A. J. Showalter Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 573 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of A. J. SHOWALTER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD or BOOKBINDERS, LOCAL No. 129, A. F. or L.
Case No. 10-C-1603.-Decided October 30, 1945
Mr. Mortimer H. Freeman , for the Board.
Mr. Carlton McCarny, of Dalton, Ga ., and Mr. Barry Wright, of
Rome, Ga., for the respondent.
Mr. Walter F. Barber, of Atlanta, Ga ., for the Union.
Miss Melvern R. Krelow , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Q
Upon a charge duly filed on August It, 1944, by International
Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local No. 129, A. F. of L., herein called
the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board. by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia), issued its complaint dated November 2, 1944, against A. J.
Showalter Company, Dalton, Georgia, herein called the respondent,
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of
the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served
upon the respondent and the Union.
Concerning unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in sub-
stance that the respondent's bindery and shipping employees consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining; that
on or about August 10, 1944, and at all times thereafter, the respond-
ent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the statutory
representative of such employees; that since August 10, 1944, the
respondent has expressed disapproval of the Union, interrogated its
employees concerning their affiliation, urged, persuaded, threatened,
and warned its employees to refrain from assisting or becoming mem-
bers of the Union, and has aided and encouraged its employees to
04 N L R B, No 96
573
574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
withdraw their membership from the Union ; and that by the foregoing
conduct the respondent has violated Section 8 (1) and (5) of the Act.
Thereafter, the respondent filed an answer, admitting those allegations
of the complaint pertaining to its corporate existence and the nature
and character of the business transacted by it, but denying the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on November 17 and 18, 1944,
at Dalton, Georgia, before R. N. Denham, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the re-
spondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by a represent-
ative; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. Near the close of the
hearing, the Trial Examiner granted a motion by counsel for the
Board to conform the pleadings to the proof respecting formal mat-
ters. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled
on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds no
prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed insofar as they
are consistent with our Decision and Order. No oral argument before
the Board was requested by any of the parties, and none was held.
On January 29, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which
he recommended that the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the
attorney for the Board filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief, and the respondent filed a reply brief. The Board
has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the briefs
filed and, insofar as the exceptions are consistent with the findings,
conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to have merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, A. J. Showalter Company, is a Georgia corporation
having its office and principal place of business at Dalton, Georgia,
where it is engaged in the printing and book bindery business, and
also prints and circulates two weekly newspapers, the Dalton Citizen
and the Dalton News. In the course and conduct of its business dur-
ing the last calendar year, the respondent purchased raw materials,
valued in excess of $35,000, of which approximately 40 percent was
received from points outside the State of Georgia. During the same
period, the respondent sold and delivered circulars, religious song-
books, and miscellaneous other printed matter, valued at approxi-
A. J. SHOWALTER COMPANY 575
mately $125,000, of which more than $70,000 was shipped to destina-
tions outside the State of Georgia. The respondent concedes, and
we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local No. 129, is a
labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Inter f ei ence, restraint, and coercion
The operations of the respondent are carried on in a newspaper
department, a magazine department, a composing room, a typesetting
room, a stereotype room, and a bindery department which includes
the shipping department. The total employment in all departments
is about 100 persons. This proceeding, however, is concerned only
with the bindery and shipping departments, in which 32 employees,
including the foreman and porter, are employed.
Early in June 1944, a group of the respondent's bindery employees
discussed the formation of a labor organization for the purposes of
collective bargaining. On July 10, 1944, upon formal application by
some 13 or 15 bindery employees, International Brotherhood of Book-
binders, A. F. of L., issued a charter for Local No. 129 at the respond-
ent's plant. Thereafter, 5 other employees signed membership appli-
cations. No further effort to perfect organization was made until
August 8, 1944, -%n-hen Walter F. Barber, International Representative
of the parent organization, arrived in Dalton.
On August 9, 1944, Barber held an open organizational meeting
among the employees in the bindery and shipping departments.
O'Brian, the foreman of the respondent's bindery department, attended
upon the invitation of Barber. At the end of the open meeting,
O'Brian and others who had not affiliated with the Union left the
meeting room. The membership then proceeded to transact union
business and elected the following officers : Agnes Herndon, president;
Clifford C. Gulledge, Jr., vice president; and Benjamin Trammel Ed-
wards, secretary-treasurer. Finally, Barber addressed the member-
ship. Among other things, he told them of methods used by employers
to discourage unions, specifically mentioning that one such method
was the granting of wage increases and stating that he would not be
surprised if they were offered a pay raise by the respondent. He in-
structed them, however, to accept such a raise if it should be offered.
