National Labor Relations Bd. v. Gate City Cotton Mills, 12175.

• Decision Date: 14 May 1948
• Docket Number: No. 12175.,12175.
• Citation: 167 F.2d 647
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. GATE CITY COTTON MILLS.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

167 F.2d 647 (1948)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. GATE CITY COTTON MILLS.

No. 12175.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 16, 1948.

Rehearing Denied May 14, 1948.

T. Lowry Whittaker, Chief Law Officer, National Labor Relations Board, of Atlanta, Ga., David P. Findling, Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Ruth Weyand, Acting Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, both of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

John Wesley Weekes and Murphey Candler, Jr., both of Decatur, Ga., for respondent.

Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

McCORD, Circuit Judge.

The National Labor Relations Board commenced this proceeding for enforcement of an order issued against respondent, Gate City Cotton Mills, on August 22, 1946, requiring respondent to cease and desist from alleged unfair labor practices; to offer an employee, James Jackson, reinstatement and back pay because of his discriminatory discharge; and to post appropriate notices to all employees that respondent would not further violate their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended by Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, Public Law 101, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., Ch. 120, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.

Respondent contends (1) that the findings of the Board are not supported by substantial evidence; and (2) that its conduct complained of did not, as a matter of law, interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employees in the exercise of their rights conferred by Section 7 of the Act.

In February, 1945, the Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. O., launched an organizational campaign among the respondent's employees at Gate City Cotton Mills, East Point, Georgia. To insure the success of their drive, the union organizers represented to the employees that a strong union at the mill would bring benefits in the form of higher wages and vacations with pay. Upon learning of the union activity within the mill, and of the promises made to the employees by its proponents, respondent also became interested in securing for the employees the very benefits sought by the union. On March 28, 1945, respondent made application to the National War Labor Board for a wage increase for its employees, the same day the union filed its petition for certification as bargaining agent. A week later, respondent made a second appeal for approval by the War Labor Board of a proposed vacation plan with pay. Both the proposed wage increase and vacation plan were approved by the Labor Board and instituted by respondent during the advent of the union within the mill. On May 16, 1945, respondent's Vice President, Milner, made a speech to the employees and reminded them of the benefits obtained for them by respondent, without the help of the union, and that respondent "did not believe the union could give you anything which you are not already receiving from the Company." An election conducted by the Board the next day resulted in the defeat of the union.

While union organizational activity within the mill was at its height, it was shown that respondent had, through its supervisory workers, secured renunciation of the union by several employees. These employees were offered better housing accommodations as an inducement for their signing a card requesting the union to strike their membership. Fifteen of these withdrawal slips were received at the union headquarters prior to the Board's conducted election in which the union was defeated. There was evidence that respondent's own supervisory employees had induced the individual employees to sign these withdrawal from union membership cards, and had then addressed and mailed them to the union office.

At the Board hearing in the representation proceeding, held on April 21, 1945, respondent became aware of the prominent role played by an employee, James Jackson, in the union's organizational activities. It was shown that prior to this occasion relations between respondent and the employee Jackson were very cordial; that Vice-President Milner had commented on Jackson's record of loyal attendance, and expressed an intention to promote him at an early date. After the hearing, however, respondent's attitude toward this employee was noticeably hostile. Respondent then proceeded, through two foremen charged with supervising Jackson's work, to engage in constant surveillance, harassment, and discrimination against him. Although Jackson, while formerly enjoying respondent's confidence and favor, had been permitted a wide latitude and discretion in the performance of his duties, after the hearing it was shown that he was no longer accorded the same privileges. He...