# Appendix — Garment Workers v. Quality Mfg. Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0378%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1975 - **Citation:** 420 U.S. 276 ## Text eon ay Inteawasiona Lapms” Gixscane: Wonsres’ Urine = Sours Deranrunwr, AFL-CIO,: Petitioner te 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 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 ee 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 4 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 5 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 WD 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 9 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 10 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 ] 11 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 ~ 12 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: 13 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? 16 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.? * 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? ‘ 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 56 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. 57 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 58 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 3\ rat! 59 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 60 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. 61 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 anaes. eG RE S tha 102 Q. You mean other companies have exactly the same problems? A. I feel they do. Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Did you ever make any statement to Mr. Goolst, either on December the 3rd or any other time, on the subject matter of whether or not these three ladies were eligible to return to work at the plant? A. I made statements to him. Q. And what was your statement? A. The statements was we always need operators aud two out of threeof them was real good and anytime they would obey the same rules as the rest of them they had their job. And I also further stated that my father wanted a letter though from him to that es Q. said two out of the three were good operators. | And you said— Who was it that could have their jobs any time? A. Hither one of the three of them. I said, ‘‘We always need operators and two out of the three of them are tops.’’ Q. And you were referring to all three of them as being— [241] A. Yes. Q. —as being eligibie? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ever make a statement to Mr. Goolst about December the 3rd, or any other time, that the employees would not be reinstated, they would be hard to live with! Did you ever make that statement? A. Not that I recall, sir. Our position has always been if they would obey the rules they would have their jobs; the same rules as the rest of the girls. Q. Mr. Goolst testified in a conversation he said occurred with you about December the 3rd that you made some com- ments on the subject matter of whether or not you wanted a union or not. Do you recall any such conversation on that general subject matter? A. Joel and I have friendly ban- tered each other about things like that. Even— Q. Well— A. Even over lunch. i 103 Q. You mean you are social friends as well as business friends? A. We have been at times. Q. You eat together? A. We have once. Q. Do you recall making any serious statement then to [242] him— A. No. Q. —relative to the union? A. Nothing other than horse- play. Q. Was this— A. I mean he would say to the effect, hell, if I were in your position I wouldn’t want a union either or my dad runs a shop or just horseplay. Q. You say after the contract was signed you gave a speech welcoming the union in?’ A. Yes, sir; I joined them. T did my very best to do what I was instructed by them. Mr. Rubenstein: Mr. Examiner, are we going to— At the beginning of our case, the Board’s case, we attempted to put in some of the background, which frankly we thought was relevant. . Trial Examiner: Do you object to that question? Mr. Rubenstein: Well, I object to the whole line of ques- tioning. They have gone back to April. Merely on the ground that when we tried to put in the antiunion animus— Trial Examiner: I will sustain the objection on the ground that what he did in April, or what he said before in favor of the union is not admissable. The question is did he say anything indicating antiunion animus on December 3rd. He denies it. Mr. Rubenstein: That’s the question. [243] Trial Examiner: I’ll deny that. I’ll allow it, but the other part I will exclude. This is the same as a civil case. And the fact that a party has been free from contributory negligence a thousand times is not admissable to show he is free at this time. Mr. Rubenstein: I would also like to show, of course, the first witness, Mr. Goolst, had attempted to go into some background to show the purpose of this. The purpose of this was to show antiunion animus. And the Examiner said that he was not interested in that testimony either. So that is what we are not combating or sort of attempting | oe 104 to combat, this matter which you now have permitted to go in. Trial Examiner: I have excluded it. Let’s go on. Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) There was testimony by Mr. Goolst at this alleged December 3rd meeting to the effect that your father let King go, that this statement was made by you to Mr. Goolst, that your father let King go. Did you make any such statement at any time? A. Absolutely not. I’ve always said— Trial Examiner: Then the answer is no. Let’s not have any speeches. Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) What did you say on that subject matter? Mr. Rubenstein: When? Trial Examiner: This is December 3rd, gentlemen. [244] Mr. Rubenstein: Is it still December 3rd? Trial Examiner: I assume so. If 1 am wrong correct me, Mr. Jenkins. . The Witness: Every statement I’ve made concerning it is that they abandoned their employment by their own ac- tion. Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Now, Mr. Goolst testified relative to an alleged conversation with you on November 19, 1969, on the general subject matter thet before these girls would come back the plant would be closed down. Did you ever have any such conversation with Mr. Goolst and, if so, ‘tell us what it was? A. Mr. Goolst— Trial Examiner: The question is did you make such a statement. The Witness: It is hard for me to understand when he is serious and when he’s not serious. Trial Examiner: Did you make a statement? The Wit:ess: In a serious statement, no. Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Have you ever had any conversa- tion on this general subject matter with Mr. Goolst? A. I’m sure we have. 105 Q. Can you tell when and where and what the circum- stances were? A. It’s the— No. I don’t keep a diary like [245] they do. But he nearly always came to my office. Q. Yes. Well, do you remember any conversation at all on this subject matter? A. All the conversation we ever had was to the effect that they would have to, in order to come back, to obey the rules. And my father requested a letter saying they would. Joel assured me that they would come back and obey the rules, but he didn’t come up with . the letter. Mr. Gravitt: With the what? The Witness: He sad he could personally guarantee they’d obey the rules. Right? Trial Examiner: With the letter. Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Well, what isn’t clear to me, Mr. Gerlach, is whether or not there was any conversation that you can now recall with Mr. Goolst on the subject matter that you were going to close the plant down? A. To my knowledge Joel and I never discussed that. Because it was never a subject. ; (. Did you ever discuss it in a joking manner that you can recall? A. I’m sure we may have. Because we bat each other. Joel knows my health condition. I mean that’s one reason he says these things I’m sure. Q. Now— [246] Trial Examiner: Just a moment, please. Not off the record. Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) There was testimony by Mr. Goolst that he had a conversation with you about J anuary the 12th of 1970 wherein he characterized that the company position had changed on this business of these three women. Do you recall any such conversation as that? A. No, sir. I can’t put any of the dates down. I don’t have— Trial Examiner: It doesn’t matter on the date. . Did you ever say that to him? The Witness: It may have been the time that we ate down at the Twin-Way Restaurant, where we tried to start talk- ing and we were interrupted there and never got— 106 Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Well, did the company ever change it’s position? A. No. Not-- Q. Did you ever tell him this? Did you ever tell him that the company had changed it’s position? A. No. Q. Now, what, if anything, do you know relative to a company rule pertaining to under what circumstances em- ployees may leave their work stations during working hours? A. The [247] rule has been in existence ever since I’ve been in the plant that nobody leaves the stitching room floor without permission. And I don’t know of anybody ever abusing it. I don’t know of anybody. Q. Well, the rules of the plant, are any of the rules in writing? A. There have been in the past and have been posted. I don’t think they have been since we’ve been in the new plant. But they were posted at the old plant. Q. Was the old plant in a different location? A. Yes, it was. Q. And what happened to the old plant? A. The old plant burned about three or four years ago. * * * * * * * * * * Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Mr. Gerlach, in this complaint the government charges that on January 12, 1970 you threat- ened to [248] take reprisals against an employee because of her activities on behalf of the union. Now, this is in paragraph 8(c) of the complaint. What can you say about that? A. I don’t recall the incident at all. And it must be something out of context. Q. Do you even know what employee the government might be referring to? A. No, sir, I don’t. I can’t remem- ber all that stuff. There’s too many of them. Q. Did you ever, at any time, threaten to, on or about January the 12th, take reprisals or make any threats to any employee because that employee was doing something for the union? A. No, sir. Q. Now, directing your attention to October the 10th of 1969 were you present in the plant that day? A. Yes, sir; I was. \ 107 Q. Do you remember any incident at the plant pertaining to a piece work matter? A. Yes, sir; I do. Q. Would you tell the Examiner what took place accord- ing to your memory? Trial Examiner: Well, I am going to rule—I don’t want to go into the merits of that. Just the fact that they spoke to him aboi:! piece work and then what happened after that. Don’t go into what they said about piece work. But was there a talk about piece work? A. Yes, sir. Trial Examiner: All right. Then go on from there, Mr. Jenkins. Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Can you fix the approximate time of the day? A. During lunch period. Q. And then were you present in the plant on the after- noon during that day? A. Yes, sir. Q. And do you recall any incidents pertaining to Cath- erine King? A. I recall the incident from word of mouth. I have no personal knowledge of that incident at all. Q. Did you talk to Catherine King yourself that after- noon as you recall it? A. No, sir; not as I recall. Q. Were you present at any mectings or discussion where she was present that afternoon as far as you can recall? A. Not that I recall, sir. Q. Now, that was on the 10th of October. And on the following Monday, which I believe would be October the 13th, do you recall any discussions with anybody pertain- ing to Catherin King on that day? A. My father advised me of the events that [250] happened that morning, * * * * * * * * * * Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Did you have any conversation that you can recall now the following day on Tuesday or on Wednesday or on Thursday relative to Catherine King and that rule? A. Well, of course on Thursday, that is the day that Martha and I had our confrontation. But I had no personal contact with Catherine King. Q. What occurred on Thursday then with respect to Cochran? Besiircietcnivrtraninacsas Pe eee Re ae eRe, 108 \ Trial Examiner: Can I have the date on that, please? Mr. Jenkins: Yes, sir. I think Thursday would be the 16th of October. [251] T ‘al Examiner: All right. Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) What took place with respect to Cochran on that day? A. I was in my office during noon hour having a conference with my son. Trial Examiner: What happened? Never mind whaf— ~~ conference you had. What happened betwecn you and Cochran? What was said? Get right to the meeting. The Witness: Martha Cochran came into my office when I was talking with someone else and asked me if I would discuss some grievances. In a very friendly manner I told her that I was going out of town and that I would be back Monday, I would take them up with her then. I bad already told the union about a month before that I had this convention that I was scheduled to at Kansas City, that I wouldn’t be available for contact and— Trial Examiner: Just the conversation, please. What went on between you and Cochran? The Witness: I— Trial Examiner: I know it’s hard to do, but I’ve got to confine you, too. The Witness: Yes, sir. I understand. She insisted that I take those grievances up at that time. And I told her I couldn’t until I got back. And from there on she made an emphatic plea that I take them. [252] Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) What did she say? Can you remember her words? further discussions that afternoon with Mrs. Cochran tha _ you can recall now? A. No, sir; I did not. * * * * * \ * * * * * Q. (By Mr. Jenkins) Do you know Delila Mulford? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you ever cursed her? A. Not in the context of acuss word. I may have used it as a figure of speech in some talk, which I do once in\awhile. Q. Does she use the same kind of language or do you know? A. To my knowledge, not—No. Q. Do you ever recall any conversation with Delila Mul- ford on the subject of a plant closing on December the 1st? A. No, sir; I do not. ’ Q. Did the plant close December 1st? A. N 0, sir; It did not. Q. There has been evidence in this case, I believe, that [254] the union filed a grievance over these three women. That’s correct, isn’t it? A. Yes. Q. On the incidents that occurred in October? A. Yes. Q. And they are the same subject matter of this proceed- ing here, right? 134 [361] Q. There are times when they leave the floor and don’t go out the front door and you don’t observe them, isn’t that right? A. Well, they don’t come off the floor. I mean they go out the front door when they leave the plant. Q. I see. But you don’t supervise the production area? A. No, sir. Q. Isee. And do you recall Mr. Gerlach, Sr. telling King once or probably more times than that that until she talked with him alone she couldn’t go to work, right? A That’s right. " Q. And he never did change that position as far as you know, did he? A. No. - Q. You’re not in this bargaining unit? You don’t belong to the union, do you? A. No, sir. Q. And Mulford is not your chair lady, is she? A. No, sir. . Q. She is the chair lady of some other girls in the— A. I don’t know. Q. —in the bargaining unit? You don’t even— A. I don’t know. Q. You don’t even know if there is a union there at the [362] plant? A. I know there’s a union there. But I don’t know who the officers are. Q. You don’t know any of the officers at all? A. No. Q. Not one officer in the union? A. Only_what I’ve been told. Q. Only what you’ve been told? A. Well, yes. Q. (By Mr. Gravitt) Did you ever hear Mr. Gerlach, Sr. refer to King, Mulford, or Cochran as trouble makers? A. Not particularly I haven’t. Q. What did you hear him say about them over these grievances? A. Well, he just wanted to talk to them. [363] Q. Alone? A. To Catherine King alone. Q. Now, in the office where you work you frequently call girls back to work after they have been laid off, don’t you? A. Yes, sir. ~ Q. In fact that’s part of your job? A. Yes, sir. Q. You do most of it, don’t you? A. Yes. Q. And you never did call Cochran back to work, did you? A. No, sir. Q. Beg pardon? A. No, I didn’t. Q. Mulford either, did you? * * * * * * + Cross- EXAMINATION By Mr. Gravitt: ; Q. Mr. Gerlach, on October the 10th, I believe you testi- fied that you told King that she could go back to work and she went back to work, is that right? A. Right. Right. 