Appendix — Garment Workers v. Quality Mfg. Co.

Supreme Court brief1975

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

eon ay Inteawasiona Lapms” Gixscane: Wonsres’ Urine

= Sours Deranrunwr, AFL-CIO,: Petitioner

etalon the dibeindeonenpeits Meggan; amioagoee

Peer

es SEO ORT EL LOE EEL ELE ALA LLL LAE LL

INDEX

App.

Page

CHRONOLOGICAL List oF RELEVANT Docket Entries .... 2

ComPLAINT AND Notice oF HEARING

Te. ga) | rn ee 3

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER .........ccccccccccccccccccce 8

Exceptions oF RESPONDENT Tio TRIAL EXAMINER’S

DEcIsION

Gated November 17,1910 ececwsusvaseceucie -«sses'ens 8

Tr App

ing Page Page

Excerpts From TrANScrIPt oF PROCEEDINGS:

dated Wednesday, August 5, 1970 ........ 1 11

Witnesses: ,

Joel Goolst ,

POG cp ea ane he ee 7 12

ONE, wht acne aah eho a are 35. 20

Martha Jane Cochran .

DEON a tha coats ape iutotveuas - 42 23

OPO GE, a sariete ay cues ad estat wo 65 oo

Elizabeth Wiley :

TOTP OGE eine desea ee re oc 76 38

SIRS ope tenSis asain Saas Gyan 83 41

Delila Mulford .

BOC gecaarste oes oe ee an ol Piel 95 45

CRONE: Betis vase Cans t ees 110 * §2

Mary Choquette

BORE ence settee os aarkacas 44 ey 123 57

Vonna Oliver

BO POOE Sr nests Ble hehe - 128 58

MORO) seks Oe teh tee enioats Leas Seasache 132 60

PRG o> rts <x

ii Index Continued y

Tr.

Witnesses: (Cont *d) Page

Alice Hoschar

DipOCE nace ec ees sae dew sexe sens tees 136

COORR coin cncaes 400s sere ceuegesees< 142

Martha Cochran

Direct ..<ceccccccccsssscveceses ees 148

Kathryn Gerlach

WPOOE cc oc kv ceceeeuseeeeeearsewess 156

COPOON cg cue ua on o¥as beens eee usnennes 174

Redirect .......ccccccccceccccccvee 207

Lawrence Gerlach, Jr.

ThipeCt occ 6cc oo s'c needs vendancstees 211

Cross ....... ghee shed panes pete e om 255

Excerpts From TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS:

dated Thursday, August 6, 1970 .........-. 290

Witnesses: .

Lawrence R. Gerlach, Jr. (cont’d)

TIPORE. 6 cies 4s ec desssessav estes 293

Mary Katherin Stephens

DiCBCE aca cues coeds vacteeseeeooes 344

OCYGBS 6 ccnc 6itnss tedewveneveeses< 360

Mayme Taylor

THOOM. 3, occa eks cee ose nies nese sees 368

Cross ....... ueesusueee oeEaE SEY A: 373

Virginia Holland

TOOL oie oy 59443 vaeets sss yee 379

COME goo eee oe os 5h ee ene eee 390

Maxine Hatfield

is rrr ras, 405

CROGR bows oe cower vecnyeds ceseess 412

Mildred Grimes

Direct ......cccccecccerccccceseces 422

Oe a ee errr rr. err 429

Lawrence R. Gerlach, Sr

TPAGE cdawv eweosseees vo ones eer es 464

CHOGR oc ucccdesvcwrs bose enseeseese 485

2 A tl AE ita A ue

110

122

124

133

137

140

143

149

155

158

159

161

163

172

acne HO

Index Continued ili

yy App.

Witnesses: (Cont’d) Page Page

Joel Goolst

be 505 184

Elizabeth Wiley

DVPCCE 5 os ehces ss0eaegeeuseces 507 185

Cuarcine Party’s Exursit No, 1

Employer-Union Agreement, dated April 15,1969 .. 186

The Order of The Supreme Court grantirg the

petition for a writ of certiorari ..... ere ee 200

The Board’s Decision and Order and the opinion and judg-

ment of the Court of Appeals are net reprinted in this ap-

pendix since they are already printed as an appendix to the

petition for a writ of certiorari.

ee te

a a aca

SAREE se oa ge

PAOD ELS at

Ss PER

Wf Na

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OctTosBER TERM, 1973

No. 73-765

INTERNATIONAL LapiEs’ GARMENT WorKERS’ UNIon,

Uprer Soutu Department, AFL-CIO, Petitioner

Vv.

Quatity Manuracturinc Company and

NationaL Lasor RE.LATIons Boarp

On Writ of Certorari to the United States

Court of Ap-eals for the Fourth Circuit

APPENDIX

\ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

t BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR ‘RELATIONS BOARD

_ » VISION OF TRIAL EXAMINERS

WASHINGTON, D. C.

Case No. 9-CA-5576 >

In the Matter of

Quauity Manuracturinc CoMPANY

and

Urrer Soutn DeparTMENT, INTERNATIONAL

Lapres’ GARMENT Workers’ Union, AFL-CIO

Cassius B. Gravitt, Jr., Esq. for .

General Counsel, NLRB.

Bernard W. Rubenstein, Esq., Baltimore, Md., ,

for the Charging Party. ;

John E. Jenkins, Esq., Huntington, W. Va.,

: for the Respondent.

Eo eS LE

psornr 5th

. es ya Set tay

Chronological List of Rélevant Docket Entries

3.19.70 Charge filed.

5.25.70 Complaint & notice of hearing, dated.

‘6.4.70 Respondent’s answer, received.

7.10.70 Order postponing hearing dated.

8.5.70 Hearing opened.

8.6.70 Hearing closed.

10.23.70 Trial Examiner’s Decision, issued.

-11.17.70 Respondent’s exceptions, received.

1.28.72 Decision and Order issued by the National Labor

Relations Board, dated ;

7.19.73 Decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit, dated.

7.19.73 Judgment entered by the Court of Appeals for

the Fourth Circuit, dated.

4.29.74 Order of the Supreme Court granting certiorari,

dated.

ade s LPAI Me

— 2 mien RMT: hae

tig QUID hit i cet ae ae ied Sh

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

REGION 9

Case No. 9-CA-5576

[Caption Omitted]

Complaint and Notice of Hearing

It having been charged by Upper South Department,

International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL-

CIO, hereip called the Charging Party, that Quality Man-

ufacturing Company, herein called Respondent, has en-

gaged in and is engagirg in unfair labor pretices affecting

commerce as set forth and defined in the Nationa! Labor

Relations Act, as. emended, 29 U.S.C. See. 151, et seq.,

herein called the Act, the General Counsel of the National

Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on behalf

of the Board, by the undersigned Regional Director for

Region 9, pursuant to Section 10(b) or the Act and Section

102.15 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as

amended, hereby issues this Complaint and Notice of

Hearing and alleges as follows:

1. The charge was filed by the Charging Party on March

19, 1970, and was served on Respondent by registered mail

on March 20, 1970. t “

2. (a) Respondent’ is a West Virginia corporation en-

gaged in the manufacture of women’s clothing at its plant

located at Point Pleasant, West Virginia.

(b) During the past 12 months, which is a representa-

tive period, Respondent had a direct outflow of products in

interstate commerce, valued in excess of $50,000, which it

sold and shipped directly from its Point Pleasant, West

Virginie piant to customers located outside the State of

West Virginia.

‘(c) At all times material herein, Respondent is and has

‘been an ‘‘employer’’ as defined in Section 2(2) of the

a a rt rte kt MOD LN

a Ae ae

alii Han as ita Cnt RE Pp hth sidiinat

pee ee ee ap en ee eT

ANE ORR W ROTI ye A Gh a rote

Act, engaged in ‘‘commerce’’ and in operations ‘affecting

commerce’’ as defined in Scetion 2(6) and (7) of the Act,

respectively.

3. At all times material herein, the Charging Party is

and had been a labor organization as defined in Section

2(5) of the Act.

4. At all times material herein, the following-named

persons were employed by Respondent and occupied the

positions set opposite their respective names and are, and

have been, agents of Respondent, acting on its behalf, and

supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act:

Lawrence R. Gerlach, Sr., President

Mary Kathryn Gerlack, Production Manager

Lawrence R. Gerlach, Jr., General Manager

Helen Rice, Floor Lady

5. All production and maintenance employees of Re-

spondent at its Point Pleasant, West Virginia plant, ex-

cluding all office clerical employees, professional em-

ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, con-

stitute a union appropriate for the purposes of collective

bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the

Act.

6. On or about October 24, 1968, a majority of the em-

ployees of Respondent in the unit described in paragraph

5, above, by a secret ballot election conducted under the

supervision of the undersigned Regional Director of

Region 9 of the Board, designated and selected the

Charging Party as their representative for the purposes of

collective bargaining with Respondent, and on or about

November 1, 1968, the undersigned Regional Director on

behalf of the Board, certified the Charging Party as the

exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in

said unit.

7. At all times since November 1, 1968, the Charging

Party has been, and is now, the exclusive representative

PARSING 7 SOETRR AAEM RE EL KT Litt eee PL Re

OE AERATION Es WE

for the purposes of collective bargaining of the employees

in the unit described in paragraph 0, above, and has ne-

gotiated an existing collective-bargaining agreement with

Respondent covering rates of pay, wages, hours of em-

ployment, and other terms 2nd conditions of exaployment

of the employees in the said unit.

8. On or about the dates indicated above, Respondent,

at its Point Pleasant, West Virginia plant, unless otherwise

indicated, interfered with, restrained and coerced its em-

ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7

of the Act, by:

(a) The conduct of Lawrence Gerlach, Sr, on or about

October 10, 1969, and at all times thereafter, in refusing

to allow an employee to be represented by the Charging

Party at a meeting which had been called by Respondent

for the purpose of reprimanding and disciplining the em-

ployee.

(b) The conduct of Mary Kathryn Gerlach on or about +

October 10, 1969, in threatening to take reprisals against

an employeet because of her activities on behalf of the

Charging Party.

(¢) The conduct of Lawrence R. derlach, Jr., on or

about January 12, 1970, in threatening to take reprisals

against an employees because of her activties on behalf of

the Charging Party.

_9. On or about October 16, 1969, Respondent discharged

employee Catherine King and has at all times since failed

and refused to reinstste her to her former position because ~

of her engaging in concerted activities for mutual aid and

protection and/or collective bargaining, and/or in order

to discourage membership in and activities on behalf of

the Charging Party.

10. On or about October 12, 1969, Respondent suspended

employee Delilah Mulford from work for two (2) days in

SR lee IP cst. ems

ahs Lita ile Fie dal a toa

Bigs gh oN 5 et ahh eat ane a ees” iyo

order to discourage membership in and/or activities @n

behalf of the Charging Party, and/or because of her en-

gaging in concerted activities for mutual aid-and protection

and/or collective bargaining. ”

11. On or about October 14, 1969, Respondent suspended

employee Martha J. Cochran from work for two (2) days

because of her activities on behalf of the Charging Party,

and/or to discourage employee membership in or activities

on behalf of the Charging Party and/or concerted activi-

ties for mutual aid or protection or collective bargaining.

12. On or about October 16, 1969, Respondent discharged

said Delilah Mulford and Martha J. Cochran in order to

discourage membership in and/or activities on behalf of

the Clirging Party, and/or because of their engaging in

concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection

and/or for purposes of collective bargaining.

13. On or about October 29 and until on or about

November 10, 1969, Respondent did shut down its plant

and laid off all employees employed in the said unit

represented by the Charging Party in order to discourage

employee membership in and/or activities on behalf of the:

Charging Party and/or in order to discourage employees

from engaging in concerted activity for their mutual aid

or protection or collective bargaining. °

14. By the conduct alleged in paragraph 8(a) above,

Respondent did refuse to recognize and/or bargain col-

lectively with the Charging Party in good faith as the

exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-

ployees in the unit described in paragraph 5 above.

15. By the acts and conduct alleged above, Respondent

has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices

as defined in Section 8 (a)(1), (8) and (5) of the Act,

affecting ‘‘commerce’’ as defined in Section 2(6) and (7)

of the Act, respectively.

PERRET ERE ETN ELPA TEEN Rg He fo RO ae Tae a A

Puease Take Notice that on the 14th day of July, 1970,

at 10 o’clock in the forenoon (EDST) in the Cireuit Court

Room, Mason County Court House, Point Pleasant, West

Virginia, a hearing will be condusted before a duly-

designated Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re-

lations Board on the allegations set forth in the above

Complaint, at which time and place you will have the

right to appear in person, or otherwise, and give testi-

mony.

You are further notified that, pursuant to Sections

102.20 and 102.21 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations,

Series 8, as amended, Respondent shall file with the under-

signed Regional Dirsetor, acting in this matter as an

agent of the Board, an original and four (4) copies of an

Answer to said Complaint within ten (10) days from the

service thereof, and that unless it does so, all of the allega-

tions of the Complaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be

true and shall be so found by the Board.

Form NLRB-4668, Statement of Standard Procedure in

Formal IHlearings held before the National Labot Re-

lations Board in Unfair Labor Practice Cases, is attached.

Dated at Cincinnati, Ohio this 25th day of May, 1970.

_ /s/ Joun C. Getreu

Regional Director

Region 9,

National Labor Relations

Board

2407 Federal Office Building

550 Main Street

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

* * * * * * * * + *

Bites. Lbireaes

3. teats se Lat Oa AD A DME Oa - DAS Gale Ree RELY ny

[Caption omitted]

Answer

Quality Manufacturing Company, Respondent herein,

answers the Complaint as follows:

1. The Respondent admits the allegations of Sections

1 through 7, inclusive.

2..The Respondent denies the allegations contained in

Section 8 through 15, inclusive.

/s/ J. EK. JENKINS

Of Counsel for Respondent

JENKINS, SCHAUB N FENSTERMAKER

500 Kelly-Hatfield Building

704 Fourth Avenue

Huntington, West Virginia

Attorneys for Quality

Manufacturing Company

* * * * * * * * * *

[Caption omitted]

[Received November 17, 1970]

Exceptions of Respondent to Trial Examiner’s Decision

1. The examiner erred in finding Cochran was suspended

for two days beginning October 14, 1969, for pro-union

activity. TXD, p. 13, lines 12-17. The entire undisputed

record shows the existence of Respondent’s rule against

leaving work station without permission. Examiner as-

sumes that the attempted discussion between King and

Gerlach Sr. might result in a reprimand or sterner dis-

cipline. TXD, p. 13, lines 31-34. Examiner erred in re-

fusing to permit Gerlach Sr. to testify on this subject and

in refusing Respondent to make and show as an avowal of

the record what said testimony would be. Tr. pp. 467-469.

There is no evidence in the record to support finding that

the contract rendered ineffective said rule. TXD, p.*8,

line 38 to page 14, line 9. Examiner further erred in

finding meeting between King and Respondent could result

in reprimand or severer discipline and erred in finding

meeting did not seek information. TXD, p. 14, lines

11-24. Examiner has misinterpreted and failed to apply

doctrine of Texaco Co. Jacobs, Pearson Ford, Inc., and

Chevron Oil Co. coted in TXD, p. 14, lines 19-24.

Examiner improperly fcund anti union animus. TXD,

P. 14, lines 26-34, on allegations not material to issue. Em-

ployer’s attitude cannot be used to resolve every factual

situation adversly to Respondent.

Examiner improperly allows employees active for union

to disregard plant rules. TXD p. 14, lines 36-40.

Examiner ¢rred in finding-Cochran’s union activity was

a reason for her suspension. TXD p. 15, lines 7-15. The

record shows the only reason for her suspension was her

violation of: a well established rule uniformly applied to

all employees to which union has never objected.

Examiner misconstrues Socony Mobile Oil Co. and fails

to apply Emerson Electric C1. TXD, p. 15, lines 17-30.

Examiner found Cochran was discharged on October 16,

1969, when entire evidence in record is to contrary. TXD

p. 15, lines 31 to page 16 line 32.

Examiner improperly concludes Cochran suspension vio-

lated See. 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act because no evidence

supports this conclusion and the evidence shows she was

suspended for one afternoon only and thereafter failed

to return to work by her own choice.

2. Examiner erred in finding Delila Mulford was sus-

pended in violation of the Act. TXD p. 16, lines 43-50.

There is no evidence in the record other that than her

violation of Company rule of leaving work without per-

Bieiacun rina weed

_ SPREAD NIBLR Lik ate sim SERN

mission resulted in her suspension. None of the evidence

cited by the examiner supports his conc!nsion. TXD p.

17, lines 4-38. Examiner incredibly finds Respondent had

no express rule against leaving work station without per-

mission. All witnesses recognized the existence of this

rule. TXD p. 17, line 38 to page 18, line 12. Examiner

erred in finding Mulford was discharged when evidence is

entirely to contrary. TXD, p. 18, lines 14-35.

3. Examiner erred in finding King was discharged for

protected activity. The examiner finds incorrectly that

Mr. Gerlach Sr., could not have an investigatory discussion

with King because examiner finds that Mrs. Gerlach was a

witness. This is a complete fallacy adopted by the ex-

aminer to avoid the rule of Texaco, Inc. TXD, p. 18, line 41

to page 19, line 14. Examiner’s finding that King could

refuse to speak to management without union representa-

tion is contrary to all cited authorities in TXD. TXD, p.

19, lines 21-28. The examiner fintis King was discharged

when she left plant on her own decision. TXD p. 19, line

30 to page 21, line 9.

4, Consistent with the foregoing, the Respondent excepts

to examiner’s conclusions of law nos. 3, 4, and 5. TXD p.

24, lines 9-20.

/s/ JOHN JENKINS

Of Counsel for Respondent

JENKINS, SCHAUB AND FENSTERMAKER

Attorneys for Quality Manufacturing Company

Post Office Box 1457

Huntington, West Virginia 25716

* * * * * * * * * *

[CERTIFICATE ]

Excerpts from Transcript of Proceedings

[1] BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Ninth Region

Case No. 9-CA-5576

Circuit Courtroom

Second Floor

County Courthouse

Point Pleasant, West Virginia ”

Wednesday, August 5, 1970

* * * * * * * * * *

[5] \ PROCEEDINGS

Trial Examiner Constantine: The hearing will be in

order. .

This is a formal hearing in the matter of ‘Quality Manu-

facturing Company, Case Number 9-CA-5576, before the

National Labor Relations Board.

The Trial Examiner des gnated to hear this ease is

James V. Constantine.

There wil] be no opening statements, gentlemen, in view

of the fact that we knoww about all of these cases. We are

experienced counsel. And also under the Buard’s revised

practice a statement of protedures are now mailed to the

parties will enter their appearances for the record.

At this time counsel and other representatives for the

parties.

For the General Counsel?

Mr. Gravitt: Cassius B. Gravitt, Jr., Region Nine, 550

Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Brabois: frat 10

Mr. Rubenstein: For the Charging Party, Bernard W.

R: >enstein, 10 Light Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202.

Trial Examiner: Would you please identify the Charging

Party? I know who it is.

Mr. Rubenstein: The Charging Party is the Inter-

national Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, Upper South

Department.

Trial Examiner: Now go ahead, Mr. Jenkins.

Mr. Jenkins: May the record show John E. Jenkins,

[6] Post Office Box 1457, Huntington, West Virginia,

45796.

Trial Examiner: Go ahead, Mr. Gravitt, in this proceed-

ing.

Mr. Gravitt: Your Honor, I offer into evidence the formal

papers. Tley have been marked as General Counsel’s

Exhibits 1(a) through 1(h); 1(h) being the index and

descriptior of the formal documents.

They he ve already been shown to parties.

Trial Fxaminer: I assume there is no objection.

Mr. Rubenstein: No.

Trial Jixaminer: These papers have been served on the

parties.

Mr..’enkins: The Respondent has no objection.

Trial Examiner: All right. Thank you. I will admit

them into evidence in the absence of objection.

Mark them received, Mr. Reporter.

(The above-referred to documents were marked General

Counsel’s Exhibits Nos. 1(a) thru 1(h) for identification

and were received.)

* a * * * * * * * **

7] a Joel Goolst

was called as a witness by and on behalf of the General

Counsel and, after being first duly sworn, was examined and

testified as follows:

Direct EXAMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Would yeu state your address,

please? A. 10927 Battersey Lane, Columbia, Maryland.

Q. And you are associated with the union in this case?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In what capacity, sir? A. I am the union’s organiz-

ing director in this region.

Q. Are you familiar with the plant of the Respondent

here in Point Pleasant? A. Yes, sir.

Q. That come under your jurisdiction and supervision?

A. As the organizing director it came under my—

Q. Isee. A. —jurisdiction.

* * * * * * * * * *

[9] Q. \(By Mr. Gravitt) And then did you later negotiate

a contract! A. Yes, sit,

Q. And were you on the negotiating committee? A. Not

officially.

Q. Do you recall Martha Cochran, if she was on the

committee? <A. Yes, sir.

[13] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, on December the 3rd,

Just tell us about ‘the echversation, about the discharges,

sir, layoff, or any discussion you had.

* * * * * * * * * *

Trial Examiner: The record will show December 3rd.

Mr. Jenkins: Very good.

Mr. Gravitt: Go ahead and tell us about it.

The Witness: The conversation took place in Mr. Ger-

lach, Jr., office in the plant about ten a.m. in the morning.

And the conversation was based on the three discharged

employees.

* * * * * * * * * *

[14] The Witness: The union’s position, which I pre-

sented at the time, Mrs. Wiley was with me at the time,

she is a business agent with the union, was that we would

like to have the employees reinstated.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) What did he say? A. He said

‘‘No.’? We discussed it further and he said that it would

be hard for the family to live with these people back in the

factory.

Q. Did he tell you why? A. He said that they were

abusive end that he had a number of problems with

Catherine King, for one, who for twenty-five years had

talked directly to the family and had been a friend of the

family and he had gone to school with, all of a sudden

decided that she needed somebody else in the office when

she presented her grievance.

Did he say who this somebody else was during the con-

versation? A. I really don’t remember.

Q. Was the union mentioned? A. The union was men-

tioned by me and also by him?

Q. What was said about the union? A. Well, he gave

[15] me his position on how he felt about the union.

Q. Just tell us what he said. <A. For all the time. He

told me that he didn’t want a union, that he never wanted a

union, that he hoped we would come into town with another

factory and open up another factory and take the union

people there and he could run his business without a union.

This has been his position all along.

Q. And did he tell you that on December 3rd? A. Oh,

yes.

* * * » * * * * * *

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, did he mention grievances?

A. He mentioned grievances and he mentioned grievances

in the context of the contract. And he said he doesn’t

understand why it has to be any written grievances and

why people couldn’t come and talk to him as they have

done in the past before the union came around.

e eo * * * * * * » *

[16] -Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Die he make this statement to

you more than one time during this meeting? A. Yes.

* * * * ° * * * * * *

Mr. Gravitt: How many times?

* * * * * * * * * *

The Witness: Four, five, six times. The conversation

just went round and around and around and came back.

[17] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, do you recall anything

else he said that you haven’t told us? A. Well, we talked

about the possibility of a case. And he said that he was

not interested in the case and if we did go into a court

of any kind that he felt that he had enough proof that the

three people would not win the ease.

And I must, I don’t know. tle then brought down the

proof.. He brought down one of the workers from the

bargaining unit.

[18] Q. Now, do you recall him telling you why he dis-

charged King, Mulford and Cochran on this occasion?

* * * * * * * * * *

[19] The Witness: Oh, yes, sir. Yes.

* * * * * * * * * ° *

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) What did he say? A. He said that

he let King go, he was glad that he let King go because she

would not come into the office alone. He never heard of

any nonsense like that. And he let the other one go because

she came off the floor. I don’t remember whether it was

Cochran or Mulford—

Q. Yes. A. —that he was talking about.

Q. Yes. Go ahead. A. Because she came off the floor

and he said, ‘‘ You know you can’t come off the floor.’’ And

I said, ‘‘Well, I don’t know, but if there was a grievance

and she was the chairlady—Is she the chairlandy?’’ And

he said, ‘‘Yes.’’ And I said, ‘‘Well, she was called for,’’

And he let them go for that reason.

al RL A —

Ate Tos. Qi

Sie Shaan RNa A BRON Le

Bisienrioncis

And he let the other one go because she went in with King

- also. After he let the first one go he would not talk to

King or any of the two chairladies in the shop.

Q. Now, these two people you referred to, other than

King, do they hold any position with your union? A. They

. were chairladies.

Q. Chairladies? A. Right.

[20] Q. And does a chairlady’s position relate to griev-

ances in any way? A. Oh, yes, sir.

Q. And in what way, sir? A. The chairlady is the per-.

son who receives the grievance from the grieved employee

and then takes it up with management.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, did he tell you what this

grievance was that King had? A. No.

[21] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) What did he want to talk to

‘King about? A. He didn’t say what he wanted to talk to

King about. At, you know, at this time I never got into

what the grievances were between the employees and—

» ,Q. It was a grievance? A. I knew there was a griev-

ance. I never got into what the grievance was. I was

really there to see whether or not we can arrange to have

the people come back to work at the plant.

Q. Do you know which girl had the grievance? A. I was

under the iinpression that it was King.

Q. Catherine King? A. Yes.

Q. Now, this was Gerlach, Jr. you were talking with? A.

Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever talk with Gerlach, Sr.? <A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, were you in the office of the Respondent on or

about November 19, 19697 A. Yes, sir.

Q. And who did you talk with on this occasion? A.

Gerlach, Jr.

Q. All right. Did you talk about the discharges at this

[22] time? A. Yes, sir.

Nit! (AeA CaO,

Q. All right. What did he teil you about the discharges?

Trial Examiner: Well, to make it short, did he tell you

anything this time that was different from the time that you

just talked about?

The Witness: No, sir.

Trial Examiner: All right. I will assume he is readopt-

ing his former testimony. There is no use in going into it.

[25] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, on January 12th of this

year did you have a discussion with Respondent?

Trial Examiner: Who is Respondent? There is a cor-

porate—

Mr. Gravitt: Mr. Gerlach.

Trial Examiner: The owner? It’s all one setup. There’s

more than one Gerlach. It’s a Mrs., a Senior and a Junior.

All three of them?

[26] Mr. Gravitt: Yes.

Trial Examiner: Was that January?

Mr. Gravitt: January 12, 1970.

The Witness: Yes, sir.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) And who did you talk with on this

occasion? <A. Junior Gerlach.

Q. Junior Gerlach? A. Yes.

Q. And where did the conversation take place? A. In

his office.

Q. And who was present, if you can recall? <A. Just

myself,

Q. All right. You and Mr. Gerlach? A. Yes,

Q. And did you mention the three discharges’ on this

occasion? A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. And what did he say about them?

Trial Examiner: You have already give a conversation

on December 3rd at which you mentioned the three dis-

charges. Did he say or did you say anything different now

on January 3rd than on December?

The Witness: Yes, sir.

Deteatisiie oi secicdc. ithan ioudes of hine ©,

Trial Examiner: There was a different conversation?

[27] The Witness: Yes sir.

Trial Examiner: All right.

The Witness: The company’s position changed some-

what to not taking them back, at it was, as their position

was previous, to there would be a possibility of taking

them back if we could work something out and—

Mr. Jenkins: I object to his characterizing this testi-

mony. In other words I want to know what was said. That

is the primary evidence. And I object to these conclu-

sionary statements of the witness and characterization.

Trial Examiner: I am going to sustain that on another

ground. That is if there were attempts to compromise I

am not going to hold that conversation admissible. The

usual rule is if they want to compromise conversations that

affects the settlement—

Mr. Gravitt: That’s going the other way on it. I haven’t

got it clear in the record. That is a wrong inferencer on it,

Your Honor. I’m sorry.

Trial Examiner: You are not going to get him to change

his testimony, are you?

Mr. Gravitt: No.

Trial Examiner: He said that they were willing—

Mr. Gravitt: To work something out. That’s what we

haven’t got in.

[28] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, did he tell you about this

working something out, what it related to? A. Well, he

said that they need operators, they could use good oper-

ators and these people, two of the three of them were good

operators and that they would be interested in possibly

taking them back if we would not press for any back money

because his daddy wouldn’t—

Q. What did he say about grievances? A. —pay one

red cent. And that we would have to drop any of either

charges or grievances that the people had against the com-

- ‘pany.

en ee ae a ee < a a =

Q. Did he mention to you in any way about grievances

in production? A. Well, I had said something about the

fact that there had been no grievances since the time of the

discharge of these three people and that if his attempt was

to throw fear into the rest of the people they succeeded in

doing this.

Q. What didhe say? A. He said there are no grievances

because the three trouble makers are out of the factory

and there’s no reason for any grievances. Everybody’s

very happy.

Q. Now, January 21st did you have another conversation

with a member of Respondent’s family, 1970? A. Yes,

sir.

Q. And who did you talk with on this occasion? [29] A.

It was Gerlach, Sr.

Q. Now, where did you talk to him? A. In his office.

Q. And who was present? A. The business agent from

the union.

Q. Mrs. Wiley? A. Right.

Q. Mrs. Elizabeth Wiley? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I see. Now, what did Mr. Gerlach say to you on this

occasion about the discharges? A. Mr. Gerlach, Sr. said—

Mr. Jenkins: Just one second. I again object to the use

of this word ‘‘discharge.’’ Because it has never been

established.

Trial Examiner: You admit it in your answer. You

admit that they were discharged, but you claim they were

lawfully discharged.

Mr. Jenkins: No, we don’t, Your Honor.

Trial Examiner: That’s the way I read your naswer.

Mr. Gravitt: Well, the fact is that they are not there

working any more and he won’t let them come back.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, that is what is in dispute here. And

there is no evidence in the record here on this.

Trial Examiner: In other words you contend that they

[30] were not discharged?

Mr. Jenkins: Of course. That’s right.

eT,

aa . RPE RRO SEE ’ OEE s

Mr. Jenkins: And I object to this constant repetition of

this conclusion as a preface to these questions.

Q. (By. Mr. Gravitt) Did he tell you why these three

girls weren’t working on this occasion?

Trial Mxaminer: I’ll admit that question.

The Witness: Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) What did he say? A. He said that

their conduct in the plant and their conduct to him was such

that he couldn’t have them back.

Q. Did he specify to you what conduct he was talking

about? A. No. He did say something about the fact that

since the union has been in here or been around that the

people are losing respect for management and that’s a

very important thing.

Trial Examiner: Well, he didn’t say that that was the

reason why he didn’t take them back, did he? The question

is what language did he use in refusing to take them back.

The Witness: He said they no longer have respect.

Trial Examiner: All right.

The Witness: That’s what he said.

[31] Trial Examiner: These three girls no longer have

respect?

The Witness: Right.

* : * * * * * * * * *

[32] Cross EXAMINATION

: * * * * * * * * *

[36] Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Mr. Goolst, you mentioned that

Martha Cochran was on the negotiating committee. Was

Mrs. King or Mrs. Mulford on the committee? A. Mrs.

King attended negotiating meetings at the request of Mr.

Gerlach.

Q. She was not on the committee? <A. Officially no, sir.

Mrs. Mulford I don’t remember. I don’t recall.

Q. And you say that Mr. Gerlach made a special request

that Mrs. King attend the negotiating sessions and that this

request apparently was acceeded to and she did, in fact,

ARISEN EIESEII ESAS SEE A ORCA

attend union negotiating mectings? A. I would say the

Union had no choice.

Q. I didn’t ask you for your conclusion as to whether the

union has a right to determine its own negotiating com-

mittee or not.

[37] Trial Examiner: Did the union consent to Mr. Ger-

lach’s request?

The Witness: That Mrs. King be at the meetings?

Trial Examiner: Yes.

The Witness: Yes; but not as a representative of the

union.

Trial Examiner: All right.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Then Mrs. King then was there as a

representative of the company during the negotiating meet-

ings, right? A. Sir, I don’t want to argue with you.

Trial Examiner: Just answer the question.

The Witness: Number one, I was not there. Since I was

not there I would have no idea of why she was there. She

was not there as a representative of the union.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Well, you have undertaken to state

who was a member, Mrs. Cochran, on your direct examina-

tion in response to General Counsel’s question on was she

a member of the committee. And now if you weren’t there

how do you know she was a member ofthe committee? A.

Well, I know she was a member of thé committee because I

was there when she was elected to the negotiating com-

mittee. And I sent her to negotiate the contract with the

other members.

Q. How do you know she served if you weren’t there?

[38] A. I sent her to negotiate.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Now, you say that Mrs. King was

there at the request of the company, is that correct? A.

Yes, sir.

Q. Now, in October of 1969 who were the chairladies at

the plant?

Brcrincnce: a a

Trial Examiner: Does it matter?

Mr. Jenkins: I think its very critical, Your Honor.

The Witness: I couldn’t answer you, sir.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Pardon? A. I couldn’t answer

you. I was not here at the time.

£39] Q. Right. So you don’t know? A. No, sir.

Q. And if you gave an answer on direct examination that

any of these alleged discriminatees were chairladies of the

plant then you were not testifying of your own knowledge,

were you? A. No, sir.

Q. Fine. In other words you were representing some-

thing to the Trial Examiner that you did not know factu-

ally was correct? .

Mr. Gravitt: I object. Has misstated the evidence. He

asked about November. And his testimony was about

October.

Mr. Jenkins: I asked about October.

Mr. Gravitt: The capacity of these people—

Trial Examiner: He knows what went on in his mind.

He can answer that question.

What is the answer?

The Witness: I’d like to hear the question.

Trial Examiner: Repeat the question.

Mr. Jenkins: All right. Do you want the reporter to?

Trial Examiner: No. It would be easier for you to

repeat it than the reporter.

Mr. Jenkins: Sure. . .

Q (By Mr. Jenkins) As I understand your testimony

[40] then you did not know in October of 1969 who were the

chairladies at the plant? A. No, sir.

Q. Isn’t it a fact that at your conversation on January

the 2st, 1970, with Mr. Gerlach, Sr., that Mr. Gerlach, Sr.

advised you at that time that there three women could

come back to work at any time they wanted to, but they

would have to obey the same rules and regulations as any-

one else in the plant? A. No, sir.

FORA. SRR Cent BE AT AD Sad 2 TS - 2

[41] Martha Jane Cochran

was called as a witness by and on behalf of the General

Counsel and, after being first duly sworn, was examined

and testified as follows:

* * * * * * * * * +

[42] Direct EXAMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) What were your duties with the

company before you were discharged? A. My duties as a

machine operator? °

Q. Yes. A. I—

Mr. Jenkins: Once again, Your Honor, this constant

suggestive question is objectionable to me as leading.

Trial Examiner: Ths issue of discharge is in issue?

Mr. Gravitt: Yes.

Trial Examiner: You are a machine operator?

The Witness: Yes.

Trial Examiner: All right. Then there you are.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) And who was your floor lady? A.

My floor lady was Helen Rice.

Q. Do you know Catherine King? A. Yes, sir; I do.

Q. Who is she? A. She was also a machine operator.

Q. Do you know where she is now?’ A. Yes, I do. She

has been very ill in the hospital. She was released last

week.

[43] Q. Did she have an operation? A. Yes, she did.

Q. Do you know what kind of an operation? A. A very

serious operation.

Q. What was—Was it a brain operation? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Brain surgery? A. That’s right.

Q. And approximately when did she have the operation?

A. She had the operation, I think it was around, it’s been

about two weeks ago when she had the surgery.

Trial Examiner: Is this to explain the absence of King

from the hearing?

Mr. Gravitt: Yes, Your Honor. She had a serious brain

operation. 7

Bisitiecrss bi

a - APOE to §. tren oF ———

Trial Examiner: I am sure Mr. Jenkins will be glad to

stipulate to that if you talk to him off the record.

Mr. Gravitt: Yes. I so stipulate that she is unable to

attend the hearing due to a serious brain operation.

Trial Examiner: I hate to take up time.

Mr. Gravitt: Do you stipulate?

Mr.Jenkins: I have no—

Trial Examiner: Wait. Take it up with him during the

next recess.

Mr. Jenkins:-If Mr. Gravitt represents this is of his

[44] own knowledge then I will so stipulate.

Trial Examiner: Well—

Mr. Jenkins: I have no way of knowing.

Mr. Gravitt: Yes, it is.

Trial Examiner: Do you accept his word or not?

Mr. Jenkins: Certainly.

Trial Examiner: Let’s not go into it any further.

Mr. Gravitt: The stipulation will be received?

Trial Examiner: Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, do you hold any particular

office in the local union? A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. What? <A. Well, I am the secretary-treasurer for

the union and also a shop, assistant shop chairlady in the

plant.

Q. You are assistant shop chairlady? A. Yes. That

is—I’ll explain that if you like.

Q. Yes. What is it? A. This is in case the chairlady

is absent from work. Then I am to take ap the grievance.

Q. Withwhom? A. With the company.

Q. I see. A. When there is a grievance to be filed. [45]

And I am to file them.

Q. Who was the chairlady before you? A. Delila Mul-

ford.

Q. That is the one that is no longer working at the plant?

A. Yes. That’s right.

Q. I see. And then when she left you took over? A.

Yes, sir.

Q. Isee. Did you,attend a meeting on October 10th with

the Gerlach’s over grievances? A. October 10th? No, sir,

I didn’t.

Q. You didn’t attend that? A. No, sir.

* * * * a * * * * *

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Well, now directing your attention

to October 13th, 1969, did you have any discugsion with

King? A. Yes, sir, I did. 7

[46] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Did she mention to you about

agrievance? <A. Yes.

* * * * * * * * * *

[47] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now; what action did you take

after this conversation with King, if any? A. Action that

I took was that she asked me to represent her that morning.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) What did she ask you to do? A.

She asked me to represent her that morning because she

felt that—

* * * * * * * * * *

[48] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, did you do. anything

about it? A. Yes.

Q. What did youdo? <A. I stayed down to the office with

her.

Q. Whose office? A. Mr. Gerlach’s office. Actually we

stayed in the cafeteria just outside the office.

Q. All right. Did you ever see Mr. Gerlach? A. Yes,

sir, we did. .

Q. Did you have any discussion with him? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Which one was it? A. Well, first we talked to Mrs.

Gerlach.

Q. You talked to Mrs. Gerlach? A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Now, what did you say to her and what

did she say to you?’ A. Well, the first came to me and she

said, ‘‘Now Martha,”’ she said, ‘‘your time card is upstairs

and my advise to you is to go on upstairs and go to work

if you want your job.”’

[49] Q. And who told you this? A. Mrs. Gerlach.

Q. All right. A. She said, ‘‘ All we want to do is talk to

Catherine.’’ And I asked her, I said, ‘‘ Well, what do you

want to talk to Catherine about?’’ She said, ‘‘Well, we

want to take up where we left off Friday.’’

Q. Where they left off Friday? <A. Yes.

Q. Keep your voice up. A. All right.

Q. Go ahead. A. Said, ‘‘We want to take up where we

left off Friday.’’? And I said, ‘‘Well, Mrs. Gerlach, I’m

sorry, but if that’s what you want to talk to her about that

is union business and she has asked me to represent her.’’

Q. And what did Mrs. Gerlach say, if anything? A.

Well, she did say—she turned to Catherine and she said,

‘‘We used to be able to talk to you, Catherine.’’ But

Catherine then refused to go into the office without me.

Q. Yes. A. The union representative.

Q. All right. A. That was the end of it.

Q. Now, did you talk to Mr. Gerlach subsequently?

[50] A. Yes, we did.

Q. That day? A. Yes,

Q. Which one? A. Senior.

_ Q. All right. Where did you have this discussion with

him? A. Into his office.

Q. Now, tell me what happened? <A. Well, we went into

his office. And I asked Mr. Gerlach if he was going to give

Catherine her time card. And he said, no, he was not going

to give her time card until she came into the office and

talked to him in private.

Q. What did you say? A. I said, ‘‘Well, Mr. Gerlach,

she wants union representation.’’ And he said he would

talk to one of us at a time. So I told him, I said, ‘‘Okay,

Mr. Gerlach.’’ I said, ‘‘we’ll sit out there until you decide

to give her her card.”’

So we went just outside the office door in the vestibule

there. And we sat there and waited. He never did give her

a card.

But then in the meantime my time card was pulled.

Q. Your time card was pulled? A. Yes.

Q. Now, did you make any explanation to Gerlach, Sr.

[51] as to why you were with King? A. I was a union

steward and that was my duty.

Q. Did you tell him that? A. I told Mrs. Gerlach that.

* * * * * * * * * *

Q. On this occasion did you ask him what he wanted to

talk to King about? A. Yes. I asked him.

Q. You asked him that? A. Yes.

Q. All right. What did he say, if anything? A. He

said it wasn’t none of my business.

Q. Did you say anything else? A. No.

[52] Q. Now, you say that you and King sat oustide of

Gerlach, Sr.’s office, is that correct?’ A. Yes. That’s right.

Q. During the day did he go by you two? A. Well, yes,

he went by—

Trial Examiner: The answer is yes?

The Witness: Yes, sir.

Trial Examiner: All right.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Did any conversation take place

between either you or King and between Mr. Gerlach? A.

No, sir.

Q. You said that your card was pulled on this date.

What do you base that statement on? A. Well, Mrs.

Gerlach went upstairs and got it. It must have been

around seven-thirty.

Trial Examiner: I can’t hear you.

Mr. Gravitt: Keep your voice up.

The Witness: Around seven-thirty I think it was when

she went upstairs and got my card and brought it down.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Then did you go to work on October

14th? <A. No, sir, I didn’t.

‘

ESE AOL Tt GAP Ns) SBN ie

Q. Now, this is the day after you sat outside the office

there with King I am talking about. Do you remember

that day? [53] A. Yes.

Q. The next day did you go into the plant? A. Yes,

sir, we went into the plant that day.

Q. Who was that? A. Catherine King and myself. We

went on on Tuesday morning, which would have been the

13th.

Q. 14th? <A. 14th. We went into the plant.

Q. All right. What happened then, if anything? A. We

went into Mr. Gerlach’s office. And I again asked Mr.

Gerlach if he was going to give Catherine her time card.

Q. About what time of day was this? A. It was seven—

I guess around seven-ten; something like that.

Q. Around working time? A. Yes, I—

Q. Go ahead with the conversation. What did he say?

A. Well, he said he was not going to give Catherine her

time card until she came into the office and sat down and

talked to him in private. And I said, ‘‘ Well, what about

mine?’’ He said, ‘‘You’re penalized two days for being

away from your machine.’’ So I said, ‘‘All right.’’ So

we went back home that morning.

Q. You and King went back home? A. Yes.

[54] Q. Now, the next day would have been a Wednesday,

the 14th of October. Did you go to the plant? A. Yes, sir,

we did. :

Q. And was anyone with you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who was it?’ A. Catherine King.

Q. About what time of the day did you go tc the plant?

A. And Delila Mulford was with us.

Q. Delila Mulford? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Isee. About what time of the day was this? <A. This

was the regular hour to go to work, seven o’clock.

Q. The regular working time? A. Regular working

time. Yes, sir.

Q. Isee. Now, did you talk with any of the Gerlach’s on

this occasion? A. Yes, sir, we did,

Q. To whom did you talk?’ A. Senior. Mr. Gerlach, Sr.

Q. Q. And just tell us the conversation. What was

said? A. Well, our steward had reported back to work

that morning—

Trial Examiner: No. Never mind that. You just give

the conversation. |

[55] The Witness: Well, he refused to give us our time

cards and he said I was still penalized for another day.

So we went back home again.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Did you hear him say anything to

King? A. No. I don’t—I can’t recall. It’s been a long

time.

Q. Well, do you now if King had her card on this occa-

sion? A. No, she didn’t have her card.

Q. Was the card mentioned? A. Yes.

Q. What was said? A. Mrs. Mulford asked for her card.

Q. Oh, Mrs. Mulford did?’ A. Miss Mulford did.

Q. Asked who? A. Asked Mr. Gerlach, Sr.

Q. And what happened then? A. He said that no, he

wasn’t going to give her her time card until she came into

the office and talked in private.

Q. Until who came in the office? A. Catherine King.

As for me he said I was penalized for another day.

Q.. Now, on October the 16th, the following day, did you

go to the plant? A. Yes, sir.

[56] Q. Your suspension was up then, right? A. Yes,

sir.

Q. Was anybody with you on this occasion? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who? A. Catherine King. ‘

Q. Did you—Or did she go to work on this day? A. She

reported to work that morning.

Q. And did you have any conversation with anyone of

the Gerlachs? <A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who? A. Well, Mrs. Kathryn Gerlach.

Q. Mrs. Kathryn Gerlach? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And about what time of the day was that? <A. It was

around seven-twenty or something like that.

eS Ce ee ee Ce

Pied x

Q. What time do you usually go,to work there? A.Well,

regular time is seven-fifteen, but the bell always rings at

ten after.

Q. I see. Now, what was said on this occasion in your

talk with Mrs. Gerlach?.

Trial Examiner: Is this the same as Mary Kathryn in

the complaint? Thank you.

The Witness: She asked m®—We waited out in the [57]

vetibule. Delila Mulford, our steward—

Mr. Jenkins: I’m sorry. I can’t hear you. Would you

talk up, please, ’mam?

The Witness: Yes. Catherine King, Delila Mulford and

myself, we were sitting out by the office door. And Mrs.

Gerlach came out and she asked me, she said, ‘‘Are you

ready to go to work this morning?’’ And I said, ‘‘Yes

’mam.’’ She said ‘‘ Well,’’ she said, ‘‘you can go to work.

But I want you to tend to your business.’? So I went on

upstairs to work.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) You ~— on to work? A. Yes.

Q. And where was King on this occasion? A. Her and

Delila Mulford were sitting in the vestibule, just outside

the office.

\. Do you know if King went to work on this day? A.

No, she didn’t.

Q. Did Mulford? A. No. No, sir.

Q. Did you work all that morning? A. Yes. I worked

that morning.

Q. Did you go to lunch? A. Yes,

Q. About what time? A. Eleven-thirty.

[58] Q. Do you go home at lunch? A. Yes.

Q. Did you talk to Mulford then while you were home at

lunch? A. Yes. ;

i ‘

* * * * * * * * * .

[59] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Were grievances discussed?

A. Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, you went back to the plant

before the noon hour was up, didn’t yout A. Yes.

Q. Now, did you take any action—

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Did you go back to the plant? A.

Yes.

Q. About what time was it then when you got back to the

(60] sant? A. It was around ten till tweleve.

Q. And what time does the lunch hour end? A. Well,

the bell usually rings at five till.

Q. You are sure of this? A. I am positive.

Q. All right. Now, when you arrived at the plant on

this occasion did you take any action based on your griev-

ance discussion with King and Mulford? A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. What did you do? A. Well, I went into the office to

present the grievances to Junior Gerlach.

Q. Allright. Did you talk to him? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you do and what did he say? A. I went

back to his office. And-I told him, I said, ‘‘ Junior, I have

some grievances for you.’’? And he said, ‘‘I don’t have time

to fool with them damn things.’’ He said, ‘‘I’m leaving

town.’’

And I said, ‘‘ Well, Junior, I’m corroy, but you will have

to take them.’’ Because I had them there and after you

file them and all you have to present them.

So I laid them down on his desk and when I did he

grabbed them and threw then in the trash.

Q. Did you tell him whose grievances they were? [61]

A. No, I didn’t tell him whose grievances they were. I -

just laid them on his desk. And he threw then in the trash

can.

Q. Who threw them in the trash can? <A. Junior Ger-

lach.

Q. And what happened then, if anything? A. Well, I

told him, ‘‘ Junior,’’ I said, ‘‘you’d better not destroy those

grievances.’’ And I left and went back out into the cafe-

teria.

j » snare: é EE Sass ae TORR peri seesnrene

AOC AN AREER LES tet A hate pase

And when I did, why, of course he followed me out and

went upstairs and pulled my time card. When he came

back down he said, ‘‘Martha,’’ he said, ‘‘you worked this

morning, but you’re not working this afternoon.’’ And he

said, ‘‘ You’re nothing but a damn smart aleck.’’ And I said,

‘Well, you’re a smart aleck, too, Junior, but’’ I said,

‘that’s beside the point.’’

Q. And then did you have any conversation with Gerlach,

Sr.’’ <A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. And where did that conversation take place? A. In

Mr. Gerlach’s office. Gerlach, Sr.’s office.

Q. All right. What was said on this occasion? A. Well,

I went into his office. And I asked him, I said, ‘Is he tell-

ing me that I’m fired?’’ And he said, ‘*You heard what

he said,’’ He said, ‘‘You worked this morning but you’re

not working this afternoon.”’

[62] Q. Gerlach, Sr. telling you this? <A. Yes.

Q. Proceed. A. He said, ‘‘He didn’t say you,was fired.’’

I said, ‘‘ Well, what am I supposed to do?’’ Hs “« Just

go on home.’’ He said, ‘‘ You wanted to draw your unem-

ployment now go on and draw it.’’ And I said, ‘‘ Just like

that’? Go on and draw my unemployment?’’ And he said,

‘*Ves.’? And I turned around and I said, ‘‘ Mr. Gerlach,’’ I

said, ‘‘you know something,” I said, ‘‘you don’t know how

to run a business.’

He’s got a lot of girls up there working. Aud, that’s

what I said. But—

Q. And then you went home? A. Yes. No. Wait just

aminute. That wasn’t all of it.

Q. All right. Anything else? Tell me. A. He said

‘“‘Yeah.’’ He said, ‘‘I see that somebody else wouldn’t

know how to run a business.’”’ He said, ‘‘Your husband

tried that once too, didn’t he, and it didn’t work, too?’’

And IJ said, ‘‘That’s right, Mr. Gerlach.’’ I said, ‘‘That’s

exactly right.’’ And I left the office.

Q. Now, you left the office? A. Yes.

* * * * * * * * * Sd

[63] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) You know a Katherine

Stephens, do you not? A. Yes, that’s right.

Q. Who is she?) A. She’s the secretary to the company.

Q. After you got home did you telephone her? A. Yes,

sir, I did.

Q. And you got her on the phone? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And about what time of the day was this? A. This

was sometime in the afternoon just after I had gone home.

Q. On October 16th? A. On October 16th.

Q. All right. Now, ‘tell me what was said on this

[64] oceasion? A. I called Katherine Stephens and I

aksed her to ask Mr. Gerlach if he wanted me to report back

to work the next day. And he said, ‘‘No.’’

Q. Wait a minute. You are talking to her? A. Yes.

Q. Well, did you hear his voice? A. Yes, 1 did.

Q. And what did he say? <A. He said, ‘‘No.”’

Q. Did she say anything to you then? A. Yes. She

said, ‘‘he said no.’? And I said, ‘‘ Well, you tell him that

he can reach me at my home phone when he needs me.’’

And he turned around and he said, ‘‘ Well, I'll call her if I

need her.’’

Q. Did he ever call you? <A. No, sir, never did.

Q. Did he ever notify you in any way to come to work?

A. No, sir; they haven’t.

~ * * * * * * * * *

[65] Cross EXAMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Jenking) Mrs. Cochran, when were you

elected secretary of the union? A. On or about the 15th

of April.

Q. That would be 1969? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And wh»? was elected? Were chairladies elected at

[66] at that time? A. Yes, sir, they was.

Q. Okay. Who was that? A. That was Virginia Hol-

land.

Q. Virginia Holland? A. Yes, sir.

| eee

: te Me RTS we ge 2:

Ape.” ee eR et ne mcey aes sons eonwan .

shape ee a i MEN abt Sa

Q. And was there an assistant chairlady elected at that

time, also? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And who was that? A. That was me, myself.

Q. And did you, as secretary did you give any notice to

the company about who was a chairlady and assistant chair-

lady? A. No. The—

Trial Examiner: The answer is no.

The Witness: No. .

Trial Examiner: Let’s not volunteer anything.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Then in October of 1969 you were

still serving as assistant chairlady? A. Yes, sir. That’s

right.

Q. And was Virginia Holland still serving as chairlady?

A. No, sir.

Q. What had happend to her? <A. Well, she had been

asked to resign.

[67] Q. You mean by the union? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When was this or when did she resign, if she did?

A. She resigned in August, I believe. I’m not exactly sure

of the date, but it was somewhere around there.

Q. And was somebody else elected? <A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who was that? A. Delia Mulford.

Q. And as secretary of the union did you give any notice

to the company about this change of chairladies? A. No,

sir, I didn’t. .

Q. And this Catherine King that we have, is she an

officer of the union? A. No, sir, she wasn’t.

Q. She didn’t have any position of authority with the

union at all, did she? A. No, sir. Just 2 member.

Q. Prior to this time in October, that’s the subject matter

of this hearing here, beginning about the 19th of October

in ’69, had you ever handled any grievances yourself with

the company? A. Yes, sir, I had.

Q. Who with? A. I took a grievance to Juniog, one day

in the office.

[68] Q. And when was this? A. That was in, I think that

was in August. I’m not sure of the date.

MB ie rs i.

S_—"_™

Q. Did you take it to him and give it to him personally

or just leave it there? A. Yes, sir. I took it to him.

Q. Did you explain to him at that time that you were an

assistant chairlady or was that discussed? A. He was

aware of me being—

Q. I am asking you what you explained, not what he

knows. A. I—

Q. Did you tell him anything about your position with

the union at that time? A. No, I didn’t tell him at that

time.

Trial Examiner: I want to ask a question. Any side may

object. I would like someone to ask this question rather

than I. How large of a plant is this? Can you agree on it?

How many employees?

Mr. Rubenstein: Are you talking about in October, at

the time. .

Trial !xaminer: Yes.

Mr. Jenkins: Your Honor, it fluctuates consistently

depending on business conditions. Right now there are

about sixty people employed. Back last October I under-

stand about eighty. If fluctuates according to business

needs.

[69] Mr. Rubenstein: Yes. I think that’s correct.

Trial Examiner: All right. .

Mr. Rubenstein: It fluctuates between sixty and eigthy.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) You testified about a conversation

on October 16th, 1969 with Mr. Gerlach, Jr. after lunch

when you went into his office to present some grievances?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was anyone else present at that time other than your-

self and Mr. Gerlach, Jr.?. A. Yes, sir, there was.

Q. Who else was present? A. I don’t know who he was.

But there was a little boy in there.

Q. One who? A. There was a young boy present.

OTE EE Merge FRE POONER

a en

Ne NG ce AAR ce SRL RR ai SAN EIEN RR BI dot

[70] Q. Someone who did not work at the plant? A.

Right. Yes. ,

Q. Was anyone else present? A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know whether or not anyone else was out-

side of the office door within hearing distance? A. No, sir;

there wasn’t.

Q. Do you know whether or not, prior to October 10th,

1969, on numerous occasions Catherine King had either

called and/or been ealled to Mr. Gerlach, Sr.’s office for

private discussion? <A. No, sir. I’m not aware of that.

Q. You are not denying it? You are just saying you

don’t know? Is that your answer? A. That’s right. I

don’t know about it.

Q. Now, is there a rule at the company that you are not

supposed to leave your position during working time at a

machine without approval? A. No, sir.

