American Greetings Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 283 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

AMERICAN GREETINGS CORPORATION 283
manner permitted by the contract to change Richardson's and DeHart 's seniority
rights at Springfield . To accept the General Counsel 's contention that Local 414
acquired the responsibility to uphold Richardson 's and DeHart 's interest in the Taylor
grievance proceeding is in effect to hold that two locals each simultaneously represent
Richardson and DeHart and are obligated to look out for their interests . Not only
does the scheme of representation embodied in the Act rule out such dual repre-
sentation , but it is wholly unreasonable to expect a local which represents drivers
having adverse interests to Richardson and DeHart to do an adequate job of protect-
ing their rights.
Under all the circumstances , I conclude that under the procedure set forth in
the truckaway agreements , Local 414 had no obligation to protect Richardson's and
DeHart 's interests in processing Taylor's grievance . This was the responsibility
of Local 654, the Springfield Local, and its responsibility alone. It should be borne
in mind that what gave rise to the filing of the charges in this case was Fugate and
Girton 's refusal, after September 26 when the Fort Wayne Local Joint Committee
ruled that they had no right to regular work at Fort Wayne, to put Richardson and
DeHart back to work at Springfield . Especially in these circumstances it is logical
to hold that this seniority controversy should be settled under the auspices of Local
654, the Springfield local.
For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the grievance procedure set forth
in the truckaway agreements affords a fair and adequate means of disposing of dis-
putes between the employers and the various Teamsters locals,4 that under this
procedure Local 414 was not obligated to represent the interests of Richardson
and DeHart in the Taylor grievance proceedings . Accordingly, Local 414 should
not be held to have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) because of its failure to look out
for their interests in the processing of Taylor's grievance.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 414 International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , has not
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2 ) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is ordered that the complaint herein be , and it is hereby , dismissed.
11 recognize that Business Agent Feltis, representing Local 654 at the October 18
hearing at Detroit, took positions which were contrary to the interests of Richardson and
DeHart and contrary to Local 654 ' s duty as their bargaining representative . However,
the fact that Feltis failed to fulfill his obligations In this regard does not alter the fact
that the procedure , itself, was fair.
American Greetings Corporation and International Brotherhood
of Pulp, Sulphite and Papernnll Workers, AFL-CIO. Case
No. 26-CA-1361. April 24, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 6, 1963, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. He also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged
unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of the complaint
as to them. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a supporting brief.
142 NLRB No. 33.
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner to tho extent consistent with our Decision
herein.
The Trial Examiner found that Respondent violated Section
8(a) (1) of the Act solely as a result of a conversation on August 15,
1962, between Ann Fortner, classified as a.leader by Respondent, and
employee Joyce Ann Holt. During this conversation, Fortner asked
Holt whether she had signed a union card; told Holt to be careful
about "messing" with the Union; stated that the plant manager knew
which employees had attended a union meeting and signed union
cards; and, observed that these employees would get into trouble be-
cause of the meeting.
As set forth in the Intermediate Report, Fortner and Holt were
intimate friends of ]on- standing and the conversation in question
admittedly arose in the context of Fortner's attempt to counsel Holt
concerning the latter's marital problems. Fortner was a very minor
supervisor who had been promoted to this position just a few weeks
prior to the conversation, and had previously discussed the subject of
unions with Holt when both were employees of Respondent. The sole
activity by the Union was limited to the solicitation of employees be-
ginning in April 1962. Holt was but 1 of some 704 employees at the
plant. As the Trial Examiner acknowledged, there is no evidence of
any kind that Fortner's conduct reflected Respondent's policy with re-
spect to the Union, or that Respondent was opposed to the Union or
had done anything to interfere with the Union's organizational
activities.
In light of these circumstances, and the record as a whole, we find,
contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Fortner's remarks to Holt do
not warrant remedial treatment. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
complaint herein.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed by International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite and Papermill
Workers. AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , on August 22, 1962, and an amended
charge filed by the Union on October 26. 1962, against American Greetings Cor-
AMERICAN GREETINGS CORPORATION 285
poration,i herein called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-
sixth Region issued his complaint dated October 26, 1962, against the Respondent
alleging that it has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The Respond-
ent's answer and its amendment to the complaint denies commission of the statutory
violations alleged therein. Copies of the complaint, the charge, and a notice of
hearing were duly served upon the parties. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held
before Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel at Osceola, Arkansas, on December 12,
1962. All parties were represented by counsel or other representative. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence was afforded all parties. The Respondent's request after the hearing closed
to correct the transcript is granted and the proposed corrections have been made.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. PERTINENT COMMERCE FACTS
The complaint alleges and the answer admits that the Respondent is an Ohio
corporation having a plant at Osceola, Arkansas, where it manufactures, sells, and
ships greeting cards and related products; that in the 12 months preceding issuance
of the complaint the Respondent purchased and received at its Osceola plant mate-
rials valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to it directly from points out-
side of the State of Arkansas, and that in the same period the Respondent processed,
sold, and shipped from its Osceola plant to points outside the State products valued
in excess of $50,000. The answer admits and I find from the foregoing facts that
the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that
exercise of the Board's jurisdiction over its operations in this case will effectuate the
purposes of the Act
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
As narrowed at the hearing by amendment of the complaint there is involved in
this proceeding the simple resolution of whether the Respondent by certain conduct
of its admitted supervisors interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
The Respondent's plant in Osceola was open in October 1961. William Bocora,
the Respondent's employment and personnel manager, conducted numerous inter-
views with job applicants to staff the plant. He estimated that prior to the hearing
he had talked to about 10,000 persons. Concededly, it was difficult for him to
remember the substance of his conversation with particular persons and he acknowl-
edged lack of specific recall of his discussion with former employee Charles E.
