Union Asbestos and Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 4, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 1055 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY 1055 -
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act .6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
6 As the election hereinafter directed is not in the unit or subdivision in which the decer-
tification election referred to above was held, we shall include in the unit the agents in
those district offices within the State of Tennessee which were covered by the decertifica-
tion petition . See Section 9 (c) (3) of the Act; cf. Robertson Brothers Department Store,
Inc., 95 NLRB 271.
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS
OF AMERICA , AFL. Case No. 34-CA-176. April 4, 1952
Decision and Order
On September 12, 1951, Trial Examiner J. J. Fitzpatrick issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, and recommending that the Respondent cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial
Examiner also found that the Respondent had not violated the Act
by laying off and refusing to reinstate Lena Simpson Moore and
consequently recommended dismissal of the complaint as to her.
Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Union filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The General Counsel also
filed a supporting brief."
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed .3 The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
A The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record and
the exceptions- and brief, in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the positions
of the parties.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board' has delegated its
powers in connection with the case to a three -member panel [ Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Peterson.]
8 At the conclusion of the presentation of his case , the General Counsel moved that the
complaint be amended so as to include an allegation that the Respondent had refused to
bargain collectively with the Union in an appropriate unit . The Trial Examiner denied
the motion After the Issuance of the Intermediate Report, the General Counsel filed a
motion with the Board for permission to amend the complaint in the respects noted above
and to reopen the record and remand the case to the Trial Examiner for the purpose
of conducting a hearing upon the issues raised by such proposed additional allegations.
Under Section 102 35 of the Board's Rules and Regulations-Series 6, authority is vested
in the Trial Examiner to dispose of procedural matters such as motions to amend plead-
ings. On the basis of the record in the case , we are unable to conclude that in denying
the General Counsel's motion to amend the complaint the Trial Examiner abused the
discretion vested in him. Moreover , we do not agree with the General Counsel that the
present circumstances warrant granting the motion at this time . The Trial Examiner's
ruling is therefore affirmed and the pending motion denied.
98 NLRB No. 137.
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the exceptions thereto, and brief, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modifications.
1. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent inde-
pendently violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by acts of interroga-
tion and threats of economic reprisal, as fully detailed in the
Intermediatk Report. The General Counsel excepts to the failure of
the Trial Examiner to find, in addition, that the Respondent inde-
pendently violated Section 8 (a) (1) by the statement of Supervisor
George Martin in the fall of 1949 that "Everything was about to get
in full movement now since they got rid of the Union." Phifer testi-
fied that this statement was made to him during a conversation with
Martin and Curtis Beasley, another supervisor. Martin, who testified
at the hearing, did not specifically deny making this statement and
Beasley did not appear or testify at the hearing. We find merit in
this exception and accordingly find that this statement, which clearly
implied that the employees' jobs depended upon a rejection of the
Union, was violative of Section 8 (a) (1).
2. In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that the Re-
spondent discriminatorily discharged Miles W. Sims and Leo Tise
Coppedge on May 19, 1949; that the Respondent discriminatorily laid
- off Bob Griffin and Bryant Gaddy on May 27, 1949, J. O. Godwin on
May 28, 1949, and Lena Jordan on July 1, 1949; that the Respondent
discriminatorily refused to reinstate any of them; and that the Re-
spondent discriminatorily refused to reinstate Julius Hatcher on and
after October 11, 1949, Brady Lee Phifer on and after September 7,
1949, Onus D. Mullis and Junior Edwards on and after August 16,
1949, Sadie Mullis after September 12, 1949, S. W. Moore on and
after August 30, 1949, and L. R. Gaddy and George P. Coppedge on
and after August 24, 1949, because of their union activity, in violation
,of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. The circumstances and con-
siderations on which this conclusion is based are fully detailed in the
Intermediate Report. To what is stated there, we add only the
following :
a. With respect to Bryant Gaddy, the record establishes, and the
Trial Examiner found, that the plant superintendent considered him
a "right good weaver," that he had more seniority than other weavers
who were retained by the Respondent at the time of his layoff, and
that he had five dependents. In the light of these facts, ,which are
uncontroverted, Bryant Gaddy came squarely within the Respondent's
own criteria for retention, criteria which it established and posted
on its own volition in the plant shortly before the May 27 layoffs.
It is also clear from the record that Bryant Gaddy was very active in
the union organizing campaign : He attended all union meetings,
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY 1057
including the one on Sunday, May 22, 1949, at the woods owned by
his father, L. R. Gaddy; during the next few days, when the campaign
was most active, he chauffered Sims, his brother-in-law and leader of
the union drive, as well as Griffin and Mullis, thus assisting them in
their efforts to sign up employees; and he attempted to sign up Earl
Knox, a supervisor, in the Union. Most significantly, a few days
before his layoff on May 27, 1949, he was characterized by George
Martin, another supervisor, as "sort of the head leader of this union
business."
Under the circumstances, we find that he was laid off because of his
union activities. The Respondent attempted at the hearing to at-
tribute Bryant Gaddy's layoff to an incident about 10 days before the
May 27 layoff, when he came into the plant, after his regular working
hours, in a drunken condition. However, it is clear from the record
that he was neither reprimanded nor warned about such conduct at.
the time it occurred, that other employees when off duty had conducted)
themselves in like manner in the past, and that no reference was made
to the incident at the time of Gaddy's layoff. Like the Trial Exam-
iner, we find that this incident was seized upon by the Respondent
as an afterthought, and that the true reason for his layoff, despite
his seniority, satisfactory work performance, and the number of his
dependents, was his known union activity.
b. Brady Lee P/ii f er, like Bryant Gaddy, was among the more
active union adherents. A son-in-law of L. R. Gaddy, at whose woods
the May 22, 1949, meeting took place, he attended the meeting; to-
gether with Sims, Bryant Gaddy, and Mullis, Phifer visited the homes
of employees for the purpose of signing them up in the Union during
the time immediately preceding the May 27 layoffs; clearly, he was
part of the active group of employees known to have spearheaded the
union drive. Beginning September 9, 1949, the Respondent hired
additional new weavers, including employees in Phifer's classification
of tape weaver, but it did not recall Phifer.
These facts established a strong prima facie case indicating that the
failure to recall Phifer was discriminatory. Nor was the Respondent
able to offer any explanation for its failure to follow in his case what
clearly was the policy of recalling laid-off employees. When the
plant superintendent was asked at the hearing why Phifer had not
been recalled, he replied in effect there was "no particular reason,"
and that he didn't know much about Phifer's work. Under all the
circumstances, including the Respondent's union animus, the absence
of any explanation for the failure to recall Phifer on nondiscrimina-
tory grounds, and the general similarity between Phifer's case and
that of the other Section 8 (a) (3) violations found, we are convinced
that the real reason for the Respondent's failure to recall Phifer was
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the active part he played in the. union campaign, and hence, that it
was discriminatory.
c. Sadie Mullis was laid off on May 27, 1949, and not recalled. The
plant superintendent at the hearing gave as the reason for not rehiring
her the fact that she was the wife of Onus D. Mullis. The Trial Ex-
aminer rejected the Respondent's contention that Onus D. Mullis,
along with Griffin and Edwards, were not rehired because it would
have caused friction and tension in the plant, and found that Griffin
was laid off, and Mullis and Edwards were.not rehired, because of
their union activity. We agree with this finding. The rejection of
the Respondent's contention with respect to Onus D. Mullis would
equally apply to its related contention as to his wife, Sadie Mullis.
Under the circumstances, it seems clear, and we find, that the Respon,I-
ent's failure to rehire Mrs. Mullis was part and parcel of the dis-
crimination by the Respondent against her husband, and was for
that reason a violation of Section 8 (a) (3).
3. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that Lena Simpson Moore was
not discriminatorily laid off or discriminatorily refused reinstatement.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges dis-
crimination with respect to this employee.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Union Asbestos and Rnbber
Company, Marshville, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of
America, AFL, or any other labor organization of its employees by
discriminatorily discharging, laying off, or refusing to rehire em-
ployees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their
hire and tenure of employment, or any term and condition of
employment.
(b) Questioning its employees concerning their union affiliation,
threatening its employees with any reprisals because of their union
affiliation, or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named labor
organization or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all of such activi-
ties, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY 1059
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Miles W. Sims, Leo Tise Coppedge, Bob, Griffin, Onus
D. Mullis, Junior Edwards, Sadie Mullis, Bryant Gaddy, S. W. Moore,
J. O. Godwin, Lena Jordan, Julius Hatcher, Brady Lee Phifer, L. R.
Gaddy, and George P. Coppedge, and each of them, immediate and full
reinstatement to his or her former or substantially equivalent posi-
tion,4 without prejudice to his or her seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, in the manner
set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, time cards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back
pay due and the right of reinstatement under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its plant at Marshville, North Carolina, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix." S
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the
Fifth Region, Baltimore, Maryland, shall, after being duly signed by
the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecu-
tive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges discrimination with respect to Lena Simp-
son Moore.
4In the case of Julius Hatcher, he is to be offered an available position for which he is
qualified , as indicated in the Intermediate Report.
5 This notice , however , shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from line 3
thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting in lieu
thereof the words "A Decision and Order ." Said notice is further amended by substituting
for the first sentence of the last paragraph thereof the following : "All our employees
are free to become or remain members of the above -named union or any other labor
organization , or to refrain from such activity, except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act."
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of the 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."
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by United Textile Workers of America, AFL, herein called
the Union, a complaint was issued against Union Asbestos and Rubber Company,
Marshville, North Carolina, herein called the Respondent, alleging violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management
Relations Act, 1947 (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint
and charges were duly served upon the Respondent.
