National Labor Relations Board v. Avondale Mills

• Decision Date: 03 May 1957
• Docket Number: No. 16243.,16243.
• Citation: 242 F.2d 669
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. AVONDALE MILLS, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

242 F.2d 669 (1957)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. AVONDALE MILLS, Respondent.

No. 16243.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 29, 1957.

Rehearing Denied May 3, 1957.

Franklin C. Milliken, Stephen Leonard, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Frank A. Constangy, M. A. Prowell, Atlanta, Ga., Mildred McClelland, Atlanta, Ga., of counsel for respondent.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RIVES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

RIVES, Circuit Judge.

The National Labor Relations Board petitions the court for the enforcement of its order issued upon its decision reported at 115 N.L.R.B. 130.

In the fall of 1954, the Textile Workers Union began an organizational campaign at respondent's textile mills in Sylacauga, Pell City, and Alexander City, Alabama. The respondent employs approximately six thousand people in its nine textile mills located in seven communities in Alabama. The Eva Jane Mill and the Catherine Mill, located in Sylacauga where the respondent has its principal offices, are the ones here involved.

The respondent was organized in 1897. Its history and policies are described in a booklet entitled "An Introduction to Avondale", which recites:

"Avondale\'s conception of the human side of industry is progressive, dynamic — never static. It began when this business began, and has developed through the years, always endeavoring to keep pace with the nation\'s steadily advancing standard of living. This has found expression in a constantly broader appreciation of recreational, social, health, cultural, and security programs, all of which have been developed in cooperation with employee groups.

* * * * *

"Avondale considers the relationship with its employees to be a partnership in which benefits and adversities are shared as all strive together to make the organization a better and more successful one. As is true in all partnerships, each individual should make his maximum contribution to the program."

The booklet, of some fourteen printed pages, describes what it refers to as Avondale's program for profit-sharing, vacations, insurance, promotion, recreation, community activities, educational program, etc.; and refers to a smaller separate pamphlet entitled "Procedure for Handling Employee Problems or Complaints," which details five steps an employee may take in bringing a problem or complaint from his assistant foreman up to and including the president of the company.

Other than the two pamphlets mentioned, the consistent policy of the company has been not to have written rules, but to rely upon rules and policies evolved from and proved workable in custom and practice, including a practice not to discipline an employee for violation of a rule until the rule had been expressly called to his attention and he had been advised that future violations would result in discharge or discipline. Such matters as hours of work, lunch periods, order in the plant, quality standards, etc. were all regulated by custom and no written rules were posted in the plant. The Trial Examiner found, as the evidence shows: "The plant rules being unwritten, were matters of custom, some possibly dating back nearly 60 years."

The company makes no effort to prohibit general discussions of any matter whatever by employees in its plants during nonwork time. It has, however, prohibited solicitation within its plants during actual work time for any purpose, or cause, other than the annual Red Cross charity solicitation. As the Trial Examiner found, "The invoking of this rule against union solicitation and the subsequent discharge of employees alleged to have violated the rule constitutes the most important feature of this case."

The Trial Examiner found that,

"By interrogating its employees concerning their union sentiments and activities, soliciting employees to withdraw their membership cards from the Union, and threatening to close down the plant if the Union came in, and threatening to take out certain benefits, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 29 U.S.C.A. § 157, and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act 29 U.S. C.A. § 158(a) (1)."

No exceptions to these findings were filed, and they were adopted by the Board. There is no defense to the Board's Order so far...