He also stated that on the following day he would call on Leon A. Lee,
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent's president , to request recognition and negotiation of
a contract.
On the morning of August 10 at about 9 o'clock, Barber telephoned
Lee and, after identifying himself as a representative of International
Brotherhood of Bookbinders, stated : "Your workers have seen fit to
affiliate with our International Union. I•woulcl like to discuss with
you recognition and conditions of a contract."' Lee replied that he
was then busy with his auditor, but requested Barber to call him again
in about 2 hours . Accordingly, at about 11 o'clock, Barber again
telephoned Lee in an effort to arrange a conference . After Lee ad-
vised Barber that he could not meet him either during the morning
or at lunch, and that he expected to be with his auditor all day, Barber
told Lee that he had planned to leave Dalton on the 3: 40 train that
afternoon , but would stay over if lie could arrange a meeting for the
next day. With respect to the rest of the second telephone conver-
sation, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that there was a misunder-
standing between Lee and Barber concerning an appointment for
August 11. Barber was under the impression that Lee would not see
him the following day; whereas, Lee, who testified that he did not
then known Barber to be a union representative, thought that he had
made it clear that he would see Barber any time during the morning
of August 11.
On August 10, shortly after his last conversation with Barber, Lee
spoke with O'Brian, the bindery foreman, and Arthur G. Holland, the
shipping clerk, and admittedly learned that the respondent's bindery
employees had joined the Union and that Barber, its International
Representative, desired to bargain collectively with the respondent on
their behalf. During his conversation with Holland, Lee mentioned
that he was unable to give Barber an interview that morning because
he was busy with his auditor. Upon Holland's suggestion that Lee
see Barber , Lee said that he would call Barber after lunch. Holland
reported this to Edwards, the secretary-treasurer of the Union, who
communicated with Barber during the noon hour, and asked him to
wait for Lee's call. Barber waited for Lee's call until shortly before
train time. Lee called Barber shortly after 4 o'clock, but Barber hacl
already checked out of the hotel.
At about 4 p. m. on August 10, Lee called to his office the five bindery
employees oldest in point of service, all being union members, includ-
ing Agnes Herndon, the union president. Lee told them that lie had
i ecelved approval from the War Labor Board to grant them wage
' Unlike the Trial Examiner , we find that Barber ' s statement constitutes a request to
bargain, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. See N L R B v. Biles Coleman
Lumber Co., 98 F ( 2c1) 18 (C C A 9) , N L R B v Tehel Bottling Company, 129 P.
( 2d) 251 (C C A 8) ; and Hatter of Tibia City Milk Producers Association, 61 N L.
11 B 69
A. J. SHOWALTER COMPANY 577
increases,2 but that lie was undecided about putting the increases into
effect because he had learned that morning that they had joined the
Union and Was therefore afraid lie Would get into trouble by doing so
"in the face of the Union." Lee also then told the group that, while
he had no objection to the employees joining the Union, he understood
that W. R. C. Smith Publishing Company, a customer of the respond-
ent, previously had sustained a loss as a result of a strike in a certain
union printing shop which had formerly done work for Slnith; that
since then Smith had refused to have its work done in a union plant;
that if the respondent's employees unionized, Smith might withdraw
its business from the respondent; and that if that occurred, the re-
spondent would probably have to close the bindery because the Smith
account represented about 95 percent of the work in the bindery.3 It
does not appear that Lee called to his office employees of any other
department or spoke to them on this subject. After leaving Lee's
office the group of employees reported Lee's conversation to the other
bindery employees. Later iii the afternoon, Lee repeated the above
statements to bindery employees Edwards and Gulledge.4
On August 11, during a conversation in the pressroom between Gul-
ledge and Lee, Gulledge asked Lee why the Smith Company had not
taken its work out of the respondent's plant when its employees had
organized previously.' Lee replied, according to the uncontradicted
testimony of Gulledge, which we credit, that the respondent had then
refused to recognize the Union. Gulledge then asked Lee "how he
thought they [the union members] would vote," and Lee said he did
not care how they voted but that he thought they all ought to get to-
gether and tall, it over before they voted. Upon a further inquiry
2 On June 1, 1944, the respondent filed an application with the War Labor Board for
leave to widen the range of pay rates applicable throughout the plant That such appli-
cation was pending was common knowledge among the employees, hole ever, we find,
contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Barber had no knowledge of such application On
August 5, the respondent received approval from the War Labor Board to grant the em-
ployees certain wage increases On August 5, 0, and 7, Lee informed the foremen of the
various departments that such approval had been received, but did not instruct them to