The complaint alleges that the Respondent (1) since about May 1, 1949, by
various acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in'the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and (2) discharged certain named
employees and has since failed and refused to reinstate or rehire them because
they joined or assisted the Union or engaged in concerted activities with other
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection'
The Respondent's answer, as amended at the hearing, admits the allegations
as to the nature of its business but does not admit that it is engaged in commence
within the meaning of the Act. It denies the allegations of unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notices, a hearing was held at Monroe, North Carolina, from June
4 to June 8, 1951, inclusive, before J. J. Fitzpatrick, the undersigned duly des-
ignated Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were repre-
sented by counsel and the Union by an official. All participated and were
afforded opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. When the General Counsel had
concluded his presentation of evidence in support of the issues as above formu-
lated, he moved that the complaint be further amended so as to include an
allegation that the Respondent had refused to bargain collectively with the
Union in an appropriate unit. The motion was denied.' Respondent's motion
to dismiss was also denied. The motion to dismiss, renewed at the conclusion of
the case, was taken under advisement and is disposed of as hereafter appears.
Oral argument was waived but the General Counsel and the Respondent have
since filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
1 The complaint originally named 8 employees . Based on an amended charge filed
during the hearing, and over the Respondent's objection, an amendment was permitted to
the complaint naming 7 additional employees. The 15 employees included in the com-
plaint as amended with the dates of their release from employment are : Miles W. Sims
and Leo Tise Coppedge, May 19, 1949; Bryant Gaddy, Bob Griffin, Onus D. Mullis, Junior
Edwards, Julius Hatcher, Sadie Mullis, Brady Lee Phifer, S. W Moore, and Lena Simp-
son Moore, May 27, 1949; J 0 Godwin, May 28 ; Lena Jordan, July 13 ; and L. R. Gaddy
and George P. Coppedge, July 17, 1949. For convenience these laid-off or discharged em-
ployees will be referred to herein as claimants.
2 This motion was based in part on a seventh amended charge filed by the Union on
June 6 However, the original charge (filed October 20, 1949) and the third amended
charge (filed August 30, 1950) also alleged a refusal to bargain. At the time this
motion was presented at the hearing on June 7, 1951, the Respondent was prepared to
proceed with its evidence on the issues previously drawn. To have allowed the amend-
ment would have involved a postponement of the hearing, the recalling of many witnesses
probably for cross-examination on the newly injected issue, resulting in a disorganized
record. The refusal-to-bargain charge had presumably been under investigation by the
Regional Office for about 11/2 years before the issuance of the complaint on May 5, 1951,
and nothing developed in the record in my judgment to warrant the injection of this belated
issue.
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY 1061
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Union Asbestos and Rubber Company is an Illinois corporation, main-
taining its executive office in Chicago, Illinois, and its general offices and factory
in Cicero, Illinois. It operates a plant at Marshville, North Carolina, the only
plant involved in this proceeding. At Marshville it is engaged in the manu-
facture, sale, and distribution of asbestos products. During the 12-month period
immediately prior to the date of the hearing, the Respondent purchased raw
materials consisting of cotton and asbestos valued in excess of $100,000, of which
over 50 percent was purchased and shipped to the Marshville plant from points
outside the State of North Carolina. During the same period the Respondent
sold finished products, asbestos yarn, and asbestos woven goods from Marshville
valued in excess of $150,000, of which more than 75 percent was sold and shipped
to points outside of North Carolina. I find from the above facts, as alleged in
the complaint, admitted in the answer, and stipulated on the record, that the
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
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. Introduction
Prior to the year 1949, cotton was cleaned at the Marshville plant and then
sent to another plant of the Respondent located at Davidson, North Carolina,
where it was processed into yarn. Fifty to sixty percent of this yarn was then
returned to Marshville where it was woven into various types of asbestos fabric.
The remainder of the yarn was absorbed by the Respondent through its other
plants or sold in the open market. However, even at that time some yarn was
being manufactured at Marshville, and additional machinery for manufacturing
yarn was added to that plant early in 1949. As a result and due also to a general
decline in the asbestos industry, Davidson had to sharply curtail its operations
in February and March 1949. In April, Marshville temporarily discontinued
making the yarn, resulting in the layoff of 15 or 20 employees. In May, finding
itself with too much asbestos cloth on hand, Marshville .laid off an additional
group, mostly in the weaving department, reducing its force to about 67 em-
ployees. There were some additional layoffs in July but business became better
early that'fall and the Respondent apparently concentrated on building up the
Marshville plant at the expense of Davidson. It rehired all of the 60 or 70
employees who had been laid off at Marshville that spring, with the exception of
the 15 involved in this proceeding and about 8 others who were offered employ-
ment but refused it for various reasons. As business continued to increase it
hired additional workers and by the end of 1950 the Respondent had about 200
employees at the Marshville plant.
In the meanwhile, in the spring of 1950, Respondent sold its Davidson plant to
a competitor. The alleged unfair labor practices developed from union organi-
zation activities in the spring and summer of 1949. Up until the time the David-
son plant was disposed of, as above set forth, the Marshville and Davidson plants,
referred to in the record as the Carolina operations of the Respondent, were both
managed by Tom S. Saddler with office and headquarters at Davidson. About
998666-vol. 98-53--68
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the time the Davidson plant was sold, Saddler left the Respondent and George A.
Novak succeeded him as manager of the Marshville plant. During all the times
material herein, the Marshville plant was normally operated under Superin-
tendent Clarence P. Keever. Under Keever was an office manager, Robert W.
Lane, three foremen, Basil Martin, Curtis Beasley, and Edward Nelson, and a
number of second hands or straw bosses, including George Martin, Millard Nash,
Marvin Nance, Eli Erwin, and Earl Knox. The record discloses, and I find, that
the above second hands were supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Following discussion among some of the workers at Marshville in the spring of
1949, employee Miles W. Sims drove to the town of Marshville, a short distance
from the plant, at noon on May 11, 1949, telephoned to the Union at Charlotte,
North Carolina, and arranged for it to send an organizer to attend a meeting of
the employees at a grove owned by L. R. Gaddy near the outskirts of Marshville
on the following Sunday, May 15. Included among those with whom Sims had
discussed the idea of forming a union in the plant and who knew of this arrange-
ment were Supervisors Nash and Nance.
On May 12, following this telephone call, Superintendent Keever came to Sims
at work and said, according to Sims, that he heard that the employees were
trying to organize and "he wasn't going to have the Union in there ; the mill
wasn't in shape for,the Union and be wasn't going to have it." Keever denied
that he told Sims that he would not have the Union in the plant. He testified
that he knew nothing about the organizing until the middle of the following
June when the Union requested recognition, and that he never discussed the
Union with any of the employees. In view of the smallness of the plant, Super-
visors Nash's and Nance's familiarity with the initial organization attempts,
and the events that transpired subsequently, as will hereafter appear, I do not
accept Keever's denial and credit Sims' testimony as above set forth.
On May 15, the union organizer did not appear at the meeting and some of
the employees pressed Sims to phone the Union again, so at noon on Wednesday,
May 18, Sims was driven to Marshville by employee Leo Tise Coppedge and
arranged for a meeting with the union organizer the following Sunday, May 22,
at the same place. Several employees including Supervisors Marvin Nance and
George Miller were on the loading platform in front of the plant eating their
lunch as Sims and Coppedge drove away: Someone on the platform suggested
that they had left to phone the "union man." That afternoon Nance came to
George P. Coppedge while he was working and asked, "Your brother has gone
to Marshville to call the Union, hasn't he?" When Coppedge replied in the
affirmative, Nance said "Well, there's going to be some trouble."'
On May 19, Sims and Leo Tise Coppedge were summarily discharged as will
hereafter appear in more detail.
On Sunday afternoon, May 22, the organizer appeared and the scheduled
union meeting took place in the Gaddy grove as planned. The meeting was
fairly well attended, those participating including practically all of the employees
who were subsequently laid off and not thereafter reinstated. Not only was
Supervisor Nash present at the meeting but there is credibly undisputed testi-
8 Nance, who admitted that he joined the Union later in May because he was interested
in knowing who belonged to that organization, did not specifically deny the above credited
testimony of George P Coppedge, but generally denied questioning employees about the
Union. As hereafter appears there is credible testimony that after the May 22 union
meeting, Nance questioned other employees about union meetings. I therefore do not
credit his denial.
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY 1063
mony that before the meeting, Nash, accompanied by employee. J. C. Goodman,
went to the home of employee W. R. Taylor and persuaded him to attend the
meeting. After the meeting, which lasted about an hour, was over, Nash drove
Onus D. Mullis and Goodman home in his car. During the ride, Nash asked
Goodman what he thought. Goodman was noncommittal, saying he knew nothing
about unions but commented that there was a fair turnout of employees at the
meeting. Nash then asked Mullis if he had "ever been in a union." When Mullis
replied in the negative, Nance asked his opinion. After Mullis also answered
there seemed to be a good turnout, Nance stated, "probably more there today
than there will be at any other meeting. Frankly, I don't believe it will go
anywhere. I don't think they'll get anywhere with it. There never has been a
union organized in Union County that I know of or ever heard of." Nance
then added that news of the organizing would probably "get back to the Com-
pany and there'll be a bunch of them fired, just be a mess."
A country sideroad passes the grove where the May 22 union meeting was
held and joins a main highway about one-half or three-quarters of a mile beyond.
On the highway near this intersection is an oil station. Several witnesses who
attended the meeting testified credibly and without denial that, when they left
the meeting to return home, they passed or saw the following supervisors at or
near the oil station : George Martin, Basil Martin, and Earl Knox'
Starting the week following the above Sunday union meeting, Sims, Bob
Griffin, Mullis, and Junior Edwards, assisted to some extent by Brady Lee
l'hifer, Bryant Gaddy, George P. Coppedge, and L. R. Gaddy, distributed union
literature and successfully solicited union memberships from a number of
employees. While most of this solicitation was at the homes of. the employees,
at first it was rather open and somewhat indiscriminate. As above found, both
Nash and Nance signed cards at the request of Sims, and Bryant Gaddy and
Sims asked Earl Knox to join. Knox refused stating that he was looking
for another job but would join if he remained with the Respondent.` As a
result of these activities a considerable number of the employees joined the
Union. Later meetings were held at the home of L. R. Gaddy and in June
a temporary organization was perfected of which L. R. Gaddy was elected
president. That month the Union requested recognition and a hearing was held
on July 29, 1949, pursuant to a petition for representation. Prior to the repre-
sentation hearing, as a result of inquiries to management by employees as
to what they should do about the Union, General Manager Saddler told the
employees at a called meeting in June that they were free to join the Union
or not to join as they saw fit ; that it was their decision and whatever they
decided would in no way affect their jobs; and that the Respondent had no
interest in the matter-some of its plants were organized and some were not
organized. On September 29, 1949, the Board directed that an election be
held to ascertain if the Union represented a majority of the Respondent's
production and maintenance employees with certain exclusions.6 Because of
the filing of the charges in the instant case, no election has been held.
