who desires to go to other plants of the company, complete transportat themselves and families, plus one week's salary. 7/17 Letter from unica asking permission to withdraw charges, in view of company's permanet: Gi of plant. ADJUSTED CASE REPORT 1. Was charge (or petition) adjusted by settlement agreement? Yes. T settlement agreement reduced to writing? No. If so, Attach cops. D regional office participate in securing agreement to writing? No. If so Ara copy. Did regional office participate in securing agreement between pare Yes. Was comp Unabiest 2. Was alleged company union disestablished? recognition of or contract with such company union rescinded? 3. Number of workers reinstated after strike or lockout-after discrim discharge. Unknown at this time. Amount of back pay, $... time to compute. Number of workers receiving back pay. Will report la 4. Did parties enter into collective bargaining negotiations? See supra. was a written collective bargaining agreement entered into? Attach copy. If collective bargaining agreement not in writing, set forth terms F. 5. Was notice posted? Yes. If so, Attach Exact copy. How long 60 days. Does notice cover section' 7 of Act? Yes. Section 8 (11 Section 8 (2)? Yes. Section 8 (3)? Yes. Section 8 (5)? Yes. 6. Has company furnished proof of compliance? Yes. If so, Attache Has union furnished confirmation of complaince? Withdrew its charge. I Attach Copy. 7. Does adjustment completely dispose of all allegations in charge? Supra. If not, give explanation To.: Mr. Phillips. From: Karl W. Filter. APRIL 13, 194 Subject: Blue Bell-Globe Manufacturing Company, IX-C-1054. Investiga Report. THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS The company is engaged in the manufacture of overalls, overall coats and th miscellaneous wearing material made of denim cloth. The principal offices located at Williamsburg, N. C. The company has plants in that city at Ge merce, Ga., Middleboro, Ky., Abingdon, Ill., and Columbus, Ind. The cr for the products of the company are all directed to the Greensboro offices & from there are distributed to the various plants of the company. The Mid boro, Ky., plant is engaged exclusively in the manufacture of a type of ores known as Oxhide Construction overall. Until 1939 it was the only plant of t company which manufactured that brand of overall. In that year a small am of the production of that plant was transferred to the Abingdon, Ill. plant of the The Middles boro plant has employed as many as 400 people s number of employees until at present that plant is employing only approximate Since that time there has been a constant and progressive diminution in the company. had 240 persons. The completed overalls are shipped to dealers throughout the United States, principally in the Middle West: Until the middle of 1939 assortments of the directly from the Middlesboro plant. Since July of 1938 that system has bee changed in large part and now the great bulk of the overalls which are manufac tured in Middlesboro is shipped to Abingdon, Ill. where they are then trans One of the company's largest customers is shipped to the various dealers. J. C. Penney Stores, Inc. Until January 1, 1940, I. J. Walls was the secretary-treasurer of the compa and was in full charge of the Middlesboro plant, though he spent most of his time J. Snyders was the local and resident manager at Middlesboro. His authority at Greensboro and other plants of the company. Until September 1, 1939, WILLS however, was limited and all important decisions were referred to Walls. Üs September 1, Snyders was succeeded by Roy Duncan, whose duties and limitations been a time-study man at Greensboro, N. C., in the employ of the company, and of authority were essentially the same as those of Snyders. Duncan had former was repeatedly mentioned in V-C-644 as having promiscuously engaged in acts of ference, coercion and intimidation in relation to organizational efforts of the loyees at Greensboro. He is a young men and quite inexperienced. On the of January, 1940, Walls resigned from the company and his duties were taken by E. J. Weant, who had been plant manager at Greensboro, N. C. Weant ow in charge of the operations at Middlesboro, but he, too, spends little time re and has his offices at Greensboro. As a further part of the reorganization of company, on the first of January of this year, Mr. Fox, whose initials I do not e at hand, succeeded to the presidency of the company. HISTORY OF LABOR RELATIONS Intil 1938 no serious efforts were ever made to organize the employees of the pany at Middlesboro, Kentucky. During that year the Amalgamated sent in eral organizers at the request of employees at the Middlesboro plant. Organiional work proceeded rapidly and culminated in the filing of a petition for tification on December 5, 1938. A consent election was held at Middlesboro January 20, 1939. At that time there were 390 votes, as against 138 opposed. e union promptly made a request for a bargaining conference, but to this date, cause of dilatory tactics by the management, have been unsuccessful in comting negotiations for a contract. The company was the respondent in a case volving its Greensboro, N. C. plant, which is in the Fifth Region, and a hearing is held thereon at Greensboro on September 11th and 12th, 1939. The case is -C-644, and the complaint, as in this matter, was the Amalgamated Clothing orkers of America. The charges in V-C-644 were 8 (1) and (3). It is my derstanding that an Intermediate Report has been issued in that matter recomending that the company cease and desist from its violations of 8 (1) and that reinstate, with back pay, employees who were discriminatorily discharged. 8 (1). The interference of the company in the efforts of the employees at [iddlesboro to organize got underway well before the election, which was held in anuary of 1939. Information submitted to me by the Union discloses that arting with November, 1938, the foremen began an intensive campaign of percion and intimidation. Résumés of these attempts are submitted herewith in hronological order. I pointed out to the company that these acts of the comany would not be pertinent at this time were a consent election to be entered into xcept that they tend to indicate the attitude of the company toward organized abor, and in that, I believe, they have significance. The affidavit of Axie Vaughn, ubmitted herewith, also recites in some particularity of an attempt of Mr. Gentry, the plant superintendent, to coerce her and intimidate her. She was the eader of the employees and is at present the president of the local. A résumé of a speech to the employees at Middlesboro by I. J. Walls on December 5, 1938 s enclosed herewith. Remarks made at that time seem to me to be coercive and intimidatory. Following the election the first act on the part of the company that smacks of coercion occurred on February 27, 1939. At that time Mr. Snyders demoted a forelady by the name of Mattie Ellis to an ordinary worker because she had joined the union. An affidavit of Mattie Ellis setting forth these facts is attached hereto. I might add that the company, through E. J. Weant, admits that this incident took place. Evidence of both 8 (1) and 8 (5) exists in the fact that the company has persistently and continuously, from March, 1939 until the present time, refused in any way to recognize a local committee for the purpose of presenting grievances separate and apart from the negotiation of any contract, and has continuously refused to designate any person or agent at Middlesboro to meet with the employees for the purpose of adjusting grievances. The facts in relation to this are fully set forth in the affidavits of Axie Vaughn, Alva Dean and Minnie Manes. The company openly admits that these facts are true, but declares that they are justified in their refusal to have meetings with a grievance committee of the workers on the ground that they are in no way obligated to deal with them, and that their obligation consists only of being required to deal with the officers of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers. It is their contention that the presentation of grievances is a subject for bargaining and not something which they are required to recognize by law. Their contention may have some legal merit, but their actions are well calculated to discourage their employees in the exercise of their right to collective bargaining and to restrain them in the free exercise of that right. I therefore believe that this fact, in conjunction with other acts of company officials, constitutes a violation of Section 8 (1). Negotiations for a contract between the union and the company were without throughout the summer. In August of 1939 a group of employees started success the circulation of a petition among all of the employees in the Middles which represented that the signers thereof desired to withdraw from the A gamated, and further represented that if sufficient signatures were secun employees at the Middlesboro plant would be assured of steady work. Piz be pointed out at this time that rumors were being circulated by business the community and others that the Middlesboro plant of the company was work because of the presence of the C. I. O. Shortly after the petition nav appearance the plant shut down and remained closed for several weeks ΑΓ of employees, whose foreman was Albert Smith, were the most active i circulation of that petition. The union has claimed that Albert Smith art. solicited signatures to the document, but no proof of that fact was prese Nevertheless, Rudolph Wells, who owns a garage and filling station just te the Blue Bell plant, was extremely active in the circulation of that p Wells was contacted and interviewed by both Leonard Brin and myself, an openly boasted that he had in large part been responsible for the circulatur ét petition, and that he would continue his activities on without regard ? National Labor Relations Board. Some of the activities of Wells and ot relation to this petition are set forth in the affidavit of Alva Dean. No one s what ultimately happened to the petition. Wells refused to answer my ques as to whether he had submitted the petition to the company. I questioned Me Weant about the matter and he at first also claimed ignorance of the eɔminar ever having received the petition after it was finally signed by a great muze the employees. Later he admitted that the petition had been given to Wells by Rudolph Wells, but stated that he was unaware of its power whereabouts. I believe it to be very significant that Wells and