Atlanta Metallic Casket Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 1225 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of ATLANTA METALLIC CASKET COMPANY and UNITED
PAPER WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 10-CA-769.-Decided October 24,1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 24, 1950, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster, issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,. finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial. Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair
labor practices and recommended dismissal of those allegations of the
complaint. Thereafter the General Counsel and the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The
Respondent's request for oral argument is denied inasmuch as the
record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately reflect the issues and
positions of the parties. °
The Board 1 has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made 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 briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusion, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications?
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent by the
following conduct violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended Act :
(1) President Cannon's speeches in February 1949, to employees in
the casket plant, during the course of which he stated that, if the
Union won the forthcoming election, Respondent would no longer run
"stock jobs," a circumstance which would result in a loss of employ-
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Members Houston, Reynolds , and Murdock].
S Subsequent to the hearing the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that the charging Union is not now in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the
Act. For reasons hereinafter set forth the motion is hereby denied.
91 NLRB No. 188. .
1225
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment to the employees,,' that, if the Union lost the election, he expected
its supporters to leave Respondent's employ; (2) President Cannon's
statement to a group of employees, called to his office in connection
with the request of a union-shop committee for an election, that em-
ployees Dobbs and Eason, members of the committee; had little
seniority, and that Eason would probably be laid off in a short time 4;
(3) the instances of interrogation and related . coercion of employees
with regard to their union affiliation or voting intentions, more fully
described in the Intermediate Report 5; (4) the surveillance of a union
meeting shortly before the election by Foremen Martin, Wallace, and
Welsh and Production Manager McHan 6; (5) Production Manager
Cochran's statement to employee Nelson. Cowger, that if the Union
won the election, the plant might as well be closed, and Foreman
Ragsdale's statement in the presence of employee Sebastian Lopez,
following the victory of the Union at the polls, that "Mr. Cannon
. is going to close the plant" 7; (6) President Cannon's sug-
gestion to employee James E. Fortner that "Your father wants his job
back, don't he ?" coupled with the query as to why Fortner's father
kept "fooling" with the union $; and (7) the institution by the Re-
spondent on May 30, 1949, after notice that Board-directed election
would be held on June 21, 1949, of five paid annual holidays, a benefit
never previously enjoyed by the employees.'
2. The General Counsel has excepted to the Trial Examiner's failure
to find that the Respondent by certain additional statements further
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of their rights, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We find merit
in the General Counsel's exceptions insofar as they relate to the fol-
lowing statements of the Respondent,1° based on the undenied and
credible testimony of the employees concerned : (1) The statement
of Paul Miles, manager of the vault plant, to employee William H.
Conger during September 1949, that Conger was a "damned goat"
for being in the Union and was "going to be a goat" if he didn't get
3 See B