In the meanwhile, about May 24 or 25, a number of the employees on the second
shift were on the platform in front of the plant visiting during the supper
hour. Included in the group were employees Phifer, Bryant Gaddy, W. R.
4 George Martin admitted that he "hung around that filling station a lot" and that he
had heard there was to be a meeting that Sunday afternoon, but denied that-he knew the
location of the meeting. Neither Knox nor Basil Martin was asked and neither denied
that he was at the filling station.
Knox's version is that he stated he would quit before he would join the Union.
6 86 NLRB 321.
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Taylor, and second-shift Supervisor George Martin. According to Bryant Gaddy,
someone asked him about the Union, but he pretended little knowledge thereof,
whereupon Martin slapped Gaddy on the leg and suggested that the latter
was the "head leader" for the.Union on the second shift. Gaddy sought to
disparage such characterization, and Martin stated that he would promptly
discharge anyone under him who joined the Union. Phifer and Taylor sub-
stantially corroborated Gaddy's testimony. Martin admitted that he often
visited with employees on the platform during the evening meal period, but
denied that the Union was ever discussed at such times. He also, in effect,
denied that he made the statements attributed to him. I credit Gaddy's
corroborated testimony.
Bob Griffin testified credibly that on Monday, May 24, second shift Foreman
Curtis Beasley told him that he had seen the employees leaving the union meet-
ing the previous Sunday and wanted to know how the meeting "came out,"
adding that he would have nothing to do with the Union, that if it came into
the plant he would leave; that on several other occasions Beasley questioned
him during working hours about the union meeting. During the course of these
various conversations, according to Griffin, he told Beasley he had joined the
Union. Similarly, according to Junior Edwards, Beasley told a group of
employees in the locker room the week of May 24 that he had worked in plants
that were organized, but a union "just wouldn't work in a small place" like the
Marshville plant'
Joe Haigler, who was working for the Respondent at the time of the hearing,
testified that Foreman Basil Martin told him about the same time that there
was a layoff impending; that Martin made some reference to the Union, which
Haigler was unable t'o remember, and then asked the latter if he intended to
join that organization. Haigler replied that he thought he would if the other
employees joined, whereupon Martin said that those employees that were laid
off "wouldn't get back so easy" if they joined the Union. Martin did not specifi-
cally deny this testimony but stated that he did not tell any employee that if
they joined the Union it would be used against them. However, he also testified
that he heard of no union organizing in the plant until after the May 27 layoff,
hereafter referred to. Under all the circumstances, I am unable to accept this
denial and credit Haigler's testimony;
On May 27, the second shift was discontinued and from 26 to 30 employees were
laid off, including 9 of the claimants referred to in footnote 1. The next day,
Saturday, May 28, J. O. Godwin, then a maintenance employee, was also laid
off at the completion of his day's work'
As heretofore found, Supervisor Nash attended the May 22 union meeting and
both he and Supervisor Nance signed union cards that week. Although neither
Nash nor Nance attended any further union meetings, they both evinced curi-
osity as to the progress of that organization. Thus, there is credible testimony
that Nash, in addition to discussing union activities with Sims as above found,
questioned L. R. Gaddy (who in early June was elected chairman of the union
temporary organization and at whose home the union meetings were being held)
almost daily about the attendance at union meetings and who was there. Accord-
ing to Bob Griffin, also prominent in union activity, Nance would often come
where he was working, follow him to the rest room, and inquire about the Union
and whether "so and so" joined. According to Joe Haigler, Nance asked at least
'There was no denial of this testimony. Beasley was not called as a witness, and no
showing was made that he was unavailable.
s The production employees were on a 5-day week, but maintenance employees worked
6 days including Saturdays.
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY 1065
a half dozen times whether he intended to sign with the Union. George P.
Coppedge testified that Nance asked him several times as to who attended the
meetings and, after Coppedge was transferred to maintenance work in the yard
under Nance, questioned him about and secured the names of union card signers.
As previously found Nance denied generally questioning employees about the
Union. He did not specifically deny the above testimony of L. R. Gaddy, Griffin,
and George P. Coppedge, except that he denied asking Coppedge to show him
signed union cards. His denial is not accepted in view of all the circumstances
in this record.
George C. Coppedge also testified credibly, and without denial , that in June
Eli Erwin, supervisor in charge of twisters, ordered him to remove a union
sign posted on the plant wall. When Coppedge refused to do so, stating that
he had not posted the sign, Erwin said "Well, your job's just hanging by a
thread." Coppedge asked Erwin what he meant by such statement and the
latter replied, "Well, the Company won't stand for a union being in here. They
can move this machinery out of here as easy as they moved it here. They don't
worry about the money it costs to move machinery around."
Conclusions as to Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
I find that, by Superintendent Keever's statement to Sims on May 12, 1949,
the Respondent was not in shape to have a union and that he would not have a
union in the plant ; Supervisor Marvin Nance's questioning George P. Coppedge
on May 18 whether his brother had gone to Marshville to telephone to the Union,
followed by Nance's statement, "There is going to be some trouble" ; his asking
Bob Griffin and George P. Coppedge as to who attended meetings or joined the
Union and his queries of Joe Haigler whether he intended to join that organiza-
tion ; Supervisor Nash's questioning of Onus D. Mullis and L. R. Gaddy about
the Union and his comment to Mullis that the organizational efforts of the
employees would not get anywhere because the Respondent would hear of it and
fire "a bunch of them" ; Supervisor George Martin's threatening Bryant Gaddy
and a group of employees to fire anyone under him who joined the Union ; Fore-
man Curtis Beasley's inquiring from Bob Griffin about the union meetings and
his statement to Junior Edwards and other employees that a union "wouldn't
work in a small place" like the Marshville plant ; Foreman Basil Martin's in-
quiry of Joe Haigler as to the latter's intentions as to joining the Union, and
Martin's statement at that time that after the impending layoff those who joined
the Union "won't get back so easy" ; and Supervisor Eli Erwin's statement to
George P. Coppedge, after ordering the latter to remove a union sign, that his
job was "hanging by a thread" and "that the Company won't stand for a union"
and could move out the plant machinery, Respondent has interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of its rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act °
It is true, as contended by the Respondent , and as heretofore found , that in
June 1949, after the Union had requested recognition, Tom S. Saddler, at that
time in charge of the Davidson and Marshville plants, told the Marshville
employees that the Respondent's attitude toward the Union was impartial and
91 do not regard the fact that Supervisor Nash atended the first union meeting on
May 22 and shortly thereafter Nash and Supervisor Nance signed union applications as
constituting a form of interference insofar as the Respondent is concerned It is clear
from the record that Nash's attendance at the first meeting was on invitation by those in-
terested in forming a union and both Nash and Nance and other supervisors were solicited
to join the Union. It is, however , further evidence indicating knowledge by the Respondent
of union activity in the plant
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
neutral. However, I do not regard this general neutrality statement by the
retiring head of the Respondent's North Carolina operations, as a repudiation
by management of the above found previous acts of interference by minor officials
or sufficient and adequate to cure the deleterious effects on the employees of
such statements and acts, especially in view of continuing discriminatory acts
by management hereafter discussed.
C. Discrimination
1. The discharge of Miles W. Sims and Leo Tise Coppedge
Sims and Coppedge, both employed on adjoining tape looms at the time, were
discharged on May 19, 1949, without previous notice. Neither has since been
rehired. The Respondent does not contend, as it does in the case of all the
other layoffs herein, that these two employees were released because of
a necessary reduction in force, but claims that they were discharged because of
inefficiency, loafing, and poor production.
As previously found, Sims was the leader in the initial formation of the
Union in the plant. On May 11, he went to Marshville and arranged for a
union meeting the following Sunday. On May 12, Superintendent Keever told
him that the plant was not in "shape to have a union" and the Respondent
would not stand for a union. When the union organizer failed to materialize
for the meeting arranged for May 15, notwithstanding Keever's warning, Sims
arranged for the meeting on* May 22. Leo Tise Coppedge drove Sims from the
plant to Marshville on May 18 to make this arrangement . The record shows
and I find that the Respondent was aware of their activity in the above respect.
I find further that after their discharge on May 19, Sims , and to a less extent
Coppedge, continued active in the Union.
Sims worked for the Respondent on two different occasions , the first time
for a few weeks apparently in 1946. He was rehired on November 13, 1948,
and remained until his discharge. When reemployed he went on the second
shift, taping and weaving. Sometime thereafter he was transferred, at his
request , to be an assistant loom fixer and worked under Earl Knox and also
George Martin, putting down machinery and fixing looms. In March 1949, he
was transferred to the first shift under Curtis Beasley. About that time he
asked Superintendent Keever if he could depend on regular employment, saying
he wanted to build a house on some land he had purchased. Keever replied
that he saw no reason why Sims should not do so as the Respondent was behind
in its orders "
Leo Tise Coppedge worked for the Respondent for a few weeks in August 1948,
when he quit. He returned in February 1949, and worked in the twisting depart-
ment until April of that year when he was laid off in a reduction in force. He
was called back about the first of May following and worked in the weaving
department until his discharge, as above set forth. During this last period he
operated an eight-shuttle tape loom near Sims who at the time was also operating
a similar loom. Both these looms had on occasion in the past been operated
by one employee. Sims was an experienced weaver. Coppedge, 21 years of age,
was learning to weave.
On May 19, about 2: 30 p. in., Sims noticed that his time card was missing
from the rack. He saw Superintendent Keever and Office Manager Lane at
the Coca Cola machine and asked them why his card was out of the box. Keever
replied that he would let him know at 3: 30 (the end of the shift). At about
10 Keever was not asked about and did not deny this credited testimony of Sims.
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY 1067
quitting time Keever came to Sims' loom and handed the latter his regular
weekly pay check and also his final check, as was the custom when an employee
was being laid off or discharged. Sims asked why he was being fired: Keever
replied that be knew the reason. Sims pressed for the reason and, according
to the latter, Keever then said "Sims, you know the reason I am firing you.