Walls were deep friends, bath grown up together in the same community. Wells' activities ceased for a but again, in March of this year, he started holding meetings of the employee the Blue Bell company in his garage and brought in speakers for the pure & persuading the employees to get rid of the C. I. O. To the probable emba ment of the company, an item even appeared in the Middlesboro paper s*** forth that Wells had gone to Greensboro, N. C. for the purpose of conferring o company officials in relation to a forthcoming election at the Greensboro, NA plant of the company. Mr. Weant denies that the company was response Wells' efforts to break up the union. I am quite sure, however, that it proven that I. J. Walls of the company prompted Wells to carry on his cantaand, even if that were not true, I believe the activities of Wells should be imite. to the company, since they were undeniably aware of the representations mad Wells and others but took no steps to correct the rumors and impressions We and others were circulating that the company would close down its Middels plant unless the employees forsook their union allegiance. As a result the e munity became throughly aroused and editorials repeatedly appeared in 17 "Three States" at Middlesboro, Ky. That newspaper even went so far qato request the Labor Board representatives to stay out of the city. A samp those editorials is included with this report. A further act of discrimination further appears in the affidavit of Alva Dest Dean was approached by Glen Jones, a foreman in the employ of the com;s: and was entreated by Jones to forsake his union affiliation and break up organization thereby. Alva Dean at that time was, and at this time is, the v president of the Local and the only man in it. Glen Jones admits the incide t so that there can be no question but that the comapny was guilty of violation d 8 (1) in this instance. In March of this year an independent organization was formed at Middiesbe Kentucky, and Rudolph Wells was no doubt the instigator of that organizat Since it has been formed, however, I understand that he has taken no promett part in its activities. However, the union is in possession of an affidavit that Albert Smith, the foreman of the mechanics in the shop, got one of the employs of the company back into a corner and told him that he would have to sign st application in the Independent or lose his job. Though the union has filed re charges of 8 (2) at this time, I believe it is significant to note that the supervisn employees of the company are still active in efforts to break up the Amalgamate In connection with the 8 (1) charges, the company, at my request, posted compliance notices in ten different places within the Middlesboro plant. were posted on January 24, 1940, and were to remain for a period of sixty ne days. I personally inspected the plant in February and found the notices to be posted as represented by the company. 8 (3) The union made two charges of 8 (3). One of those charges alleges that e company discriminated in the terms and tenure of employment of the employs of the shipping room at Middlesboro, Kentucky, by transferring the large rt of the baling and shipping of overalls from Middlesboro, Kentucky to its ington, Ill. plant. The company does not deny that it has changed its mode business since July 9, 1938, by sending it to Abington, but alleges that this as a normal business operation which was made for the purposes of economy. hey claim that the customer must pay the freight or express charges on all goods ipped to them. They claim that the larger percentage of their customers are tuated in the Middle West, and request that their shipments be made f. o. b. bington, Ill. rather than Middlesboro, Ky. so that they may save on the transortation charges. Therefore, at the present time the company finds it to be most economical to ship its entire output to Abingdon, Ill., where the various ssortments are made up. If the contentions of the company are true, I greatly doubt whether it will be possible to prove that the company discriminated against he shipping room employees. I do not believe the matter should be dismissed ghtly, however, since the shipping room employees were organized practically 100 per cent and among them was Alva Dean, a very strong leader in the union. Aiva Dean is now getting some work, but not enough to make a living wage. I believe this question requires more thorough investigation before any final conclusion can be made. The union further charges that the employees at the Middlesboro plant were discriminated against as a body by the management. They allege that discrimination consisted of the company's removing work which had normally been done at Middlesboro from that plant and had it done at Abingdon, Ill. In connection with those charges I asked the company to prepare a production schedule for Oxhide Production overalls at Middlesboro, Ky. and Abingdon, Ill. for the years 1938 and 1939. A copy of that production schedule is attached to this report. It shows that no Oxhide Construction overalls were manufactured at Abingdon until June of 1939. The amounts that were since produced at Abingdon were not large, but might to some extent deprive workers at Middlesboro of work which they are partly entitled to. It