tell the employees about the increases, or publicize such approval by a general announce-
ment. It is reasonable to infer, and we find, that the employees were unaware of such
apps oval prior to Lee's announcement in his office on August 10, as ielated in the text
3 The record affords little support for Lee's statement that the loss of the Smith business
would have necessitated a shut-clown of the bindeiy There is evidence that Government
contract woik was also done in the bindery In a letter to the Regional Office Qf the Board,
dated August 14, 1944, Lee, in part, stated • "Right now we are 70 percent on Government
work and have been for the past seveial months." Moreover, no showing was made that,
in the event of loss of the Smith account, the respondent could not have obtained new
business and kept the bindery in operation In any event, the truth or falsity of Lee's
statement has no hearing upon our unfair labor piactice findings hereinafter set forth
i In his earlier conversation with Holland that morning, Lee also made similar statements
with respect to the possible shut-down of the bindery
° Gulledge testified that abort 7 years ago, there was it union in the pressroom, composing
room, and the bindery Employee Herndon testified that sometime in 1935 there had been
a union among the bindery employees, the typesetters, and compositors We credit the
I'stunony of Gulledge and Herndon
070117-4G-vol G4 38
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by Gulledge as to why Lee did not give the employees a wage scale
and vacation plan similar to those in union contracts, Lee stated that
he intended to do so if he had time to work it out by himself.
Between August 10 and 15, Lee visited the shipping department
and asked Holland how long the bindery employees had been members
of the Union. Holland replied that the Union was organized in the
plant sometime in July. Lee then asked how many members there
were, and Holland stated that he did not know.
On August 17, the respondent put into effect the approved wage
increases.
On August 22, one of the bindery employees submitted to Lee a
petition, which had been circulated in the bindery department during
working hours sometime after August 10 and which was signed by
13 bindery employees. The petition read as follows :
We the undersigned employees of the bindery department of
A. J. Showalter Company have withdrawn from the Interna-
tional Brotherhood-of Bookbinders, Local No. 129, Dalton, Geor-
gia, and the Union no longer represents us. We hereby revoke
any membership card or check off authorization which may have
been signed by us and ask that you do not honor or recognize
such and that no dues be deducted from our pay.
This August 22, 1944.
Conclusions
The above described course of conduct by the respondent discloses
a well devised plan to frustrate self-organization among its employees
and to offset the Union's efforts to serve as their bargaining repre-
sentative. Immediately after the respondent learned that its bindery
employees had organized and that the Union, as their representative,
desired to meet that day with the respondent for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, Lee summoned to his office a select group of bindery
employees to discuss the impact of unionization on their economic
security. Lee warned the group that their adherence to the Union
might cause the respondent's principal customer, the Smith Company,
to withdraw its account and consequently would require the respondent
to close the bindery and terminate their employment. At the same
time , Lee announced for the first time that the respondent was pre-
pared to give the employees wage increases , which had recently been
approved by the War Labor Board, but expressed fear that the Union
would object to such action. At least one employee testified that in
signing the petition withdrawing her membership from the Union,
she was motivated by fear that the advent of the Union might result
in the loss of the Smith business and the closing of the bindery. Ob-
A. J. SHOWALTER COMPANY 579
viously, Lee's statements were calculated to, and did, cause the defec-
tion in the Union's ranks which subsequently occurred on August 22,
1944, and we so find.
The Trial Examiner, however, found that the respondent's conduct
was not violative of the Act. We do not agree. Lee's statement con-
cerning the Smith Company unmistakably warned the employees that
the security'of their employment depended upon their withdrawal
from the Union. The coercive nature of such a statement is self
evident. Hence it does not fall -within the constitutional guarantee
of free speech.' That Lee's warning was prompted, as he told the
employees, by an apprehension that he might lose the Smith account,
does not alter the coercive effect of his remark' upon the employees
in the exercise of their statutory rights, or remove it from the ambit
of the Act.8 It is now well settled that an employer's fear of economic
reprisal, or loss of business, resulting from the unionization of his
employees does not justify the commission of unfair labor practices 8
Nor was the coercive effect of the warning that the employees might
lose their jobs if the Union became their bargaining representative,
neutralized by the additional remark that Lee had no objection to the
employees joining the Union. We find that Lee's statement interfered
with, restrained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and hence was violative of
Section 8 (1).