We're not in shape to have a union in here and we're not going to have it.""
Keever then went over to Coppedge and gave him his two checks saying that he
had been warned about not getting production. Coppedge said that he was pro-
ducing the required number of picks,12 and Keever replied that the production
as numbered by picks had been raised.
It was Keever's testimony that Sims and Coppedge did not stay at their work,
"One would be running both" machines while the other loafed, running an eight-
shuttle machine was only "half a job" and he had previously warned both of
them about poor production. Both Sims and Coppedge denied that they had
ever been told that the minimum production on the machines had been raised,
and Sims denied that he had ever been warned by Keever or any other repre-
sentative of management about h13 work. In view of all the circumstances, I
credit these denials.
When Sims and Coppedge were released, Pauline Beasley, wife of Supervisor
Curtis Beasley and apparently a loom instructor, operated both the looms for a
while thereafter. However, two additional tape room weavers were then hired,
one of them being Leroy Gill, who had previously been discharged by Keever
for poor production and loafing. A compilation taken from Respondent's rec-
ords shows that Pauline Beasley's production of picks operating the two ma-
chines for a comparable time in June was greater than the total combined
operations of Sims and Coppedge in May. While this compilation is on its face
impressive, I do not regard it as conclusive that either Sims or Coppedge failed
to produce the minimum required under the circumstances. The Respondent's
production records for the first half of 1949 were admittedly very meager. The
number of picks shown in the compilation presumably were taken from the
foremen's weekly reports of the operation of the machines during May and June.
As noted above, a pick measures only the amount of cloth going through the
machine and not the type of cloth or the difficulty of the job. Assuming that
Mrs. Beasley was working on the same type of material as Sims and Coppedge
(as testified to by Keever in response to a leading question) it proves only that
Mrs. Beasley was a fast operator and not that Sims and Coppedge were so in-
adequate in production as to warrant their summary discharge. Other circum-
stances that give me pause before concluding that Sims' and Coppedge's produc-
tion was inadequate are the following : (1) In spite of Keever's assertion to the
contrary, there is credible evidence that other employees worked on individual
8-shuttle machines for considerable periods of time; (2) Supervisor George
Martin testified that when Sims worked under him his production-was satisfac-
tory, his work was "o. k." and he never had occasion to criticize it, and Super-
visor Knox testified that when Sims assisted him fixing looms he was "good
help" ; the failure of the Respondent to call Supervisor Curtis Beasley, directly
over Sims and Coppedge at the time of the discharge, to testify as to the quality
of their work, and with no showing of Beasley's unavailability; (3) Sims' daily
total of picks in May averages more than 30,000, which was the minimum pro-
11 Sims testified that the looms were running at the time and no one else could hear the
conversation. L. T Coppedge, nearby, corroborated Sims that the looms were running
when Keever was talking to Sims. Keever did not specifically deny this credited testimony
of Sims.
32 A pick is a measure of cloth going through the machine.
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
duction required in May (as testified to by Keever) ; (4) there is no evidence
to support Keever's assertion that Sims left while Coppedge ran both machines,
or vice versa. Coppedge's testimony is credited that he was not sufficiently
skilled as a tape loom operator to run both machines at the same time. In
fact, it is undisputed that he had only been learning to run a tape loom for
about 2 weeks and that it took 6 months to become proficient in the operation ;
(5) in 3 of the last 4 days that Coppedge worked as a learner, he made over
the minimum required. H. J. Little, who operated the same machine on the
second shift that Coppedge did on the first shift, produced fewer picks on May
16, 17, and 18 than did Coppedge ; and finally (6) both Sims and Coppedge's
termination slips show they were released for lack of work.
I therefore reject the contentions as unproven that Sims and Coppedge, or
either of them, unduly loafed or only did half a job, and find, from the record as
a whole, that Sims was discharged on May 19 because, in spite of a warning from
Keever the previous week that the Respondent would not have a union in the
plant, he proceeded in his collective activities ; that Coppedge was discharged
because of his close association and assistance to Sims in such activity ; and both
have not been rehired because they thereafter continued active in the Union.
2. Legitimacy of the May, June, and July curtailments
The remaining claimants in this proceeding were laid off either the latter part
of May, or in June, or the following July and all have since been denied rein-
statement. Before going into the details of these layoffs, it is advisable at this
time to dispose of the preliminary question raised by the General Counsel, I. e.,
that no reduction in force was necessary for business reasons in 1949, but that
the Respondent, because of its antipathy to a union organization at its Marshville
plant, deliberately manipulated existing orders throughout its various plants
In such a way as to create at Marshville the false impression that reductions
at that plant were necessary.
All of the Respondent's management officials including Keever were in agree-
ment that orders dropped because of a slump in the asbestos business in the
spring of 1949, necessitating curtailment at Davidson and Marshville. However,
there is credible testimony that in March 1949, Keever told Miles Sims, as here-
tofore found, that Marshville was 6 months behind in its orders, and told L. R.
Gaddy that "we're bad behind with orders." In May, O. D. Mullis heard Keever
state that he wanted the new loom machinery set down as the Respondent had 2
years' orders for that type of material. About the same time Keever assured
George P. Coppedge that there,was no need for him to worry about being laid
off, "We have minor layoffs, such as when we are putting down machinery or
having machinery torn down that we can't work all hands, but as far as working
we have plenty of work for you-"; and in June he told Coppedge that Marsh-
ville was belrind in yarn and all twisters were to work as much as possible"
Regardless of these statements by management to individual employees," the
record discloses a lessening of production at Davidson beginning in February
and continuing until November 1949; and a drop in orders from April through
August as well as a drop in employment from May to November at Marshville.
The General Counsel argues, however, that the Respondent's record of shipments
19 Keever denied having made the above statement to Mullis He was not asked and
did not deny the other statements . As herein otherwise appears, Keever was an unreliable
witness in other instances . I do not credit his denial.
14 It also appears that in early May Supervisor George Martin urged heaver Brady Lee
Phifer to come to work for the Respondent regardless of the fact that, due to an injury,
Phifer could not at the time use one of his hands, because the Respondent was behind in
orders and needed weavers mighty bad."
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY 1069
from all of its plants handling asbestos products indicate no consistent loss of
business during this period. These over-all figures naturally show some monthly
ramifications but the totals for June, July, and August, 1949, are considerably
lower than for any of the other months of that year, as the Respondent gen-
erally contended. Assuming the validity, and relevance, of all the figures cited
by the General Counsel as to the Respondent's orders on hand and production in
its various plants during this period, I am unable to find, or infer, that the
Respondent deliberately caused business that normally would have come to
Marshville to be diverted so as to curtail production at that plant as a device
to eliminate the Union. Assuming, but not deciding, that there was some
diversion from Marshville during the period in question, there are too many
intangibles that might readily account therefor. I therefore reject this con-
tention, and find that legitimate business reasons warranted some cut in the
number of employees at Marshville in the spring and summer of 1949..
3. The May, June, and July layoffs
About May 24, 1949, the Respondent posted in the plant at Marshville a. notice
stating that the weaving operations would be cut to a one-shift basis on Monday,
May 30; that the second shift would not be dropped entirely, but one shift would
be selected from those then on the first and second shifts, based on seniority,
ability, and (other things being equal) the number of dependents. The notice
closed with tAe expressed hope that business conditions soon would permit
resumption of operations, and as soon as they did, the second shift would be
resumed.
As heretofore noted, aside from maintenance, the Respondent normally oper-
ated on a 5-day week basis. On Friday, May 27, the following weavers, together
with about a dozen others, were laid off at the end of their respective shifts:
Bob Griffin, Onus D. Mullis, Junior Edwards, Sadie Mullis (wife of Onus D.
Mullis ), Julius Hatcher, and Lena Simpson Moore, on the first shift, and on the
second shift, Bryant Gaddy and Brady Lee Phifer. The next day, Saturday,
May 28, J. O. Godwin, who worked in the maintenance department, was laid off.
Following the above layoffs in May, S. W. Moore, husband of Lena Simpson
Moore, was laid off from the carding department about June 19. On July 1,
Lena Jordan was released from the first-shift winding department. About July
15, L. R. Gaddy, father of Bryant Gaddy, and all other twisters in the plant were
laid off" Included in this last group was George P. Coppedge, brother of Leo
Tise Coppedge, heretofore referred to, who 3 weeks before the layoff had been
transferred to the maintenance crew but was still classified as a twister.
All of these employees had joined the Union prior to their layoff. Those re-
leased in May, except Sadie Mullis, attended the May 22 union meeting above
referred to, and were presumably seen there by Supervisor Nash. Griffin, Onus
D. Mullins, Junior Edwards, Brady Lee Phifer, Biyant Gaddy, S. W. Moore,
L. R. Gaddy, and G. P. Coppedge were active in the Union before their layoff.
Lena' Simpson Moore attended two meetings as did Lena Jordan.
On May 28, Supervisor Basil Martin commented to J. O. Godwin about the
employees joining the Union. When Office Manager Lane asked Martin what
he should do about Godwin's employment, Martin advised releasing him also
because he "talked so much about the Union." Godwin was laid off at the
conclusion of his shift that same day.
11J. R. Gaddy fixed the, time of his release as July 17 (Sunday). George P. Coppedge
was unable to fix an exact date , but said it was "July" when he-and the twisters were laid
off. As production employees did not normally work on .Saturdays , I have fixed the time
as payday, Friday, July 15.
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of the smallness of the plant and the community, the curiosity of
Respondent's supervisors (above detailed) as to who joined or attended union
meetings, it is reasonable to infer and I find that the Respondent knew or sus-
pected that each of the above employees was a member of or was interested in the
Union prior to his release from employment.
With the exception of Mr. and Mrs. Moore and Lena Jordan, each laid-off
employee had at least one dependent, and a number of them had several who
relied on them for support. None of these employees has since been returned
to work.