173 Q. And then Mulford was down there, too. And then you told Mulford to go back to work? A. I told both of them at the same time. Q. You told both of them at the same time? A. Right. [486] Q. And both of them went back to work? A. Uh- huh. Q. And you told King that you wanted to talk to her alone and she refused without Mulford going in the office with her, is that right, sir? A. That’s right. Q. Now, as I understand it after October the 10th, say October the 13th, that would be the Monday after that— A. Uh-huh. Q. King came back again, And this time Mulford with her? A. Cochran with her. Q. Well, Cochran with her. All right, sir. And at this time you don’t permit King to go to work. Now, isn’t that right, sir? A. No. No. Now, don’t put words in my mouth. Q. No, sir. No, sir. I don’t want to. You keep me straight now. Did you tell King on this occasion that just go on up- stairs— A. You heard my testimony a few minutes ago. You get it word for word that I give a little while ago. By Mr. Gravitt: Q. Now, on October the 13th did you tell King that she could go on upstairs and go to work? A. The 13th? No. I said I had to talk to her a couple of minutes first. Q. Yes. A. Then she could. Q. Yes. A. Because I had to tell her. Q. And at no time after October the 13th have you told King that she could go upstairs and go to work? A. Every morning. Every morning they was told. Every morning — - they come in. Q. Now, after October the 13th did you tell King she could go upstairs and go to work? [488] A. After the 13th? — Q. Yes. A. Yes. The 14th, 15th, 16th. ei Nh Die cs NN eS inal ud wet bee Ce Ne yes ¢ rank RoR: Pili oe Meant ie As Sig OWE Labia e Cir ES pth Sie cd Pie tte Stead al en ad da Pimiieicrdocsn Sule dibllgie Milne aula Hae 174 Q. Well, what did you tell her then? Just tell me. A. I told her I had to talk to her a couple of minutes. Now, that— Is there anything wrong with that? Q. And then she could go to work? A. Yeah. That’s right. She’d always been coming in. She’d always been coming into my office any time she wanted to. Q. She couldn’t go to work, or you wouldn’t let her go to work until she talked to you a few minutes, right? A. I had, I had some personal— ---[yjal. Examiner: Please answer the question. She couldn’t go to work unless you talked to her first. I’m not saying that’s true. I am asking you if it’s true. The Witness: That’s right. That’s right. Trial Examiner: All right. Go on to your next question. By Mr. Gravitt: Q. And then was it October the 13th that Cochran and King sat outside your office or near or about all day? A. They stayed in the lunch room. : Q. And you still never talked to them any time, did you? A. I talked to them that morning and offered them their jobs. [489] Q. Yes. A. What else could I do? Q. You never scheduled any meetings with King and Cochran or King and Mulford at any time to discuss this matter, did you? A. There wasn’t anything to discuss. She just said she wasn’t going to go to work unless the two of them come into my office and talked to me. That’s what ’ it was all about. I couldn’t change the rules of the com- pany to have two coming in whenever we’d never had. Mr. Gravitt: No more questions. Mr. Rubenstein: I have a few. Cross-EXAMINATION By Mr. Rubenstein: Q. On the 14th— I’m sorry. Strike that. On October the 14th, and we are now talking about the Tuesday morn- ing, this was Mrs. King and Mrs. Cochran? A. Right. 175 Q. That were together? A. Right. Q. Now, isn’t it true that at that time you said to Mrs. Cochran that you are suspended for two days for leaving your station? A. No, no. Q. You never did say that? A. That’s not true. [490] Q. That’s not true? A. No, sir. I never have. Q. Now, you have, however— A. She wasn’t suspended. She wasn’t suspended. ‘ Q. But you had pulled her card by that time? A. By her not attending her job the day before. Q. By Tuesday? A. Yes. Her card was pulled. Q. Now, her job was not pulled on Monday, was it? A. No, it wasn’t pulled on Monday. Q. It was pulled on Tuesday? * * * - . * -_ autor Drrecr EXAMINATION By Mr. Rubenstein: Q. Mr. Goolst, in connection with your official position in connection with the International Ladies’ Garment Workers did you attend the meeting in April cf the local at which elections took place, the steward elections? A. Yes, sii. * * * * * » * * * * By Mr. Rubenstein: * Q. Thereafter did you make it known, the results of that [506] election, to anybody, to either Mrs. Gerlach, Mrs. Gerlach or Gerlach, Jr.? A. Gerlach, Jr. Q. And what did you tell him? A. That Virginia Hol- land was elected chair lady and he will be dealing with &Virginia Holland in the factory and that Marth Cochran has been appointed her assistant. . Q. And when that approximately with reference to the signing of the agreement? A. The day we brought the agreement in and brought the strikers back to work. That’s when that took place. Both Mr. Gerlach, Jr. and myself, inorder to bring all parties~ together, made a speech that day. At that time we told him who would be dealing with in the factory. ~auhnaa om “e 185 Elizabeth Wiley was called as a witness by and on behalf of the Charging Party, was examined, and testified further as follows: * * * * * * * * * * Drrect ExaMINATION By Mr. Rubenstein: Q. Mrs. Wiley, in connection with your position as busi- ness agent, Intermational Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, did you have a meeting on the company premises around the latter part of August, 1969? A. Yes, sir; we did. [508] Q. And who was present at that meeting?