Coats & Clark, Inc., 146 (1962)

representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate in the Decision and Direction of Election herein.] MEMBER LEEr o1Vr took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.

Coats & Clark, Inc. (Acworth Plant) and Textile Workers Union of America, CIO. Case No. 10-CA-1941. April 14, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER

On September 10, 1954, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.

The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following addition.' We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Walker Glover. The Respondent contends that it discharged Glover because it had received numerous complaints concerning his frequent and inordinately long absences from his place of work, and because on the day of his discharge he disregarded his instructions to stay on a specifically assigned job until it was completed.

The record shows that Glover, a twister cleaner, had been a 'pretty good hand,' and that the Respondent had made no complaints about his work for a period of 6 years. Then, on August 20, 1953, he signed a union card and became active in the organization of the Respondent's employees. The Respondent knew of and disapproved Glover's union activities,2 and, significantly, its appraisal of him and his work performance began to deteriorate simultaneously with this knowledge.

Furthermore, in the period that followed, it unlawfully interrogated Glover on 2 occasions, and on 5 other occasions, it either threatened 'The Tiial Examiner incorrectly repotted that Mr. and Mrs Glover attended a union meeting on October 17, 1954 The correct date is October 17, 1953.

2 Although the Respondent denied knowledge of Glover' s union activities its witnesses admitted that they knew In August 1953, that Glover was talking to other employees about the Union . In November 1953, the Respondent 's second shift overseer told an employee that the union organizer was not going to do his work for him, and if lie was lined up with the Glovers, ' to liell' with him.

112 NLRB No. 27.

COATS & CLARK, INC. 147 employees with job reprisals or unlawfully interrogated them concerning union activities. It also referred to the organizing activities as the spreading of propaganda and poison.

Although the Respondent alleges that it received numerous complaints concerning Glover's absences from his place of work, it never threatened him with discharge and was able specifically to identify only two occasions on which he was reprimanded for any reason. On February 26, 1954, the day of Glover's discharge, he was instructed to stay on his job and set up and start a twisting machine. Subsequently, he was allegedly discharged for leaving his place of work twice, once to go to the supply room to get supplies, and once to go to another part of the plant where he assisted his wife and another female employee by doffing the spindles on their winding machines.

The record shows that getting supplies from the supply room had been a part of Glover's duties, and at the time in question he was getting supplies for use in the job to which he had been assigned.

There is no showing that he was ever instructed to refrain from going to the supply room to get supplies.

Although doffing spindles was not considered a part of his regular duties, it had been Glover's practice in the past to assist his wife and the other winding help in this manner. He did this on ills own initiative and was never criticized for doing so. On the day of Glover's discharge the Respondent asked Mrs. Glover, a winder in the winding department, to perform extra work because another employee was absent. Mrs. Glover consented to do a job and a half but stated that in view of her physical condition, she was 51/2 months pregnant, she was afraid to doff all the spindles. The Respondent's overseer, Brown;

told her that he would do the doffing for her. An hour later Mrs.

Glover informed the overseer that her spindles were ready, and he told her he would come over and doff them. However, when another hour had passed without the overseer's coming, she looked for him again, and, being unable to find him, she went to Glover's department and asked an employee to tell her huband to come to her assistance. When Glover returned from the supply room, he was informed of his wife's request, and he went to her place of work. After he had finished doffing his wife's spindles, at his wife's suggestion, he doffed the spindles for another woman winder who was also doing a job and a half. Immediately thereafter, he left the winders to return to his work. On the way he was met by the Respondent's overseer, Brown, who asked him on whose authority he had doffed the spindles. Glover said it was at his wife's request. Brown then discharged him.3 On 3 According to the credited testimony of Mrs. Glover, about 30 minutes after Glover was discharged she had a conveisation with the Respondent ' s overseer , Jack Brown, in which she asked him, 'Jack, did you fire walker for doffing my flame' and he replied, 'That wasn't what I flied him for ' 369028-56-vol 112-11 this occasion Glover had been absent from his work for only 10 or 12 minutes. In spite of his absence and discharge, the twisting machine that he was instructed to work on was placed in operation in the normal time required for this activity.

That the Respondent did not take any action against Mrs. Glover, an active union supporter, or any other employees because of union activity, itself does not establish that the Respondent did not discriminate as to Glover as our dissenting colleague suggests.4 Neither does the fact that Glover left his job twice on the day of his discharge require a conclusion that his discharge was disciplinary and not motivated by antiunion considerations. These events must be viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances and the effect of the absences upon the Respondent's business in deciding whether they provide the real reason for the discharge or only a pretext. At the time of his discharge Glover had been in the Respondent's employ for 6'/z years, and, as noted above, during the first 6 years of his employment the Respondent admits that he had had a good work record. There is no showing that the Respondent's operations were hindered in any way by his absences on the day of his discharge.

On the contrary, by doffing the spindles for his disabled wife, and thus making it possible for her to resume operations, and by getting supplies for the job to which he had been assigned, Glover was plainly acting in the Respondent's interest. Moreover, it is to be noted, that he did the doffing only after Mrs. Glover had waited an hour in vain for Overseer Brown who had agreed to perform the function. We do not believe that a nondiscriminatorily motivated employer would have discharged Glover under such circumstances.

It is much more reasonable to infer that Glover's union activities, toward which Respondent had been hostile, were the real reason for his discharge.

On the basis of the above facts, and the record as a whole, we find that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the reasons given for Glover's discharge were not the real reasons, but that they were a pretext to hide the antiunion motivation of the Respondent.

Accordingly, we find that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act by discharging Walker Glover.' ORDER

Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Coats & Clark, 4 N L. R. B v. W. C. Nabors Company, 196 F. 2d 272, 276 (C. A. 5), cert. denied 344

U S. 865 , Rschards and Associates, 110 NLRB 132

5 N L R. B. v. Kibler- Camp Phosphate Enterprise, 216 F. 2d 113 , 115 (C. A.

5) ; N L R B v Montgomery Ward & Co, 192 F. 2d 160, 162-163 (C A. 2) ; The Plastic Holding Company, Inc, 110 NLRB 2137

COATS & CLARK, INC. 149

Inc. (Acworth Plant), Acworth, Georgia, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:

  1. Cease and desist from:

    (

    1. Threatening employees with economic reprisals because of their union affiliation and activities.

    (b) Interrogating employees concerning their membership in, or activities on behalf of, Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.

    (c) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.

    (d) 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 Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT