Trenton Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 14, 1939

12 N.L.R.B. 241 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of TRENTON MILLS, INC. and RALPH KNOx
Case No. C-126.-Decided April 14, 1939
Cotton Bags and Stockinettes Manufacturing Industry-Discrimination: re-
fusal to reinstate or employ : because of personal animosity between former
employee and employer, and not because of union activity ; charges of, not
sustained-Complaint: dismissed.
Mr. Mortimer Kollender, for the Board.
Mr. Robert P. Adams, of Trenton, Tenn., for the respondent.
Mr. C. D. Puckett, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for Ralph Knox.
Mr. Robert Kramer, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Ralph Knox, the National Labor Re-
lations Board, herein called the Board, by Charles N. Feidelson,
Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued
its complaint, dated April 2, 1936, against -Trenton Mills, Inc.,
Trenton, Tennessee, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice
of a hearing, to be held on April 14, 1936, at Trenton, Tennessee,
were duly served upon the respondent and Knox. On April 13, 1936,
the Regional Director issued and duly served upon all the parties
a notice that the hearing would be held on May 1, 1936, instead of
April 14, 1936, as originally scheduled.
In respect of the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended,
alleged in substance that on or about August 11, 1933, the respondent
discharged Ralph Knox, an employee of the respondent at its plant
situated in Trenton, Tennessee; that on or about December 23, 1933,
Ralph Knox filed a complaint against the respondent under Section
7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, alleging that the
respondent discharged him on August 11, 1933, because of his at-
-12 N. L. R. B., No. 35.
241
242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tempts to organize a union among the respondent's employees; that
after a full hearing on said complaint, the old National Labor Board,
in a decision dated October 30, 1934, found that the respondent in
discharging Knox had violated Section 7 (a) of the National Indus-
trial Recovery Act and ordered the respondent to reinstate Knox;
that on or about November 19, 1934, pursuant to the aforesaid order
of the old National Labor Board, the respondent reinstated Knox;
that on or about May 15, 1935, the respondent laid off Knox and
approximately 13 other employees at its Trenton plant, allegedly be-
cause of a seasonal curtailment in the production at this plant; that
during June and July, 1935, the respondent reinstated, according to
their seniority status, all the employees laid off at its Trenton plant
on May 15, 1935, except Knox; that the respondent at all times since
May 15, 1935, has failed and refused to reinstate Knox for the reason
that he had joined and assisted Local No. 2282, United Textile
Workers of America, herein called Local 2282, and had engaged in
concerted activities with other employees of the respondent for the
purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection;
and that by its aforesaid refusal to reinstate Knox, the respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent filed an answer denying that it was engaged in
interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it had
engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. The answer also
contained a motion to quash and dismiss the complaint on constitu-
tional and jurisdictional grounds.
Pursuant to the amended notice, a hearing was held at Trenton,
Tennessee, on May 1 and 2, 1936, before Walter Wilbur, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the re-
spondent were represented by counsel; Knox was represented by an
organizer for United Textile Workers of America, hereinafter called
the Union; and all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all the parties.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied
the motion of the respondent to quash and dismiss the complaint on
the asserted constitutional grounds. The ruling is hereby affirmed.'
He reserved ruling on the respondent's motion to quash and dismiss
the complaint on the asserted jurisdictional grounds. In his Inter-
mediate Report, the Trial Examiner denied this motion. The ruling
is hereby affirmed .2 The respondent also moved that a jury be im-
panelled to try all issues of fact. The Trial Examiner denied this
I National Labor Relations Board V . Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp ., 301 U. S. 1 (1937).
2 See Section I, infra.
l
TRENTON MILLS, INC. 243
motion. The ruling is hereby affirmed.s At the close of the hearing,
the respondent moved that the complaint be dismissed on the
ground that the evidence adduced by the Board failed to sustain
the allegations of the complaint concerning the commission of unfair
labor practices by the respondent. The Trial Examiner reserved
ruling on the motion. In his Intermediate Report, he granted this
motion. For reasons hereinafter set forth,4 the ruling is hereby
affirmed. During the hearing, counsel for the Board reserved the
right to introduce in evidence a copy of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended. After the hear-
ing, counsel for the Board introduced in evidence a copy of the afore-
said Rules and Regulations. Thereupon, the respondent filed objec-
tions to the introduction in evidence of said Rules and Regulations.
