the anti-union cards, as well as union cards, were circulated freely.
Samuel Kilgore, a witness for the- Board, testified that on that day Sherman
Steiner, assistant foreman in the shipping department, was standing among a
group of employees outside the plant with a number of the anti-union cards in
his possession. At an undisclosed time, Steiner himself signed one of the cards.
Steiner was not a witness, however, and did not testify in explanation of this
conduct. The inference is clear, and the undersigned finds, that Steiner engaged
in the circulation of anti-union cards. Clearly, Steiner engaged in anti-union
activity.- The respondent is responsible for his conduct.
On Thursday, May 29 "Progressive Labor" featured an article on the strike.
Therein appears the following :
... For some time, some few disgruntled employees, agitated by a few
labor.leeches, have been doing their damndest to stir up a strike at the
Standard (Knitting Mills),
* * * * *
. . . we cannot see where the workers can hope to better themselves by
listening to such hussies as . (the organizers)
* *
Maybe when it is over they will know who their friends are and will
not be so willing to follpw after a bunch of radicals.
The article contains praise of the respondent" and refers to the Union's organizers
by such terms as "blood sucking agents," "gangsters," and "racketeers." In
various issues thereafter, this editorial paper made continued efforts to break
the strike The issue of June 5 is replete with denunciation of the officers and
organizers of the Union, at the same time again lauding the respondent. The
issue of June 12 contains similar statements designed to persuade employees-to
return to work. It is a reasonable conclusion, and the undersigned finds, that
these articles, which received a wide circulation among the respondent's employees,
were a contributing factor in the successful solicitation of signatures to between
600 and 800 anti-union cards while the plant was closed
The issue of "Progressive Labor" for June 19 features an article on the return
of some employees to work, stating that there was no legitimate grievance against
the respondent, and calling the organizers "labor leeches" and "communists or
fellow-travellers." It will serve no useful purpose to quote extensively from
10 The respondent contends that it is not bound by the acts of its floorladies, asserting
that they are not supervisory employees. This position is not supported by the record,
nor is it consistent with instructions given to some supervisory employees, including
floorladies,ito stop the circulation of anti-union cards. The duties of the floorladies are,
principally, to inspect the work of employees and to instruct them in its performance.
It is a duty of the floorladies to report breaches of the rules One floorlady, Webster,
is also a timekeeper It is clear that these employees occupy supervisory positions, are
closely related to the management, and are supposed to require observance of the-plant
rules. The undersigned finds that floorladies are supervisory employees for whose conduct
the respondent is responsible.
11 This article contains the following passage :
. . The Standard Mills is one of the highest class mills in the South and has enjoyed
the reputation of being fair to its employees. They have piovided every safeguard both
physical and moral for their employes. They have always paid the standard of wages
in the textile industry and far above the wages paid in some of the mills of Knoxville.
STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 167
-various issues of the paper between June 26 and October 10, 1941 It is sufficient
to say that this publication has continued its and the respondent 's fight against
the strike , the Union, and organized labor, and has conducted the campaign in
the manner described above. Too , it continued its approbation of the respondent,
at the some time informing the employees that the respondent does not intend
to comply with the Act.12 The respondent contends it has not influenced the
policy of the paper . Under the circumstances set forth above , including the
respondent 's admission that it has paid the editor $2,291 for distributing among
its employees "Progressive Labor," the anti-union character of which the re-
spondent was aware when it first entered the subscriptions and thereafter, the
undersigned finds no merit in this contention.
The record is clear that the respondent opposed the activities of the Union
and desired to render them ineffective. Such was its purpose in entering and
renewing the subscriptions to "Progressive Labor" and in reading to its em-
ployees the notice of February 21, 1941. The undersigned finds that the re-'
spondent did not take effective steps to stop the circulation of the anti-union
cards, and that the steps which were taken were not as effective as the steps
which had been taken to stop the circulation of union literature. It is a
reasonable inference , and the undersigned finds that the respondent, being
opposed to the Union, was not inclined to, and did not exercise its best efforts
to stop the circulation , but permitted the circulation to continue until it reached
a point which caused the union members to strike.