As a result of the layoffs, employment at the Respondent's Marshville plant
dropped from 100 on May 1 to a low of 53 on August 1, 1949. Thereafter, em-
ployment increased gradually until by November 1 of that year, 178 were work-
ing at the plant. Even in the summer of 1949, Respondent hired or returned
some employees. While management officials testified generally that the layoffs
in May, June, and July were necessary for economic reasons, and posted a notice
stating the policy that would be followed in the selections, they gave more
specific reasons why some of the claimants herein were laid off and not rehired.
It will-be necessary therefore to look further into the specific instances.
Griffin, Onus D. Mullis, and Junior Edwards
Griffin was a first-class weaver of many years' experience described by Tom
S. Saddler, who, as heretofore found, the first half of 1949, headed the plants
at Marshville and Davidson, as one of the best broadloom weavers in existence.
Griffin could also operate braiders and winders. He helped set up the new
machinery at Marshville and worked on special orders along with J. C. Goodman
and Onus D. Mullis. His pay checks for the first 5 months in 1949 up to the
time of his release disclose that, under the Respondent's incentive pay system
in weaving, he always earned more than the guaranteed minimum rate.
On Friday, May 27, at quitting time, Griffin could not find his timecard in the
rack. He started to leave the plant and met Superintendent Keever, who gave
him two checks. This clear indication that he was included in the layoff
angered Griffin, who was one of the oldest weavers in the plant, and he returned
to where Keever was distributing other layoff checks and asked why he was
being included. Keever said he would talk to Griffin later. The latter was
arguing with Keever when General Manager Saddler came up and said "Bob,
you're getting this all wrong; you are not being fired. As soon as business con-
ditions will permit, we'll call you boys back to work." At least seven weavers
were retained who had less seniority than did Griffin. Sometime after the
layoff, Supervisors Earl Knox and Basil Martin stopped at Griffin' s home. Knox
told Griffin that Keever would never reemploy him. In May 1951, Griffin asked
his former supervisor, Curtis Beasley, if he needed a weaver. Beasley replied
that he thought they had too many as it was.
Onus D. Mullis had worked in cotton mills since 1927. He was employed by
the Respondent as a broadloom weaver a total of about 5 years, the last period
being from April 1948 until the above layoff. He also worked on special orders
with Griffin and Goodman and until his release had also been working Saturdays
helping to install new looms and creels at the plant. None of his work had ever
been criticized by management.
Junior Edwards had been employed about a year before the'May 27 layoff.
He started on the third shift, worked for a while on the second, and was on the
first shift under Supervisor Curtis Beasley (with Griffin and Mullis) running a
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY - 1071
tape loom that he had helped set up when released . None of the supervisors on
any of the three shifts on which he was employed ever criticized his work.
General Manager Saddler , Superintendent Keever, and Office Manager Lane
made the May 27 selections . Keever admitted that Griffin was one of the
best weavers he had ever employed , but testified he selected Griffin because the
latter worked "when he took the notion " and did not pay "too much attention"
to what management told him, and Griffin had left the Respondent ' s employ
"a time or two before ." Actually , Griffin had left the Respondent 's employment
only once before and Keever admitted that the Respondent had no policy
against rehiring former employees who had voluntarily left the Respondent.
There is no evidence that any supervisor ever warned or criticized Griffin for
loafing or inattention.
Keever testified that Onus D. Mullis was just an ordinary weaver and one
who did not like to stay at his loom and loafed. However, it is Mullis' undenied
and credited testimony that an hour before the layoff, when he noticed that all
the time cards had been removed from the clock, he expressed concern to his
supervisor , Curtis Beasley, that they were "all" being released and the latter
said, "You haven't anything to worry about ; you're an old hand here," and
asked Mullis if he had read the posted layoff notice. Mullis replied in the
affirmative but stated that he felt he would be included because the Respondent
was "trying to get rid of the Union ." Whereupon Beasley "kind of laughed"
and said "You haven 't joined the Union , you haven 't signed no union card."
Mullis testified that he "refused to tell a tale about it" and admitted that he
had joined the Union . There is no evidence that he was ever criticized for
loafing.
Keever testified that Edwards had not been with the Respondent "too long"
and he did not know too much about him nor had he received any complaints
concerning his work ; "We just had a lot of names we had to drop, and in some
cases, why , he didn 't know who they were ." No other management representa-
tive gave any explanation of why Griffin , Mullis, and Edwards were selected,
except that Tom Saddler agreed with Keever that Mullis was an average
broadloom weaver.
As heretofore found , all the jobs included in the various layoffs in late spring
and summer of 1949 were refilled, the second shift was reinstated , and many
new employees had been hired by late fall of that year. Saddler testified that
when Griffin was laid off he fully intended to rehire him when business picked
up, but changed his mind because of the actions of Griffin, Mullis, and Edwards
at the time they were released . Keever testified that none of the three was
reinstated because there was "so much talk" of their conduct the afternoon and
evening of May 27 and "what we believed their feelings and attitude" were
toward the Respondent . Lane said he felt their reemployment would cause
"friction " and "tension."
As noted, Griffin became angry when he discovered that he was being included
in the group to be laid off. This anger was due in part to a belief that he
would not receive his vacation pay that the Respondent had, by posted notice,
promised would be forthcoming to all employees with 2 years or more tenure.
There is credible testimony that on receiving his two checks , Driffin told Keever
that the Respondent's notices were a "bunch of damned lies" and that Griffin
and Edwards demanded that Keever give them separation slips showing that
the layoff was temporary . Keever, busy distributing checks to the other
employees and apparently in an effort to get rid of Griffin and Edwards for
the time being , sent them to Office Manager Lane for the separation slips.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lane sent them back to Keever." This maneuver further enraged Griffin.
On his return from the office to see Keever, Griffin stopped and got a bottle
out of the Coca Cola machine. As he left the machine he met Supervisor Knox
and stated (referring to Keever) "I'm going to tell this fat bellied - what
I think of him."" Griffin had the bottle in his hand, occasionally drinking
therefrom as he approached Keever saying that he was being treated badly
and he would not "stand for it." General Manager Saddler, who had appeared
in the plant about that time, pacified Griffin to some extent, as heretofore noted,
by telling him he was merely laid off temporarily, and at his suggestion Griffin
and Edwards then left the plant 18
Mullis was not present during the above argument. At 3: 30 that afternoon
Keever apparently did not have Mullis' checks and told the latter to go to Lane
for them. Disgruntled, Mullis did not do so but went home without them.
After supper that night he decided to get the checks as he needed the money
to pay bills. He met Edwards driving his car, accompanied by Griffin. They
took him to the plant and he secured his, two checks from'Lane. It is Lane's
testimony that while Mullis was in his office, Griffin appeared and the two of
them wanted to know where Keever was ; that when he replied that the
superintendent had gone out of town, Griffin said, "We'll get him when he
returns." Mullis, Griffin, and Edwards agreed that Griffin was not in Lane's
office that night. Supervisor Basil Martin also testified that he only saw
Mullis in the office at the time. Mullis specifically denied asking Lane anything
about Keever. Under the circumstances, I do not credit Lane's testimony in
the above respect.
Supervisor Knox also testified that later that evening, at the Wayside Grill
near the Respondent's plant, he saw Griffin, Mullis, and Edwards and they
inquired in a disparaging way for Keever ; that when he replied that "He's
gone somewhere" Edwards threatened to "stomp" Keever before "it is over
with" and -Griffin added, "Yes, if he stays gone a week." Mullis denied generally
any such talk. Edwards denied threatening to "stomp" Keever. Griffin testified
that at the time he did not know that Keever was away and could not "recall"
the above incident. The evidence shows that Mullis, Griffin, and Edwards were
at and near the plant that night ; that Keever lived adjoining the plant and
left town about 6 p. m. on Friday and was gone over the week end at Saddler's
suggestion because Griffin was so "riled." In view of all these circumstances,
I doubt if Griffin and Edwards were over their angry mood of the afternoon
and find that they made the statements at the Wayside Grill substantially as
testified to by Knox.
In spite of the above outbursts there is nothing in the record to indicate that
any attempt was made by Griffin or Edwards thereafter to molest or even talk
to Keever. Although Keever at Saddler's suggestion had left Marshville over
"This credited testimony of Griffin. and Edwards was not denied by Lane except by
implication Lane testified that at the time Griffin had his argument with Keever he
(Lane) was in the plant and not in his office; that he was present and heard a good deal
of the argument. As his detailed version of what occurred is inconsistent with that not
only of Keever and Saddler but also that of Griffin and Edwards, I do not credit his -
testimony in the above respect and find that at the time he was in his office.
1'7 This testimony of Knox's was not denied by Griffin.
1s It is Keever's testimony that during the second part of the argument Griffin threatened
to "bust [Keever's] damned brains out" and called him "a bald headed - 11 ; that as
Griffin and Edwards left, Edwards said, "Come on Bob, we'll see him later, we'll get him"
and that Griffin said, "We'll get you sometime later" Both Griffin and Edwards denied
that they made these statements. Saddler in his testimony with reference to this incident
made no mention of them. As Keever's testimony in other respects has been found un-
reliable , I do not credit him in this instance.
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY 1073
the week end, he was back at the plant Monday morning, May 29. At that
time he probably heard from Knox what had happened at the cafe the previous
Saturday evening but, as he testified, was not worried about any threat. Al-
though General Manager Saddler testified that Keever threatened to quit as
superintendent if Mullis, Griffin, and Edwards were rehired, Keever made no
such claim. There is no credible evidence that at any time Mullis made any
offensive comments or references to Keever. Sims' angry comments to and
about Keever, and to a lesser extent those of Edwards, while certainly not con-
doned here, were outbursts of men who, not without justification, felt they were
being taken advantage of. Aside from the week-end flareup, the record discloses
nothing in the actions or attitude of either Sims or Edwards to indicate a
permanent feeling of animosity toward the superintendent. Nor did Keever's
subsequent actions indicate any lingering fear of "their feelings and attitude." 19
I, therefore, reject Saddler's testimony in this respect, as well as management's
contention that Sims, Mullis, and Edwards were not rehired because it would
have caused "friction" and "tension" in the plant.