These objections are hereby overruled. During the course of the
hearing, the Trial Examiner made a number of rulings on other
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that
no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
On July 20, 1936, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were duly served upon, all the parties, finding that the
respondent, by its refusal to reinstate Knox, had not engaged in any
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)
of the Act. He recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
The respondent and Knox filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report. The Board has reviewed all the exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and finds them without merit except as they are con-
sistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, a Tennessee corporation, is engaged in the manu-
facture, sale, and distribution of cotton bags and stockinettes of a
special type for use by meat packers. The respondent's operations
include all processes from the ginning of seed cotton to the manu-
facture of the finished product, which is then sold directly to the
ultimate consumer. The principal office and sole manufacturing
plant of the respondent is in Trenton, Tennessee. All the raw cot-
ton used by the respondent, amounting to 3,100 bales annually, is
grown in Tennessee. The respondent also purchases about 150,000
S See footnote 1, supra
4 See Section III, infra
169134-39-vol 12-17
244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pounds of yarn annually; 10 per cent of this yarn is shipped to the
respondent's plant from points outside the State of Tennessee. About
75 cars of coal and about $100 worth of machinery are also annually
shipped to the respondent's plant from, points outside the State of
Tennessee. The respondent supplies about 30 per cent of the demand
in this country for its products. Over 90 per cent of the respondent's
products are shipped to points outside the State of Tennessee. Nor-
mally the respondent employs about 225 persons at its Trenton plant,
and its annual pay roll amounts to approximately $125,000.
We find that the operations of the respondent, set forth in the pre-
ceding paragraph, occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section
2 (6) of the Act.6
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America, Local No. 2282, is a labor
organization which, at the time of the hearing in this proceeding, was
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to mem-
bership employees of the respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Ralph Knox entered the employ of the respondent on June 3, 1931,
as a knitter. There was no labor organization among the respond-
ent's employees at that time. Shortly before August 11, 1933, Knox
assumed the leadership in organizing the respondent's employees and
approached several of them relative to obtaining a charter from
United Textile Workers of America. On August 11, 1933, Foreman
Otto McHugh laid off Knox, and subsequently Superintendent Ed
Brignull informed Knox that the respondent had permanently dis-
charged him. After unsuccessful attempts to secure reinstatement,
Knox filed a complaint, dated December 23, 1933, against the re-
spondent with the old Regional Labor Board at Atlanta, Georgia,
alleging that he had been discharged because of his union activity,
in violation of Section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery
Act. From a decision by the Regional Board in favor of Knox,
dated July 24, 1934, the respondent appealed to the old National
Labor Board in Washington, D. C. The old Board on October 30,
1934, issued a decision confirming the decision of the Regional Board
and ordering the respondent to reinstate Knox. Pursuant to the old
Board's order, on November 19, 1934, the respondent reinstated Knox.
In the interval between Knox's discharge and reinstatement and
during his absence from Trenton, Local 2282 of the Union had been
organized among the respondent's employees and duly chartered.
.Cf. Santa Cruz Fruit Packting Co. v. National Labor Relations Board , 303 U. S. 453
(1938).
TRENTON MILLS, INC. 245
There is nothing in the record to indicate that during this period the
respondent opposed the organization of Local 2282 of the Union or
interfered with its activities.
On the day he was reinstated, Knox sent the following telegram
to the respondent :
To avoid any possible misunderstanding I am taking this op-
portunity to inform you that I intend to continue my efforts to
unionize the mill workers one hundred percent and as you have
stated that you have no objections I want to ask your cooperation
to this end.
RALPH KNox.
A few days later Knox joined Local 2282 of the Union and in
December 1934, he became its president, an office he still held at the
time of the hearing in the present proceeding. As president of Local
2282 of the Union, Knox, prior to his lay-off in May 1935, presented
many employee grievances to the respondent, and was the recognized
leader and most active member of Local 2282 of the Union. So far as
the record shows, the respondent at this time in no way opposed or
interfered with the organizing activities of either Knox or the
Union.
For 60 to 90 days prior to May 1935, the business of the respondent
had been declining, and between April 22 and June 3, 1935, the re-
spondent laid off 12 knitters at its plant because of the decline in
business. Knox was the seventh knitter of, this group of 12 to be
laid off, his lay-off occurring on May 9, 1935, when his foreman,
McHugh, told him that the respondent would send for him when its
business increased sufficiently to require his services. The evidence
indicates, and Knox admitted, that his lay-off resulted solely
from the decline in the respondent's business and was strictly in
accordance with his seniority, Knox having been, if anything, laid off
somewhat later than his seniority status justified.
On May 27, 1935, the United States Supreme Court announced
its decision in the Sclteclater case,e declaring the National Industrial
Recovery Act invalid. Superintendent Brignull immediately ordered
Foreman McHugh not to reemploy Knox. The respondent did not
at this time inform Knox of this decision not to reemploy him.