Johnston and employee George Ballard. Johnston had worked for the Respondent
from June 5 to August 21, 1962. He testified that during his preemployment inter-
view Bocora asked him if he knew anything about the Union and if there was a
union at the place where he had last worked. Johnston's reply to these inquiries
was negative. Nothing more nor less was said about these subjects. Ballard testi-
fied that during his interview before he was hired on April 12, 1962, Bocora asked
whether he had ever worked under a union . He replied that he had once worked
for a Memphis employer where some employees belonged to a union and most did
not. He further told Bocora he knew nothing about a union. In support of his
denial that he asked these questions Bocora reasoned he did not because there was
no necessity to do so. I credit Johnston's and Ballard's testimony because their
opportunity for recall was better than Bocora's.
Employee Joyce Ann Holt testified that Ann Fortner, classified by the Respondent
as a leader, had asked her on August 15, 1962, whether she had signed a union card
Holt admitted having done so. Fortner then told her to be careful about " messing"
with the Union; that Plant Manager Williams knew all the employees who had
attended the Union's meeting at Keiser, Arkansas; that Williams knew which em-
ployees had signed union cards and that they were going to get into trouble because
'The Respondent' s name appears herein as cm rected by the answer to the complaint
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the meeting ; that if Holt's husband , James, who was also employed by the
Respondent "had not been messing with the Union , that he probably would have
already been fired ." Holt further related that Fortner , who was her immediate
supervisor , pointed out how badly both needed their jobs and reminded her of
the help she had given her in the plant . Holt acknowledged that she and Fortner
were intimate friends of long standing and were distantly related by marriage; that
she confided in Fortner who counseled her about her marital difficulties , and that
on the occasion in question , on August 15, the basic reason for the conversation was
Fortner's moral encouragement and advice concerning her marital problem. It was
in the course of their heart-to-heart talk that Fortner assertedly mentioned the
Union as related above. This was not the first time they had discussed the subject of
unions. In prior conversations Fortner had told Holt that she had read about
strikes, closed plants, and injuries to people caused by unions.
Fortner confirmed her intimacy with Holt . She recalled that on August 14, Holt
had been emotionally disturbed , apparently because of her marital problems, and
that she had sent her to the plant dispensary . She remembered sending Holt to
Plant Manager Williams the next day and that she had tried to boost her morale
at the time . She denied talking to her about the Union on this occasion or ever
advising her about the Union except that she did tell her about the unfavorable
things she had read concerning unions and on one occasion told her "the less she
had to do with it [the Union ], the better off she would be." She denied having
been instructed by her superiors about what to say to employees concerning the
Union or to ask them whether they had signed union cards , or that she had re-
ported to the Respondent the substance of any conversations with employees con-
cerning the Union.
I credit Holt's account of her conversation with Fortner on August 15. I am
not convinced by Fortner 's denials that she went no further than she admitted in
advising Holt to stop messing with the Union . I credit Holt 's testimony that the
conversation with Fortner occurred on August 15, in the manner described by her.
In evaluating the foregoing findings I must be mindful of the context in which
the conduct under scrutiny occurred . The Union's organizational activities among
the Respondent 's employees , as related by International Representative Wayne E.
Glenn , were limited to solicitation of signatures to authorization cards beginning
in the spring of 1962 . Apart from what may be derived from the remarks of
Fortner to Holt , there is no evidence of any kind in the case that the Respondent was
opposed or hostile to the Union or had done anything to impede its organizational
activities . In these circumstances I do not find that Bocora 's questions to Johnston
and Ballard during their preemployment interviews tended to coerce employees in
the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
Fortner's interrogation of Holt as to her union activities coupled with her revela-
tion that the Respondent 's manager knew which employees had attended a union
meeting and had signed union cards, thereby creating the impression of surveillance
of employees in the course of their union activities , her warning of reprisal against
those known to have attended the meeting, her reminder to Holt of how she had aided
her progress in the plant, and her admonition to Holt to abstain from union activities
in sum had a clear coercive tendency . I have considered the mitigating circumstances
including the fact that Fortner was at the bottom of the Respondent 's supervisory
levels, that her conduct was not shown to have reflected management policy, that
her remarks to Holt constituted an isolated incident , and her intimacy with Holt.
As to the latter , however , I am aware that friendly advise may well carry greater
impact than such advice from a stranger . Were it possible to construe Fortner's
remarks as just a friendly suggestion to Holt not to become involved with the Union
I might be inclined , in the circumstances of the case, to regard this as a mere
technical infringement of the Act not requiring a finding of violation with a formal
remedy. But Fortner 's comment about the Respondent's knowledge of who attended
a union meeting and signed authorization cards together with the warning of reprisal
against these employees cannot be so ignored . I find that by Fortner's conduct the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection 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 thereof.
HARRIS-HUB COMPANY, INC. 287
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Greetings Corporation is an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7 ) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite and Papermill Workers , AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
5. All allegations of the complaint as to which findings of violation have not been
made have not been sustained.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Harris-Hub Company, Inc. and Martin P. Steffan . Case No.
13-CA-5161. April 24, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 13, 1963, Trial Examiner James F. Foley issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the attached Intermediate
Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Leedom].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
i The Trial Examiner on page 289 of the report stated erroneously that the charge filed
by Steffan on August 6, 1962 , was dismissed on September 22, 1962 . The parties stipu-
lated that the charge was withdrawn on September 26, 1962. Also , on page 290 , the Trial
Examiner inadvertently attributed certain testimony to Harris Instead of Jennings.
142 NLRB No. 31.