I am convinced from this record and find that the Respondent ignored its
announced policy, particularly on seniority, in laying off Griffin, but selected
him on May 27, and has since refused to reinstate him because of his activity
on behalf of the Union. Although the suspicion also arises that Edwards and
Mullis were similarly selected for layoff because of their union activity, each
had considerably less seniority than Griffin and there is a failure of proof that
other weavers with less seniority were retained. I am unable to find, there-
fore, that their layoff was discriminatory. However, the record discloses that
by August 16, 1949, the Respondent began hiring new weavers. I find that
on and after that date the Respondent failed and refused to reinstate Edwards
and Mullis because of their union activities.
Sadie Mullis, wife of Onus D. Mullis, had many years' experience in working
in cotton mills prior to the layoff on May 27, 1949. She had worked for Morgan
Cotton Mills (the predecessor to the Respondent at Marshville) for at Last 8
years and had worked for the Respondent in 1945 and 1946. She came the last
time in December 1948. The record, shows that on these occasions she reported
for work at Keever's request. At the time of her layoff she also was under
Curtis Beasley on the first shift and was engaged in creeling and making filling.
There is no clear evidence that others were retained who had less seniority.
The record shows, however, that Respondent rehired creelers as early as Sep-
tember 12, 1949. Keever testified that his refusal to recall Mrs. Mullis had
nothing to do with her work but stated that she was not recalled because she
was Onus D. Mullis' wife. While it is true that Mrs. Mullis was not active in
the Union like her husband, she had signed a union card prior to her layoff.
I find, as in the case of her husband, that her layoff was legitimate, but she
was not recalled on September 12, 1949, or thereafter, because of her union
activities and affiliations.
Julius Hatcher had 31/2 years' experience in cotton mills before coning to
the Respondent. Starting probably early in 1948, he woi ked 3 or 4 months
for the Respondent as a twister and then quit. He was rehired that summer
as an apprentice loom fixer and remained in that capacity until laid oft May 27,
1949. During this period he also worked on Saturdays assisting Mullis. Gr ffi i,
and others in setting up machinery in the plant. He attended the May 2' union
meeting and the next day signed an application card at the behest of Sims and
19 Actually, later in 1949, or possibly in 1950 , Keever and Edwards attended an
automobile racing event together.
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Griffin. After his layoff he distributed some union literature and took a union
organizer around to some of the workers' homes.
It takes several years' experience to become a competent fixer. Although
there is undenied and credible testimony that Curtis Beasley told Hatcher that
he "caught on good" as a fixer and broadloom weaver, Onus D. Mullis estimated
that Hatcher was a better fixer than Loman Stewart (the only other fixer on the
first shift in the weaving department), I accept Keever's and Lane's testimony
that Hatcher was laid off in preference to Stewart because of his inexperience
and because the evidence shows Stewart had a great deal more seniority than
did Hatcher.2°
Hatcher applied to the Respondent for a job about the end of June, late in
July, and again in November or December 1949. In each instance he was told
that the Respondent had no opening for him. Both Superintendent Keever and
Supervisor George Martin told Hatcher that they would let him know if anything
turned up. He has never since been sent for, although he was experienced as a
doffer as well as a twister. In applying for work and reapplying for work with
Respondent, Hatcher did not insist or even seek for reinstatement to his last
job as apprentice fixer, he asked merely for a job. The Respondent's records
show that from June 1, 1949, to January 1, 1950, Respondent's employment
jumped from 67 to 108. Among the 41 employees added during this period were
a number of learners and also 3 twisters : Lonnie Taylor was rehired as a
twister on August 24, and 2 new twisters were hired respectively on October 11
and November 14. After January 1, 1950, more twisters and more learners were
put on the payroll. Superintendent Keever testified that Respondent did not
rehire Hatcher because the latter did not appear to have possibilities as a loom
fixer. No explanation was offered why he was not given other work for which
he was qualified at a time when new, employees were being hired for such' work.
In view of Respondent's knowledge of union activity in the plant and its ani-
mosity thereto, as heretofore found, and the lack of any other reasonable explana-
tion, I find that Respondent on or about October 11, 1949, and thereafter, refused
to rehire Hatcher to an available position for which he was qualified because he
joined and assisted the Union.
Lena Simpson Moore, wife of S. W. Moore, had worked for Respondent for 5
years prior to her layoff on May 27. She was on the first shift creeling but also
on occasion ran the tape counter. She testified credibly that she worked under
Curtis Beasley but also took orders from Superintendent Keever. Others doing
about the same type of work, but with less seniority than Mrs. Moore, were not
laid off. She applied for a job sometime in August but was told that there were
no openings. She had not since been rehired.
Keever testified that Mrs. Moore was laid off and not reinstated because, while
capable, she could not be depended upon to work steadily and he had received
complaints from weavers that she did not make filling or keep the looms creeled.
Office Manager Lane testified that she only worked about three-fourths of the
time ; that on many occasions when he was in the plant he had seen Mrs. Moore
away from her department although she had been warned to remain in the weav-
ing room. Mrs. Moore testified that if management had ever criticized her work
she could not recall the occasion. She was not asked and did not deny that on
occasion she was away from her work. Although the failure to call Curtis Beas-
ley as a witness raises some doubt as to the real reason, I find from the pre-
20 I do not, however , credit Lane's testimony that Hatcher did not stay at his work.
There is no evidence ' that Hatcher had ever been criticized by management for not
attending to his duties.
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY 1075
ponderance of the credible testimony that there is a failure of proof that Mrs.
Moore was discriminatorily laid off and refused reinstatement.
Bryant Gaddy, son of L. R. Gaddy and brother-in-law of Sims and Brady Lee
Phifer, had considerable experience as a doffer and also .as a twister before
coming to the Respondent. He worked for the latter on three occasions as a
weaver, the last time starting in February 1948 on the second shift under George
Martin. For 10 months prior to his layoff on May 27, he was a broadloom
weaver. Keever testified that Gaddy was a "right good weaver." Other weavers
with less seniority than Gaddy were retained by the Respondent at the time of
his layoff. Gaddy has five dependents. As heretofore noted he was active in
the Union and attempted to secure an application from Earl Knox prior to
May 27, was also accused by his superior, George Martin, of being the "head
leader of this union business" on the second shift. On May 27, George Martin
brought him his two checks saying, "Gaddy, I hate to do this" and suggested
that he would "probably be back in a few days anyhow." 21
Keever testified that Bryant Gaddy was included in the layoff because "he
was second shift. He had no certain way to layoff. He had to keep some and
let some go. Gaddy had quit before without notice" and had forced his way into
the mill one night while drinking. Keever further testified that he did not know -
why Bryant Gaddy was not recalled ; that it was left to the employment office
or the supervisor to decide. George Martin, Gaddy's supervisor, testified that
he was not consulted about the release or the later rehirings of any of the
employees. Lane, in charge of the employment office, testified that a new
employee was selected in preference to Gaddy because "a few days before the
layoff," Gaddy had come into the plant "rather high" and refused to leave ; that
both Supervisors Earl Knox and George Martin reported that he caused a dis-
turbance, threatened the watchman, and finally had to be taken home by Sims,
his brother-in-law. Neither Knox nor Martin was asked about the above in-
cident and did not corroborate this hearsay testimony of Lane's. The watchman
involved, Horne, was not called to testify and there was no showing of his
unavailability.
Bryant Gaddy admitted that he had voluntarily quit the Respondent's employ
on two occasions. The record fails to disclose the circumstances surrounding
these previous separations from employment but, assuming that on both occasions
he left Respondent without any prior notice, as testified to by Keever, it is
clear that such action on Gaddy's part was overlooked an$ forgiven by the
Respondent when he was rehired the third time in February 1948.
Relative to the drinking incident, Gaddy frankly admitted that a few nights
before his relief, while off duty, he went into the plant to see his brother-in-law,
Sims, and had been talking to both Knox and George Martin before the watch-
man, Horne , appeared ; that Horne ordered him off the premises when he ad-
mitted to the latter that he had had two or three bottles of beer but George
Martin told him he did not have to leave ; that the watchman who was going
off duty at the time threatened to get Keever if he did not depart; that he
(Gaddy) was feeling "pretty mannish" and "tangled" for "just a minute" with
Bud High (an employee then at work) who liked to scuffle, but Martin ordered
him to desist and he complied ; that when Horne returned saying Keever had
ordered Gaddy to get out, Sims took him home in his car. I accept Gaddy's
detailed version as the best evidence on this incident. Thereafter Gaddy was
not reprimanded or warned about his conduct on the above occasion. The record
21 This credited testimony of Bryant Gaddy was not denied by George Martin.
22 This incident obviously happened prior to the discharge of Sims on May 19.
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shows, and Keever admitted , that other off-duty employees on occasion came to the
plant after they had been drinking . In fact, there is credible testimony that
on Saturdays while Hatcher , Griffin, and others were in the plant setting down
machinery, Keever himself offered them whiskey to drink.
In the light of the entire record herein , I find that the previous quitting and
the drinking episode were mere pretexts to get rid of Bryant Gaddy, and that the
real reason for his layoff on May 27 and the failure thereafter to rehire him was
his activity for and on behalf of the Union.
Brady Lee Phifer , son-in-law of L. R. Gaddy, first worked for the Respondent
for about 11 months in 1945 running a tape loom and also a broadloom. About
2 weeks before his layoff on May 27, he was hired by George Martin as a weaver
on the second shift because they were "behind with orders" although Phifer
at the time indicated his inability to perform his duty properly due to an injury
to one of his hands . Thereafter he Tan a tape loom, except on one night when
he was on a broadloom , until his release.
As heretofore found, Phifer was present about May 24 or 25 when George
Martin informed a group of employees that he would discharge anyone working
under him who joined the Union . Phifer had joined the Union the previous
Monday. The following Friday he was given his two checks by George Martin.
When Phifer secured his separation slip he asked Lane how long it would be
before they would be returned to work and Lane replied, "as soon as this mess
blows over." 23 He has not since been reemployed . In the fall of 1949 he saw
Curtis Beasley and ,George Martin in a store . While talking to Martin on that
occasion , Phifer asked how "things were going" at the plant and Martin replied
that "Everything was about to get in full movement now since they got rid of the
Union." 2'
Phifer testified that his work at the Respondent 's was never criticized.