On June 17, 1935, the respondent began rehiring the knitters pre-
viously laid off, and by July 9, 1935, all of these 12 knitters except
Knox and 1 other had been reinstated. The record fails to show
whether the respondent recalled these knitters or reemployed them
upon their application. Knox did not apply for reinstatement subse-
quent to his lay-off, but the respondent admits that it would not have
rehired him if he had applied.
6 A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Co . V. United States, 295 U. S. 495 ( 1935).
246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On January 6, 1936, Knox filed with the Regional Director the
charges upon which the complaint in the instant proceeding is based.
Late in February 1936 Knox, accompanied by C. D. Puckett, a repre-
sentative of the Union, for the first time since his lay-off applied
for his former position in the employ of the respondent, and was
refused employment. There is some indication that at this time the
respondent was decreasing rather than increasing the number of
employees at its plant, but at the hearing the respondent's officers
testified that Knox would not have been hired even if there had been
work available for him in the plant.
The respondent admits that Knox's conduct and work subsequent
to his reinstatement on November 19, 1934, were entirely satisfactory.
Nor is there the slightest evidence that the respondent in any manner
opposed or interfered with Knox's unconcealed and intense activity on
behalf of Local 2282 of the Union among its employees, after his
reinstatement in November 1934. The respondent's officers frankly
stated at the hearing, and the evidence fully supports their state-
ments, that, after his reinstatement in November 1934, the respondent
had no intention of employing Knox any longer than it considered
itself under compulsion to do so; that during the entire period be-
tween Knox's reinstatement in November 1934, and Brignull's orders
to McHugh not to reemploy Knox, Knox was predestined for dis-
charge not because of any occurrences during this period but because
of events antedating his reinstatement; and that ever since the invali-
dation of the National Industrial Recovery Act the respondent has
refused to reinstate or employ Knox solely because of events ante-
dating his reinstatement in November 1934.
During the hearing in the instant proceeding, the respondent
sharply questioned the finding of the old National Labor Board that
it had discharged Knox in August 1933, because of his union activity.
However, in view of our subsequent findings, we find it unnecessary
for the purposes of the present proceeding to determine whether
Knox was discharged in August 1933 for union activity, as the old
Board found, or for other reasons, as the respondent asserts.
During the interval between Knox's discharge in August 1933,
and his reinstatement in November 1934, he made known in derisive
and offensive terms, both in letters to, and conversations with, indi-
vidual employees of the respondent and individual inhabitants of
Trenton his intense animosity toward, and contempt for W. Sherman
Harder, president of the respondent. Thus at the hearing in the
instant proceeding Knox admitted characterizing Harder with such
epithets as : "hoodlum;" "four-flusher;" "Tory;" "slave-driver;" and
"Yankee blue-bellied son of a bitch." Knox also admitted that he
had written of Harder: "I would like to see that lousy bum in hell";
TRENTON MILLS, INC. 247
and, "that four-flusher came to Trenton to get cheap help; I can tie
his rump in ten thousand knots." Harder testified, and the evidence
shows, that the remarks and epithets of Knox reached the ears of
Harder, who deeply resented them. Indeed, by the time of the hear-
ing before the old Regional Board in Atlanta in July 1934, so bitter
had become the feeling between Knox and Harder, as a result of
Knox's constant derogatory references concerning the latter, that the
Regional Board took cognizance of the greatly strained personal rela-
tions between the two men and stated in its order :
The Board recognizes the fact that a great deal of personal
animosity has developed between Knox and the management of
Trenton Mills and that it probably would be much better for
everyone concerned if work could be found for Knox in some
other place.
Nor did time diminish the deep-seated hatred of the two men for
each other, as their testimony at the hearing in the instant proceed-
ing clearly reveals. Thus Knox testified on cross-examination :
Q. Do you deny referring to him [Harder] as a hoodlum?
A. Do you know that he is not a hoodlum .. .
Q. And you never have called him [Harder] a four-flusher?
A. I have never heard anyone claim that he was not.
Harder, who so far as the record shows had had no part personally
in the discharge of Knox in August 1933, but who assumed sole re-
sponsibility for the respondent's refusal to reinstate or employ Knox
after the effective date of the Act, gave as his reasons for his refusal :
I don't think anyone would expect an employer to engage or
hire for their service such a man as I believe the reputation and
character of Knox is. To begin with, a man that calls me un-
couth names . . . his language is not to his credit-he is not
a desirable character and I don't want him in my organization.
When Knox, accompanied by Puckett, sought reemployment with
the respondent in February 1936, he saw Brignull, who referred him
to Harder, who in turn referred him to Robert Adams, the respond-
ent's attorney. Knox, himself, testified as follows concerning his
interview with Adams :
[Adams said] that Mr. Sherman Harder was peeved about
something, and when he got over his peeve he might send for
me ... and I told him [Adams] . . . if I had said anything
I wanted to apologize to him [Harder], and he [Adams] sug-
gested that I wait and he would try to smooth it over . . .
