Prior to March 18 of this year, at which time T. F. Moore, president of our local, was discharged, Mr. Matheson was, at all times, willing to meet with our representatives and discuss our grievances. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, P. J. CARTIN. MOORESVILLE COTTON MILLS, Mooresville, N. C. On February 8, 1935, J. H. Monroe, employed as a weaver in the Mooresville Cotton Mills and reputed among the workers to be a most competent weaver, was laid off. Just prior to this time Mr. Monroe had been elected chairman of the legislative committee of the Central District Textile Council, an organization of several U. T. W. A. local unions in that section of North Carolina. Just before he was laid off, the warps on Mr. Monroe's set of looms were running out and no new warps were being tied on. Recognizing that this was indicative of early stoppage of the looms and that until orders were obtained the looms would soon be idle, Mr. Monroe asked of one of his foremen if he would be given work when he came back from Knoxville, Tenn., where he was going to get his family and household belongings and bring them to Mooresville. He was assured that he would be given work, assured that he was needed. On his return from Knoxville he was given 1 day's work and fired outright. The management explained that he was being discharged because he did not live in a company-owned house, that they had decided to give preference on all available jobs to those workers occupying mill houses. Such had not been the practice, and the intention along this line has not since been carried out. Shortly before March 19, 1935, Mrs. Minnie Miller, a weaver, was laid off when her warps ran out on her regular set of looms. Mrs. Miller asked that she be allowed to work "spare" (substitute for another weaver when the weaver is off the job) on weaving constructions on which she could perform competently. This was denied, the excuse being for the denial of this request that she produced too much second quality cloth. J. H. MONROE J. H. Monroe was laid off on February 8 and told that the reason for his discharge was that the company was trying to give more work to people who lived in their houses. Just before this time Mr. Monroe was elected as chairman of the legislative committee for the Central District Council of the United Textile Workers. A few days before Mr. Monroe was discharged he inquired as to whether he would have a job upon his return from a trip to Knoxville, Tenn., on business. He asked the question because he knew that some of the work was running out on the kind of goods he was making. He was told that he would have work when he got back to Mooresville. He was allowed to work 1 day after coming back to the job. He went to the trouble of moving his family back with him. Mr. Monroe was a good weaver, and we thought that he should have been given a chance to work on other materials or different looms. E. L. M'KNIGHT GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE. On March 27, 1935, E. L. McKnight was discharged by G. H. Holthouser and told by him that he had told Mr. McKnight time after time that he had been putting up short boxes of yarn. Mr. McKnight measured yarn in the spooler room. Mr. Holthouser was his overseer. "You go and tell Mrs. Davis I said to pay you up." Before he went to get his pay, Mr. McKnight states that he took all the yarn and put it into the measuring box and told Mr. Holthouser and Mr. Moss to go and look at it and see if it was not full. Both refused to go to look at the yarn. Mr. Moss said that he would investigate the matter. After about 6 months of unemployment and after the strike came I was sent word that I would be given a job if I would come in. Witness: E. L. MCKNIGHT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE. LOCAL UNION No. 1221, UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Mooresville, N. C., February 9, 1935. COMPLAINTS 1. We request that rule pertaining to loom fixers aiding each other be changed or modified to make for them a better working condition. That is a better rule granting more liberal ways of gaining aid when it is needed. 2. We desire that the management strive in some way to have the overseers be more courteous in their approach to employees when chastisement is necessary. A case happened this week in which a second hand used unbecoming language while prompting a lady about leaving her work. 3. J. H. Monroe was laid off on Friday. No reason for such action given other than to give other people living in company-owned homes more work. Mr. Monroe is an expert weaver, capable of weaving many kinds of goods, and we think that he might have been given a chance on other materials. The warps were run off his looms. 4. The local in convention February 9, 1935, requested that the superintendent, or the management, report back to our representative committees their finds or decisions, with more promptness than has been the practice with former complaints. 