We also regard Lee's announcement with respect to the approved
wage increases, under the circumstances disclosed by the record, as a
part of the respondent's general plan and purpose to discourage and
defeat employee self-organization. As noted above, the announcement
of War Labor Board approval of the respondent's proposed wage
increases was first made at the same time that Lee also warned the
employees that the Union would endanger their job security. Lee's
remarks on this subject also carried the suggestion that the Union
might be an obstacle to the granting of such approved increases. That
Barber correctly anticipated the respondent's move by advising the
employees to accept any offered wage increase, does not alter the char-
acter of the respondent's conduct. Moreover, it appears that the
announcement was precipitately made and deliberately tinted to offset
° See N L. R B v. Virginia Eicctiac if Power Company, 319 U S 533
' See N. L R, B v Trojan Powder Company, 145 F (2d) 337 (C C A 3), cert. den
320 U S 768
'See N. L. R B V. Poison Logging Co, 136 F. (2d) 314 (C C A 9)
° See N. L. R. B v. Star Publishing Co, 97 F (2d) 465 (C. C. A 9), in itihich the Court
stated * " . . . the Act prohibits unfair labor practices without regard to the factors caus-
ing them . It permits no immunity because the employer may think that the exigencies
of the moment require infraction of the statute. In fact, nothing in the statute permits
or justifies its violation by the employer " See also N. L . R. B v Gluck Brewing Co ,
144 F (2d) 847 (C. C A 8), and cases cited tlieiein.
580 DECISIONS Or' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the initial successful organizing activity of the Union.10 There is no
indication in the record that Lee had decided in advance to make the
announcement on the day in question. To the contrary, it appears
that the respondent did not instruct its foremen to inform their subor-
dinates of the wage increases nor did it make any such general an-
nouncement to all its employees. Instead, Lee, upon learning that
the bindery employees had organized and that their representative
desired to meet with Lee for collective bargaining purposes, hastily
met only with a select group of those employees and privately informed
them of the approved wage increases.
Upon the basis of the entire record, we find that the respondent,
by its entire course of conduct, including Lee's warning to the bindery
employees of possible loss of jobs in the event of the selection of the
Union as their bargaining representative, the announcement of the
approved wage increases, and the interrogation of employees concern-
ing the Union, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their-right to self-organization, to form, join or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
We further find that such unlawful conduct by the respondent induced
and caused the employees to sign the membership withdrawal petition
of August 22.
B. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that all bindery department and shipping
department employees, including the foreman," but excluding porters
and janitors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining. The employees in the bindery and shipping de-
partments, under a common foreman, operate independently of the
other departments, and form a homogeneous group. The Union con-
tends that the work of the porters and janitors is not as skilled as the
work of the other employees and that they do not have interests in
common with such employees. The record supports this contention
and, like the Trial Examiner, we shall accordingly exclude porters
and janitors from the unit.
10 As previously found , it does not appear that the announcement was then made to the
employees of any other department . The respondent contended that it did not announce
the wage increase immediately upon its approval because it desned first to compute adjust-
ments and determine the final rate for each individual Nevertheless , it hastened to make
the announcement at this time although the raises would not be reflected in the pay
envelopes for another week because of the large amount of bookkeeping involved.
"Bindery foicmen traditionally are members of the Union , and ace normally include(]
in such a unit.
A. J. SHOWALTER COMPANY 581
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that all bindery department
and shipping department employees of the respondent, including the
foreman, but excluding porters and janitors, at all times material
herein constituted, and now constitutes, a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
On August 10, 1944, there were 31 employees of the respondent
within the appropriate unit. The record shows, and it is conceded
by the respondent, that of these 31 employees, 18 had on or before
August 10, 1944, designated the Union as their bargaining representa-
tive. The respondent contends, however, that the withdrawal peti-
tion of August 22, 1944, signed by 13 of these employees, destroyed
the Union's majority status. We find this contention without merit.