Although there is no evidence in the record that the respondent engaged
directly in the printing of the anti -union cards , there is substantial evidence
that its anti-union activities contributed thereto. Stephenson , who placed the
order for the printing , is one of the employees who has been receiving "Progres-
sive Labor" without knowledge that the respondent had entered the subscription.
She was aware that in calling upon Scandlyn she was calling upon the editor
of that paper . Nadine Luttrell , an employee in the group which accompanied
Stephenson , testified , that en route to the printing establishment , Stephenson
asked the employees if they were receiving "Progressive Labor." Bessie Hall
testified that she has received the paper for several years without cost, that
she did not know who subscribed to it in her name, and that some employees in
iz In the issue of June 26, there appears the following
John S Martin , representative of the International Inconsequential Indefitigable (sic)
Ladies Garment Workers of the World , including Russia, . . . has been here fomenting
trouble in the various industrial plants where war material ;is being fabricated
There are still some four or five hundred deluded workers that aie listening to the fairy
tales told them by Martin and his bunch of gangster leaders , but most of them are staying
out of the mill because they are too cowardly to assert their American rights to work.
In the issue of August 14, the following appears :
David Dubinsky, head of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, came to town
last week as was noted in our columns of last Friday . He was right royally received by
all the labor saboteurs of this vicinity. . .
. . David was pictured in the local dailies indulging a long, fragrant Havana before
breakfast, with a full packet of Havanas left
After David had toyed with his toast and coffee, embellished with a Rhode Island aig
( sic) and some supeifine Canadian bacon, he was then ready for the business of the day.
It was heralded that David would , while in Knoxville , confer with his satellites in the
labor disturbing business-that was to be expected-and also with the management of
the Appalachian and Standard Mills. But in that, the prediction went wide of the mark.
David did not even so much as get a look at any of the official family of the Standard;
but he was content to talk with the attorney for the Standard
David perhaus ( sic) does not know it, but it is a fact that the managers of the Standard
Mills know how to run their own business along the lines of pure -bred Americanism. And,
this might be slipped, discreetly, to David, they intend to continue to run it that way,
without outside interference from him or any of his kidney and ilk.
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
the group informed Scandlyn they enjoyed reading the paper and desired to,
receive it. The undersigned accepts this testimony as true. Lessie Dukes, an--
other employee in the group , also has received the paper for about 2 years,
without knowledge that the respondent entered her subscription . Hattie Roth
and Lucille Franklin , other employees who accompanied Stephenson and Luttrell
were not on the lists of employees supplied to Scandlyn by the respondent.
Nevertheless , they had obtained copies of the paper from other employees and
were familiar with it. When they called upon Scandlyn they informed him they
would like to receive "Progressive Labor," and have been receiving it since
without cost to themselves . Manifestly, the employees in that group had been
influenced by the propaganda appearing in. the paper . Although it is impossible
to determine the extent to which they had been so influenced , it is a reasonable
inference , and the undersigned finds, that this influence was a material , factor
in. the decision • of those employees to have the cards printed and circulated..
Accordingly , the undersigned finds that the respondent , by subscribing to
"Progressive Labor" in the names of its employees and by renewing said sub-
scriptions , thereby contributing to the anti -union sentiment among them, is
responsible for the printing and circulation of the cards.
The undersigned finds that the respondent , by reading to its employees the,
notice of February 21, 1941, by causing "Progressive Labor" to be distributed
among its employees , by encouraging the printing of the anti -union cards, by
encouraging and permitting circulation of such cards and by the above-described
conduct of Steiner , assistant foreman, and its floorladies , has interfered with,
restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act. -
The undersigned further finds that the strike of May 27 was caused and
prolonged by the respondent's unfair labor practices.19
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring iri:
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 and have led to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor-
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that:
it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act..