Q. In other words, you can, anybody in the plant can

jump up and leave their machine at any time during work-

ing time without getting permission of the company and

that’s the way that it works? <A. No, sir. That is not the

way it works. ;

Q. Well, I asked you if there was a rule requiring [71]

permission. Can you explain what the practice is on this?

A. Yes, sir; I can.

Q. All right. A. To take up grievances. That is the

one thing I was talking about there. Of course we don’t,

we shouldn’t have to get permission I feel to—

Q. Now, I am not asking you about what you should do.

I am asking you whether or not, regardless of what the sub-

ject matter is, grievances or anything else, isn’t there a rule

in force at the plant and an understanding among all of

the people that if you leave your work station for any rea-

son you get permission during work time, or during work-

ing time? Isn’t that the policy? A. That is the policy of

leaving to go outside or home or something of that sort.

eel SE ee

Q. Isn’t that the policy also— =

Mr. Gravitt: Object to cutting the witness off in her

answer.

Trial Examiner: I don’t think she had been cut off. She

finished. Didn’t you?

Go ahead, Mr. Jenkins.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Wasn’t that the policy of leaving

your work station for any purpose? You reported to the

production manager and asked for permission to leave, isn’t

that the company [72] policy? A. Well, I’m going to be

frankly honest with you.

Q. Lhope so. A. That is not the purpose of grievance.

Q. Now, you are misinterpreting—

Trial Examiner: The question is can any employee leave

his place without permission.

The Witness: No. No.

* * * * * * * * * *

[73] Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Now, on October the 13th you

reported for work that morning, didn’t you? Did you leave

your work station that day to go with Catherine King? A.

No, sir. I hadn’t reported into work yet.

Q. Well, I understood you on direct examination to say

that you reported for work. Are you now saying you

reported but you didn’t start or what? I am just trying to

understand. A. See, we went in the cafeteria at seven

o’clock. The bell [74] rings at ten after.

Q. Now, as I understand it, going back to the discussion

which you testified about on October 16th, you went to Mr.

Gerlach’s, Mr. Gerlach, Sr.’s office that afternoon to ask

him if you had been fired? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you referred to the convesation that you had

immediately had preceding that with Mr. Gerlach, Jr.?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And in answer to a question by you Mr. Gerlach, Sr.

specifically said that he did not say you were fired? A.

That’s right. |

Polini ciraieirsiscisicroniion RS iad Wee A tii BEN

Q. Is that what he said? A. (Nodded).

* * * * * * * * * *

(The witness was excused.)

* * * * * * * * * *

[76] | Elizabeth Wiley

was called.as a witness by and on behalf of the General

Counsel and, after being first duly sworn, was examined

and testified as follows:

* * * * * * * * * *

Direct EXAMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) What is your position with the

union? A. I’m business agent with the International

Ladies’ Garment Workers.

Q. And you service the Quality Manufacturing Company?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Directing your attention to October 20th, did you

attempt to take up a grievance with Respondent in any

way? A. Yes, sir; I did.

[77] Q. And who did you talk with? A. Mr. Lawrence —

Gerlach, Sr.

Q. And where did you talk to him? A. I talked to him

just outside of his office.

Q. And did you discuss with him the three girls not

working; King, Cochran, and Mulford? A. Yes, sir; I did.

Q. Now, you tell me what you said and what was said

about them. A. I asked him why the girls was not working.

and he stated, ‘‘ Well, they’d been giving me a lot of trouble.

And Catherine didn’t want to come into the office and talk

to me without a union representation. And that I am not

going to allow.’’

Q. Do you recall anything else he said? A. In the

office he said to me, ‘‘Look, Miss Wiley, I don’t want to talk

to you about this problem or any other damn union prob-

lem that your members bring up now or ever because if

Si eaiiaatal

they don’t, if the girls don’t go to work and start doing

their jobs I’m going to close the plant.’’

Q. Now, directing your attention to October 28th did

you have any further discussion with Respondents? A.

Yes, sir. On—

_Q. And who did you talk with at this time? A. I talked

to Lawrence Gerlach, Jr.

Q. Gerlach, Jr. And where did the convesation take ©

[78] place? A. It was in his office.

Q. All right. What was said? A. He got imto the dis-

cussion about the three girls that were involved that was

not working. And so he proceeded, he didn’t get into any

conversation right then about the three people.

Q. What did he say? A. He proceeded to tell me that he

was sick and tired of the members trying to run his plant

or sick and tired of the union telling him what to do and

how to run his plant and he wasn’t going to put up with it.

After all, he was a sick man and he couldn’t stand the worry

and the aggravation of all these problems.

Q. Did he mention a layoff, general layoff? A. He men-

tioned that he would close the plant. That he could not

stand it. And his mother and father, they didn’t need the

money anyway. And he—

Q. Did he tell you he couldn’t stand what? A. That he

didn’t need the money. That he didn’t need the work and

aggravation. His mother and father didn’t need the money.

Q. Do you recall a layoff of some employees around

October 28th and 39th? A. On October the 30th there was

a layoff. .

[79] Q. Did you talke to anyone at the company about the

layoff? <A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who? A. Mr. Lawrence Gerlach, Jr.

* * * * * * * * * *

[80] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, did you have a conversa-

tion at any time with Mr. Gerlach, Jr. about a layoff on

October the 28th, or on or about that date? A. Yes, sir. I

had a conversation with him on October 28th in his office.

At ih RRR RE EES. 288

Lind idee WS

- 40

Q. All right. Now, tell us about it. What was said? A.

I asked him if he had a lot of work. And he said, ‘‘ No.’’

He said, ‘‘I don’t want any work.’’ He said, ‘‘I don’t want

any work as long as I’m having all this union trouble and

worry and aggravation.’’ And he said, ‘‘It’s a constant

turmoil in here, constantly. I can’t stand. I’m sick.’’ And

I said, ‘‘Can Mr. Marcus supply you with work?’’ And

he said, ‘‘Yes, sir; he can supply me with work.”’

Q. Who did? A. Mr. Marcus is a contractor. The man-

ufacturer that he works for.

Q. Now, diecting your attention to November 13th 1969,

did you have any conversation with any of the Gerlachs?

[81] A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who? A. Lawrence Gerlach, Jr.

Q. And where did the conversation take place? A. In

his office.

Q. And what was said? A. At that time we did talk

about the three girls. And I asked him if they would let the

girls return to work. He said, ‘‘Absolutely not.’’ That

his mother and father would not ever agree to bring the

three back to work. And—

Q. And did he give you any explanation as to why they

couldn’t return? A. That they was nothing but trouble

makers.

Q. Who said that?

Mr. Jenkins: I couldn’t hear the answer. I’m sorry.

Trial Examiner: She said that they were nothing but

trouble makers.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Who made that statement? A.

Lawrence Gerlach, Jr.

Q. Now, after this November 13th conversation did you

have another conversation with Mr. Gerlach? A. Yes, sir;

I did.

Q. And when was that? A. It was on the 25th day of

November.

Q. And where was the conversation? A. In Mr. Gerlach,

Jr.’s office.

Q. And what was said on this occasion? A. Again I

attempted to try to discuss—

Q. Just tell us what you said and what he said. A. Well,

I tried to discuss with him the three people that were in-

volved. And I absolutely got nowhere.

Q. Just tell us what he said.

Mr. Jenkins: I object to the characterization.

Trial Examiner: All right. That last answer may be

stricken.

Mr. Gravitt: See, you have got to tell us what you said

and what he said to get it in evidence. ;

The Witness: He said to me that he absolutely would

not bring the girls back. His mother and father would not

agree to bring the girls back and no court in the land could

make them bring them back and if they was to be forced

to bring them back in any way whatsoever that they would

close the plant, make apartments out of the building. And

that was it. So absolutely they would not bring these

three trouble makers back to work.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) That’s what he told you? A. Yes,

sir.

* * * * * * * * * *

[84] Cross ExaMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) How many people were laid off

on October the 30th? A. Sir, I really can’t give you an

answer on that. I don’t know.

Q. Well, what kind of a layoff occurred, if you don’t know

how many? A. Well, I will say that nineth percent of the

people were laid off.

Q. What do you base that on? Were you here? A. I

was not here on November 30th. No, sir.

Q. Now, did you say November the 30th?, A. I mean—

[85] Q. What date? A. I mean I was not here.

Q. What month are we talking about? A. I was not here

at the day of the layoff.

<n eg enact emapere a

CE AS ae OO

he Lite Fit tone

Sapa aban asi 2s eT |

erie)

Ue PORE ASME aie tas

Q. All right. What was the date of the layoff? And I

also want to know what day of the week. A. October.

October the 30th. ee

Q. October the 30th. All right. What day of the week

was that on? A. I don’t recall. . ,

Q. Was it a working day? A. Yes, sir; I’m sure that

it was.

Q. Do you know this or are you just guessing? A. I'll

say that I’m only guessing because I don’t know. I can’t

remember the calendar in my mind.

Q. All right. How many people worked on the 29th?

A. This I do not know.

Q. How many people worked on tie 30th? A. I don’t

know that any of them—

Q. How many of them worked on the 31st of October,

1969? A. I don’t know that anyone worked.

Q. I am asking you if you know how many did or did not

work? A. I’m telling you that I don’t know.

Q. All right. How many worked on November Ist, 2nd,

3rd, or 4th? On any of those days in 1969? A. None that

I [86] know of.

Mr. Jenkins: How many people worked on November

the 1st?

Mr. Rubenstein: That was not the question.

Mr. Jenkins: 2nd, 7.4, 4th, or 5th?

Trial Examiner: It doesn’t matter whether it is or not.

It is the present question.

Mr. Rubenstein: All right.

Trial Examiner: Or the current question.

[87] The Witness: No one worked to my knowledge.

And I’m specifying union members.

Mr. Jenkins: Pardon?

Mr. Rubenstein: I’ll object.

Mr. Jenkins: It’s your witness. If she wants to volun-

teer it—

hes —

The Witness: I’ll withdraw that statement. None.

* * * * * * * * * *

[88] Q. Does everybody who does production work at the

‘plant, are they a member of the bargaining unit and the

union? A. Yes, sir.

Q. N ow, how many peels worked on Novanber the 6th?

A. None that I know of.

Q. Well, are you saying that you just simply don’t know

at all whether anybody worked or not? Or are you saying |

that none of the union members worked on November 6th?

What are you saying? I am trying to find out if you have |

knowledge or if you don’t have owieite: ' A. You’re

talking about—

Q. Let me put it this way to you. I want to know

whether you know whether anybody worked in the produc-

tion unit at this plant on November 6, 1969. Now, either

you do know that they did work or you know fhat they did

not work. A. I don’t know that they did work.

[89] Q. Do you know that they didn’t work? A. Would

you repeat the question again? The last question.

Trial Examiner: The question is did you know that they

did work?

The Witness:, No, sir.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Did-yo®rr@w that they did not

work? .

Trial Examiner: You’ve already asked that.

Mr. Jenkins: And your answer is no?

Trial Examiner: That’s it. . .

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) In other words your answer then is

that you don’t know whether anybody worked or not on

November 6th, is that not correct? <A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, on November 7th—

* * * * * * , * * sd *

[91]} Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) ‘Do you know whether or not —

anybody did or did not work in the production unit on No-

vember 8th, 9th, and 10th—

OLE ON EET ORC OB alt ga er Bugg

th tat”: a fl.

Mr. Gravitt: Objection.

Mr. Jenkins: —of 19691

Trial Examiner: He has taken her through the 29th

through the 7th. So I will allow that question. He is al-

lowed [92] to go up to the 10th.

The Witness: 8th, 9th, and 10th? Is that what you’re

asking?

Trial Examiner: Of November, 1969.

The Witness: I was not there. But I had word through

my chairlady that part of the raat room had begun to

return to om.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) ‘ Well, then to follow it up. I under-

stand that of your own knowledge, direct knowledge that

you do not know? That’s what yousaid? A. No, sir, I was

not there.

_ Q. And, therefore, you do not know?

Trial Examiner: She has already answered that. And

I am going to let the record show she doesn’t know of her

own [93] knowledge.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) And your earlier testimony then

that there was a layoff at the plant beginning sometime

about October the 28th was based upon something someone

else told you? A. The layoff had begin the 28th when I was

there. There was already people laid off then.

Q. And thereafter any information you have is based

solely on what somebody else told you?’ A. Through my

chairlady, who I work with.

* * * * * * * * * *

[94] Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Now, when you had a conver-

sation with Mr. Gerlach, Jr. on October the 28th, 1969, he

told you at that time, as I understand it, that he did not

‘have any work, is that correct? A. And he didn’t want any

work.

[95] Delila Mulford

was called-as a witness by and on behalf of the General

Counsel and, after being first duly sworn, was examined

and testified as follows:

Drrect EXAMINATION

[96] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) How long have you worked

for the Respondent before leaving the plant? A. From

November 57, to October, ’69.

Q. And what was your job in the plant in October of ’69?

A. I was piecing skirts at the time.

Trial Examiner: What? .

The Witness: Piecing front skirts at the time in ’69.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Did you hold any particular job

with the union? A. Yes. I’m union chairlady.

Q. How long have you served in that capacity? A.

Around two months.

Q. Now, do you know Mrs. Wiley? A. Yes.

Q. And did you discuss this chairlady with her? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know if she ever notified the company? [97]

A. Yes; she notified them.

Q. In that way? <A. Well, I appeared with them and

Nick Bannano and a couple of the other executive board

at one time and was told that I was the union chairlady.

Q. Where was this meeting? A. In the restaurant at

the plant.

Q. Do you recall ever informing the company of this

matter? A. At that time.

Q. At that time. How was it done? A. Well, we had a

meeting at that time and I told them that I was union

chairlady and that I would like to have our seniority list.

Q. Told you?’ A. Mr. Gerlach and Mrs. Gerlach.

Q. And can you give us the best date on this? A. It was

sometime in August.

Q. Of what year? A. I don’t—Of ’69.

‘pie

ah reer |

Seibel Bestne bs

Set! Fee &

Dania eis iii citisai ta es Vo

46 |

Q. Of 69. Now, directing your attention to October 10,

1969, did you attend any meeting with the company? A.

Yes. I—

Q. And where was this meeting? A. In the front office

of Mr. Gerlach, Sr. But the senior and the junior both

[98] was there and Mrs. Gerlach.

Q. And who else was there? A. And Mrs. Gerlach.

And I took Catherine King, Ruby Keefer, and Mary Jo

Kits to talk about the piece rates.

Q. And why were you there? A. I was a chairlady.

Q. Tell us what happened at the meeting. Tell us what

was said.

Trial Examiner: We are not going into the merits of

whether they were entitled to a piece rate or not.

Mr. Gravitt: All right.

Trial Examiner: The fact that they discussed piece rate

is enough to show that they engaged in this.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Other than discussing piece rates

did anyone in the company make any remark to you about

your job? A. Junior Gerlach told me that, at the time, that

when I had a complaint, a good complaint to come in and

he would hear me. And he cursed and told me to get out

and if we didn’t like the way it was there in the company

to go elsewhere.

Q. Do you know Catherine King? <A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what job did she have at the plant in October

before she left? A. Machine operator.

[99] Q. Machine operator. Did she work close to you?

“ A. Across from me.

Q. What do you mean? Diaiataes it please. A. Right—

Well, my machine was on one side and then her machine

was on the opposite.

Q. About how far away were they? A. Oh, about four

or five feet.

Q. Now, on October 10th do you recall King have any

discussion with any supervisor or boss? A. Well, October

the 10th, after we came back—it must have been after we

Ay —

——_—

had our recess. And Miss Gerlach came and I heard her

and Catherine having an argument.

Q. What did Mrs. Gerlach say? A. She told Catherine

to mind her own business. And Catherine said, ‘‘1’m mind-

ing my business.’’? And she said, Mrs. Gerlach said some-

thing about if she’d mind her own business she’d make her

time. Catherine said, ‘‘I1’m making your time, but I’m not

making my time.”’

Q.-Well, do you recall any more of the conversation?

A. No. Well, she said for Catherine to go to the office.

Q. Go to the office? A. Yes.

Q. What happened then, if anything? A. Well, Catherine

got up and hollered for me to go with her.

[100] Q. What did she say? A. She said, ‘‘Come on,

Delila, and go to the office with me.’? And so I got up and

went.

Q. You got up and went? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did you go? A. I went as far as the restau-

rant.

Q. And what happened then? A. Well, Mr. Gerlach and

Mrs. Gerlach said that for me_to get back upstairs, I had

no business down there. And so I told them that Catherine

paid her dues and she was entitled to be there.

Q. You told. Mrs. Gerlach that? ‘A. Yes. And Mr.

Gerlach.

Q. And who? A. Mr. and Mrs. Gerlach.

Q. You told both of them? A. Yes.

Q This is the senior you are talking about? A Yes.

Q. All right. Now, do you recall Mrs. Gerlach saying

anything else to you? A. Well, she was told me I was

endangering my job in being there. And so did Mr. Gerlach.

[101] Q. Mr. Gerlach told you that, too? A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall anything else being said on that

day? <A. Well, he told Catherine he wouldn’t trust her

any more. And Catherine said, ‘‘Mr. Gerlach, there’s been

a lot of lies told on me.’’

Mr. Jenkins: I’m sorry. I can’t hear.

} BY otc eaneraans _— ,

pa ge ee ORE: EIEN EL SETAE IRS RETR IRR RR

Pt A rica austere

OSE BEER LI Ges

pit nical

The Witness: ‘‘Mr. Gerlach,’’ Catherine said to Mr.

Gerlach, said, ‘‘Mr. Gerlach, there’s been a lot of lies told

on me. You’re blaming the wrong girl.’’

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Did he make any response? A.

Well, he said he’d never trust her any more.

Q. Now, directing your attention to October the 12th—

A. Well, October the 12th—

Trial Examiner: There’s no question.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Did you go back to work?

Trial Examiner: Wait for a question.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Did you go back to work after this

conversation with Mr. and Mrs. Gerlach? <A. Yes, I did.

Q. You went back to work? A. Yes.

[102] Q. All right. And then did you continue working |

the rest of the day? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, directing your attention to October the 12th,

do you recall what day of the week that was?’ A. That was

on Sunday evening.

Q. Did you have any discussion with Mrs. Gerlach?

A. Yes. She called me on the phone.

Q. And what did she say? A. Told me she was relaying

a message from Mr. Gerlach for me not to come in Monday

and Tuesday and to report back on Wednesday.