George Martin, his supervisor , did not testify as to his ability . ' Superintendent
Keever and Office Manager Lane both testified that Phifer was just an average
weaver. Under all the circumstances , the proof fails to establish a discrimina-
tory layoff. However, Respondent 's records show that it recalled a number
of tape weavers on August 29, 1949, and that fall , beginning on September 7,
it hired additional new weavers , including tape weavers . No explanation was
offered by the Respondent as to why Phifer was not included in this group.
I therefore find that the Respondent discriminated against Phifer on September
7, 1949, and therbafter by refusing to rehire him because of his union member-
ship and activity.
J. O. Godwin worked for over 3 years for the Respondent on the maintenance
crew as a sweeper and cleaner on the first shift" He also helped on Saturdays
moving machinery but had no other mill experience . While Godwin was work-
ing on Saturday , May 28, following the May 27 elimination of the second shift,
Supervisor Basil Martin came by and remarked to him, "Well, looks like they
have gone union ." Martin admitted that he was right in the "middle of a union
one time" but "pulled out ," and "the Company has always stood by me ever
since." 2U
22 Lane denied that he told Pbifer or anyone else that operations would be resumed
" when this mess blows over." Under the circumstances , I do not credit the denial.
24 Martin was not asked and did not deny having made the above statement.
25 There was no sweeping and cleaning job similar to Godwin 's on the second shift.
1' Basil Martin testified that he saw Godwin on May 28, but denied that he told the
latter that he. Martin, had been in a union but had gotten out and the company took care
of him thereafter . He testified that he had never been in a union . In view of Basil
Martin's questioning of employee Haigler about the Union on or about May 24, heretofore
found, I do not credit Martin's denial of the statements attributed to him by Godwin.
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY . 1077
At quitting time on May 28, Lane gave Godwin two checks and a separation
slip. There is undenied and credible testimony that 30 minutes before Godwin
was laid off, Lane asked Basil Martin what he should do about Godwin in view
of the large layoffs the previous day and Martin replied (according to Martin's
admission to employee Walter Taylor sometime later), "Well, being as he's talked
.so much about the Union, let him go too."
After his layoff, Godwin applied to the Respondent for work about the end
of August 1949. He was told he would be sent for when there was work for
him. He has not since been reemployed. Keever testified that Godwin loafed
on the job and did not do his work properly, so they transferred a weaver
apprentice to do his job. Lane testified that when he came into the plant, four
or five times daily, he would find Godwin sitting down and lunching ; that Godwin
wandered all over the plant talking and distracting other workers. The only
time he worked, according to Lane, was when he was being watched, and on
Saturdays he would be at the time clock waiting sometimes an hour before
quitting time. Neither Lane nor Keever testified that Godwin had ever been
warned for loafing, wandering about the plant talking to other employees, wasting
his time at the clock, or for any other reason. The separation slip given Godwin
by Lane stated that he was laid off because there was no work available, and it
is not denied that at that time Lane told him that he would be recalled as soon
as work was available. Godwin had collected his regular weekly pay check
on May 27 but was not laid off with the others at that time. As heretofore noted,
after be cane to work on Saturday, May 28, Foreman Basil Martin advised
Lane that Godwin "talked so much about the Union, let him go too." Godwin's
supervisor, who would be best informed as to his working habits, was not called
to testify about them or to corroborate either Keever or Lane. Godwin denied
that he loafed on the job or had ever been accused of it or criticized in any way.
There obviously was no need to eliminate Godwin's job on May 28 as a tempo-
rary economy measure, because it was immediately filled by transferring an-
other employee to his work. Nothing had developed on Saturday to warrant his
layoff or for that matter any disciplinary action. It is incredible that Respond-
ent would have carried Godwin on its payroll for over 3 years as a maintenance
man if, as testified to by Lane and Keever, he was an unreliable loafer most of
the time. I therefore reject their testimony as an attempt to create the appear-
ance of dereliction on Godwin's part in order to justify his discharge, and find,
from the record as a whole, that the real reason for the discharge was his
union activity.
S . W. Moore had 6 or 7 months' experience creeling and filling at the Osage
Mills, Bessemer City, North Carolina, before coming to the Respondent in Novem-
ber 1948, where he worked as a card hand under Basil Martin until his release
on Jupe 19, 1949. He was the only card hand laid off at that time although there
were at least four other employees doing the same work on the same shift. He
joined the Union at the same time that Mrs. Moore did, and in early June was
elected a member of the local union committee. Basil Martin laid him off on
June 19, saying he "hated to do it; that Moore's work was satisfactory" but that
business was slack.27
About the middle of August 1949, Moore applied for his old job. George Novak,
who had in July succeeded Saddler as plant manager, took Moore's name and
indicated he would send for him in the event of an opening. About a week later
Basil Martin told Moore that business was still "off." However, the Respondent
27 This credited testimony of Moore's was not denied by Martin. As hereafter appears,
Martin's only criticism of Moore apparently-was because of Moore's practical jokes.
998666-vol. 9 8-5 3-- 6 9
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
started rehiring card hands as early as August 30 , 1949, and later hired, qew
card hands . Moore has never been recalled.
Superintendent Keever did not appear to know much about Moore's work.
When asked why Moore was not recalled to work , he testified :
Stafford [ Moore ] did not work for me , or too close connection with me.
He worked for Mr. Martin , but from what I gather , it's that he would rather
not have him around . He was a practical joker and so on, that would take
part of his time which he should use toward his work.
Office Manager Lane was more loquacious as to why Moore was not rehired.
He testified that Moore "liked to cut up and fool" causing confusion ; that on
one occasion Basil Martin reported to him that Moore discharged a .22-caliber
cartridge in the plant by hitting it with a hammer and was reprimanded by Mar-
tin. At a later time, Lane testified , Moore passed out cigars in the plant and that
a loaded cigar given to employee Helms exploded but did no damage and at that
time Martin told Moore to "cut out the monkey business." It is Lane's testi-
mony that he was in the plant on the first occasion and heard the cartridge go
off., He testified that Moore was a gunsmith and while he did not actually repair
guns in the plant, employees would bring firearms to him in the plant and discuss
their repair during working hours or talk about trading guns 2'
Basil Martin's corroboration of Lane was very scanty . He testified that he
was consulted about Moore 's layoff but did not indicate what his recommendations,
if any, were . He was not asked why Moore was not recalled .. He testified
that he heard the cartridge when it exploded but did not see it . He made no
mention of any cigar episode except that he stated in response to a question that
Moore had never given him a loaded cigar . He agreed with Moore that the
latter picked up and delivered guns in the plant. He testified that Moore was
an average worker and he had no cause to criticize his work "except` in the
case of his practical jokes."
I find from the record as a whole that there is a failure of proof that Moore
was discriminatorily laid off; that he was an average worker and had never been
criticized in any respect by management except in the one instance , sometime
after he started working for the Respondent in 1948, when as a practical joke
he exploded a blank cartridge in the plant during working hours. I find fur-
ther that neither this joke episode nor Moore 's side line as a gunsmith had any
bearing on the failure to rehire him on'and after August 30, 1949, but that the Re-
spondent has failed and refused to rehire him since that time because the
Respondent knew or suspected that he was active in the Union.
Lena Jordan worked for the Respondent for about 6 weeks in 1944. She re-
turned in 1945 and worked continuously thereafter until released on July 1,
1949, except for 5 weeks ( prior to the year 1949 ) when she and other employees
were temporarily laid off. At first Mrs. Jordan ran a tape counter but there-
after she did creeling, filling, and winding. Six weeks before her layoff (prob-
ably on May 27 when the second shift was eliminated ) she was transferred
from the second shift to the first shift under George Martin. She testified
credibly and without denial that when laid off on July 1, George Martin told
her the Respondent was going to discontinue using the loom that she had been
2s ?Moore admitted that on one occasion he caused the discharge of a cartridge in the
plant during working hours but testified that there was no bullet in the cartridge and he
had placed it so that it could do no damage. He denied passing out loaded cigars but
admitted that guns were sometimes brought into the plant which he would take home to
repair, but testified that be had never been criticized by management for discussing his
side line with employees during working hours.
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY 1079
making filling for. Four other employees doing the same work but with less
seniority were retained when she was released . There is no evidence that use
of the loom was discontinued.
Mrs. Jordan applied to the Respondent for a position 8 or 12 times thereafter
beginning about 3 weeks after July 1, and continuing on until the spring of
1951. In each instance she was informed that there was no work available.
Keever testified that Mrs. Jordan was laid off and not thereafter rehired
because he had complaints from the weavers and reports from her foremen,
Edward Nelson and George Martin, that she would not do her work ." General
Manager Saddler testified that it was "his understanding" that Mrs. Jordan was
"not altogether satisfactory as a worker " and "did not get along too well" with
her foremen , and would be "elsewhere " about half the time. Office Manager
Lane testified that she was often absent a couple of hours, would come in late
without punching the time card and the foreman would have to mark the time
in ; that she missed a lot of time and only averaged about 30 full weeks a year;
and on one occasion in 1948, she asked her foreman for time off and, although the
request was refused, she left anyway and was disciplined by being given a week's
layoff. He further testified that both Nelson and Martin reported about "her
attitude ," and also that the weavers were complaining they were losing pro-
duction because of her failure to provide sufficient filling.
No weavers were called to verify any of these statements of Lane's. Neither
Foreman Nelson nor Martin testified regarding Mrs. Jordan 's work or her
absences from work . The time cards and other records in the Respondent's
possession would have definitely established the number of hours and days
which she had ww orked or had not ww orked but they were not pi oduced3° Mrs-
Jordan admitted that during the first few weeks in 1945 when she was learning
the tape counters operation she had some difficulty therewith, but denied that
thereafter she was ever criticized for her work, for absences , not staying on the,
job, or inattention . In view of these specific denials and the failure of any
supervisor to support Keever's testimony , and the obviously unsupported hearsay
generalizations of Lane and Saddler, I find that she was not criticized for her
work.