is significant that no Oxhide Construction overalls were produced at Abingdon until the union at Middlesboro had become insistent upon negotiating a contract with the company; and furthermore, there is a definite correlation of the transfer of this work at Abingdon with the rumors which were gaining circulation at Middlesboro at that time that the plant in that city was being discriminated against because of the presence of the union. The company has offered no satisfactory explanation of the transfer of this work, but because of the relatively small amount which has been so transferred, I do not believe that it is a terribly serious issue at this time. 8 (5) The most serious concern of the union is over the failure and refusal of the company to negotiate with it in good faith. Bargaining on behalf of the union has been done by two men. From the time of the union's winning of the election until December, 1939, Clyde Mills was the southern director of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. An outline of the conferences which he held with the company and results thereof is attached hereto in chronological order. About December 1, 1939, Mills resigned from his post to accept a job with the Wage and Hour Board. He was succeeded by Bernard Borah, who had been an organizer for the Amalgamated and had plants of the Blue Bell-Glove Manufacturing Company. Borah had made his first attempt to bargain with the company on December 18, 1939, and a chronological outline of the conferences which he held with the company and the results thereof is also attached hereto, and I believe gives a pretty clear picture of the situation at the time. In the file also appears a great deal of correspondence which passed between Mills and the company. That, in connection with the other material which Borah has recently submitted to this office, is all of the material that is in any way pertinent to the issue. It is obvious that the company has persistently and continuously delayed bargaining and has by no interpretation of the law bargained in good faith. The contract, which was finally agreed upon between the parties after negotiations which had been going on for a period of more than a year, is probably the most innocuous collective bargaining agreement, from the standpoint of an employer, which I have ever seen. The refusal of the company to sign the agreement as finally agreed upon can have no other interpretation than that it at no time since January 20, 1939, has bargained in good faith, and is now still intent upon discrediting and destroying the organization at Middlesboro, Ky. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 391-AAAAJ CINCINNATI, OHIO, November 13, 145 In re: The Gardner-Richardson Company, IX-C-1073. Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, Post Office Building, Cincinnati, Ohio. DEAR PHIL: I thank you for your letter of November 10 sending me officially and off the record the inter-office communication indicating that 6 and Mason are both well pleased with the way the Company is treating then a that they are happy at their jobs and I trust that this attitude and feelrg continue. Yours very truly, CARL LEHMANY N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 391-AAAAK Week ending October 21, 1939 CLOSED CASE REPORT Case No. IX-C-1073. Name of company: The Gardner-Richardson C Date charge received 9/21/37. Date case closed 10-18-37. Name of Congress of Industrial Organizations. Affiliation CIO. Strike Sectats f act involved 8 (1), (3). Number of workers involved 3. Detailed report acte action taken to close case (if election, give results). Conferences with comps. representatives-last on Oct. 13, 1939. Agreement to reinstate 2 employees, letters confirming agreement. Withdrawal by union. ADJUSTED CASE REPORT 1. Was charge (or petition) adjusted by settlement agreement? Yes W settlement agreement reduced to writing? Yes, by correspondence. If s Attach Copy. Did regional office participate in securing agreement between parties? Yes. Was company's reeng 2. Was alleged company union disestablished? nition of or contract with such company union rescinded? 3. Number of workers reinstated after strike or lockout -; after discr**atory discharge 2. Amount of back pay, $ none. Number of workers receiveg back pay If so, Attac 4. Did parties enter into collective bargaining negotiations? was a written collective bargaining agreement entered into? copy. If collective bargaining agreement not in writing, set forth ma terins. 5. Was notice posted? No. If so, Attach Exact Copy. How long posted" Section 8 (1)? Does notice cover Section 7 of Act? Section 8 (3)? Section 8 (5)? Section 8 (2)? 6. Has company furnished proof of compliance? No. If so, Attach copy Has union furnished confirmation of compliance? No. If so, Attach copy. 7. Does adjustment completely dispose of all allegations in charge? Yes. If not, give explanation: (Adjustment includes dropping of charges as to one em ployee.) W. E. G. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 391-AAAAL NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NINTH REGION Week Ending December 9, 1939. CLOSED CASE REPORT Case No. IX-C-231. Name of Company: The Lawrence Leather Company. Date charge received 7/2/37. Date case closed 12/5/39. Name of Uno H |