Southern Furniture Manufacturing Company And Ezeakiel Caldwell, An Individual, 1159 (1950)
National Labor Relations Board
Linked as:
Extract
Southern Furniture Manufacturing Company And Ezeakiel Caldwell, An Individual, 1159 (1950)
In the Matter of SOUTHERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and EZEAKIEL CALDWELL, AN INDIVIDUAL Case No. 15-CA-927.-Decided October 23, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER On June 7, 1950, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean 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. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of these allegations of the complaint. Thereafter the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of 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 briefs, and the entire record in the case,2 and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations insofar as they are consistent with our Decision and Order herein.1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The record shows that Foremen Bradshaw, Thomas, and Sledge engaged in extensive interrogation of employees concerning union activity, and that the seemingly innocent questioning concerning riding the Hines bus was part and parcel of the interrogation about union activity. In addition, after Foreman Bradshaw had interrogated employee Ezeakiel Caldwell as to whether he had a union card or had signed one, Bradshaw warned Caldwell, 'Somebody is messing with the labor around here and if I finds out who it is, it won't be so good for them.' We find that, by SPursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].2 The request of the Respondent for oral argument is denied because the record and the exceptions and briefs submitted, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and position of the parties.91 NLRB No. 189.1159 such interrogation and warning, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.2. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent discriminated against the 17 employees named in Appendix A in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. We note particularly, in addition to the Respondent's afore-mentioned interrogation and threat, that all 17 employees actually signed union-application cards; 3 that all, except Ezeakiel Caldwell and Lillian Warmack, rode the bus on October 6; that none had been threatened with discharge for inefficient work; and that all were summarily laid off, without warning, almost immediately after their concerted union activity on October 6. We likewise agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent's asserted cause for discharge-the necessity for building up a capable working force by weeding out inefficient employees-was an afterthought, particularly in view of the earlier promise to some of the employees to send for them after a week or two and the actual reinstatement of 1 of the employees. While it is true that 3 other busriding employees who had accepted union cards 4 were not laid off or discharged, we agree with the Trial Examiner that this does not disprove discrimination as to the 17 who were discharged. With respect to Ezeakiel Caldwell and his sister, Lillian Warmack, who were not bus riders but who came to work in Caldwell's truck, it is of particular significance that Caldwell had been unlawfully interrogated and threatened by the Respondent before his discharge, and that Warmack was known to be closely connected with and related to Ezeakiel, Annie Lee, and Delores Caldwell, all of whom had been interrogated and then discriminatorily discharged.3. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent's discharge of Sadie T. Benniefield and Betty H. Frieson was not in violation of the Act. As no exceptions have been filed to these findings, we adopt them.5 The Remedy Having found that the Respondent discriminated against the complainants named in Appendix A, we shall order the Respondent 3 The record does not show that one of the employees, Mi...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