As to the specific criticism that Mrs. Jordan took time off without permission
in the year 1948, it Is Mrs. Jordan 's version that she was not refused permission
to leave the plant. She testified that on this particular occasion she told George
Martin in Curtis Beasley's presence that she wanted to take a few hours off
to attend a shower for her daughter who was about to be married and that
Martin made no response . Without attempting to rationalize this apparent
conflict in testimony and assuming that Mrs. Jordan left her work without per-
mission on this occasion in 1948, the record is undisputed that she was severely
disciplined therefor by a week's layoff. It is absurd to say that the permanent
release of an employee in July 1949 was brought about because she lost a few
hours work the year before for which she was at that time more than adequately
penalized . I therefore reject all the Respondent 's contentions as to the reasons
for Mrs. Jordan's layoff, and find that she was laid off July 1, 1949, and has not
yet been rehired because of her known union affiliation.
"It is noted that Keever also testified that he did not discuss the question of layoffs
with George Martin or any other foremen.
10 When cross-examining Mrs. Jordan, Respondent's counsel's questions (record 446-8)
indicated that he had some Information that Mrs. Jordan only worked 18 full weeks in 1946
and 32 full weeks in 1948. However, in spite of the fact that Mrs. Jordan insisted that she
worked steadily "when the mill run" during these years, the records for the years that
she worked were not produced.
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
L. R. Gaddy worked 5 or 6 years as a twister when the Marshville plant was
operated by Morgan Cotton Mills. He worked for the Respondent as a twister
from August 4, 1948, on the first shift under Eli Erwin until he was laid off
July 15, 1949 . As heretofore found, the first union meeting was in his woods.
Later union meetings were in his home. In June he was elected chairman of the
local union committee. He solicited his supervisor , Erwin , to sign a union card.
It is undisputed that Supervisor Millard Nash questioned him repeatedly about
union activity subsequent to May 22. On July 15, he, with all the other twisters,
was laid off and he has not since been rehired . I find that the layoff of the
twisters on July 15 was not discriminatory.
Keever testified that Gaddy was just an average twister and that Respondent
rehired twisters with less seniority than Gaddy but who had more "initiative,;
that Gaddy was a cotton twister who did not know how to twist "on asbestos."
Lane testified that Gaddy was just average and talked and loafed a little.
William M . Harrington , who was also laid off on July 15 but later rehired and
appointed supervisor of twisters on August 29, 1949, had worked with Gaddy
as a twister at the Morgan Cotton Mills. He started to work for the
Respondent about 10 days after Gaddy was hired in 1948 and testified credibly
that he required little additional training in order to become proficient on the
asbestos material . He further testified that Gaddy was a good twister on
asbestos . Gaddy testified credibly and without denial that he taught asbestos
fabric twisting to Walter Taylor, Lonnie Taylor ( rehired August 24, 1949), and
a twister named Napier . Walter Taylor corroborated Gaddy. Taylor, who
had been transferred from twisting to a sweeping job at the time of the May 27
layoff and was reassigned to twisting in August 1949, testified that after his
reassignment he worked with several inexperienced twisters.
From the entire record ,, I reject the contentions of the Respondent and
find that Gaddy was a competent twister and that he was not rehired on August
24, 1949, and thereafter , because he joined and was active in the Union.
George P. Coppedge , brother of Leo Tise Coppedge heretofore referred to, was
also a twister under Eli Erwin. About the middle of May 1949 , he was assigned
to assist in fixing twisting and winding machines. At that time Keever indicated
to him that Coppedge 's pay would be increased if he kept on improving and he
would be recommended for promotion as a fixer. He also had Coppedge work
on Saturdays when few others were being given work . At or shortly prior to
the time when Coppedge was assigned to the job of assistant fixer , he asked
Keever if he was liable to be laid off and Keever replied that he saw no reason
for such a situation coming to pass. Coppedge was also laid off about July 15
but about 3 weeks prior thereto he was transferred , apparently temporarily,
to the maintenance crew under Marvin Nance because of a back injury, but
was still classified as a twister . He first came to work for the Respondent
about August 1948 . As heretofore found, when working under Erwin* the latter
told him that his job was "hanging by a thread" when he refused to remove ,
a posted union notice from the plant wall. Coppedge was elected a member of
the union committee and while working on maintenance under Nance, the latter
questioned him about the union activity. When laid off on July 15, Basil Martin
told him that as soon as operations improved Respondent would rehire as many
as possible . Coppedge has a number of children dependent upon him.
Coppedge applied to Novak for work unsuccessfully 3 weeks after July 15.
Later on , several Mondays in succession , he talked to Manager Novak about a
job. In each instance Novak stated that the Respondent had nothing for him
at that time but for Coppedge to report the following Monday as there might
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY 1081
be work available. On Monday, in the spring of 1950, Coppedge was in South
Carolina. Previous to leaving, however, he met Keever at the Wayside Grill
and asked him to tell Novak he would return as soon as possible and that if
in the meanwhile there was a job for him to "hold it." He reported to Novak the
following Wednesday but was told that he had "lost his chance." ffi Thereafter
he applied without success to Basil Martin and Keever and was also refused a
recommendation by Keever and Novak.
Keever admitted that Coppedge was a good twister-was smart-and that
he hoped to make a lead man or fixer out of him. He testified that when he
made Coppedge a "pusher" n he lost interest ; that on one occasion he saw
Coppedge loafing; that on another occasion when Walter Taylor asked Coppedge
to doff a machine, Coppedge started "cussing" and Taylor complained about it ;
that because of these incidents Keever transferred Coppedge to the maintenance
crew but that the latter kept "going down" to such an extent that at the next
layoff period Coppedge was "dropped." Keever further testified that he would
not rehire Coppedge. Lane also testified that Coppedge was transferred to the
maintenance crew because of the trouble with Taylor and was released because
they had trouble with him in the maintenance crew.
Walter Taylor testified credibly that he did have an argument with
Coppedge but that at the time in question he was not aware of the fact that
Coppedge had been assigned to assist Erwin fixing,the machines ; that he saw
Coppedge working with Erwin and called the former to help doff (as Coppedge
had been doing theretofore) ; that Coppedge delayed somewhat and, when he
responded, started "cussing"; that -Taylor resented Coppedge's attitude and
"started after" him but that Coppedge left the twister room ; that Taylor reported
the incident to Keever and the latter told him to forget about the incident,
"that Coppedge was only supposed to help doff when he was not assisting Erwin."
The credible testimony is that Coppedge was temporarily transferred to main-
tenance because of a back injury suffered while working.93 In fact Coppedge
testified without denial that Maintenance Supervisor Nance told him that he was
safe from being included in the pending layoff because of the injury. The only
difficulty Coppedge had with Nance during his 3 weeks on maintenance was
when he refused to mount a ladder because it was against the doctor's orders.
At the time, Nance, according to Coppedge, resented his disobeying the order and
Coppedge himself reported the incident to Keever. The latter agreed with
Coppedge that he should take it easy and not climb the ladder. There is no
evidence that Coppedge was at any time criticized by the Respondent for loafing,
cursing, or for any other reason. I find from the record as a whole that
Coppedge's normal work was in the twisting department ; that he was tem-
porarily transferred to easier maintenance work because of his back injury ; that
he was laid off with other twisters on July 15 because of slack work in that
department ; and, like L. R. Gaddy, Respondent has refused to rehire him since
August 24,1949, because of his union activity.
81 It Is Novak's testimony that about April 10 or 12 he told Coppedge to report for work
the following Monday, but that Coppedge did not report until 3 or 4 months later, although
he had sent word through Keever that he would report on Wednesday following the
Monday he had been ordered to report. I do not credit Novak's testimony that after this
incident Coppedge did not report for several months and find, as testified to by Coppedge,
that he reported as he had agreed on the following Wednesday at which time he was told
he had missed his chance.
- Presumably referring to the time in May when, as testified to by Coppedge, the latter
assisted as a fixer.
" The lame back was cured and Coppedge had been discharged by the doctor prior to
his release from employment.
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section 111, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Miles W.
Sims and Leo Tise Coppedge on May 19; discriminatorily laid off Bob Griffin
and Bryant Gaddy on May 27 ; J. 0 Godwin on May 28 ; Lena Jordan on July 1;
and refuses to reinstate any of them or to reinstate Julius Hatcher on and after
October 11, Brady Lee Phifer after September 7, Onus D. Mullis and Junior
Edwards on and after August 16, Sadie Mullis after September 12, S. W. Moore
on and after August 30, and L. R. Gaddy and George P. Coppedge on and after
August 24, 1949, because of their union activity. It will be recommended that
the Respondent immediately offer each of the above-named employees immediate
and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges and make each of them
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that
which he would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discrimina-
tion to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less the employee's
net earnings during such period. Back pay to be computed in the manner estab-
lished by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company?'
The extent of the unfair labor practices found to have been committed by the
Respondent indicates an intent to interfere generally with the rights of the
employees as guaranteed by the Act. It will therefore be recommended that
the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in their right to self-organization.'
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following : -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Textile Workers of America, AFL, is t labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminataing in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Miles W. Sims, Leo Tise Coppedge, Bob Griffin, Onus D. Mullis, Junior Edwards,
Sadie Mullis, Bryant Gaddy, S. W. Moore, J. O. Godwin, Lena Jordan, Julius
Hatcher, Brady Lee Phifer, L. R. Gaddy, and George P. Coppedge, thereby
discouraging membership in the above Union, Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
3. By questioning its employees concerning their union affiliation and by
threats and implied threats of reprisal because of union affiliation, the Respond-
u 90 NLRB 289.
85 May Department Stores , 326 U. S. 376.
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY 1083
ent 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 affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not discriminated as to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Lena Simpson Moore.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL rror question our employees concerning their union affiliation,
threaten them with reprisals because of their union affiliation, or in any
other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form labor oganizations, to join or
assist UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, 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 organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to the following employees, and each of them, immediate
and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination :
Miles W. Sims
Leo Tise Coppedge
Bob Griffin
Onus D . Mullis
Junior Edwards
Sadie Mullis
Bryant Gaddy
S. W. Moore
T. O. Godwin
Lena Jordan
Julius Hatcher
Brady Lee Phifer
L. R. Gaddy
George P. Coppedge
All of our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union, or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment because of
membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ---------------------- By------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.