It has been found that the strike of the respondent's employees was caused
and prolonged by the respondent's unfair labor practices. Under the circum-
stances, the undersigned will recommend that the respondent, upon application„
offer to its employees who went on strike on or after May 27, 1941, and have
not since returned to work, immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges. Such reinstatement shall be effected in the following
manner : All employees hired after May 27, 1941, who were not on the respond-
is While as noted above, there were issues between the respondent and the Union other
than the matter of the respondent's unfair labor practices, "it rested upon the tortfeasor
to disentangle the consequences for which it was chargeable from those from which it
was immune." N. L. R. B. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. (2d) 862, 872 (C. C. A. 2). See
also N. L. R. B. V. Stackpole Carbon Company, 105 F. (2d) 167, 176 (C. C. A. 3).
STANDARD KNITTING -MILLS, INC. 169
ent's pay roll prior to May 27, 1941; shall, if necessary to provide employment
for those who are to be reinstated, be dismissed. If, however, by reason of a
reduction in force there are not sufficient jobs immediately available for the
remaining employees, including those to be offered reinstatement, all available
positions shall be distributed among such remaining employees in accordance
with the respondents usual method of reducing its force, without discrimination
against any employee because of his union affiliation or activities, following
such system of seniority or other procedure as has heretofore been applied in the
conduct of the respondent's business. Any employees remaining after such
distribution for whom no employment is immediately available, shall be placed
upon a preferential list with priority determined among them by such, system
of seniority or other procedure as has heretofore been followed by the respondent,
and shall thereafter, in accordance with such list, be offered employment in their
former or substantially equivalent positions as such employment becomes avail-
able and before other persons are hired for such work. The undersigned will
also recommend that the respondent make whole the employees to be offered
reinstatement for any loss of pay they may suffer by reason of the respondent's
refusal to reinstate them or place them on a preferential list as set forth above
by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would
normally have earned as wages during the period from five (5) days after the
date of his application for reinstatement to the date of offer of employment or
placement on 'a preferential list, less his net earnings " during said 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 International Ladies Garment Workers Union, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, is a_ labor organization, within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices,, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
3 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, and
pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the under-
signed hereby recommends that the respondent, Standard Knitting Mills, Inc ,
and its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall :
1 Cease and desist from :
(a) Disseminating anti-union propaganda among its employees by distributing,
or causing to be distributed, the publication known as "Progressive Labor,"
or otherwise ;
14 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for the discrimina-
tion against him and the consequent necessity for his seeking employment elsewhere. See
Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpente>s and Joiners
of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B 440. Monies
received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief
projects shall be considered as earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B.,
311 U. S. 7.
170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ,RE'LATIO'NS BOARD
(b) Permitting the circulation of anti-union literature on its premises ; and
(c) .In any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of'the right to self-organization,'to form, join or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose 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) Immediately cancel all subscriptions it has heretofore entered to the
paper "Progressive Labor" in the names of any of its employees ;
(b) Upon application, offer to the employees who went on strike on or after
May 27, 1941, and have not returned to work, immediate and full reinstatement -
to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges, in the manner set forth in the section
entitled "The remedy" above, placing these employees for whom employment is
not immediately available upon a preferential list in the manner set forth in
said section, and thereafter, in said manner, offer them employment as it
becomes available ;
(c) Make whole such striking employees for any loss of pay they may suffer
by reason of the respondent's refusal to reinstate them, or place them upon a
preferential list, pursuant to paragraph (b) above, in the manner set forth in
the section entitled "The remedy" above;
(d) Immediately post notices to all its employees in conspicuous places in
its plant, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days, setting forth in full Sections 1, 7 and 8 of the National Labor
Relations Act and stating that the respondent will not engage in the conduct
from which it is recommended that-it cease and desist in'paragraphs 1 (a), (b)
and (c) above, and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in para-
graphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) above, of these Recommendations;
(e) File with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region within twenty (20)
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing, setting
forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent has, complied with
the foregoing recommendations.
'It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from
the receipt of the Intermediate report, the respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing Recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article. II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended-any party may within
thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case
to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations,
file with the Board, Shoreham Building, Washington, D C., an original and
four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report or to any other part of the record or preceeding (including
rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the
original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As further provided -in
said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the
Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within twenty (20)
days after the date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
A. BRUCE HUNT,
Trial Examiner.
Dated : December 22, 1941.