Q. Did she tell you why? <A. No.

Q. When was the next time you reported to the plant?

A. That would have been on the 15th.

Q. The 15th you went to work? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What happened then? A. Well, I went in the office.

Q. Whose office? A. Mr. Gerlach’s office. And he told

me to mind my own business.

Q. Now, was this Senior or Junior? A. That was

Senior.

[103] Q. All right. A. He told me he was going to give

me my card, but for me to mind my own business. I told

him I was minding my business, that Catherine had a right

to union representation as well as anybody else and she

wasn’t the only one that I’d brought to the office at that

TA PS sr ern casera asartitentr emer ctynarumesie

ae hr “

Dew me ee

time. I brought Mary and Reba, also. But they just called

Catherine out for the trouble. .

* * * . oa * % * > *

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Well, was King there with you on

that occasion, the 15th when you went back to work? A.

Her and Martha was in the restaurant.

Q. They were in the restaurant?

Trial Examiner: The question is were they with you

when you talked to Mr. Gerlach.

The Witness: No. I was in tie office by myself.

Trial Examiner: All right. The answer is no.

The Witness: That’s right. —

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, this was the first time you

had been back to work since being suspended, is that right?

A. That’s right.

[104] Q. Was there any discussion of this suspension on

this occasion? A. He told me at that time I was suspended

for those, for coming off of the floor with Catherine King.

Q. With Catherine King? A. Yes.

Q. Did he say anything else about that? A. I can’t re-

member anything right now.

Q. You can’t remember anything now. Well, you had

this conversation you have been telling us about with Mr.

Gerlach, Sr.? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Well, what happened then? A. Well, he gave me my

card and I went back to the restaurant.

~Mr. Jenkins: Excuse me. Are we talking about the 15th

of October? :

Mr. Gravitt: Yes.

The Witness: Yes. That’s right.

Mr. Jenkins: All right.

The Witness: He gave me my card. And I went as far

as the restaurant and I asked Mrs. Gerlach about Martha

and Catherine. They were in the restaurant and I was

wanting to know what was going to happen to them.

[105] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) What did she say? A. Well,

she called Mr. Gerlach and said I wouldn’t go upstairs until

ie we

RES OREN

I found out what was happening to Catherine and Martha.

And they told me that Martha was suspended yet and that

Catherine was wanted in the office without me.

Q. Who told you? Yousaid they. Who said it? A. Mrs.

Gerlach. .

Q. Well, when you said Catherine you are talking about

King? <A. That’s right.

Q. Was wanted in the office without you. Did you make

’ any reply? <A. Let’s see. Well, they took me back in the

office and talked to me.

: Q. Who took you back in the office? A. Mrs. Gerlach.

Q. Mrs. Gerlach? A. Uh-huh.

: Q. And what was said on this occasion? A. Well, of

course we went over the whole thing again about, you know,

Catherine and she was a trouble maker. And I—

Q. Who said she was a trouble maker? A. Mr. Gerlach.

Q. Allright. Go ahead. A. And he didn’t want her to—

[106] Q Just tell us what he said. Who said? A. Well,

this is Mr. Gerlach. —

Q. Mr.? A. Yes.

Q. Allright. A. I went back in there And he told me that

Catherine was a trouble maker and, of course, he told me

some more personal things. And I said, ‘‘Her personal life

don’t concern me.’’ I said, ‘‘She is paying her union dues

: and I was supposed to be there.’’

: Q. And what did he say? A. And he told me I was going

i to get trouble for doing, for standing there and not minding

my own business.

ee, Fae ee ree e cy e

Mr. Gravitt: Say it again. What did he tell you?

The Witness: Well, he told me to mind my own busi-

ness. He told me that he was going to give me my card

and I was going to go upstairs and mind my own business.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) And did you go upstairs? <A. Yes.

Catherine and Martha had left at that time.

Q. They had left?

PELE NYT GE POL SE ONE PEELE LF PORE SRT Sy Stra OEP LAO RI, NO Tels MRS

Trial Examiner: The question is did you go upstairs.

[107] The Witness: Yes, sir.

* * * * * * * * * *

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) You went upstairs? A. Yes.

Q. And did you continue working the rest of the day?

A. Yes, sir. |

Q. Did you go into work the next day? A. I went into

the outer office that day.

Q. And what happened then? A. I was with Catherine

and Martha. I was to stay there until I knew what was

going to happen to them.

Q. Did you talk with anyone from the company? A. Yes.

Q. Who did you talk with? A. Mr. Gerlach.

Q. And where did yon talk with him? A. In the outer

office.

Q. This is Senior? A. Senior. |

Q. And who was present? A. Catherine and Martha and

Mrs. Gerlach.

[108] Q. What was said on this occasion? A. Well, Miss

Gerlach gave Martha her card and she went upstairs. And

she said Mr. Gerlach wanted to see Catherine in the office

without me. Or she wanted to see Catherine in the office.

Mr. Gerlach wanted to see Catherine in the office. And Miss

Gerlach said, or Catherine said, ‘‘With Delilat’’ And

Mrs. Gerlach repeated the question and he said, ‘‘No, not

with Delila.’’ And he told King if she went out the door

that was it, she was finished. And so she didn’t go in the

office without me. So she didn’t have anything else to do

but to go out.

Q. And what did you do? A. Well, I was in the office

then.. And I said, ‘‘ Mr. Gerlach, do you want me to go back

upstairs?’’ He said, ‘‘No. You’ve abandoned your job.

You’re finished.’’

Q. He told you you were finished? A. Yes.

Q. Did he tell you to do anything then? A. He told me *

to get out.

FOB Pt LPO Fi vay» a .

eiadesians SDR ORIEL RANE EET REUES, RA IPO PRE E D aa Ss en Ee Ceara ed ere eee ae

DREN

RGEC NR esi cao el i DRANG tthe ss

Q. Get out. Where was King? A. She was in the outer

part of the office. I mean there is a place where you come

into the door. That’s where she was at at the time. And

then there was the floor here and there was the restaurant.

And I was in between them two places. .

Q. Now, directing your attention to September 30, 1970,

did you have any conversation with Mr. Gerlach, Jr.? A.

That would have been in October?

[109] Q. Or 1969. I’m sorry. <A. In ’69. In October

of 69?

Trial Examiner: No. This is September 30th.

Mr. Gravitt: September 30th.

The Witness: September 30th. Well, I know at that

time we made out a grievance.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) You made out a grievance? A.

Yes.

Q. Did you do anything with the grievance? A. Yes.

The following day I took the grievance into Junior Gerlach.

Q. And what was said on this occasion? A. Well, he

told me that he wasn’t going to fool with that grievance,

that he was going to close the plant down around December

the 1st. But he told me he realized I was doing my job and

he would hold no hard feelings toward me at all.

Q. About what time of the day was this? A. Noon hour.

Q. At noon hour.

* * * * * * * * * *

[110] Cross Examination

* * * * * * * * * *

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Mrs. Mulford, you testified here

about some conversations and gathering that you had on

December— [111] or excuse me—beginning in October,

October the 10, 1969 and then continuing over into the

following week. And these matters, as I take it, insofar as

we are interested in these proceedings, pertained to

Catherine King, didn’t they? A. Yes.

Q. Now, at the time that you had these conversations on

REE DR BOI AAS EM x ence — “

—7_ Anais ene

October the 10th was there any pending grievance wit

respect to Catherine King? A. No.

Q. Let me refresh your— A. No.

Trial Examiner: She has answered the question no.

The Witness: Just—

Mr. Jenkins: No. All right. Fine.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) If and when, if you know, was a

grievance with respect to any matters pertaining to Cath-

erine King filed by the union? A. We just had that com-

plaint on October the 10th, when I took the complaint in to

Junior Gerlach and asked him—

Q. Let me interrupt you there just a minute. To make it

clear, as I understand that complaint that you are talking

about, that is a piece work matter? A. Yes.

Q. That didn’t involve Catherine King, Aid it? A. Yes,

sir.

[112] Q. Well, isn’t it true that Catherine King always

made her piece rate so that she was not really involved in

that grievance? A. I took her in the office with me and

Mary and Reba.

Trial Examiner: Can you answer the question? Was

she involved in that case?

The Witness: Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Well, how was she involved in that

grievance? There was no problem with her piece rate was

there? A. She wasn’t making out. Or she was just making

it. And she used to make aroundt $20.00 a day where she

was just making her time, or the company’s time. That

would be $13.60.

Trial Examiner: I don’t want to get into the merits of

that. The question was she involved or not. That is all

I’m interested in. I don’t care whether she was making

her time or not. I’m not going into the merits, as I said

when Mr. Gravitt examined the witness, of that grievance.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) All right. Other than that griev-

ance then there were, or the business about the piece rates,

other than that was there any grievance filed on that day

ssid: a

Sedat ob Sete |

; «54

with respect to any other matters pertaining to Catherine

King? A. Was no grievance filed.

Q. All right. Now, if and when was a grievance filed

[113] thereafter with respect to Catherine King? A.

There was no grievance filed.

Trial Examiner: Ever. The question is ever.

The Witness: While I was chairlady.

Trial Examiner: All right.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) No grievance was filed? A. I

never took no grievance in while she was—

Q. And if there had been a grievance filed as chairlady

< you would know about it, wouldn’t you? . Yes.

Q. Now, you testified that on October the 10th of 1969,

I believe sometime in the afternoon, you heard a conver-

sation up on the plant floor between Mrs. Gerlach and King?

WEN Bee CAN ete P REAR IONS evo But RAN

i A. That’s right.

; Q. What was Mrs. Gerlach’s position on the plant floor?

‘ A. She was the plant manager. I think plant manager or

i supervisor.

Q. Was the correct title production manager? A. It

could be that. I don’t know for sure.

[115] Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Now, Mrs. Mulford, you tes-

tified about this conversation between Mrs. Gerlach, Sr., the

production manager, and Catherine King on October the

10th of ’69 and that at the conclusion of that conversation

; you went downstairs with those two ladies to Mr. Gerlach,

Sr.’s office, is that correct? A. I didn’t get to the office.

' I went to the restaurant.

Q. You all went to the restaurant then? A. Yes.

; Q. Yes. Now, prior to leaving your work station did

you request ‘permission from the production manager to

leave your work station? A. No. Catherine called me to

go with her, sir.

Q. Now, you just answer the question. A. No, I never

asked her permission. No.

ee a ee aa ee eT

> ‘ 55

[116] Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) I will repeat the question

for you, Mrs. Mulford. Am I correct in assuming then that

on the afternoon of October 10th you left your machine

without having received permission from the production

supervisor and went downstairs, either with or following

King and Mrs. Gerlach, Sr.? A. That’s right.

Q. Now, when you got downstairs at the restaurant you

were told by Mr. and Mrs. Gerlach, as I understand your

testimony, that you should return to your work station?

A. That’s right.

Q. And then you engaged in a further conversation with

Mr. and Mrs. Gerlach, but eventually you did go back to

work that afternoon, is that right? A. Right.

Q. Now, on Sunday, October 12th, when you received

this phone call from Mrs. Gerlach did she tell you that

because you left your work station without permission on

Friday, the 10th, you were going to be suspended for Mon-

day and Tuesday? A. No, sir; she didn’t say that.

[117] Q. Well, what did she say? A. Said she was de-

livering a message from Mr. Gerlach for me not to report

in on Monday and Tuesday and report to Mr. Gerlach on

Wednesday. And that’s all she told me.

Q. Well, you knew why you had this suspension, didn’t

you? A. I didn’t know at the time I was suspended, until

the time I went into the office.

Q. Well, when you had this conversation on Sunday eve-

ning on the telephone with Mrs. Gerlach and she informed

you that you were suspended, to be suspended on the next

Monday— A. She didn’t say I was suspended.

Q. Pardon? A. She just told me not to meport on Mon-

day and Tuesday and to report on Wednesday. She didn’t

say nothing about being suspended.

* * * * * * & * ® a

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) And you knew why it was that you

[118] were not to report to work on Monday and Tuesday,

didn’t you? A. Yes, I knew.

WIS PON EER SS Cae A Oe Pre 4

PRE PRAIA CE Ra LR TEAS A

Pe So ee RR

Q. And the reason was because you had violated the

company rule by leaving your work station on Friday with-

out permission, isn’t that correct? A. I wasn’t violating

no rule.

Q. I didn’t— A. I wasn’t violating no rule. No rule.

Q. Pardon? A. I wasn’t violating any rule against the

company. That was my job to come off the floor with

Catherine King.

Q. Well, regardless of what you considered your job to

be you knew that the reason the company was laying you

off on Monday and Tuesday was because you had left your

job without permission, didn’t you? Regardless of whether

they are right or wrong in that, but you knew that was the

reason you were not going to be working on Monday or

Tuesday? A. Yes. :

Q. Now, you testified that on October the 15th, which

was on a Wednesday, you came back and you testified that

Mr. Gerlach said that King was, I think your words were

a ‘‘trouble maker,’’ end of quotation, right? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that he told you some personal things about her,

[119] right? That was your earlier testimony? A. Ye,

that’s right.

[120] Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) After you had this discus-

sion on October the 15th, with Mr. Gerlach, relative to what

you testified to earlier as personal things and other busi-

ness, then I believe your testimony is that you went back

to work then for the rest of the day, is that correct? A.

After Catherine and Martha left the plant?

Trial Examiner: You just answer the question.

The Witness: Yes.

Trial Examiner: All right. The answer is yes.

[121] ~Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Now, on the 16th what time

were ou scheduled to go to work? A. Seven-fifteen, but

they ring the bell at seven-ten.

Q. Was it seven-fifteen that you were supposed to be at

your station? A. Yes.

Q. Were you at your work station on that day? A. No.

I was down in the office, outer office.

Q. You did not report at seven-fifteen, is that right, to

your work station? A. I was there at the office.

s e e o e co * * * eo

, [122] Mary Choquette

was called as a witness by and on behalf of the General

Counsel and, aftet being first duly sworn, was examined

and testified as follows:

[123] Drrecr Examination

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Where are you employed? A.

Quality Manufacturing Company.

*~ Q. How long/have you worked there? A. It will be about

sixteen years in October. The 26th of October.

[124] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Did you attend this meeting

on October the 10th, 19697 A. Which meeting?

Q. This grievance meeting. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Sir? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Excuse me. Was Mulford there? A. Yes, sir.

( Q. And in what capacity? A. She was our chairlady.

Q. And who represented the company? A. Well, it was

Mr. Gerlach, Miss Gerlach, Sr., and Mr. Gerlach, Jr. was

in there.

Q. Did you discuss piece rates and various matters re-

lating to working conditions? A. Well, Delila told them

that’s what he was in there for. - a :

Q. And what did he say to her? A. Well, he said he

wasn’t going to discuss it beeause—

* * * * , * * * * * *

[125] The Witness: Junior said he wasn’t going to do |

anything about it, discuss, because they had spent a lot

of money on his brother to learn that work. And he said

he’d be damned if he wasn’t getting tired of us coming in

LTTE A ite aire she mentee ere

there bothering him. He said when we had a good com-

plaint he’d listen to it. .

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Do you recall Gerlach, Jr. saying

anything else? A. Well, Mr. Gerlach started to say some-

thing. But he said something about what’s the difference

in the price. Or what’s the difference in the skirts,

Q. Now, who is that? A. That’s Mr. Gerlach, Sr. And

Junior spoke up and he said anybody that wasn’t making

out on then could get the hell out and go where they could.

Q. Who said that? A. Junior.

Eee ee ee eae

ttt Riedie

; * o o * * * o * e

i [126] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) And do you remember whether

q King was there or not, Catherine King? A. Yes, sir; she

i was there.

F * . + - a * * * * *

{ (128] Vonna Oliver

was called as a witness by and on behalf of the General

‘Counsel and, after being first duly sworn, was examined

and testified as follows:

Draect ExaMINnATION

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Who is your floor lady? A. My

production manager is Mrs. Gerlach and my floor lady is

Helen Rice.

Q. And you were laid off on (etaber 28th? [129] A.

Around that time. I don’t know exactly what date.

} Q. Within a day or so either way? A. Uh-huh.

Q. All right. And did Mrs. Rice lay you off? A. Yeah.

Q. What did she tell you? A. She said, ‘‘ Well, Vonna,”’

she said, ‘‘this is all we’ve got for you today.’’ Said,

‘ We2ve run the work out.’’ She said, ‘‘I’ll have to let

you go.’? And she said, ‘‘I don’t know when we’ll call you

back. Until this mess gets straightened up I just don’t

know.’’ That was her words,

Bee &. ‘

pete oN ye ~

ami. Siaianig ASS a aoe

rat!

Q. I see. Now, when did you go back to work? A.

Around November. In November sometime, but I can’t

tell you the exact date because I don’t remember.

Q. Do you hold any position with the union? A. Yes,

sir. I’m on the executive board.

Q. You have— Strike that. There is testimony that

there was discussion between Gerlach, Jr. and Cochran on

October the 16th. Did yoa hear any of that discussion?

A. Part of it. a ' 7

Q. What part did you hear? A. As Martha was— I'll

start from the beginning. We went out to lunch. .”

Trial Examiner: No. You just answer the quastion.

The Witness: Yes. °

[130] Trial Examiner: What part?

The Witness: Well, the part I heard was after Martha

went into the office with the grievances. I was in the booth.

It was our lunch time. And she came back out and Junior

came out behind her. He went upstairs and came back

down and he had her ecard in his hand. And he told her,

he said, ‘‘Martha,’’ he said, ‘‘you worked this morning,

but you will not work this afternoon. You’re nothing but

a damned smart aleck.’’

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Were you aware that Cochran was

achairlady? A. Yes, sir. ;

Q. How long had you been chairlady, if you know? A.

She had been chairlady, assistant chairlady since we’ve

had the union. Av: she was acting as chairlady since we

had none in the plant at the time.

Q. And who was the chairlady before? A. Delila Mul-

ford. First it was Virginia Holland and then Delila

Mulford was our chairlady. . 3

[131] Direct Examination (FuRTHER)

{132] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Mrs. Oliver, you testified that

you were laid off in the latter part of October, 1969. Were

other employees laid off at this time? A. Yes, sir.

_—

gee Near eteet

Bie Li Neos

Q. Can you tell us who? A. Well, all of us were laid off.

Q. What do you mean ‘‘all of us’? How many? A. All

the machine operators that work on the machines were off

at one time.

Q. At one time? A. Uh-huh.

Mr. Gravitt: All right. No more questions. Thank you.