5. We ask that the management consider changing the rule regarding those who get fired for having to go to jail for intoxication. We believe that a rule reading as follows, would do just as much to prevent unbehaved drinking: "Any worker employed by the Mooresville Cotton Mills failing to report for duty at the regular appointed time because of excessive use of whisky, shall be subject to a forfeiture of nis job." GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, L. U. No. 1221, U. T. W. A. GRIEVANCES LOCAL UNION 1221, UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Mooresville, N. C., March 19, 1935. 1. A short time before the foregoing date, Mrs. Minnie Miller was laid off when the warps ran out on her regular job. Mrs. Miller asked that she be allowed spare work on other kinds of weaving that she could do, but was refused this privilege on the theory that she made too many seconds and that her production was under the required standard. Mr. Roberts looked at reports and found that her service had been about on an average with other workers on the same classification of work. Mr. Roberts made the statement that Mrs. Miller had been talking too much. Mrs. Miller said she had never been warned about talking too much. Other weavers were changed from their jobs on this particular loom to different type of loom and different constructions of weaving which they had had no experience in operating, or little knowledge of the looms. Mrs. Miller had operated the dobby looms for some time before she went on the Whitin looms. 2. T. F. Moore was discharged on March 18, on the claim that his seconds were below the required standard and that his production was too low for that turned out by other weavers on the same construction of goods. Prior to this occurrence, Mr. Moore had been transferred from the smash job to a set of looms, allegedly because he had been talking too much about the union, or trying to get workers to join the union while on the job. Our committee was told at this time by Mr. Roberts that if Mr. Moore's crippled hand gave him trouble that he would be taken care of. We did not take this statement to mean Mr. Moore's discharge. 3. Our financial secretary, J. F. Rogers, was laid off on Tuesday, September 17, and told that work was slack. We realize this fact, but this man had been in the employ of the Mooresville Cotton Mills for about 9 years, and so far as he or any of the workers know his work had been satisfactory. We know that this man is a capable worker, and peaceful as well. Several hands have been put to work since he was employed, and we feel that if the work did get slack he should have been offered some one of the other jobs to which his seniority would entitle him. He was told by his second hand that he was capable of doing work that would be more remunerative, and should have something better and that he would lend his assistance in helping to get something for him, Rogers. These grievances approved as read by the local in convention, this the 19th day of September 1935. COMPLAINT OF A. D. RUNION Mr. Runion was laid off on March 6 by G. H. Holthouser, second hand of spooling, warping, and twisters; he told Mr. Runion his job was shut down. Mr. Runion went back on March 7. Mr. Holthouser told him he did not have anything for him. Mr. Runion went to see Mr. Moss, the overseer, the same day Mr. Moss takes the complaint up with Mr. Holthouser; comes back and tells Mr. Runion that Mr. Holthouser said he had laid him off because he had too many hands. Mr. Runion tells Mr. Moss that a Mr. Crabb was going to quit and he had asked for the job some time before. Mr. Moss goes to Mr. Holthouser again and Mr. Holthouser tells Mr. Moss this time that he had laid Mr. Runion off because he was raising a "rukus" with the other help trying to get them to join the union. S. H. Carter was witness to all these conversations except the first one. Mr. Runion has the following witnesses to prove that he has never raised any "rukus” with anyone about the union: namely, L. B. Pruitt, S. H. Carter, G. W. Hendren, Sam Overcash, and Charley Cercey. There has never been any complaint on Mr. Runion's work; and before this when work got slack Mr. Holthouser has divided up the time among the help. MOORESVILLE, N. C., September 16, 1935. Marvin Wilhelms, overseer of weaving, and T. H. Newton, warp hand in the Mooresville Cotton Mills, engaged in the following conversation on September 16, 1935: WILHELMS. Do you belong to the union? NEWTON. NO. How about giving me a job fixing looms? WILHELMS. Will you swear that you do not belong to the union? NEWTON. Yes. WILHELMS. I am going to fire Bill Hager, and I am going to get rid of some more of them. As long as Bill has been working, they [the union] won't think we are discriminating, will they? NEWTON. No. WILHELMS. We have gotten rid of Tom Moore. To tell you the truth, we are going to get rid of the whole damned business. We