The asserted defection, as found above, was caused by, and is attribut-
able to, the respondent's unfair labor practices and consequently
does not impair the Union's previously established majority status.12
We find that on August 10, 1944, and at all times thereafter, the
Union was the duly designated representative of a majority of the
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and that, pursuant to
Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was on August 10, 1944, and at
all times thereafter has been, and is now, the exclusive representative
of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
On August 23, 1944, at a conference in the Regional Office of the
Board, the Union made a further demand upon the respondent to
bargain with it as the statutory representative of the bindery and
shipping employees. The respondent admittedly refused to bargain
on the ground that the Union did not then represent a majority of
the employees. We have heretofore found this contention without
merit.
Under the circumstances, we therefore find that on August 23, 1944,
and at all times thereafter, the respondent has refused to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees in the above found appropriate unit with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment, and that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained,
'Z See, e g, N . L R B. v. Bradford Dyeing Association, 310 U. S. 318; N. L. R. B. v.
Burke Maclaine Tool Co , 133 F. (2d) 618, 621 (C. C. A. 6).
0
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT.OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the respondent, described
in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we must order the respondent, pursuant to the mandate of
Section 10 (c), to cease and desist therefrom. We also predicate our
cease and desist order upon the following findings :
The respondent's illegal conduct discloses a purpose to defeat self-
organization among its employees. For example, as soon as the re-
spondent learned of the union activities of certain employees, it sought
to coerce them in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under the Act
by warning them, in effect, that their adherence to the Union would
result in loss of employment, by questioning them concerning the
Union, by announcing the granting of War Labor Board approved
wage increases, and by making other statements with respect to the
Union. As a result, the respondent was successful in inducing a num-
ber of employees to withdraw from the Union. As we have found, the
respondent's conduct in these respects interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organ-
ization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection. Such conduct violated Section 8 (1)
of the Act, quite apart from the respondent's refusal to bargain with
the Union. Finally, the respondent's unlawful conduct culminated
in its refusal to bargain with the Union on August 23, 1944. The re-
spondent's whole course of conduct presents a ready and effective
means of destroying self-organization among its employees. Because
of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, we
are convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively
related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger
of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the respond-
ent's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be
thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat. In order
A. J. SHOWALTER COMPANY 583
therefore to make effective the interdependent guarantee of Section 7,
to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby mini-
mize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus
effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the respondent to
cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We shall also order the respondent to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the
respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the bindery department and shipping de-
partment employees, we shall order the respondent, upon request, to
bargain collectively with the Union."
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OT LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local No. 129, A. F.
of L., is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5),
of the Act.
2. All bindery department and shipping department employees of
the respondent, including the foreman, but excluding porters and jani-
tors, constitute a, unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local No. 129,
A. F. of L., was on August 10, 1944, and at all times thereafter has
been, the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on August 23, 1944, and at all times thereafter, to bar-
gain collectively with International Brotherhood of Bookbinders,
Local No. 129, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representative of all its
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the respondent has en-
gaged in and is ingaging in unfair labor practices, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
" See our Supplemental Decision in Matter of Karp Meta ' Products Co , Inc., 51 N. L.
R. B. 621, Frank Bros Co. v N. L R B, 321 U 8 702
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section l0 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, A. J. Showalter Company, Dalton,
Georgia, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Brother-
hood of Bookbinders, Local No. 129, A. F. of L., its the exclusive rep-
resentative of all its bindery department and shipping department em-
ployees, including the foreman, but excluding the porters and janitors;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Brotherhood of
Bookbinders, Local No. 129, A. F.,of L., or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively with representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Brother-
hood of Bookbinders, Local No. 129, A. F. of L., as the exclusive
representative of all its bindery department and shipping department
employees, including the foreman, but excluding the porters and jani-
tors, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment;
(b) Post at its plant at Dalton, Georgia, copies of the Notice at-
tached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent's representatives, be posted by the
respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for
sixty (00) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
11111. GER.ARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
A. J. SHOWALTER COMPANY 585
NLRB 582 APPENDIX A
NOTIC I', TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Libor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employee: that:
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Broth-
erhood of Bookbinders, Local No. 129, A. F. of L.; or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection. All our employees are free to become or remain mem-
hers of this union, or any other labor organization.
We will bargain collectively upon request with the above-named
union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bar-
gaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of
employment or other conditions of employment, and if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement. The bargaining unit is : all bindery department and
shipping department employees, including the foreman, but
excluding the porters and janitors.
A. J. S1IOWALTER COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ---------------- By-------------- ------ ------------
(Representative ) Title)
This notice must remain posted for GO days from the date hereof, and mast not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material