Cross EXAMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) And you say, Mrs. Oliver, you got

back to work approximately on what date in November?

A. I don’t know what date in November. I didn’t say.

Because I don’t remember. But I went back the first part

of November.

Q. Would it be your best impression that it was during

the fist week in November? A. It was the first part of

November. I just don’t know the exact date. I couldn’t

say and be positive.

[133] Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) You made some testimony

here relative to a conversation on October 16th between

Mr. Gerlach, Jr. and Mrs. Cochran? A. Yes, sir.

[134] Q. Do you remember that? A. Uh-huh.

Q. Now, you told us some of the things apparently that &

you heard Mr. Gerlach, Jr. say. What about Mrs. Cochran?

Did you hear her say anything? A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what did you hear her say? A. She said—

Well, when Junior said to Martha that she was a smart

aleck she said, ‘‘You’re a smart aleck, too, Junior.’’

Q. What else did you hear? A. Well, Martha—Junior

went on to Mr. Gerlach’s office and Martha went in behind

him.

Q. Yes? A. And the only thing I heard, I was out in

the lunch room sitting—

Trial Examiner: Just say what you heard.

The Witness: The only thing I heard was Martha say-

ing, ‘‘That’s right, Mr. Gerlach.’’ That’s all I heard.

Q. (By Mr. J enkins) This was a conversation then that

was taking place in Mr. Gerlach, Sr.’s or Mr. Gerlach, Jr.’s

office? “A. Mr. Gerlach, Sr.

Q. I see. And to your knowledge who was in the room

at that time? A. In Mr. Gerlach’s office?

[135] Q. Yes. A. To my knowledge I don’t know. Be-

cause I couldn’t see in there from where I was sitting.

Q. Well, you saw Mr. Gerlach and Mrs. Cochran go in

the room, didn’t you? A. Junior and—

Q. Yes. And insofar as you know was there anyone else

inthe room? A. No» I didn’t—I couldn’t see in there.

Q. So they were in there, the two of them with each other,

having a conversation relative to these matters, weren’t

they? A. I don’t know what they were having a conversa-

tion about because I didn’t—I wasn’t—

Q. Well, it was a continuation of the discussion that took

place in your presence earlier, wasn’t it? A. AMI could

hear her saying was that’s right, Mr. Gerlach.

Q. And youden’t know of anyone else that was yeamnt

in the room, — A. No, sir.

* * * * * * * * * *

[136] Alice Hoschar

was called as a witness by and on behalf of the General

Counsel and, after being first duly sworn, was examined

and testified as follows:

Direct EXAMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) You are president of the local? A.

Yes, sir.

Q. And have been for how long? A. ‘Since April, 1969.

Q. And was Mulford chairlady? A. No, sir.

Q. Did she ever process any grievances to your knowl-

edge? <A. Yes.

[137] Q. Then she was a chairlady? She was a chair-

lady? A. Yes. But she wasn’t the first chairlady.

Q. Oh, no. But she was one? A. Yes.

Q. And who was the oe prior to her? A. Virginia

Holland.

Q. When did she resign? A. August 19, 1969.

Q. And then Mulford took over? A. Mulford took over.

Q. Do you know for a fact whether Cochran was ever

acting as chairlady? A. She was sworn in as assistant

chairlady at that time they elected her as assistant chair-

lady.

Q. Directing your attention to around October 29th or

30th, 1969, were you laid off? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who is your floor lady? A. Helen Rice.

Q. Did she lay you off? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did she tell you? A. She said, ‘‘Alice, I am

going to have to lay ou off until this mess is straightened

out.’’

Q. And when did you come back to work after the lay-

off? [138] A. November the 12th.

Q. 19697 A. 1969. .

Q. So, were other employees laid off at this time? A.

Yes, sir.

Q. Can you tell me approximately how many? A. All

of them.

Q. All of them? A. All of them. All of the operators

upstairs.

Q. Did you attend a meeting on January 12, 1970? A.

Yes, sir.

Q. Where was*the meeting? A. Down in Lawrence Ger-

lach, Jr.’s office. :

Q. Who was present? A. Joel Goolst and myself and

Lawrence, Jr.

Q. Did you discuss grievances? A. I asked him why—

‘Q. You asked who? A. I asked Lawrence Gerlach, Jr.

why that Mary Goodnight was taken off of her operation.

Q. And what did he say?

* * * * * e * * * *

[139] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) What did Gerlach, Jr. say to

you about it? A. He asked me who was doing her op-

eration. :

—

ETERS PRGA ee EN RUE BA alk Mee ued

Q. Yes? A. And I told him Maxine Warner, a younger

girl.

Q. What did he say to you about discussing this matter

with you? A. That was all thot was discussed there at

that time.

Q. Did you go back that afternoon and talk to him again?

A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Q. Oh, you did. You talked to Gerlach, Jr.? A. And

Senior both.

Q. And Senior both? A. That’s right.

Q. About a Grievance? A. They—Mr. Gerlach said he

had a right to—

Mr. Jenkins: Let’s identitify the Gerlachs.

[140] Mr. Gravitt: Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Will you tell us which one? A. —to

take Mary Good night off of that operation and put her

on another one.

Q. I see. A. And at that time Junior Gerlach told me,

he said, ‘‘ Alice, I want to-tell you something. ”’ He said,

‘After you have punched your time card in I don’t want

you ever to come off of the floor with a girl.”’

Q. Do you recall him saying anything else? What would

happen to you? A. No, he didn’t say. But then Mr. Ger-

lach told me that was why that he had Delila Mulford

suspended for coming off the floor with King.

Q. Which Gerlach was this? A. Senior.

Q. And when was this? A. October—Or January 12th,

in the afternoon.

Q. On January the 12th now, prior to going down the

-Second time, you were working, is that right? A. That’s

right.

Q. And how did it come about that you left work? A.

Katherin Stephens, Mr. Gerlach’s secretary came after me

and said I was wanted in the office.

[141] Q. And then you went down after that? A.

(Nodded).

T - Seon

4 bs

! 64

i Q. And then Mr. Gerlach, Sr. made this statement to

you? A. That’s right.

* * * * * * * * \ * *

Cross ExXAMINJTION

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Mrs. Hoschar, do-you remember

being interviewed by somebody whose writing I cannot read

and I am advised that his name may be Clarence Lowe? A.

~ Yes, sir.

Q. About April 16, 1970, and signing an affidavit for

him? [142] A. Yes, sir. *

Q. I am going to ask you to take a look at this affidavit,

which the counsel here for the General Counsel has fur-

nished me. I want to direct your attention to the second

page, the first paragraph, beginning at the top of that

page. And I will ask you to read that paragraph, will you

please?

Trial Examiner: Read it to yourself.

The Witness: Read it to myself.

(Short Pause.)

4 Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Have you read that? A. Yes.

Q. Now, may I have the affidavit then? Now, with your

4 memory refreshed by that paragraph, you testified here a

F few minutes ago about a conversation with a Mrs. Rice?

A. That’s right. Ma

Q. Pertaining to a layoff during which conversation Mrs.

Rice said that you were going to have to be laid off until

this mess was straightened out, something like that? A.

That’s right.

Q. Now, having looked at this affidavit here, you testi-

fied early, if I understood you correctly, that this conver-

sation referred to a layoff in October and early November

of 1969. But having looked at your affidavit here are you

correct in your testimony or does the conversation you ©

related really refer and [143] pertain to a layoff in August

of 1969? A. It was both times.

Trial Examiner: I didn’t hear that.

ERE SPELL IE LLL WOOL LEE LIS FLL TORE A IIR ELLIE OSS PES RI NER Se eNO! se “

The Witness: It was both times.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) You mean that this conversation

you had with Mrs. Rice, that she used precisely these same

words on both occasions? A. Something to that effect.

Q. Well, in this affidavit then I will ask you to read this

next paragraph then, October the 29th, which is the second

paragraph, beginning on page two. ~

(Short, pause.)

Q. Have you now read that? A. I have read that.

Q. And there is no reference in there in connection with

the October 29th layoff to any such statement by Mrs. Rice,

is there? A. No, not in there. But I was laid off again

in November.

Q. Well, I am asking you whether or not there was any

reference to any such statement pertaining to the October

29th layoff in the affidavit which you gave to the Board

agent? A. To October 29th?

Q. Yes.

Trial Examiner: The question is it in there. Do you

want to look at it again?

The Witness: No. It isn’t in there on that.

Trial Examiner: All right.

The Witness: That’s right.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Now, you testified, I believe, that

you were president of the local union?’ A. Yes, sir.*

Q. And when did you get to be president? A. April,

1969.

Q. You testified about a meeting that you had in Mr.

Gerlach, Jr.’s office on January, in January of 1970? A.

~ Yes, sir.

Q. From time to time during the fall of 1969 did you

have meetings with Mr. Gerlach, Jr.? A. No, sir.

Q. But you did in January? A. In January.

Q. And have you had meetings with him on union mat-

ters since that time as president? A. The only time I can

recall—I can’t just recall the date—was when I went down

and asked him. Was it—

EE LAPSES EPRI LIDS 98 FO OATS IY tty Sat eee peae

- aT ee

Q. Well, I am just asking you—I don’t want the sub-

' [145] stance of the meeting. A. Oh, yes.

Q. What I am trying to really get at, Mrs. Hoschar, if

there are matters pertaining to the union that you wanted

to talk to him you feel free to talk with him and I presume

he feels free to take with you, doesn’t he? <A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you deal with each other; he on behalf of the

management of the company and you as president of the

union, doesn’t he? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Isn’t that correct? <A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that has continued since you got to be president

of the union, hasn’t it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that continues, that relationship, down to the

present time, doesn’t it? A. Yes, sir.

F Q. And have you, in the conduct of your duties as presi-

dent, observed the rule that after you have punched in you

you do not come off the floor without permission? <A. No,

sir; I’ve never been off the floor without permission.

Q. Then you have observed that rule, have you not? A.

I have.

[146] Q. And that is a company rule, isn’t it? A. Well,

: as far as I know.

4 Q. Yes. And it has been that way as long as you can

remember, hasn’t it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you have worked for this company for how many

years? A. Almost seventeen years.

ee te ee CT eT

PNM OEE Naw i Lal SSH ASS i lad LALA HE

* . * * * * * & .-@ *

Trial Examiner: All right. Let the record show that

General Counsel rests. -

* * = & * * * * * * za

[147] Trial Examiner: Charging Party’s 1. Received.

(The above-referred to document was marked Charging

Party’s Exhibit No. 1 for identification and was reecived.)

[148] Martha Cochran

was recalled as a witness by and on behalf of the Charging:

Party, was examined and testified further as follows:

* = * * * * * * * *

Direct EXAMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Rubenstein) Mrs. Cochran, are you the same

Martha Cochran that testified this morning? Is that cor-

rect? A. That’s right; sir.

Q. In your testimony this morning you testified concern-

ing certain events before the lunch hour of October 16th?

A. Yes. That’s right.

Q. And I believe you testified that you took certain

grievances in to Mr. Gerlach and he threw those grievances

into the waste can? A. That’s right, sir.

Q. When grievance forms are filled out, Mrs. Cochran,

[149] how are they filled out? Is it one copy, two copies,

three copies? A. I think it’s three copies.

Q. And you— A. One goes to the office, the manage-

ment, and one stays in the book and the other one goes to

the business agent. I think that is the right procedure.

Mr. Rubenstein: Would you please mark this as Re-

spondent’s Exhibits—I mean Charging 7 s Exhibit

Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5?

(The above-referred to documents were marked Charg-

ing Party’ s Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5, for identification.)

Q. (By Mr. Rubenstein) I hand you, Mrs. Cochran, four

pieces of paper entitled grievance and it is grievance num-

ber 9563, which is Charging Party Exhibit 2; 9564, which

is Charging Party’ s 3; 9566, which is Charging Party’s 4;

and 9567, which is Charising Party’s 5. Could you tell us

what they are?

The Witness: These are the grievances that I had taken

[150] into the office when Mr. Gerlach, Jr. threw them in

the trash can.

REPEAT ESE RSENS ON NTETIY SO ON EET RIE AEN LETRA MY TY A PB ta

T | —

| z |

Q. And those are the four grievances? A. Those are

the four grievances.

Q. All right. And these are colored copies. Are these

the original or a copy or what are these that I have? A.

q Well, there here are— These are not the original copies

here. There is one copy that is written uP. And these

are carbon copies here.

Q. Right. And these were the carbon copies kept es the

'. union, is that correct? <A. Yes.

; * * * * * * * * * e

[152] Q. (By Mr. Rubenstein) The grievances that you

took in on October 16th, without going into the nature of

the grievances, [153] whose grievances were they? A.

They were one of Catherine King’s—

Trial Examiner: Can’t hear you.

The Witness: Catherine King’s, Delilia Mulford’s, and

mine.

Q. (By Mr. Dabeasteie) And your own? A. My own,

. yes.

| * * * * = * * ae *

[155] Trial Examiner: Do you rest?

Mr. Rubenstein: I rest.

* * * * * * * * * * *

[156] Kathryn Gerlach

was called as a witness by and on behalf of the Respondent

and, after being first duly sworn, was examined and testi-

)} fied as follows:

Drrect EXAMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Now, “Mrs. Gerlach, you are con-

nected with Quality Manufacturing, aren’t you? A. Yes.

Q. And I believe that you and your husband and your

son are owners of this company, are you not? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And your general business is the manufacture of

[157] women’s clothing, right? A. Yes.

yan Te a aT er

2 Se Re AL NRA py ak A

LIENS AIELLO E SLY wager pink —

satel PEE ELISE RIN AL DOE REET IE TEE He Mya ppp tA a “ .

par rape sc ere ok CerN eer mace

»*,

Q. And during the year 1969, at all times that are mate-

rial in these proceedings, you had a position with that

company, is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. What was your position? A. I am production man-

ager. ;

Q. And as production manager would you tell us what

just the general nature of your duties was, briefly? A.

Well, my duties are to try to meet our orders on time.

Q. Yes. And do you work up on the floor with the

production ladies or somewhere else? A. Yes. I’m on the

floor.

Q. Now, if during the course of the work day, if one of

the machine operators desires to leave her work during

working time is there any procedure set up for this con-

tingency? A. If it is a legitimate reason or—

Q. Well, what does the employee do? What is the pro-

cedure? A. She is supposed to ask permission to leave the

floor.

Q. Now, who does she request this permission from? A.

Well, she can either ask me or she can ask the floor lady.

Q. Who was the floor lady during October of last year?

[158] A. Miss Rice.

Q. Helen Rice? A. Helen Rice.

Q. Is it a situation where there is any order? Like do

they ask you if you are there or do they just ask either

one? How does it work? A. They can either ask me or

they can ask the floor lady. And the floor lady works

through me.

Q. All right. A. She comes to me and we talk it over;

whether or not we can spare that girl.

Q. I see. And how long has the company had this rule?

A. Oh, every since we’ve been there, as far as I know.

Q. There has been introduced into evidence a union con-

tract which is dated April 15, 1969. Was that the date that

the union began being represented at the plant— A. Yes,

sir.

PEL OREM, I AZ 20 RSID en aor gr Sree are ee

eee |

eB ORE RAI ieee

ae Te

‘Sti ey pire sbi, goatee

fas ae

Ee ors

Q. —this last time? And prior to this occasion was the

union there before this at earlier years? A. You mean

years back? |

Q. Yes. Yes. You have had unions off and on for years,

haven’t you? A. Yes. Yes. .

Q. You’ve had this same union then years before? A.

Yes.

[159] Q. Weren’t they in there for a number of years at

one time? A. Yes, they were.

Q. And you are used to dealing with union? A. I’m use

to dealing with unions.

Q. Yes. And during all of this time is it your testimony

that you have or have not had this kind of a rule? A.

We have always had this rule.

Q. Now, has the union, for example, ever objected to

this rule? A. Never. Never that I know of. No.

Q. They always acquiesced in it? A. They always

seemed that they wanted to go along.

Q. Right. And nobody from this union has ever made

any objection to this rule? A. No.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Now, in October of 1969 there was

an employee at the company by the namet of Catherine

_ King, was there not? A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall just generally how long she had worked

[160] for the company? A. I’m not sure about that. I

know it’s been quite a long time. But I couldn’t tell you

the exact number °i years.

Q. Would you cnaracterize it as a number of years any-

way? A. A number of years. Number of years.

Q. And while she was there did she or did she not com-

municate or talk individually with members of the family?

A. Very much so. Lots of times.

*) ° * * * * * .— * °

[162] Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Now, Mrs. Gerlach, back in

October and prior to October the 10th, the day that has

been discussed in the testimony, was there any problem

that developed with Catherine King over the use of a radio?

A. Yes, there’ was.

Q. Now, can you tell me, and fix it in ieferenne to the

incidents on October the 10th, about how far before that it

was just roughly, can you put it in a few days, weeks, or

months? A. I would say just a few days.

Q. All right. A. Just a few days. And—

Q. Now, where were you at the time this problem came

up? A. I was somewhere on the floor when the first, when

the floor lady, when Mrs. Rice, when J talked to her about

it the first time.

Q. And I think it is s clear from the record that in your

kind of work the floor lady is a supervisor, which we might *

call like a foreman in a manufacturing plant, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. In other words a management representative? A.

Yes, that’s right.

Q. All right. Who was present besides yourself involved

[163] in this business? ‘A. Well—

Q. And what happened? A. I'll tell you what happened.

Q. All right. A. She had a radio. She heard it.

Q. Now who is she? A. Miss Rice. She heard the radio.

And she told, she went past her machine, her work station,

and she said—

Q. Are we talking about Rice now or about King? A.

We’re talking about Miss Rice—

Q. All right. A. —went past Catherine oe s work

station.

Q. Yes? A. And she said, ‘‘Turn that radio down.”

Q. Now, who made that statement? A. Miss Rice.

Q. Who did she make it to? A. To Catherine King.

Q. Did you hear it? A. No, I didn’t hear it at that time.

Q. All right. Go ahead. A. Not at that time.

Q Go ahead. ee

Mr. Rubenstein: I move to strike.

Trial Examiner: Just what you heard.

PRETEEN EIA GI LOLS INEM ANA BOE DENT 8 0W CURE LE IN FREELY UH LE SRD Led YAS SHU ES PPR

ayeneen ee earn |

sg Mai el RON Bi

[164], Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Now, would you go ahead?

A. Well, okay._I went back up the line.

Q. All right? A. And I heard the radio?

Q. Yes? A. And I said something. I said to the floor

lady, ‘‘Where is that radio?’’ And she told me where it

was. So I went down and told her to turn off the radio.