are going to get rid of every one that belongs to the union. We know every one that belongs to the union. There is always some of the boss' men watching them go into the union hall. They can't have a meeting without us knowing who goes. Just as soon as I can get Peck Harris a section [loom fixing] I will get rid of Bill Hager; then I will let you learn a man for your job. I will put you on with E. V. Sisson [loom fixer]. NEWTON. What are you going to do with C. G. Torrence? WILHELMS. I am going to run him [C. G. Torrence] off too. I have not forgot how he raised hell around here last September. When I let Torrence go, you can buy his tools cheap. Then I will put you with Sisson for a week or two, then I will let him go. I'll just tell you the truth, by the first of the year I will be working for $22 per week; loom fixers will be making $9 or $10 per week. NEWTON. How much will we [warp hands] be making? WILHELMS. $6. Good weavers will be making about $8; filling haulers will be making about $4 per week. I don't believe in organized labor. There is a lot of mills going on 10 hours a day; we are going on 10 hours by spring. Witness: T. H. NEWTON. APRIL 29, 1935. STATEMENT OF CASE CHARGING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MOORESVILLE COTTON MILLS CO. ATTEMPTED CONFERENCE WITH MR. JOHN F. MATHERSON, PRESIDENT OF COMPANY On April 23, 1935, along with T. F. Moore, president of local union no. 1221, I called at the office of the Mooresville Cotton Mills for the purpose of a conference with John F. Matherson, president of said company, relative to certain grievances which had arisen between the company and its employees, Mr. Moore and myself representing the employees. WATSON. I asked Mr. Matherson for a few minutes' conference. Mr. Matherson asked what I wished to discuss. I stated that we wished to discuss certain grievances complained of by the workers in his plant. Matherson turned to Mr. Moore and asked if it was concerning his case. Moore replied that it was concerning his [Moore's] case. Matherson then said that he would not discuss the case further and that he would not discuss any case with an outsider. I then explained to Mr. Matherson that my thought was to try and help get this matter settled satisfactorily without trouble between the company and its employees; also, explained that I had been requested by our office in Washington to investigate the complaint to determine if possible whether the complaint was justifiable before taking it up with the Textile Labor Relations Board. Matherson stated that he did not care anything about that, and again said that he would not discuss the matter with us; that he did not need any advice from an outsider on how to run his business; that he had met a committee of the workers and that the case was settled. Also stated that he did not care who we turned the case over to, that when it got to the place where he could not run things as he thought was right, he would quit and turn the whole thing over to someone else. I then explained to Mr. Matherson that I was not an outsider trying to interfere in his business; that I had a letter from the local union, composed of workers in his plant, showing that I had been duly elected on the committee as a representative chosen by the workers to represent them in this case, and that I would like for him to read this letter. Matherson then said that he did not care anything about the letter and did not care to read it; stated again that the case was settled. I stated to Mr. Matherson that the committee, which had discussed the case with him, had reported back to the local union that the committee had handled the case as far as they could, and could not reach any kind of satisfactory settlement, that I was then elected to act on the committee as the workers' representative, in this case. Matherson then said, "Well, the case is settled satisfactory as far as I am concerned." I asked Mr. Matherson if that was his idea of collective bargaining? Matherson answered, "Well, we are operating under the code and handle things the way we think best and we do not need any advice from an outsider." WATSON. Mr. Matherson, are you familiar with section (8) of the code? MATHERSON. I do not care to discuss that with you. WATSON. Mr. Matherson, section 7 (a) of the N. I. R. A. which is section (8) of the Code of Fair Competition for the Cotton Textile Industry reads that employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives. Matherson then said, "I don't care to discuss that with you; my statement still stands, I do not wish to discuss this case, or any other with you. I'll be the judge as to how we will run the plant, and as far as I'm concerned the case is closed." Mr. Matherson then walked away. Mr. Moore and myself left the office. Mr. Moore was discharged on March 18 and since that time until this attempt to discuss the case with Mr. Matherson, nothing had been said about him vacating the