He [Adams] said that Mr. Harder was sort of peeved at me .. .
248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. [By Adams.] And didn't I further say to you that time
healed all feelings, and that my suggestion would be to let the
matter rock along, that Mr. Harder's personal animosity towards
you and yours toward him might be changed-didn't I tell you
that?
A. You said something like that in substance.
Knox did not ever apologize to Harder, but his offer to Adams
to do so indicates that he realized the very strained nature of the
relations between him and Harder and that this strained relationship
was a real obstacle to his being employed by the respondent.
Puckett also testified concerning this interview as follows :
... Mr. Adams said that Mr. Knox had never made any apol-
ogy to the management for some of these things, and he thought
he was due an apology, and I said, I don't know whether he did
or he did not, but if he did not I certainly did not approve of it,
and I think he is due Mr. Harder an apology if he made these
statements, and I believe Mr. Knox at that time got up and said
that he had stated them, said them, and that he would make an
apology ... Mr. Adams said he would take the matter up with
Mr. Harder ... that it had been lingering a long time, and it was
a sore spot between these two, and wouldn't I be sore if any-
thing like that had been said about me . .
Q. [By Adams.] And I said, "Now Mr. Knox ... these rumors
and these names that you have called Mr. Harder came back
to him and he is hurt about that ... it is a pretty delicate thing
for me to say to a man "take back an employee," a man who has
called him a son of a bitch, didn't I say that?
A. That is true ...
Q. And Mr. Knox at that time did not deny having used those
words about Mr. Harder ...
A. I don't think he denied it ... I inquired and told him he
was due an apology, if he had done it, and he said he was willing
to make it ...
The Trial Examiner, before whom both Knox and Harder testified,
and who thus had an opportunity to observe closely the personalities
of both men, said in his Intermediate Report :
Knox himself is an unusually dynamic personality, highly
articulate and exceptionally free of inhibitions. His language
is fluent and unguarded and consistently provocative, and he has
a strong flair for picturesque and derisive epithets. Without a
trace of personal malice he delights in being mischievously of-
fensive. Even on the witness stand this impulse was all but
uncontrollable .. .
TRENTON MILLS, INC. 249
Harder gives the impression, too, of having a certain formal
and unbending dignity that would make him particularly vulner-
able to Knox's barbs.
There can be no doubt that after his discharge in 1933 Knox re-
peatedly referred to Harder in derisive and insulting terms which
came to Harder's attention. There can be no question that Harder was
deeply offended and that his resentment at the liberties Knox had
taken did not readily, if ever, subside. In fact, it was the central
theme of the discussion between Knox, Adams, and Puckett when
Knox sought reemployment in February 1936. Moreover, the very
strength of Knox's unusual personality and his "flair for picturesque
and derisive epithets" and also for insulting and abusive language in-
vested his remarks with a sting and a power to offend that are absent
in the ordinary loose talk of an aggrieved employee. And Harder,
as observed by the Trial Examiner, possessed a formal and unbending
dignity making him especially vulnerable to, and resentful of, Knox's
barbed and abusive tongue. The clash of personalities as sharply
contrasting as those of Harder and Knox was natural and almost
inevitable. The human plausibility of the resentment expressed by
the former over the latter's biting attacks on him must be admitted.
We attach much importance also to the findings of the Trial Examiner
who personally observed the demeanor of both men. Finally, there is
no evidence that the respondent, after August 11, 1933, either resisted
the organization of Local 2282+ of the Union in its plant or interfered
with its activities in any manner. In view of all these circumstances,
we are of the opinion that whatever may have been the reasons for
Knox's discharge by McHugh and Brignull in August 1933, by the
time of Knox's reinstatement in November 1934, such reasons had been
completely obscured by the personal animosity between Knox and
Harder, and that this personal animosity between Knox and Harder,
and not Knox's labor activities, was the cause of Harder's refusal
to reinstate or employ Knox after the passage of the Act.
Under all the circumstances of this case, we find that the record
does not support the allegations of the amended complaint in regard
to the commission of unfair labor practices by the respondent, and we
will, therefore, dismiss the complaint.
Upon the basis of the above 'findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLusIONs OF LAW
1. The operations of the respondent, Trenton Mills, Inc., occur in
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. United Textile Workers of America, Local No. 2282, is a labor
organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By refusing to reinstate or employ Ralph Knox, the respondent
has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the com-
plaint against Trenton Mills, Inc., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.