Q. Now, who the her? A. I told Catherine to turn off

the radio.

Q. All right. Yes? A. I said, “Turn off the radio.’’

Q. Yes? A. That noise, you know, ahead of the machine

running and all made a heck of a racket.

Q. Yes. <A. And of course they weren’t allowed in the

place.

Q. Was that’a company rule? A. That’s right.

Q. All right. Go ahead.’ A. That’s right. ™

Q. All right. A. So I told her to turn off the radio.

[165] Q. Yes? A. And she turned it off.

' Q. Yes? All right. A. And that was all that happened

then.

Q. Then what happened?. Did anything happen after

that? A. Well, then the next run-in I had with her was:

about the, when she was causing a disturbance on the

floor.

Q. Let me_ask you this, after this radio incident was

there a lunch break and then did you come back to the floor

after that? A. Now, I can’t answer that to make sure.

Because I don’t exactly remember.

Q. All right. Then tell me what happened about the

disturbance.

Mr. Rubenstein: And when was this?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes.

Trial Examiner: Was this the same day?

The Witness: , No, I don’t think it was the same day.

_ Trial Examiner: Was it later or before?

The Witness: No. It was after. She had been— And

. [ll stand back when a girl—

‘

BO PRE NEEL LOL PAE IN AA SOM AP Le GE IATL eh 0 PLE iy

“4

Trial Examiner: Please don’t make any speeches. What

happened on the disturbance?:-What was the disturbance

and what did you do about it?

The Witness: All right. This was the same day they

had been in the office about not being able to make their

-quota.

{166] Trial Examiner: All right.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) The production quota? A. The

production quota.

Q. This has been pretty well established. A. You don’t

want me to tell that?

Q. No, I was just going to suggest to you that this has

been pretiy well established. A. I knew she had said it.

Q. That was October 10th? A. Yes. Yes. She had been

‘ in the office saying that she couldn’t make the, they couldn’t

make the quota, see.

Q. Who is the she? A. Catherine King.

Q. Use names, please. A. Catherine King.

Q. All right. A. So I looked down the line awhile after

this happened. And I saw her going through some kind of

motions like this (indicating), waiving her arms. And the

two girls that they had had in the office with them saying

that they couldn’t make their quota, their machines was

stopped. -They were sitting there just looking at her with

their mouths open, didn’t know what she was going. But

she was trying to talk to somebody down the line.

So I went down and I said, ‘‘ What is wrong here?’’

[167] Q. Who did you make this statement to? A. I made

this statement to Catherine King. :

Q. All rght. A. I said, ‘‘What’s wrong here? What’s

the condition?’’ And she said there is something about a

repair. And I said, ‘‘ Well, don’t cause a disturbance in

the place.’’ I said, ‘‘If it’s a repair fix it, if it’s not just

lay it down and let one of the floor girls get it and quit

causing this disturbance.’’ She said, ‘‘You tend to your

business.’’ I said, ‘‘I am tending to my business. This

is my business. I am tending to it.’’

od ae |

Deeitsmnriciicoes DDS geht Rede aa Maso Se No

ebeennbaaieactesiid ener

Q. Yes, And then what happend next? A. And so then

she said something. I can’t recall just exactly what it

was, but she sassed me. And I—

Q. Well, give us your best recollection of what she said.

A. Yeah. Well, just for me to tend to my business, along

that line. So I said, ‘‘Well, now we’ll just go down and

talk to Mr, Gerlach about it.’’

And so she jumped up from the machine and she hollered

and said, ‘‘Come on, Delila.’’ And I said—I don’t re-

member whether I said at that time to Delila that this is

not a grievance, this doesn’t concern her and she had better

stay on her work station.

Q. Now, did Delila Mulford ask you for permission to

[168] leave her work station? A. Oh, no. No, no. No.

Q. All right. A. No. No.

Q. What happened next? A. Well, then we went down-

stairs. And all of this what’s been testifed to.

Q. Well— A. And so I don’t— I went back on the floor.

And from then on I don’t know just too much that took

place.

Q. When you went downstairs who was with you? A.

Well, I think Delila and Catherine.

Q. Isee. A. Delila and Catherine.

Q. And who did you all talk to? Do you recall? A.

We wanted to talk with Catherine and see what’s wrong,

what was disturbing her.

Q. I mean who else besides yourself and these two ladies

were present downstairs? A. Mr. Gerlach was in the

office and our office girl, Miss Stephens.

Q. Now, do you remember at this time any conversation

that took place down there? A. Not a whole lot, no.

There wasn’t much conversation took place. Because she

wouldn’t go in and talk. She wouldn’t go in and talk with

Mr. Gerlach.

[169] Q. And who is the she you are talking about? A.

Catherine King. I’m sorry. Catherine King.

Q. Yes. Isee. Was a request made— A. So I left them

arguing and went on back to work. .I had to go back on

the floor.

Q. Was a request made by anybody for a discussion with

anybody else there in your presence that afternoon? A.

No. None that I really know of. Not as I recall. No.

= * * * * * * * * *

[170] Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Do you recall, at any other

time that afternoon, any discussion that you had with Delila

Mulford on the subject matter of the company rule? A.

I’ll let Delila’s—I’ll let that stand. Because I paid strict

attention. And I know that I was in and out—

Trial Examiner: No. Did you discuss with Delila the

company rule that day after the disturbance? That’s the

question.

The Witness: Oh, that’s the qnestion? I don’t think so.

I don’t think so, I think I just told her, I believe I stated,

I said, ‘‘Delila, this doesn’t concern you.’’ I might have

said at that time, ‘‘This doesn’t concern you.’’ Because,

you see, it wasn’t a grievance.

[171] Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Mrs. Gerlach, directing your

attention to October 10, 1969, the day of this trouble with

Mrs. King that you testified about here, the General

Counsel in this case is charging that on this day you

threatened to take reprisals against some employee because

of her activities on behalf of the union. Did you threaten

any employee that day to your knowledge? A. No, sir.

That’s just a little bit below my dignity.

Q. Well, did you make any threats against Delila Mulford

that day? A. No.

[172] Trial Examiner: No. I don’t think that was the

threat. According to General Counsel it was this last

witness. What’s her name? Mrs. Hoschar. That’s what

my notes show.

eee. |

CPM tee

Well, I may be wrong. Go ahead. It doesn’t matter

who the employee was. Did you make any threats at all?

The Witness: Who it was? No threat.

Trial Examiner: All right. Let’s leave it that way, Mr.

Jenkins. Because my notes apparently disagree with

yours.

So as to place this I am going to ask the witness whether

she made any threats at all to any employee?

The Witness: Now, may I say something?

Trial Examiner: No. You just answer Mr. Jenkins

questions.

The Witness: Okay.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Well, on that October 10, 1969 do

you actually recall having any conversation at all with

Alice Hoschar that day? Was she involved in this

problem at all? A. No. I never had any—As far as I

know Alice Hoschar was out of the picture at that time.

Q. When you got downstairs with Delila Mulford and

this Catherine King, would you state, did you report to

Mr. Gerlach that Delila had left the floor without per-

mission? A. Yes. Yes.

[173] Q. And did he make any response back to her after

you had told him this? A. As I recall he told Delila to go

back to her machine, that he was going to talk to Catherine

a little bit.

Q. Yes. And he told her this after you had told him that

she had left the floor? A. Yes.

* * * * * * * * * x

[174] Cross EXAMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, Mrs. Gerlach, I understand

that you are the production manager? A. That’s right.

Q. And that’s quite a hectic problem keeping the pro-

duction going at all times, isn’t that right? A. You’re not

kidding.

Q. And then you have how many girls working under

your supervision? A. I think it was stated at about sixty.

Q. And do you remember Catherine King working there

- before you worked for the company? A. Before I worked

with the company?

Q. Yes. A. For the company. Not before—

Q. Before you became production manager. I’ll put it

[1.75] that way. A. Well, I wouldn’t hardly know how to

amswer that. Because, you see, I worked—

Q. Yes. That’s all right. I withdraw the question. A.

Amd then I quit and I worked again. And she was there

both times.

Q. And in order to keep your production going you have

got to keep the girls working unless they have good reason

to) leave the machine? A. Yes. Yes.

Q. That is your job to see that they stay there, isn’t that

rigght? A. Yes. That’s right.

Q. All right. A. Yes.

Q. Now, King usually made production, did she not?

A.. Yes, sir.

Q. But even though she had a radio going there and it

was disturbing to you she still made production? <A. It

wasn’t disturbing me.

Q. It didn’t bother you? A. No, it didn’t bother me.

Beecause I wasn’t around enough to hear it. Now she was

diisturbing the other girls around her.

Q. But you did correct her about this matter? A. Oh,

yees.

[1176] Q. Did you not? A. Yes, indeed. Yes.

Q. Beg pardon? A. Yes, indeed.

Q. And you wanted to straighten that out? <A. Yes,

indeed.

Q. And you spoke to her about her working conditions.

Aind then it wasn’t long after that, I believe it was on

Occtober 10th that you said you had the next run-in with

Kiing, is that right? A. I suppose it was.

Q. Well, just using your words. <A. Well, I suppose it

weas. But I can’t just recall all of these dates. Because—

Q. Yes. <A. But—

adbeahnd Seiaiamnanersae |

ae ee ee

SRE SE ING De UR ER RE

Btitaaediioned i: Cabbie Se OL as

I Mi PLM OOS oan Be Bs i.

;

Q. That was the 10th? A. Yes. All of this—

Trial Examiner: I want to protect the witness. She

didn’t say October 10th. It was suggested to her—

The Witness: Yes. -

Trial Examiner: —that it was October 10th because we

were all in agreement that a certain event occurred on that

day. I forget now what that event was.

Mr. Gravitt: I’ll get it in. I’ll straighten it out.

[177] Trial Examiner: I’m not going to—

The Witness: I remember the day.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) That was the day that Mulford, you

know, the chair lady had taken King and some other girls

down to talk to your husband about the piece rates and

things? A. Yes.

Q. Now, wasn’t it? A. Yes, I think so.

Q. And that was October the 10th, right? A. (N odded).

Q. What’s your answer? A. If they say that’s it it was.

Q. I want to know what you say it is. A. Well, I can’t

recall the date.

Q. But this is— A. I can’t recall the date because I just

don’t exactly remember the date.

Q. All right. You don’t recall the date. A. Whatever

they said here, that’s the way it was. I mean—

Trial Examiner: She has identified the day.

The Witness: Yes.

Trial Examiner: Ngw, whether that was October the 10th

or not is another matter and something she doesn’t know.

[178] So why push her? ;

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) You know real well the day I am

referring to? A. I know real well the day you are re-

ferring to.

Q. That was the date that Mulford went down with those

. girls? A. Yes.

Q. Now, later that day, that’s when you had your run-in

with King, right? A. About the radio?

Q. No. Not that one. The next run-in. A. Oh, yes.

Yes. That’s right.

Q. You keep me straight on this. A. Yeah. That’s

right. :

Q. That’s true, isn’t it? A. (Nodded).

Q. Al’ right. And she was making gestures there that

you felt she shouldn’t be making? A. Absolutely.

Q. It was relating to her working conditions, so to speak?

A. Yes.

Q. And you wanted to get this thing straightened out so

you’re going to send her to the office now, isn’t that right?

A. No. That’s not fight.

[179] Q. Did you fell her to go to the office? A. But not

for that reason.

Q. Did you tell her to go to the office? A. I did.

Q. She sassed yon? A. She sassed me first.

Q. And you wanted— A. And she told me to tend to

my business.

Q. Yes. And you— A. And I said, ‘‘I am tending to

my business.’’ And she sassed me.

Q. And you wanted to straighten that out?

Mr. Jenkins: Just a minute. Let her finish her answer.

The Witness: And I said, ‘‘I am tending to my busi-

ness.’’ So we’d go down to the office and talk it over.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) You. wanted to get this sassing

problem straightened out, didn’t you? A. I wanted to find

out what this was all about.

Q. And you were going to go down to your husband so ~-

he— A. That’s where I was going to go. I’m supposed

to. He’s my boss.

Q. Yes. And you were going to send King down there,

[180] were you not? A. I was making sure. I was going

to take her with me down to the office.

Q. You wanted him to correct her, didn’t you? <A. No,

sir. I wanted to take her down because she sassed me.

Q. You wanted your husband to correct King for this

sassing you? A. Yes.

arb AR eee. |

SARE VW Tete

Dicdisiteesciansiicnns inn sbvaicpivbank Gist dae MOR en

Q. And interferring with production? ls that your testi-

mony? A. She was interferring. Not by sassiag me. I

don’t care what they say to me.

[181] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, Mrs. King sassed you

' and you wanted to take her down to the office or told her

to go to the office so your husband could straighten it out?

A. I didn’t tell her. I said, ‘‘Let’s go to the office and talk

this over.”’

Q. Talk it over? A. Uh-huh.

Q. All right. Then about that time she said, ‘‘Come on,

Delila, I want you to go with me’’? Now, isn’t that right?

A. She didn’t say—lI don’t think she said, ‘‘Come on and

go with me.’’ She said, ‘‘Come on Delila.’’

Q. Come on Delila? A Come on Delila.

Q. And you don’t know what you said to Delila at this

[182] time, do you? A. I don’t. I can’t recall whether I

said—

Q. In fact, you gave a statement saying you can’t recall,

didn’t you?

Mr. Jenkins: Just a minute. Let her finish.

Trial Examiner: Let the witness finish.

The Witness: I don’t recall whether I said anything to

her at that time upstairs or waited until we got downstairs.

I don’t recall. I don’t intend to story to you.

Mr. Gravitt: Oh, I—

The Witness: I don’t recall whether I said anything to

her right at that time or not. I don’t remember what she

said. Whatever she said was probably the truth.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Well, do you deny that you told

Delila right there in front of King to not leave the work

station then? You don’t deny it? A. I don’t deny it. I

don’t deny it at that time, no. I don’t know whether I said

it at that time or not.

Q. You didn’t tell her? A. But they know as a rule

that you weren’t supposed to leave.

aie

\ 81

Trial Examiner: Never mind what they know. The

question was did you tell her that.

The Witness: I can’t remember. I don’t know.

Trial Examiner: All right. That’s the answer.

[183] The Witness: I don’t know what I told her.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) You don’t think you did? A. I

don’t remember.

* * ** * * * * * * *

[184] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, when you got down-

stairs there was Delila tagging along here with King, isn’t

that correct? A. Yeah.

Q. And did you tell King on this occasion that your hus-

band wanted to talk to her but without Mulford? <A. I

didn’t tell her that, no. .

Q. Did your husband tell her that in your presence? A.

I took them to the office and turned them over to him.

Q. Yes. A. And then I went back upstairs.

Q. Well, did you hear your husband tell Mulford to get

on back upstairs, that this is none of her business? A. I

don’t recall that.

Q. You don’t deny hearing that? A. I don’t—I don’t—I

don’t recall. . :

Q. And wasn’t it at that time that Mulford went back

upstairs and went to work? Just think about it carefully.

A. I can’t remember whether she went back up there that

afternoon. I don’t think she went up, went back without

King. a :

Q. Did King go back with her then? .A. No.

Q. Did Mulford go back to work? A. I, I don’t—I believe

she did that afternoon.

Q. Mulford went back toj work? A. Yes.

Q. That was after your husband told her it was none of

her business A. I don’t recall what he said to her.

Q. Did you hear him say anything to her? A. I heard

him ask them what it was all about.

Peete sicon: Mdaiieinn's

Q. And what did they-tell him? A. And I didn’t hear

what they said. I told you I went on back upstairs. I

didn’t stay for the conversation.

Q. Well, now didn’t you stay down there with your hus-

band until, or didn’t you tell him what this thing was

about? A. Wel, yes, I told him what it was about.

Q. What did you tell him? A. I told-him just what had

happened. :

[186] Q. And then what did he say? <A. Well, he said—

don’t recall just exactly what he said. Because I didn’t

pay too much attention to it.

_ Q. And it was at about that time that.your husband told

Mulford that he didn’t have any business with her? A.

Yes. I remember him telling her that.

Q. You remember that now? A. And it Wasn’t a griev-

ance and he didn’t have any business with her.

Q. You heard him tell her that? A. Yes.

Trial Examiner: Wait.

Mr. Jenkins: Just a minute. Let him—

Trial Examiner: Wait a minute. Now, you are not

going to fragmentize this. She has the rigki to give the

entire conversation. Now, if he said this isn’t a grievance,

whether it is or not, she has the right to say it.

Did your husband say that?

The Witness: Yes. It is no grievance.

Trial Examiner: All right. I’ll take that answer.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Do you have anything else to say?

I don’t want you— A. No, I-don’t have anything else to

say. But Catherine King had been in the office time and

time and time again. And he wanted to talk to her a little

bit and that was just it.

[187] Q. Have you finished your answer? A. Yes.

Q. I don’t want to cut you off. If you have any more to

say you go on and say it. ——

Mr. Jenkins: We’ll protect you.

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) But your husband told Mulford

that he wanted to talk to King without her being present,

MODE trs MaKe ite.

Sinaia Aanmmnaaaanin

right? A. He told her that didn’t concern her.

Q. Didn’t concern her? A. For her to go on back to her

work station. We had orders to get out.

Q. And even in cases where girls leave the floor during

working time if they’ve got a good reason it’s all right,

isn’t it? A. Sickness or family calls or some real sick.

Real sick or something like that.

Q. Some good reason? A. Yes. Some good reason.

Q. That had been the practice there up until these people

were fired, isn’t that right? <A. Fired?

Q. Or left the employment? A. Who was fired?

Q. Excuse me. That had been the practice, had it not?

A. A real legitimate reason, but nothing petty. No petty

stuff.

[188] Q. It just wasn’t an iron-clad rule that any time

you automatically leave your machine during working

hours you can’t work here any more? That wasn’t the rule,

was it? A. No.

Q. In fact, Mrs. Holland and some of the other chair

people had processed grievances there in work time, hadn’t

théy? A. Yes. In a very business-like way.

Q. Yes. But they had done it on work time, isn’t that

right? A. Well, they were grievances. Yes, grievances.

Q. Yes. A. This was no grievance. There had never

been any signed grievance.

Q. And Holland or any of the others that processed those

grievances on work time, they weren’t laid off or suspended

or discharged, were they? A. No.

Q. You knew that Mulford was representing the union,

did you not? A. No. No, I didn’t.

Q. You didn’t know that? A. No. I hadn’t been in-

formed.