house in which he lived. About 30 minutes after the attempted conference, at which time we let the management know that we were going to take the case up to the Textile Labor Board, the following notice was delivered to Mr. Moore. MOORESVILLE, N. C., April 23, 1935. Mr. T. F. MOORE, House No. 427, Mooresville, N. C. DEAR SIR: You are hereby requested to vacate house no. 427, property of Mooresville Cotton Mills, on or before April 27, 1935. If the above request is not carried out by the above date, steps will be taken immediately for ejectment. Yours truly, W. F. SUMMERS, Superintendent, Mooresville Cotton Mills. We, the members and officials of local union 1221 of the United Textile Workers of America, in convention, this the 19th day of September 1935, do declare that some of the things now in practice by the overseers of the Mooresville Cotton Mills are tending to promote general discontent among the workers, Therefore, we cannot give our best services under such conditions as are prevalent at this This situation has led us to make the following requests: 1. That the management of the Mooresville Cotton Mills adopt and live up to some fair rule for the hiring and discharging of workers. 2. That the overseers be immediately instructed by the management to discontinue the various methods of discrimination against union workers, such as laying them off under pretext that work is slack, and at the same time placing new hands in their places. 3. That all workers, where possible, be reinstated in their former positions immediately, who have been discharged on pretense of their having committed acts not in accord with the desires of some of their superiors, in which cases some investigations have led us to believe that the discharged persons were not given the best of treatment. In some cases that they have been taken undue advantage of because of their affiliations with union workers. 4. That our superintendent, Mr. W. F. Summers, change his attitude toward the workers of our organization, union, as some of his policies have proved to us that it is, and will continue to be, impossible for us as workers, to cooperate with him in the successful operation of the mill, so long as such tactics are employed. We request that unless an immediate correction of such dealings can be made very soon, we shall be forced to demand a change in this capacity. In presenting these requests we feel justified that we are only asking that certain wrongs be righted, that we feel have been directed against our union, and its members. Unless the management of the Mooresville Cotton Mills grant these requests, a strike will automatically become effective, at such time as the workers deem convenient, and will continue on all shifts until a satisfactory settlement has been reached between the union representatives and the mill management. These requests drawn up and approved by the members, officers, and a special committee of the local union in convention, this, the 19th day of September 1935. The following named committee is, hereby, duly elected to represent our union, and to present these petitions to the representatives of the Mooresville Cotton Mills. (Signed) COMMITTEE. AFFIDAVIT LOCAL 1221, U. T. W. or A., Of Mr. P. J. Cartin and daughter, Mrs. Julia Cook: On October 14, 1935, Mrs, Cook went to Mr. Marvin Wilhelms and asked for her job back. Mrs. Cook was a striker. Mr. Wilhelms, who is second hand and overseer in the weave room said: "I will see Mr. Roberts, who is head overseer of the weaving department. I don't know if he will give you your job back or not, because your daddy has been taking a part in the union." She said that her father, Mr. P. J. Cartin was going to leave home if she went back to work. Mr. Wilhelms said we will send for you when we need you." On October 15, 1935, they sent for Mrs. Julia Cook to come to work, and on October 17, 2 days later, Mr. Wilhelms, head overseer, came to her and said "Julia, is your daddy gone yet?" She said, "No." Mr. Wilhelms then said, "If he is not gone by Monday I will not work you any longer." On October 18, Mr. Wilhelms told Mrs. Cook, "Mr. Summers, the superintendent, saw you at work and got on Mr. Roberts and said 'if your father doesn't leave, don't come back Monday because he makes union speeches and is on the picket lines every day." GRIEVANCES (Signed) JULIA COOKE, (Signed) P. J. CARTIN. LOCAL UNION 1221, UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Mooresville, N. C., March 19, 1935. 1. A short time before the foregoing date, Mrs. Minnie Miller was laid off when the warps ran out on her regular job. Mrs. Miller asked that she be allowed spare work on other kinds of weaving that she could do, but was refused this privilege on the theory that she made too many seconds and that her production was under the required standard. Mr. Roberts looked at reports and found that her service had been about on an average with other workers on the same classi |