Q. You didn’t know anything about that? A. No. We

hadn’t been informed of that.

[189] Q. You just thought she was another employee

working there and not in the capacity of a chair lady? A.

That’s right.

Abate 9 we GS

BBiseicscccn nae

Q. Now, that’s your story? A. That’s my story. I

hadn’t: been informed that she was chair lady. I—

Q. Well, was she sort of a union agitator, so to speak?

A. No, I wouldn’t say that.

& * * * * * * * * *

[190] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Do you recall making a

statement that Mulford led other employees in the office

to discuss working conditions with your husband? A. She

did that day.

Q. Beg pardon? A. She did that day.

Q. Had she done it earlier? A. She did that just that

one time. ~

Q. That was that— A. That was that day.

Q. The day that she sassed you? A. Yes.

[191] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, the question is that you

saw yourself Mulford talking to employees and getting

them to go into the office to discuss working conditions with

your husband? A. No, I didn’t say that.

Q. No. I asked did you ever observe that? A. No.

Q. Did you ever see her talking to employees to get

them— [192] A. No. ;

Q. Did you ever hear her tell any employee, come on, let’s

go to the office— A. No.

Q. —and get this straightened out? A. No.

Q. Never did? A. No.

Q. Did you ever see her leading other employees into the

office? A. She did that day.

Q. Oh, that day? A. Uh-huh.

[193] Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) That was the day King

sassed you, not Mulford? A. No. That’s right.

Q. Is that right? I apologize. A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall how many employees on this occasion

that you just talked to me about that Mulford got to go

into the office with your husband? A. Yes. I mean now—

—

Q. Can you name the girls? A. Yes.

Q. Who were they that went in with Mulford? A. Mary

Choquette, Reba Keefer. Those girls that was on skirt

piecing. I just can’t recall without checking back. And

Catherine King.

Q. Choquette? A. Choquette. Right.

Q. And that was a discussion concerning piece rate?

A. Yes.

Q. That’s right? A. Yes.

Q. Now, when you observed Mulford. getting these people

in the office, as far as time was concerned that was before

Catherine [194] King had sassed you, is that right? A.

Yes. Yes.

Q. So then you knew that Mulford was representing the

union, did you not? <A. No.

Q. You didn’t know and still didn’t know it? A; No.

Q. Don’t know it to this day? A. No. No. I haven’t

been advised.

* * * * * * ¥ * *

Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Now, you remember when your hus-

[196] band told Mulford to go back upstairs and get to

work? A. It was that afternoon that—

~ Q. Yes. That— A. Yes.

Q. That is when you had taken King down to the office?

A. Yes.

Q. And you recall Mulford saying that she had a right

to be there to represent King, King had requested— A.

Yes. She said she wasn’t leaving her.

Q. She objected to going back to work, didn’t she? A.

Yes,

Q. But then she did go on back to work? A. Yes.

Q. Now, you never had any rule posted at that plant,

did you, about they couldn’t leave their work station? A.

I don’t recall. I don’t know if there was any posted or |

not. But as a general rule. Every place has to have rules. :

Ursa Meade savond beatae

PAS Pre eS AP LRAT SNORT ptr Se ot

‘86

Q. Why certainly, ma’am. But you didn’t have any rule

posted like that, did you? A. I guess there wasn’t any

* ‘posted.

Q. You let the girls leave their work station for good

cause?

Cross EXAMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Rubenstein) Mrs. Gerlach, you had stated on

cross examination that you had had experience with the

union prior to the organization in 1969. Can you tell us

the last time that there was a union in your shop? A. I

couldn’t give you the exact date. It’s been quite awhile.

Q. Well, if I call your attention to the date of 1953 does

[198] that ring a bell? Would that be about right? A. I

would say that ‘would be about the time.

Q. Right. But since 1953 you have not had a union in the

plant? A. No.

Q. Now, you said, again in answer to a question, that

there had been no objection on the part of the union to the

rule that required people to stay at their station unless they

asked either you or Mrs..Rice permission. Between April

and October of 1959 was that rule ever communicated to the

union? Did you tell the union? ‘Or to. your knowledge was

the union told that there was such a rule? A. I ome

quite understand now the way you put that.

Q. Well, you have testified—

Trial Examiner: Don’t make it a long question. Let’s

see if Ican help you. Did you ever tell the union about this

rule that nobody could leave?

The Witness: Oh, no, no.

Mr. Jenkins: I one unless it is made clear who the

union is.

The Witness: No.

Mr. Jenkins: Are you talking about the business agent?

Trial Examiner: All right. All right.

Q. (By Mr. Rubenstein) All right. me start, do you

[199] know Mrs, Wiley, the business agent? A. Yes.

Q. Was that rule ever communicated to her? A. Not

through me,

Q. All right. Do you know, of your own personal knowl-

edge whether anybody, either your husband or anybody

else— A. These things had been discussed with the union

agents in the—

Q. In your presence? A. Yes.

Q. All right. A. They had been discussed about how to

handle grievances and so on and so forth.

Q. All right. A. Those thing have been discussed.

Q. Let’s go back. When did these discussions take place?

A. Oh, I don’t remember. Along abouf this time all this

was happening. I can’t remember dates.

Q. Are you—Well, was this prior to April of 19691 You

will recall that you had a strike in April of 19697 A. Yes.

Q. Leading up to the contract. Was it before the strike

or after the strike? A. What do you mean? What was

before?

Q. When this was disctissed about how grievances would

[200] be handled. A. Oh, after the union came in those

things were discussed; how to handle grievances and so on.

Trial Examiner: Let’s leave out grievances and get right

to the rule. That is what I’m interested in.

- Mr. Rubenstein: Yes, .

Q. (By Mr. Rubenstein) Now, now my question was that

do you know of your own personal knowledge whether the

rule about people leaving work and having to ask permis-

sion of you or Mrs. Rice was ever communicated to the

union? That rule. And I am now talking between April

- and October, 1969 or prior to April of 69. A. That has

always been the rule there. —

Q. Well, that was not my question, Mrs. Gerlach. My

question was did you ever have any, you personally or in

your presence, was there ary discussion of this rule with the

union? <A. The only thing that was ever discussed in my

———

» presence, after the union came in we satsdown and tried to

talk these things over and tried to agree how they would be

handled. That’s the only thing.

Trial Examiner: I am going to interpret her answer as

no. Go on from there. .

Mr. Rubenstein: All right. Thank you.

Q. (By Mr. Rubenstein) Mrs. Gerlach, this rule, how, to

your knowledge, and when, if you could tell us, was this

rule communicated to the employees? Tell us how the

employees were made aware of this rule. A. I wouldn’t

know how to tell you.

Q. Well, let me start. Would you say personally—

Trial Examiner: She said it wasn’t personally. Now

ask her if there was any other way.

Mr. Rubenstein: Well, that’s right. That’s what I’m

trying to get out.

Q. (By Mr. Rubenstein) Did you personally ever have

occasions to talk to employees about this rule? You per-

sonally? A. A lot of times they would ask to be off or leave

or something like that. And we’d talk the situation over

and find out if it was really necessary or something like

that. And I always try to go along with them as much as

we can. |

. All right. .

Trial Examiner: I am going to. interprete that, even

[202] though I haven’t decided the case—

Mr. Rubenstein: Yes. .

Trial Examiner: —as. evidence of the fact that the

employees knew about it. Because if they didn’t know

about it they wouldn’t ask her to take leave.

Mr. Rubenstein: Oh, well—

Trial Examiner: Now, you argue about that or develop

this further with the witness.

Trial Examiner: Go ahead.

Q. (By Mr. Rubenstein) When these employees would

ask you to leave—Give us an example, some examples of

the type of what you meant. Aren't you talking about

leaving the plant?) Such as for a doctor’s appointment or—

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. That’s what you are talking about? A. Leaving

their wor? station.

Q. Now, are you talking about—All right. For example,

do employees who have to go to the ladies’ room come to

you?’ A. Oh, no. No.

Q. The do not? A. No,no. No. That would be terrible.

Q. Now, what type of leaving the station does this rule

[203] encompass? Dogs it mean leaving the station for—

Is it a time element, for example? That they can leave for

a minute or two minutes without asking, but if they have to

leave for fifteen minutes then you have to ask. Is this the

rule? A. Do you mean to go to the washroom or what do

you mean?

Q. Well, what I mean is-—What I’m trying to get at is

what this rule is. This rule that employees—Apparently

you claim that everybody knows about. I am trying to

_ establish, Mrs. Gerlach, what is this rule. When do-they

have to ask and when don’t they have to ask?

Trial Examiner: I would like to interrupt.

Mr. Rubenstein: Yes.

Trial Examiner: Subject to interruption by counsel.

You have breaks at all at work?

The Witness: Yes. We have coffee breaks. ;

Trial Examiner: Suppose at a time other than at coffee

break a girl feels like going to take coffee. Does she have

to ask permission ?

The Witness: She would have to go. But we have a

coffee break. |

Trial Examiner: I am not talking about coffee break

time. But at some other time other than coffee break time.

Suppose somebody just feels like going taking a smoke for

ten or fifteen minutes.

The Witness: Then they can’t do that.

ORS icici Heli il Sis ah teh lle abbot ANS ODER LIP

[204] Trial Examiner: They have to get permission to

do that? ..

The Witness: They have to get permission.

Trial Examiner: All right. ;

Q. (By Mr. Rubenstein) All right. Are there occasions

when an employee can leave the work station, noi on break

time, without asking permission?

Trial Examiner :. This is not on break time?

Mr. Rubenstein: Not on break time.

The Witness: If it was.a legitimate reason.

Q. (By Mr. Rubenstein) Then they can go without ask-

ing permission? A. Usually tauey ‘go= through—Those

things are talked over and if they have to be away they go

and talk to their boss about it.

Trial Examiner: Can they do it without talking to their

boss?

The Witness: No, they’re not supposed to.

Trial Examiner: All right.

Q. (By Mr. Rubenstein) Well, my question is, are there

any cireumstances—Well, I have already established that

going to the bathroom is one circumstance. Are there any

other circumstances where an employee can leave the work

station without get- [205] ting permission? A. No.

Q. No other reason? A. No.

Q. Except going to the rest room? A. That’s right.

Q. And let me ask you this. Have ever been occasions

through these years that you have been production manager

where employees have left the work station without asking

permission— A. None that I—

Q. —and then—Just a moment. And hear me.—and later’

have come to you and said, given you the reason which you

have accepted? A. Not that I recall that. The only time

that ever happens is when they’re off or didn’t show up,

you know, come into work on the morning. They always

tell us why or something and so forth.

Q. I see. A. But I can’t recall anything like that.

ad aR e

i LS GE REIEE IP il ti tah a il A tt

Q. Now, as a matter of fact that very morning when the

employees went down to handle the grievance concerning

the piece rate they didn’t ask permission, did they? Mrs.

Mulford didn’t ask permission then? A. That was at noon

hour.

[205] Q. That was at noon hour? A. That was at noon

hour.

Q. And none of that was on working time? A. No. That

was at noon hour. .

Q. And now when were grievances normally handled by

wirs. Holland? <A. I don’t recall. I didn’t have too much

to do with that. You see, the office took care of that.

- Q. Well, she never asked your permission, did she, when

she had to go down handle a grievance if it was during

working hours? She never asked your permission? A.

No, she never asked my permission.

Q. And she never asked Mrs. Rice’s permission? ‘A. No.

But she wasn’t off the floor too much during work hours.

Q. But occasionally she was? <A. Occasionally: if she

had a grievance.

Q. If she had a grievance? A. If she had a grievance.

Q. Right. And if she had a grievance and she thought

that it was necessary to take it up with downstairs she

would take it up downstairs without asking your permis-

sion? A. That’s right. She usually went at noon hour.

Q. I understand that she usually did. But there were

other occasions— A. Well—

[207] Q. —where she went at other times?

Thank you. That’s all I have.

Reprrect ExaMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Mrs. Gerlach, on cross examination

you were handed an affidavit here that you had signed. And

I think you had been asked previous to that whether or not

you had told Delila Mulford on October the 10th not to

leave her work, you know, before she came downstairs.

And I hand you this affidavit and show you the statement

in your affidavit beginning at the bottom of the first page

and extending through— A. Yes.

Q. Yes. Now, having had that affidavit when did you give

that affidavit, do you recall? A. Now, may I tell you—

Q. No. Just what is the date of the affidavit? Here it

‘ [208] is right down here at the bottom. A. That’s April.

That’s the 16th of April. It’s fresh in my mind. .

' Q. Now, having used this affidavit that the government

used to refresh your recollection, I now ask you whether or

not you can say now you did or you did not tell Mrs. Mul-

ford not to leave her work station before she did leave it on

October 10th? A. Yes.

Q. Pardon? A. Yes.

Q. What is your best recollection now of what you re-

member? What do you think you said, if anything? A.

I think I said to her that this didn’t— Just whatever that

says there.

Trial Examiner: That’s no good. You’d better testify.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) The question is, what, on the sub-

ject matter of whether you told her not to leave her work

station or not? A. I think I said, ‘‘Delila, this doesn’t

concern you and you’d better stay at your work station.”’

Q. That’s your best recollection now? A. That’s my best

recollection of what I said.

Q. On October the 10th, when these matters came up in

the afternoon with Mrs. King over what you have referred

to as her [209] sassing you had she filed any grievance

with the company? A. No.

Q. Had she made any complaint? A. Not at that time,

no. I didn’t consider it a union matter.

Q. She had initiated no complaint or grievance, formal

or informal, had she? A. No. .

Q. At that time had she? A. No.

Q. Now, do you remember any specific occasion now dur-

ing her working time when Virginia Holland left her work

Sib Apia Dei ea at Rs ameter cow ei lin MALS

station without first giving permission? A. No, I don’t

recall such a time. I don’t recall it.

Q. Regardless of what the purpose was? A. That’s right.

* * * * * * * * * *

Lawrence Gerlach, Jr.

was called as a witness by and on behalf of the Respondent

and [211] after being first duly sworn, was examined and

testified as follows: |

* * * * * * * * * *

Direct EXAMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Mr. Gerlach, in the midfall of 1960

through July what was your position with the Quality

Manufacturing Company? <A. I’m active with my mother

and father in the management and operation of the com-

pany.

Trial Examiner: According to the complaint you have

admitted he is the general manager.

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Do you have that title? A. Self-

assessed.

Q. Do you have the title?’ A. I—

Q. Well, what is your title? A. I guess you would say

general manager.

[212] Q. What generally are your duties? A, My duties

are to work with the contractor, soliciting and getting busi-

ness for the company, working with the account, doing the

shipping, supervising the shipping, and making transpor-

tation arrangements and the various details concerning

meeting the ads and the responsibilities of fhe company.

Q. Do you have any duties relative to the women that are

. the production workers in the company? A. I have been __

trying to act as company representative working with the

union. |

Q. For example, did you participate in the nego‘‘ation of

the contract which is dated April 15th? A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. 1969? A. Yes, sir. :

aera ease Ai oN 5 £6, Math ANAT Ri ALA LY CUETO TIN SNS To IO att »

Poet AAI EM RS RE at OOOH

Q. And have you, in connection with your various duties

do you have meetirgs with business agents of the union?

A. I see them nearly every time they’re in.

Q. Do they call on you when they come? A. Usually.

I might—

Q. You’re— A. I might qualify that a little bit. The

last gentleman don’t seem to stop in my office as often as

Elizabeth and Joel and the others did.

Q. Joel Goolst, the witness who testified early this morn-

[213] ing? A. Right.

Q. And Elizabeth Wiley? A. Yes.

Q. You did meet with them periodically? A. Yes.

Q. And have you had meetings, for example, during 1970

with these people or other business agents in the union?

A. Yes.

Q. Periodically? A. Yes. Not on any particular sched-

ule, but at pretty regular intervals.

Q. What usually initiates these meetings? What sort of

problems?

. * * * _ * * * * *

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Well, then, as I take it, both before

and after all of the incidents alleged in this complaint your

company has recognized the union, has it not, as the bar-

gaining agent for these people? A. We had a severe strike.

When it was over— |

Trial Examiner: The question was have you recognized

[214] them?

The Witness: I joined the union. Yes, sir. Joel and I

made a speech. We both accepted each other,

Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) This was when? In April of ’69?

A. April 15, 1969.

Q. And you all have worked together since that time?

A. To the degree that we could, yes, sir.

Q. Now, there is a charge here in this complaint that is

designated paragraph 13, which says in substance that the

company, on October 29th and from then until about No-

vember the 10th of 1969 shut down the plant and laid off

employees in order to discourage their membership in the

union. Did you ever shut this plant down between October —

the 29th and November the 10th to discourage anybody’s

membership in the union? A. To my knowledge that’s a

fabrication of somebody’s mind.

Q. Did you ever shut down the plant during this time to

discourage any activity by any of the union or any of its

members? A. No, sir.

Q. Relative to this charge in the complaint and after the

charge was made did you ever have a conversation with

Joel Goolst on this? A. Yes, sir, we did.

[215] Q. Can you tell me about— The charge in this case

was filed on March the 15th, I believe, or March 17th.

March 17, 1970, referring to a lockout on Uctober 1st. But

then the complaint says, which was issued in May, the 25th,

refers to an October 29th layoff. Can you fix the date rela-

tive to any of those dates time-wise that you had this con-

versation with this man Goolitch? A. No, sir, I cannot.

I have had a lot of conversations with him. But I unfor-

tunately don’t keep a diary like he does.

Q. Well, was it before or after these dates? Or do you

recall? A. The conversation was the first time that Joel

was in after we had become aware of the charge.

Q. I see. All right. Now, who said what on this occa-

sion?

[220] Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Now, Mr. Gerlach, relative to

the time of the charge of this ease, which was March 17,

1970, and the date of the complaint, which is May 25, 1970,

can you fix the time of this conversation with Mr..Goolst?

A. The first time he was in to sce us after the complaint

was in our hands and I had knowledge of it. I don’t know

the date, sir.

Q. Now, on this occasion can you tell the Trial Examiner

what you said and what Mr. Goolst said? ;

Mr. Rubenstein: I would like the record to show that the

man’s name apparently to whom he is referring is Mr.

;

wees

Goolst, who previously testified.and not Mr. Goolitch. i

don’t know. He apparently has difficulty with Mr. Goolst’s

name.

Trial Examiner: 1 understand. I understood it to be

Goolst, even though the pronunciation was different, That

is the man you are referring to, isn’t it?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, Your Honor.

Trial Examiner

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.